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

practice of th.o House should be departed from on the present occasion; and.; to the present question, they would be only getting more 'and more into difficulties as they went further in the matter. - The conflicting arguments of the Learned So licitor-Genero only confirmed him in that belief, as at one time he tdetznded cue thing and at another time another. He admitted all his hopes were disappointed—that a false step —a palpable error had 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' ights to any other tribunal, or reserve to themselves the „Amer of defining their own privileges. The Solicitor-General had alternately speculated upon a favourable and unfavourable result in their appeal to the superior House in error; and while such uncertainty existed, the best course the House could adopt was that recommended by the Right Hon. 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 money, it was no less a breach of privilege now that it had been levied. He would conclude by proposing the following amendment, " that it is inexpedient to entrust the privileges of this House to any other tribunal than the House itself." TI-,e gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap peared— For the amendment 46 Against it Majority against the amendment —32 Mr. ROEBUCK resumed on the original 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 shown that threats alone would be the issue of 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 e v id en t w h a t th e H on . an d 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, what 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 view of the case as the Court of Queen's Bench ? They would then have all the judges against them. And what view did they think the people of England would take of this proceeding— with what eye would they look upon the House of Commons ? 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 difficulty in which they 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 eases, and what was to be done with them ? Why, let them on those occasions re-assert the privileges of that House. Let them determine that they would be treated with proper re spect. They could not 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 was engaged in any way in committing a breach of the privileges 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 'heat it might turn up hearts for trumps. Supposing the House were now, for some secret purpose, de termined to sit with cl wed doors. Supposing they were to ex elude 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 come case of emergency In which the country was in danger, and was the first Minister of the Crown to he 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 should not be invaded 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 be 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 Bench. The whole of the judges might take the same view as the Court of Queen's Bench—where, then, would be the preservation of the liberties of the country ? The ancient Commons of England had preserved the liberties 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 ma 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 be settled. Sir R. INGLIS 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 House must make 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 yet the liberties of the subject would not be interfered with, and the question was whether the extreme course which the Hen. Member had just proposed, or whether they should N u ff, r the privileges of the House to bo alto gether neglected, or whether they should pursue a medium course by which;beth;objects 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 in custody ; and thin might be all very well during a certain portion of the y ear , an d w hil e t h e House wasgitting ; but what would they do when the House was not sitting? During which time an action might be commenced, and the decision of the legal tribunal might be come to without any opportunity bung given to set it aside. They might very well enter into any arrangement and issue the warrant on the 26th June, when the House was sitting, but it would be a very different matter when next November arrived, and a decision might he 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 thi s country would ever submit p 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 in collision with the judges of that court? The result had preyed the wisdom of the decision at which the minority of the Committee had arrived. That Committee had been more fully attended than any Committee to which he had ever belonged. In no instance had there ever been less than ten Members present ; in some instances there had been fourteen present, and in two instances fifteen, the whole number of the Committee, had been present. He quite agreed with the Hon. Member for Bath, that it would be better to softer the judgment to take its course, and then to legislate for the future. The doctrines of the Hon. and Learned Meinber for Bath, if carried 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 judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench went on the ground that the warrant did not sufficiently express the cause of arrest, or the terns of confinement, and therefore the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was mistaken in his assumption that the pri vileges of the House of Commons were infringed upon. He thought 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. Member, who was not then in his place, had sa id, "W e (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 end angere d by th e en croachments o f th e 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 ; an d it was b ecause he dreaded giving 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. and 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 coroner's jury would have to investigate and adjudicate 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 first 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 thepeople o f thi s 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 up on th e 6 th. The third was, that there was no collection of warrants issued by the House, to serve as precedents, and that such a coll ection should be provided. The fourth recited briefly the proceedings adopted by the House in this case, since the lath of March, 184.. e id ls and resol ve d th at t h e H ouse would taire no further s t eps. He notf n think wa in a ko r f e four resolutions now,-but he was p t h r o a t o i s n i ng movingall t those fourth he nee d say anything The SPEAKER said tit"tthheerHouse having decided that the words proposed by the former amendment to be left out should stand part of the resolution, the latter could not be amended. The ground, motion of Sir R o b ert Inglis accordingly fell to the Mr. ESTCOURT said that if he had understood the House to have submitted the validity of the warrant to . the Court of Queen's Bench, he should agree to the proposition th ou the subject should be dropped. But he agreed with the Solicitor-General that the House had merely ordered that the warrant should be pleaded as a sufficient answer. The House had assumed that when ;the judges found the privileg es of t h e H ouse pleaded they would at once admit the pl ea. But the Court decided, against law and against reason, t o 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 but 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 place 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 Ikaph. They were so submitted, and the Court dealt with the vi , .rrant of the great inquest of the nation as they would with that of a justice of petty sessions. —(Hear, hear.) Now if a judgment of the Hbuso of I.ords had been pleaded in 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 piaed 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 fucther 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 bo 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. He could not but think that that course must be grounded in prudence ; if it were not so, he should not he guided but by the judgment that w as 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, for 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 lamentable 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 called 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 had 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 us state the grounds on which he (Mr. Kelly) concurred, and also in favour of submitting the question to trial in a court or error. He would beg leave to say he felt inexpressible astonishment at what hail 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 take 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 he 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 su 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 humblost 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 struced 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 tl-e Court had given. Mr. Howard 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 and the 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 now 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 mi g ht as we ll repea l t h e H a b eas Corpus Act, an d 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 Member 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 he erred in that opinion, he erred along with several other Honourable and Learned Members in that House—with the late Attorncy-General ( Sir Frederick Pollock), and also with the present Solicitor-General, who on a previous occasion expressed th e o pi n i on th a t th e i nqu i ry i nto 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,,nal 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 independent opinion to the House. There was another consideration, not personal, which was worthy their att en ti on . Wh en 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 of 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 allewed 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 breach 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. 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 course which was recommended. 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 course 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 had his verdict, and let him have the benefit of his 400/. That was the course the Han. and Learned Member for Bath had advised, and it was the best course; for if they had recourse to the means advised by the Committee, they should have their privileges determined in a less favourable way. Lord MAHON said, that he regretted the cause that had given rise to this matter. With respect to the writ of error, as proposed by the Solicitor-General, he was of opinion that it was a course which would be in no degree a violation of the pri• vileges of the House. But he objected to it on the grounds of expediency and prudence. From the gross and flagrant abuse of those 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 ho 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 had 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 for this House to do, and therefore no analogy could exist between them.--( Hear.) In the case of 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 House. But that was not the question which they had to consider now. The question was, what course it was de• sirable fur 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 by 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 was 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 fur 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? His 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 adjedications were will and caprice, as for that Court to say that their decision was nothing but the IA ill and caprice of the House of Commons. 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 ( Mr. 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, arid, 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 transcendent 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 cheers.) 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 had totally mistaken the functions of Parliament.—( Loud cheers from all p u.ts of the House.) A debate had lately taken place or, the defences of the country, and the war establishment it kept up. The first Minister of the Crown had then objected to such discussions, considering their publicity unadvisable, 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 lawyer to see whether the warrant was in exact accord ance with all the technicalities of law, and search fot 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 was for the benefit of the country that that power was accorded, and when he was told that it made the Hou e 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 so:ne cases the Queen's Bench possess wi 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 one 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, in his decision, had said that the warrant was not sufficient, because it said that Thomas Burton Howard was to be token 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, thl objection is easily overcome ; theintention 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, ow much m ore pa l pa b ly erroneous was the latter for its extensive and enlarged requirements. If the cause were assigned, of course Mr. Justice Coleridge would assum e th e right it s su ffi ciency ; therefore if Matthw Prior was suspected of being engaged in intrigues with foreign Powers, dangerous to the country, and subversive of the dy nas t y as esta b l i shed by the Co nst i tut i on, and a w warrant were to be issued for such 3aimr.aniusatllictehcoeselieTisdpiiociownosalreh:c: be put into the warrant and th decide whether it was sufficient cause upon which to sum e mo t n ° the man. Such a pro position that House could never assent to.—(Loud w d i kh er e e e g r a s ) d The Queen's Bench, by its limited arid narrOw—view°o to their privileges, virtually claimed the keeping science of that House.—(Cheers.) Lord Denman, whilecooliise senting from these opinions, still entertained bad nedii almostit equally objectionable...pp< Hear, bear.) An Hose. MEMBER. —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. B u t t h e p l ea con tained no such allegation. There 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 Queen's subjects, with or 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 that the Court of Queen's Bench had sat 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 Bench 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 own 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 THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 27, 1845 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 lest 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 ought 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 emergency. —( 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• He 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 sheriffs who levied the money 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 diverse 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 an 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 folly concurrrecl 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 magnify 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 Bencb s to which they had stated they did mean to put it, or to the 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 Corn minis) 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. 'they 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 1,000/., 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 Commo,:ss 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 bs - ought together by any new diversity of opinion, but were hereditary, and exhibited, session after sesaion, the same union of party and principle:. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite had said he did not think the C:eirt of Queen's Bench would disehateee upon a warrant of the House of Lords. Perhaps not at present' s - hut 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. I❑ theory the House of Commons was present in the House of Lords during the exercise of its judicial functions, anti 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 ? Wily 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 'von 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 say that the warrant was good, though it had been a magistrate's 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 reasoning adopted by some of the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. He would, however, venture to assert what he had often done before, that if they went to the Exchequer Chamber they would only come back with a regret that they had ever been there. But they were about to adopt this course 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 two upon what belonged to the question of legislation. Suppose the House were not 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, Ise carried to the House of Lords, 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 futher 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 powers. 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 them, because it was the right of a court of law to construe Acts of Parliament. He warned them not to take any step founded on the prospect of future legislation. He lamented the course which that House was taking, 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 connected with it in that House, for whose opinions he entertained the highest respect, thought similarly—and as the House seemed to t a ke 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 ay 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 broaght 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 to judgment, but he waited for the promo 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 most in jured person in the world, but no answer would be given. He might be supposed as one oppressed by a tyrannical and 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 hail 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 are 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 hail 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 say at the same time that legislation on this subject was impossible. What was their legitimate power as a House of Commons? The woid privilege seemed to some Honourable Mem bers to carry with it an associated meaning, as if it were a mere somethin g for the benefit of individu a l 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 had on a former occasion quoted the opinion of the assembled judges as far back as the time of Henry the Sixths, when they were asked what was the extent of the authority of flue House of Commons ? 1 hey 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 waa 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, aid it was decided, that by appearing to plead it did not in any degree compromise the authority of the House. The Attorney-General beguiled the House into pleading, by stating 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 House was beguiled to plead. The case came on for trial, and Jr.A Holroyd 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 court of law could examine into the privileges of the House or its manner of exercising them. Lord Ellenborough, however, in giving that judgment, volunteered a strange dictium—" That there might be a case where all law, and justice, and decency. might be set at defiance, and when the courts of law might 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 justice, and propriety ?—( Hear, 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 jastiee, and propriety, and he hail taken the course which was insinuated, the House of Commons of that day would not have 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.) Where had the Con stitution placed the power of controlling the privileges of Par liament ?—in Parliament itself.—( Bear, 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 the rightful owner ; but then there was this necessity in human affairs, that there must he a place of final resort, and society must take the hazard of whatever error might be committed by that last tribunal. ( 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 consequent upon that writ. 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 authority and no communication was ever received by the House upon the subject. That 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 contempt, the 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, wherever 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 said that if the privileges of Parliament were in any imminent danger, the Habeas Corpus Act might be suspended. but what was to he done before the Habeas Corpus Act could be suspended? There must be three sealed bags handed over to a secret tribunal, upon Is hose report Parliament would proceed. Witnesses must be called, and examined in secret. —( Hear, hear.) Witnesses mutt be compelled to attend, And what would the Court of Queen's Bench do ?—( Hear, hear.) Why, that Court had now decided that the House had no right to send its officer for three hours to any man's house. What power had the Court of Queen's Bench to know that there was such a thing as attendance at the bar at all ?—( Hear, hear.) What power had that Court to know what were the motives or the objects 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 for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—if ever the State should be placed in immi nent danger, the Court of Queen's Bench would investigate the privileges of the Commons, and inquire into its right to send for witnesses at all.—( Hear, hear.) They were now told that parliamentary privilege should be subject to revisal by the most inferior tribunals. They were told that the Court could determine how far 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 for Lord Denman's high qualities than he had, and no man would more readily acquit that Learned Judge of any intention to seek popularity by the mode in which he dis charged his judicial duties.—( Hear, hear.) For Mr. Justice Coleridge also he had the greatest respect and friendship. But with all respect to those Learned Judges he could not admit that Parliamentary proceedings 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 were exercised in cases of such importance that they could not be questioned. The law of Parliament, as for instance in the cases of impeachment, was altogether inde pendent of the parnmon Jaw, 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 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 Hun. and Learned Gentleman eat 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 Mouse, 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 lie ( 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 what had been th e resu lt ? Th e 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 be 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 m a j or i ty i n the House seconding the st e p. 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 COMMAS of gDgland,—(Hear, hear.) It had 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 Wighiman 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 to 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 brirg him before the bar of the Honse. 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 Howe 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 potter to commit in all cases and under every possible circumstance. It had been said that if the House of Commons had this universal power to commit it would destroy dagna Chaste, 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 had 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 bad said that no man ought to be taken into custody but by the law of the land. But lex terrce was not confined to the common law, but, in effect, did not include the lex ParliAnzenta. The House of Commons have committed parties not under the common but by Parliamentary law, and the application to the Court was dismissed, on the ground that it was not compe tent 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. Patie" 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 contempt a person committed by that tribunal. Mr. Justice Blackstone had stated that the little forms of execution or precision in the mode of 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. Looking 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 not 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.) Should that he 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 sure.—( 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 Attorney-General tendered that advice to the House. The same occurred in 1840, in the ease of " Howard v. Gossett," that one result of which now occupied the House. Lord Campbell, 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 been 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, he must say the instru ments by which those 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 supply. 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 probably be again. If they committed more officers others would be found ready to levy the datnages, and unless the pub lic 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 only 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 the 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— F el , the motion Against _ 48 Majori;;; for the motion The remaining orders m the day were then disposed of, an d the House adjourned at Two o•e:,?ek• PARLIAMEN TAR Y VISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of ContM 9 ) 2 B.) THURSDAY, JUNE 26. PRINTED 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" :—Amendment 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 thereof:—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided : MAJORITY-AYES, 78. Acland, Sir T. Eseott, Biekham Masterman, John !Ciderley, C. B. Farnham, E. B. MiMalay, H. St. John Astell, William Faller, A. E. Mitchell, T. A. Millie, 11. J. Gardner,J. 1). Newry, Viscount Baring, E. T. Gladstone, Captain Packe, C. W. Baring, W. B. Gordon, Captain Palmer, George Barnard, E. G. Gon!burn, 11. Palinerston, Viscount Barneby, John Graham, Sir J. Patten, J. W. Bernal, Ralph Grey, Sir George Peel, Sir R. Bodkin, W. H. Hamilton, W. J. Pringle, Alexander Brownrigg, J. S. Henley, J. W. Rashle gh, W. Bruce, Lord E. Herbert, Sidney Rice, E. It. .... Banbury, Thomas !lope, Charles Cleric, Sir G. Hope, G. NV. Rusiell, Lord 3. Smith, 'F. B. C. ,'live, Viscount Howard, C. W. Somerset, Lord Q. Connolly, Colonel Ingestre, Viscount Spooner, Richard Curteis, 11. B. Inglis, Sir 14 11. Thesiger, Sir F. Darner, Colonel James, Sir W. C. Trench, Sir F. W. Darby, George Jermyn, Earl Vernon, G. H. Dickinson, F. H. Kelly, Fitzroy Walsh, Sir J. B. Douglas, Sir 11. Lawson, Andrew Wortley, James S. Douglas, Sir C. Lamy, Anthony Wortley, John S. buncombe, A. Liddell, H. T. 'Wrightson, W. R. Dundas, David Lincoln, Earl Wynn, C. W. W. East, James B. Lygon, General TELLERS. Egerton, W. T. Mackinnon, W. J. Cardwell, Edward Ellice, Rt. Hon. E. Mahon, Viscount Baring, Henry MINORITY—NOES, 46. Acton, Colonel Gibson, T. M. PI uniridge, Capt lin _Adam, William Granger, T. C. Ita wd on, Colonel Archbold, Robert Grogan, Edward Roebuck, J. As Baine, Walter Heathcoat, John Stansfield, W. It. C. Bowes, John Hill, Lord M. Strutt, Edward Broadwood, 11. Mangles, R. D. Trelawny, J. S. Brotherton, Joseph Marjoribanks, S. Villiers, Charles Browne, W. Marshall, William Wakley, Thomas Burrell, Sir C. Marsland, Henry Warburton, H. liusfeild, William Milnes, R. M. Wawn, J. T. Clements, Viscount Morris, David Wilde, Sir T. Colebrooke, Sir T. Murphy, F. S. Williams, T. P. Craig, W.G. Murray, AlexanCer Dennistoun, John Neeld, Joseph; Duncan, George O'Brien, A. S. Easthope, Sir J. Ogle, S. C. Forman, T. S. rattison, James TELLERS. Home, Joseph Tanered, H. W. THE NELSON LETTERS.—The third' volume of " The Dispatches and Letters " of the heroic Nelson, edited 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 affair 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 Nuovo, and the expulsion of the French from the dominions of the King of the two Sicilies, with an account of all the rewards and dignities Nelson re. .leived from his own and other Governments, some idea may be formed of its historical value and interest, The Right Rev. Dr. Walsh had an interview with Lord Stanley yesterday, at the Colonial-office. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS• THURSDAY, JUNE 26. The following Bill 3 were read a third time, and passed : Cork and Bandon Railway. Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway, and Bury Extension). West London Railway. The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were agrees to : Hull and Selby Railway (Bridlington Branch). Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Keymer Branch). 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. Manchester and Leeds Railway (Burnley Branch and Old ham and Heywood Branches Extension). Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway. Standing Orders Committee,—Resolutions reported 1. "That, in the case of the Edinburgh and Northern Railway (No. 2) Bill, amendment on report, the amendment is of such a nature as not to be adopted by the House out the re •commitment of the Bill." 2. " That, in the case of the Armagh, Coleraine, and Port rush Railway petition, for leave to present petition far a Bill, the Se , sional Order ought not to be dispensed with 3. That, in the case of the St. Helen's Improvement Bill, clause and amendments on third reading, the said clause and amendments are of such a nature as may be adopted bY the House, if they shall think fit." 4. " That, in the case of the Glossop Gas Bill, clauses on. third reading, the clauses A., B. C., and D., may by the House if they shall think fit, but that clause E. ought not to be adopted by the House at that stage." Brook 5. " That, in the case of the Runcorn and Preston Railway and Docks Bill,report, the said clatue clause on be adoptfd of such a nature as not to be adopted by the House without the re-commitment of the Bill." Report to lie on the table. NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE. Scottish Midland Junction I;aihray, Third reading, Wu' n ,errnouth arid Workin day, June 30. Cocl - Railway, Monday, J une 30. —Third reading, [ADVERTISEMENT.] LONDON AND "MANCHESTER DIRlit;T INDF,PENDENT RAILWAY. .TO THE EDITOR OF THE M ORNING CHRO NIC" ' lied Sir,—The attention of the p r omoters of this l ine was ea to an advertisement in the Mornin Chronicle two days ago, accusing them of publishing the narnes there tutor' written against their wishes and authority.write a n It was thought at first scarcely worth while to the answer, under the circumstances, but simply to w ithdraw ijb , names, and not waste the resources of the CornPag ° sal es controversy. As, however, after the withdrawal of the 1 1 , 00 from the list of those who are, or pretended to be, the P - a r ted, or three of Mr. Remington's line, the advertisement has been r epea n aer it becomes a duty to the friends of the line to show u_ a what circumstances the names came on the list. no tee; to Mr. Remington's line being brought under public ' in the autumn of last year, a great number (.4 gentle:in:cent were waited upon with a declaration in favour of a g e lara me of railway to Manchester ; and the d „„ c s in tion was signed by a great number of Te rs ;d - t hat London, Manchester, and various parts of Engla a " ; a- e the document is now in existence. At the time of sgnatut: . _, attendeuhaa,l projected line was explained to them, and many prior the then Committee-room and investigated been made to Leicester. Afterwards that list, ss patrons in and well-wishers to Mr. Remington's line, was publishedih mr. lumns of the London and in several local pa pers, vr ~„t ed the surveys that nd Remington's name as engineer, and setting out the Pr°l" n d. line in detail, without denial, comment, or contradiedOlNitabia it did not occur to the promoters of the line now, tb g at : ra ble a few months the same persons who had expressed a opinion, and recorded it, would have thought fit the s " had or have been induced by others, to deny the authority they„ 130 deliberately given. The scheme ' was not then give ,, „ fl ul' a tbe by a resolution of the Committeemerely.su s e eneew, ce ment names of the gentlemen, including those in the advnetrinlued as (some of whom were on the Committee), were co was ...cis. jav-uelves, patrons to the same undertaking, I . own authority. Is this an answer or not 2 Committee. Furth ' ' er—if these gentlemen had but sent to the . & Cov for w ich there w room, and requested the withdrawal of their names , po: it wo uld mittee-men, but as mere patrons of the projected lice, ou ld have been cheerfully and readily done, and have been the honest and manly one; but it would n ot • eroe nt served the purposes of the part who caused the advert a nd to be inserted. We know there ' is still enough of weal th fire ,„ respectability left to ensure an honest undertaking the a l l '' bation of the public. A word to the Lond(,n and Manchester Direct Railw a i T; ad-. Many gentlemen whose names are published It o be be.. thnut this courselchno vertised list, have said, if their own wors to lieved, that their names have been advertised ic" _ a , their consent, many supposing that their authority and obtained for the support of Mr. Remington's ~,,l id n e't hers , others without any authority whatever. We, --- ° bad were aware that every stratagem, per fas ant ne f " ' e , for been used in London and Manchester, to obtain uels - : a , some project yet to be explained, and that circumstance ...... duced Messrs. Wilson and Cobbett, the solicitors of Mr. .tt n e • mington's line, at Manchester, to advertise a public esetl.' he , As a sample, out of many, one specimen may suffic e ' n o w name of the honourable writer is omitted , as we have not time to apply for his sanction to the public use of his name ; 7 1 we may remark that, in his public, as well as his coratner el l and manufacturing capacity, he is one of the most eminent men of the present day : "London, June 20, 184 5 . _ ~ M y dear Sir—lt was never contemplated by me that name would be advertised in connexion with any partioul_f scheme for a railway between London and Manchester ;T: signature was given merely to express my opinion that_o more direct line than now exists was wanted, and I had ti idea that the list of signatures would have been published bl Mr. Ashurst in connexion with any particular project. " I remain, yours faithfully. " To R. H. Wilson, Esq., M anchester." One word more. When the advertisement of the Lool and Manchester Direct Rairway appeared, Messrs. Livi us Rogers, of Bedford, called at the office of Messrs. Sudlow 10 ,!: Co , in Chancery. lane, and inquired of some pers on office why Mr. Remington's line was to be opposed• to the answer was, that Mr. Remington's line had been sol d London and Birmingham Railway. As some of the parties cow netted with the London and Manchester Direct Railway connected with Mr. Remington's line last year for sev e a r n - d months, and in spite of all remonstrance, all entreaties,_ent every appeal, refused to bring it out in time fo r the Pre ch " session of Varliament, so that it was delayed then, su dote answer from such a quarter may be significant of what waswhat then, and of the course to be followed now. Be t he rest," lb. it may, Mr. Remington's line shall be brought before it public honestly, and with all the power we can g ive it, rt. is for them to judge whether or not it be worthy of opp o. We are, Sir, your obedient servants, STEPHEN & HUTCHINS°S' JOHN OWENS. Committee Room, 29, Moorgate-street, June 26,1845. SPORTING INTEL-LIGENC" 15 to 1 agstTA lITITr.ERSALL'S—YEsTEB.DAY. M G R o a O ms v b o o O t I t :i 0 i S n T ,s .k K p E in S e . a p p 1 e ken 1.0 a 2 1 0 7 to to 1 1 agst t Dir. A. W. Hill's Libel -20 to large 1 l'" Ir a . Wesley's mount t• Nottingham iiss ....- 00l b 20 to 1 agst Lord Stradbroke's Boarding -sch 20 to 1 agst Mr. Payne's Queen Mob , ~„t 20 to 1 agst Lord G. Bentinck's John o' uraL'" 20 to 1 agst Mr. bleiklam's Lightning 25 to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Vates 25 to 1 agst Mr. Jonson's Milden 10 to 1 agst Libel and Milton—take n 3 5 t t o o 1 1 a a g g s s t t i‘ b l l r r . . H lr i w il i , n a 10 to 1 agst Libel and Lightning — ta ken OA' GOODWOOD CUP. AO ~,,ed 600 to 100 agst M Gully'sW sum at 6 and 7 to 1. ST. LEGER. 's lr F o a n u n g i h as - ter ßallagh--t r. eatner i 10 to 1 ao.' ,st Mr. St. Paul's Mentor 10 to 1 agst Mr. Gully's Old England al tide 20 to 1 agst Mr. Watts's The Baron—taken sever _ 20 to 1 agst Mr. Irwin's Connaught Rangers eu 25 to 1 agst Colonel Anson's Kedger--taken 40 to 1 agst Mr. Mangle'. Comical Boy—taken brisk The attendance was good, and the betting tolerably BIBURY CLUB RACES.—THuitspar., .. 3 yrs The Cup Stakes of 10 sous . each, with 100 lidded; le' d a ged so old 9st 71b, 4 yrs lOst 121 b, 5 11 t 61b, 6 Yr s r r e- Yr" 5O/ -, ° rs 1 Ist 10lb ; 3 yrs old, that never won above l b, SY. ceived 100/. for running second, allowed 41b, 4 yrs 1,_.60/. , &c. (11 ( 6 1 y 1 rs s a u n b d s. ated 181 b. The winner to be sold I°' ) 1 dsl oll° 2 G. Bentinck's John o' Gaunt ed (Lord blal -„, SrSir S. Spry's f by Sir Hercules, of:tagof Taglioni, 3 Yr e ' ''' Mr. Wormald's Millepede, aged ........................ 4 Mr. 2 to 1 on John o' Gaunt, wh0 .... won ... i . n . Clifton's Pedlar, aged ........ ...................... lengths. A St O il°. The Andover Stakes of 5 soand 50 a d d e d ' l'a vs each, a % I (20 Subs.) ai BaY le Y l 2 --- Giantess, 3 yrs, 9st 121 b ••• (-- r ' ..... 3 Lord Maidstone ' s Arcanus, 6 yrs, Ilst Mb ......... . ...... ,i - Mr. Roles Hampton, 6 yrs, lOst 51b ..................... olio- 9 All -r s The . —backed —acktendkell: a bs' following also started :—Lord G. I3enatineca ~g eref lbA li r . my-Hat, 4 yrs, list 31b—bir. Boyd's Conq 10st 121b—Mr. Clifton's Robin ' Hoed, 4 yrs, 1-e t , o l :ftw a-I ,: s Pearce's The Scavenger, 5 yrs, lost 91b--Mr. ``' f pus" t 0 c , knt:r, bY6 yr Venatrix, 5 yrs, l Ost—Mr. J. Day's gby blazeppo, wt Ao 4 yrs, 9st 121b—Col. Peel's fby Slane, out of ' p e er , 4 Yr s ' 3 yrs, 9st 121 b—and Mr. W. Sadler's New Forest 10st 101 ilitt unc" l / - Betting b. —2 to 1 agst Giantess, 3 to 1 agst All-ro 4 to 1 agst Arcanus, and 5 to 1 agst Conqueror. Giantess won easy by three parts of a l e ngth• f a mile , The Scurry Plate of 501. Three quarters 0 „,,_,,, a The Mr. King's Adele colt, 3 yrs, lost 121 b, and blr• P°i ot hers Conqueror, 6 yrs, 1 Ist, ran a dead heat. Se vera t lefts started. The race was not finished when our account STOCKBRIDGE RACES.—TouitsPb::) .. The Produce Stakes of 50/. each. ( 16 Su . va iked °Y e ' Mr. Wreford's Witticism ..................... ' - ----------"""Nwso.. 4. Ckn °l4r { BEATING THE MAIL.—An lowa e dibor 3 0 - iedges the receipt of congressional documents in add o ld she the mail," in consequence of a flock of wolves and a ll bear chasing the post-rider across tliipra thi On the 23d • inst , at li th fil e Tillcagra.ge Covfold, Slissel' lady of the Rev. W. B. Otter of a son• ' Surrey' the On the 23d inst., at Bygrove ' Cottage , Merto n, lady of S. Laufsne, , sq., of a dauhter. ar ket, ° I. On the 24th inst., in North-placge Cumber wife of Charles Podniefe, Esq., of ;daughter. On the 24th inst., at Gretnhithe,lVlrs. Henry G daughter. i i s p . ret ire. On the 24th inst., in Woburn-place, Easse• --- -113 Edward Dresden, of a son. ..-, c Dellis h) °I. On the 25th inst., hi Chester. square, Dirs. o• • a daughter. MARRIED. v. geori N da . u li g u h r t r e o r w eT On the 24th inst., at Torquay, Devonshire, the Re _ ung est shire. ibson, of * tohfeGiritet:tZialirgy,,NEosref.o,lko,AoFilatiiiinDa yor_k- DIED- On the 24th inst., at Mailing, Kent, Frederick a r ei , tss% gqo; On the 24th inst., at Maryland Point, West Mary Ann Rumball, widow of the late T. rtill• a; 018 3, Pil• On the 25th inst., at Nov-grove, Mile-cnd' Y ptL tind Lsy 112, Strand, :''rintuz, z‘: The Sus the cool Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoyo3l Middlesex, Friday, June 27, 1840. E 1 T~ r,, 441 , t 141 . S S 4 4 , cs. o f 41S . 441101. i Herb Capt. To le Prc Oreirentlerr Werity. .-zvept the 441 S ubs c Y r qttlieu N UT ik tre TUE sT ANI dohr, Johr,