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

of tlie Noble Lord the Member fur '—eindon, and th, Sight Honourable Baronet at the head of her a jest> 'e t tovernmest : -In usentiening their eamee, he would v, n tUre to appeal to the noble stand wieh they leol • tie taken defence of the privileges oft he IL , use—(ll • a -- "PO he Would take it that their names would be a gUarantee that they would not recommend any eempro se of the privileges of the Commons.—(Hear, hear.) • With respect to another class of opponents , and lie re tes't'ed more especially to the Right Hon. Gentleman t he Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), he would ask litet Right HOn. Gentleman here ceuld he maintain " I st 'the coarse which was proposedevas incotisistet-t w ith the principles which he (Sir R. Thetis) professed? The r Right Hon. Baronet was an advocate for the Nude, lily of the law,-but surely he was not an advocate for the s infallibility of any particular Court.— (11 , ar, hear.) , • . B ut he (th e Solicitor-General) could net think h ow it was possible to say that the authority ef the a.ly would be impaired by an appeal in this ess e to a higher tribunal. Such were the oppenents win• joined to resist that middle course, which he (the Soli e llortGeneral) was row going to receitnineed. The that was most important, aial tt usi ed that the House would listen to the few oltservittions Which he had to make. Ile must asstait e dist in a platten of such importance as this ev , ry Member as acquainted with the facts out of which this question arose. He took it for granted that every Member had read the report of the Committe . ill which the details of those occurrences were fully s tated. He trusted that without repeating those derails h e might be allowed to trespass on the House with a few lords in. reference to the more prominent circurn s tances. He thought it ' was a mistake to suppose that the question of privilege was at all involve d lu the present part of the case ; which had, however, -arisen out of the exercise of a power Which was inherent in the H. use, and which was essential to - - the maintenance of its privileges. Ile meant the powei of requiring and of compelling the attendance of all persons at the bar of the House, fur the Purpose of examination. Now, that the house had a right to institute an inquiry into all matters of pnbli interest there could be no doubt whatever, and that this Power was necessary to the ex , rcise of that right, .was clearly unquestionable, because, as it an- Peered to him, if they deprived the House of the tneans dept compelling parties to appear before it, they actually therefore the House need not be surprised te find that t his right was recognised and ecktioaledged in the cOurts of law. It was on the exercise= of this undoebted right that the present question originally arose. •!t would be recollected that ceret:n inquiries took place on a question instituted by Stock dale against Hansard, and Mr. Howard was ordered to • attend at the bar of the Hoese for the purpeses of in - qUiry. He did appear at the bar—he ad tnitted the fact that was charged against him. he submitted himself entirely to the Heuse after some explanation, he was discharged tlnavery short time afterwards he repeated the effsnee by Commencing a fresh action in the name of air Stock dale. It was not expected that the House would submit to be trifled with in this manner ; and. therefore, it was again necessary that Mr. Howard should attend at the bar. There could be no doubt that he endeavoured to evade the service of that House, end there was equells little d opts that he was perfectly aware of the feet of di erder being issued, and, even i. that way, he was d, cideilly Why of contempt of the authority of. that. Heusi , The House then should have adjuidg , d him of coat- ml t. and if they had proceeded in th,t course, 111 , , tower in the country could have questioned the met. But they Chose to proceed in a milder and n 1 ire favourable mantle., and acting upon a precedent in 1731. they, directed that ; e ir. Howard should be sent for to the bar of the House 1 1 . 1 • the custody of the Sergeant-ar - Arms, t` tit Speaker's warrant sheul I be is tied e e tii est ,him - The Speaker's warrant was issued, eni l , directed to be served. To any person endowed with .commis sense and pewers of reason. there. eetill he no 'doubt at all that the warrant was perfeetle stood. The Mouse had decided that the Se t • at- Arms ,dhitill take Mr. Howard into custody. arid he - was semi that.. raY man, not illumined with any km •wiedee of the w, and applying comm. ti sense to Cie c could not entertain tile i sligh,e-t dei t h• *:,Siss' (IS th foree of the warrant which the Serjesni rved namely, the taking - of the retry - in euestirin Int • ens tidy, and bringing him to the bar et the Home's t lir. H o ward - being informed of the desire or the flóuse he accompanied the St-at. Arms to • oar, Where, failing i 0 give stitisfactien ftr the her. itch Privilege he had committed, it was ,;real hy • t he House that he wss guilty 'of et ceeinly and committed to Nee gate. Three yeas after. - 1843, the year when Mr. lloweret wits . committed being 1840, Mr. Howard _comineric .d his • • present action aeaiust the officer of that Ile;use.. Th. • I dug time - he had allowed pi elapse bet ween the pia iuittal and instituting proceedings, showed at lese:t that hit seese of the injury done him was not very great. .On the ; action being commenced, a cometunicatien was made to . the House of the fact. After a lug &hetes tlonourable Members came to a resoleti the' t he Sergeant should a pp ear and defend the ae. Zion, gad that the Atterney-Gen ral should et)nduct the defence. The term. f the reiolutlon did •‘, not instruct the Attorney-General to appear on beh a lf Of the authority of the House, but simply to d. fend dee . action. He (the Solicitor-General) was disposed to egret- With the report of the Committee. In the resolution iif 1843 there was no intention of defending the righ's asd privileges of the House in a court of law—the impre-- .% men being, that if the question of the leg lite r f the Speaker's wsrrant were argued-belore the cony; ~. law, they would d.cide in its favour. This titer re the Matter was in agreement with wh a had been decide d in the first action of Stockelale ag,inst llttns trd: it , 18,17 It would readily be admitted, that no more strenuous defender tf the privileees.of Parl.ament cou'd be found than his N0,,1e Lord Campbell ; and it was the opinion of that high Mith or ity, that pleading the pri vile g es of Parliament would be answer to the action. Ihe course thus 'reCo , ,tnended , I Leing fully concurred in by th e l eg al advisers 4 the Crown. was .goopted in the defenee of their officer, but . in the result they were disappointed. The Court, though aware of contempt • Committed by Howard. thongh informed that the defeneiaot acted so l e ly on the specific order. of the Howe, and that these orders were founded on its privileges , the Court of Queen's end) entertained the question, and asirtetl the invalidity of the plea. All this had happened previous to March, 1841, and , therefore the House was in full possession of the circumstances when it subsequently passed its vote in defence of its p r i vileges, and enjo ine d its officer accordingly. But the deaarrer,entered • to the plea admitted that the con net of the defendant had been authorised, nay,.required by the vote of Parliamena and that all •• 2 1 4 proceedings were in deference to and support of its privileges. • that was the state of the question upon which the argument tas to take place, and that argument occurred in the month of "ovem , er last. He might here express his opinion of the great misfortune that it was to the House that it happened by 'tridental circumstances that it became his duty to argue the r ue, and no one could feel more .deeply than tie did the irre- Pitiable loss which at present was impending on the House. He kas sure, however, of this, that if any one had taken the trouble to look at the arguments which he addressed to the Court on that occasion, they would do him this ju -ace, that nothing whisk he said had any tendency whatever to surreniter ' t he privileges or compromise the dignities of the Ho use. The jades appeared to have entertained very considerabl doubt as eth declaim' for it was delayed for the peri od of six months ; it Was delivered on the 15th of May, and he must s,y that it folirely disappointed his expectations. He did not think •hat it would be becoming in him to take advantage of the positiou to which he stood on the preseeit occasion, to canvass. or to criticise, or to question the propriety of that judgment. He would refer the House to the report of .he Curt, in which it would find conflicting arid contrad ctor} reasons upon which the judgment of the majority was tounded—( Hear, hear)—and he might b' allowed to make this remark, that if he could be permitted to select from the discei dant reasons of the 'lodges different parts of their judgments, awl apply them to the consideration of the validity of the warrant, he was of evident that he would have a large iiarty in favour of his view. He Should also express his regret teat oe,e /if the le.ireo d judges t hought proper most unnecessarily, as it appeai el to him (the Sulantor-General), to que.stion one of the must un atubted, ss Well as one of the most necessary privileges of u hi- House. He regretted that the learned judge had exptessed his opinion in such a manner, which, considering ;hat it was a written judg. seem and after six months' deliberat um, was scarcely, he thought, to be excused. He was very much afra d that the doci ines Which he maintained, and which were necessary for the decision • of the cue, had led very much to the embarrassment and &Ili . tatty of coming to any conclusion as t o the course which it would 11 r proper for the House to adopt on the p resent occasion. Having brought the House to the point when a divided jeidg tient had been given by; the Court of Queen's Bench, it only being the decision of the majority, he was now anxious to draw the attention of the House to the consideration of the ce•urse which it would be des'rable for them to adopt. Now, with r egard to the class of opponents to whom be had already al luded—namely, those who were the most stren a uous sserters of the p r i v il eges o f th e House—men for Whom he entities. ned the highest respect, he would venture to sugg'est to them that, in that particular ease, there was no possibility of their carrying ' their principles into action. He thought the proceedings which occurred a few nights ago in that House, had placed them in • such a position as to render it quite impracticable for them to 'Wept any of those measures which were recommended to them, .. at that time, by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Mon trose, It would be in the recollection of the House that the • Committee to which this question was refereed made a short report, he thought on the 29th of May, in which they indi cated their opinion that a writ of error should be brought on the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, and that it was unnecessary, in their opinion, to interpose to prevent the levy of the money. the plaintiffs avng, by l a e _Writ of inquiry, obtained the verdict of a jui y or 200 4arnages. It was considered desirable, when that report was laid on the table of the House,that no di.cussion should take - place .until the House had been in formt d of the r?asons which bad influenced the determination of the Committee. the ' therefore moved that the consideration of that report should be deferred until a future day, that day being beyond the Period at which it was competent for the plaintiff to levy his qaages. The Hon. Member tor Montrose moved on that "that the House, adverting to the resolution herein...l belore passed, resolve that they will deem all persons guilty 1 , of a breach of the privileges of this House who shall levy an execution on the judgment obtained in the case ' Howard V. - Gusset,' referred to in the report." On that :notion the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland moved that the debate be adjourned until the report had been taken into considera tion. Now, it was perfectly well known to the House, that during the interval the plaintiff would have an opportunity of obtaining the amount of his damages. Th e H ouse should then have taken advantage of that oppor tunity, but - having allowed it to pass they could not now resume the position which they then abandoned. The House adjourned the motion of the Hon. Gentleman to the day on which the report was to be taken into consideration, and in the intermediate time, as was ant ciliated by the House, the plaintiff levied and seized for the amount of his damages and amts. Now the would venture to ask those Hon. Members who were pro. e eeding ith this strong elan for the assertion of privilege what course in that direction could possibly be adepted under the existing circumstances of this case? They had gone into a court of law with the plaintiff, they had allowed their sergeant to appea r and plead, they had sent their counsel before the C,ourt--they bad an unfortunate judgment. They might even then, if they thought advisable, have interrupted further proceedings—prevented the levy according to that judgment. They had the quest:on distinctly brought before them by the rootion of the Honourable Member for Montrose. bad refused to- entertain that motion, but postpeen. d the Matter to a future day ; and he nould now ask what Purpose those who proposed to act so strongly could accomplish by it ? They had, be repeated, eompletely Precluded themselves from the edoptiou of such ► -dowse , The only question W:l3, w hether it. was advisable for them to submit patiently and silently to the judgment pronounced by the G;urt of Queen's Bench, as contended for by the Hon. Gentleman the Arember for the University of Oxford, and by. those who followed in his track. He must confess that if this question turned ultimately upon the narrow and technical ground men tioned by Mr. Justice Littledale, he should not be disinclined to adopt the views of the Hon. Member for ices University of Oxf ird. But, in considering this question, he could not con. cea; from himself the doctrines which had been laid down by two of the majority of the judges who decided the question against the defendants, for he could not but consider it to he a case of imminent ranger to allow principles so laid down by those learned judges—principles fraught with danger to the privileges of that House—to remain unquestioned. The House sheutd not merely regard a temporary case, but should rega rd its successors, and should not do anything which would perma nently cr pple their privileges. 'When he considered the man tier in which this case had been conducted—when he consi dered the manner in which the judgment of the Court had betn followed up— and when he considered all . the other circumstances of the case -he could not sub mit patiently and quietly to such a judgment as that which had been pronounced, without calling upon the House to interfere; and the interference he would now suggest was simply t. bring the case before the House of Lords by a writ of erior from the Court. of Queen's Bench. He knew it would be said by some, that such a course worati he taking an addi tional step in the wrong direction— ( Hear, hear )—that we had suffered enough already from praceediega of this kind, and that therefore there would be no use in now pursuing the same dangerous course. Let him, however, remind the House that this was nut the first time that such a course hail been ctopted ; there were several other cases of a like nature on record, such as the case of Abbott in error, though it might be said, that in that case it was the plaintiff who made the appeal a but even so, he would still contend for it that this was not a preceed ing in furtherance of an erroneous course adopted by that House. Such a proceeding would be inevitable, and he thought that they should not allow a judgment of any doubt in respect to their privileges to stand without appeal. But it was said, that in adopting the course recommended by the Committee they would be proceeding in a wrong form. But they had on many occasions allowed persons to plead to actions brought against them for matters done under the au ho rity of the House, and thus they had left it to the Courts of Law to decide on their privileges. The same question which was referred to the Courts of Law would be referred to the Court of Error. It was unfortunate that all the cases hitherto had been before the G urt of Queen's Bench. He would not say that the judges of that Court considered themselves pledged to a particular course; but they certainly had sh iwn a very strong opinion in res. ect to the privileges of that House. t_t was, therefore, desirable to have the opinion of another tribunal. He was extremely desirous that their prom edirgs should be recommended to the public. He was most anxious that it should not be supposed that that House was asserting a right to the exercise of an unlimited owes,' or assuming a tittle be yoad what they were justly entitled to. He was most de sireus that the House should understand thai this was a question of the deepest interest to themselve , and that their privileges depended on the exercise of this power. He was perfectly satisfied that the course the Committee had recomm nded, the course he had proposed .to tl e House, was the most favourable for bringing the public mind correctly to understand what was tip• real point in this most important matter. He would ven ture to say that the temperate and favourable matitier—aed he ht ped the Right Hon. Hember for the University of Oxford would allow him to say the lawful manner—in which that House had acted, would produce this result. Should they be deceived in their expectations, and should the Court of Error take the same, and, he must be permitted to say, the er oneous view, taken by the Court of Queen's Bench, still the public mind would be favourably impressed with the manner in which the House had exercised that power. The difficulty of comino to a proper conclusion on the subject was mainly owing t o the- cir cumstance that there were s ill three actions peeding. in all of which the House had given permission to the defendant to ap pear and plead. t ine of these action, .was laid at 100,001►!. And why was this ? They had, in the fit at instance, asked Mr. Howard to appear at the bar, he was imprisoned for contempt and he afterwards brought an action, and was awarded the sum of 201., which, fortunately for the public, was all that was under the declaration. He considered the course he had recom mended the beat to adopt in meeting the great diffieulty in. volved in the present questioit. He knew that at the bast they had but a choice of evils. Hr did nit know what course he would ave advised under the circumstances, had tho pre sent action not been originated, aid had the subjeat been first mooted in that House nefore the present action was bi ought. He had merely opened the case with tae view of inducing others in that House, who had more weight. and experience than him self, to give their opinion as to the wisest course to pursue. He would conclude by moving that a writ of error be brought against the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in the " case of" Howard v Gossett. _ MEt•SAGE Ftioll THE LORDS. Messengers from the Lords brought up several Bills, which were ordered to he laid on the table. CONFERENCIt. 11-1 THE LORDS. A messenger from the Lords r«que.ted a conference with the Commons on the Railway Clauses ( , cotland) Consolidated 13i11. The Commons consented, and a leputation way ap pointed for the purpose. when the messenger left the linuse. The d, potation then tetu►ned from the conference with the Lord-, the messenger reporting th-d their Lordship- hail re ferred the amendments in the Railway Consolidation . (Scot- land) Bili, and assigned the reason- for their iwertion. The debate on the question of Ptivilege" was, then re sumed. Mr. HUME could not understand the. course.at present q pursued by the 1-1-ruse; the preper subject for discnssion was that of the adjourned debate.—(Cries of ". No, no.") The SPEAKER intimated that last evening the Solicitor : General had shaped the question of privilege to a, specific mo tion for tliseussion on this night. Mr. HUME was at a loss to discover why the ordinary practice of the House should. be departed fr.m on the present occasion; and, as to the preserit question, they would be only getting more and more into difficuUies as they went further in the waver. The conflicting arguments of the Learned So licitor-General only confirmed 11 , m in that belief, as. at one time he defended one thing- and at another time -a "other. He adm tted all his hopes were di-appointed—that a false s'el , —a palpable error had been committed—and yet he advised. them to go on in their mistake. - -He ( Nir. Hume) thought they would be degrading themo-lvos below any other court in the kingdom, if they submitted to the indignity of repeated defett. The simple question was, whether the House would -urrender their isghts to any other tribunal, 'r • eserve to themselves the power of definine thei owe privileges. The Solidi or-Genet al had alternately speculated upon a favourable at d unfavourable result in their ap, eal to the superior House in error; and while su.h un.:ertainty existed, the best course the Herne could adopt was that recommended by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, and se.tle whatever vas to be done at the present moment. It was a want of real courage not to encounter the real difficulties of the ca-e. • The House ought at once 'to take 'the course- which became it. • If they could hey,- affirmed that it• was' a breach of privilege to levy the moneit. - 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 ems ust the privileges of this Hoose-to any ether tribunal than the House itself." e gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap peered— For the amendment. 46 Against it • 7B ' ' • Majority against -the amendment —32 Mr. ROEBUCK resumed en 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 sufficierf•ly laid open the weak points of the case, and had shown that threats alone would be the issue of the whole of the warrants en which so much stress had been laid. This was evidently the - long snd short of what would arise from the nomination of the plead rig. In fact, there was no doubt that these warrants were at i-sue with the ordinary law of the !and. One of the must eminent of -the Solicitor-Generals wh . s , had ever graced the Bench had first expressed that opinion, and when he looked a , the sit, ech of the Solicitor-General he saw that he came to the same conclusion. He rid not say so ,:ertandy, iut :hat was the real English of his- meaning. He acknowledged ihat this was not so openly expressed as it might have been, but still it was quite evident what the Him. and Learned Gentleman's meaning was at the notion. He said 'that he did nut wish to •sp ak with any disrsspeet of the Court of Queen's Bench, but it was evident that he th- ught 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 • thnourable Gentleman said, " Let us get to the Court above." Why, what would be the result of such an applica tion? Why, thti they would he exposed togreater danger than they were before. He would advise the taking 'an alto gether different course. Far what were they to do, suppos ttg the judges, or a majority of them, were to take the same view Vale ea-e as the Court of Queen's Bench ? They would then have a 1 the judges against them. And what view did they think the leople ot England would take of this proc ee d in g — with a hat 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 orinions of the people. - He would suggest, then, whether it would not be better to take mother course, and to at once get rid of the difficulty in which the- had been placed for the last ten years ? That he thought wax I:iN far the most ad vi-able plan. and thos avoid altogether it. terfoine with the liberties of the subject. What was the 'power on whit h they had acted? Was it any reasonable .or legal oower ? It was alleged that it was on the authority-of a warrant, but he denied that this wa• a warrant or par took of anything to the nature of a wairatit ,in the sense in which the term was ever used. 'Let them 'suppose a ease. Suppose there was an invasion .if the country, and for the urgency of the moment that ,House to resolve to call A. B to the bar i.f the House. • According to the present decision the Court of Que•-n' , Bench vrouht issue its writ, arid at nice r. here any individual from the, power of the House; ard by a writ of habeas corpu• at once relieve the individual of whom he had spoken Of all necessity of- atteneance upon the Home. This would be a violet on of the i rivileges of the Hou. , e; and from that moment the privileges of the House would be set aside by a court of law accenting, , o law. From that same moment also that their privileges were violated there would be a breach of the Constitution. for the House of C'romons was the highest •anctuary of the Constitution s —( Hear, hear.) It was all very well for Gentlemen to cry out " Hear, hear," but why did they not follow out what thsy asserted in that House? It would be better for them to at once say that they had in this instance taken a wrong course. Let them not take the chances of another tribunal. Let th--m 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 -ZOO/ go by the board. But, then, there were three Other cases, and what was to be done with' them ? Why let them on those occasions re-assert the privil , ge. of that House. Let them determine that they wound be treated with prop r re spect. They could not pursue the interior minis-ern 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 comtnitting 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 that it might turn up hearts for trumps. the House were now, for some secret purpose. de- S u pposing t er mined to sir with closed doors. Supposing they-were to ex clude all strangers and turn out the reporters opposite—how were they to be affected by a habeas corpas,.supposing for the right decision it was necessary to call some eight or ten men to the bar of the House. Were they to be interrupted in this fulfilment of duty because of the interference of the Court of Queen's Bench ? They were sitting in secret conclave on some case of emergency in which the country was in danger, and was the first Minister of the Crown to be told by some Hon. I 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 inysded and commit any party persisting in violating them, an d maintaio their privilege: with all the forde which they could command. (The Solieitors General intimated some dissent.) The Hon. - and Learned Gentleman intimated some dissent. But supposing the earn d error were to be annulled by the Court above and the decision were to -he against hint ; how would h e then proceed in up holdiT g the liberties 01 England ? He (Mr. R oebuck) knel s einething of the way in which the libe rties of Englishmen were protected lay the Court of Queen's tench. Thew . ole of the judges might take the same view as the Cott, tof Queen's s 13 9 pub—where, thee, would be the r ,, r ,4099 pc IS law% jet' of %MB VN, VON DON, FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE tit 1841, the country? The ancient Commons; of England had preserved ' the liberties of the country. They had stood up for the lei • fiiegis of t Oirlinuseltratireitf.trehble and's/anger.. Theyee were seeeessints of thiese Comte °es of •England and it was on that floor, in tharllonsee that7thelibeefrernsfetheepeople- of England were to be preserved. The quiestitin could not now be def. rred and now was the time at which it should he 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 stsars hence the seine 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 deci ion should remain as it had pasted the Exchequer, or whether there should be an a •peal 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 interfsred.wiihe and •the question was whether the extreme courewhich the Hen. Member had just proposed, or whether fie y should suffer the privileges of .the House to be alto• gether neglected, or whether they should pursue a medium course by which both objects might be attained. He thought that with respect to the inflammatory proceedings which the Honourable and Learned Member had proposed, that the better plan would be to secure their object by a reasneable course of legislation, and he thought that security would be better ob tained tiy•this course than by the violent proceedings which he had advised the House to take. He thought, indeed, that the remedy which he propose t would entail upon the House greater inconvenience than ans advantage which they would gain by the remedy %thief' he sought. lie perfectly :greed with the Honourable Member that whether the decision was taken now, or whether it was deferred to five years hence, she difficulty would still be the same. But still he thought that in ;he decision to which that Hon. Gen tleman had come, he had neglected that rt ost reaeonable cow.- e. The Hoe. Member fur elontroSe had been with him a member of that. Committee and if he recollected rightly, hod been roe of the minority, and was certainly not at that time an advocate of those extreme lengths which he now advised. With re-pest to persons being called to the bar of the Heuse, it was easy le say that such or such ; person was to be apprehended and placed in custody ; and this might tie all very well,during a certain portion of the year. and while the House was sitting; hut what would they de 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 opportnnity bseng 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 he a very different matter when next November arrived, and a decision might he given b 'fore 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. ROEB YCK—No, 1 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, whotheugh sitting in the Court of Queen's Bench, had no seat in that House ? Did they suppose that the Chief Justice of England would not order the liberation of Mr. Justice Coleridge the moment a writ of habeas corpus was sued for, and did they suppose that the legal tribunals of this country would ever submit to the dictation of the House of Commons? The unflinching inte grity of purpose of Mr. Justice Coleridge, and his simi licity of heart, would always ensure the full performance of his duty, and what position would they now be in, if they were thus to he placed in collision with the judges of that court? The result had proved 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, arid 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 suffer the judgment to take its course, and then to legislate for the future. The doctrines of the Hon. and Learned Member 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 term of emifinement, and therefore the Hen. and Learned Member fir Bath was mistaken in his assumption that the pri vilege. of the House of C .mmons were infringed upon. ' He theueht 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 tuture, avoided. But an Hon. Member, who was not then in his place, had said, "We (the House) are everything." He (Sir R. H. Inglis) thought they were only a part of the cont inents ealth. and he apprehended that the great body of their fellee-sulijects. while content to live as they had hitherto done under the government of the law, were entitled to be coll9i. (feted in their . eliberations. The privileges of the House of Cemmons had not for many years been endangered by the en croachments of the other House of Parliament, and certainly not by the courts of law. He maintained, on the contrary, that the liberty of the subject was likely to be interfered with by thi it encroachments ; and it was because he dreaded gi ri-g them an unlimited power, that he had all along taken the stand, firmly and consistently, that he had done in this matter. ' The personal liberty of the subj. et, he repeated, was involved in this ~ matter. sod by ca. rying out the principle contended for by the Flon: aria 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. Whv, ,if life were lust in the carrying out of their orders, a coroner's jury would have to investigate arid adjudicate on the subject. I , was leis 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!puwer of issuing warrants fir arreq, without the benefit of bi?beas e rpus, the right of .habeas corpus would be taken awe's,. Trim the people of :this country. The second was, NO. the flute had admitted the informality of the writ issued on the 4th of February, 1841, by issuing another and incir'e 'legal writ urn the 6th. Thr third was, that there was no col; eietion of warrants issued by the House, t °serve as precedents , a et that such a collection should be provided. The fourth recited ,bs iefls . the proceedings adopted by 'the Haute in this case, slitter the 15th of Match, 1841, and resolved that the House Would; race no further steps. He could not think of proposing all . :those tour reselutions now, but he was not awate,that in moving the fourth he need say anything further. .' The SPEAK ER said that the House having decided` that the words proposed by the former amenemt nt to be left nut should stand, part of the resolution, the latter could not to amended. The motion of Sir Robert Inglis according'y fell' to the ground. 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 preposition that the subject should be dropped. But he agreed with the Soliceor-General that the House had merely ordered that. the warrant should be pleaded as a sufficient answer. The ! House bad assumed that when the judges found the privileges of ;he House pleaded they would at once admit the plea. ! But the Court decided, against law and against reason, to crush the privileges of the House. The Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Bath seemed to overlook what had really taken place.—( Hear, hear.) The House had not subMitted its privileges to the judgment of the Queen's Bench. But he thought that after the decision of that Court the House ought. to see it the other judges would' take the ,samo mon strous view of the question.—( Hear, hear.) He did nut think that. the House would place itself in a worse position by taking the opinion of a higher Court,—(Hear.) If the.deeision of that tribunal should be against then, the country would not' fail to sups eh them in the assertion of their privileges.—Q the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath could not think that the House would not be strong enough. and firm enough, and. have heart enough, to overcome any Court which should at tempt to overthrow their privileges,. which they held 'lOr the benefit and the defeece . of the people of England.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.: Gentleman the Member for !Oxford told them that they ought not to question the conduct of the judges. But the highest function of the House was te ,ques tMn the conduct of the judges.—(Hear, hear.) It was the highest privilege of the house to address the Sovereign - for the dismissal of the judges, an he could not. understand a : more fit oecesion fur the exercise of that function than where an at tempt was made to crush their privileges. It was not to be endured that the Court of Queen's Be' ch should assume the power to judge the writs of that House upon mere technicalities, as they would the writs of any justice id the , eace.—(llear, hear.) He understood that the de vision of the eourt of error would not be final. but that the defendant wriultt have an appeal to the House of Lords: Ile adroit ed that there was a great difficulty in submitting any e uestion of privilege' of the Commons to the diction of the 1-1 -use of Lords, but whatever that might be the pourer of the House te maintain its privileges would remain uniffected.• —( Hear, hear.) He supported the recommendation of the C immittee. Mr. Se•gearit MURPHY thought that the House could not expect the country at lsrge to have much regard to its privileges, when the paucity of Members now present showed that in the House i self but little interest was felt upon the subj ct. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then glanced over the circumstances of the ease, and the arguments that had taken place . in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Solicitor General was mistaken when lie said that the privileges of the House were not submitted to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench. They were so submitted, and the Court cla.lt with the warrant 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 House ill tords had been pleaded in answer to an action the Court of Queen's Bench would say at on ce t , at they were stopped.—( Hear.) He could not help deprecating the shill -shady course which was recommended. If Le selected a lay arbitrator, and he gave a judgnient con trary to the law, his next coursewould be to apply to a court of law e wherte 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 priirileges. 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 Baih 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 40C/. That was the course the Hen. and Learned Member for Bath had advised, and it was the best course; for if they 'bad recourse to the means advised by the Committee, they should have their privileges determined in a less fevourable way. Lord MA HON said, thaZ he regretted the cause that had given rise to this meter. He hot ed the House would forgive him for taking this opportunity of stetting his deep regret for the absence of his Friend the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter, whose eloquent voice they had often listened to, and which they were perhaps likely never to hear again. 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 privileges of the House. But he objected to it on the grounds of expediency and prudence. Ile found it laid down by the learned judges who pronounced the judgment in the strongest terms that they did not mean any invasion of the privileges of that House. It would be im possible for any Member of the House to express such senti ments in stronger terms than they had expressed them. Justice Wightman and Justice Coleridge rested their judgment on the want of technicality, and the want of form in the warrant which bad been issued. Justice Coleridge went so far as to say that deny other authority than that House had issued it, it would not have been recognised. He was bound to say, as a Member of the Committee, that this warrant was not given in conformity with the precedents which they had before them. He thought that there had been no violation of principle. It would be better for the Home to wait for a warrant that was free from flaw It was riot right thst the House should have the power of trying every question partaking of the privileges of that House. There was another question of great import ance which he should entreat the House not to forget. He meant the great importance of taking no step in support of their privileges without, if possible. being upheld by the public opinion out of doors. Did they at present enjoy that advert-- tage ? The opinion of the Member for Edinburgh, delivered in the year 1828, in an es-ay, was that th see privileges which in 1642 all London rose in arms to defend, which they con ! sidered as synonymous with their own liberty, and in tom; parison with which they took no account of the safe principles ut jurisprudence, have now become nearly a- bad as tho - wor et riSuur of the suarttailaw. From the grubs and fladraut abuse of those privileges in former years. unpopularity gathered around them. Let them wait till some opportunity arose ire s phich Hs; jonstisutienal powers were evidently involved. The st4se 7 fM woultillsish , to pees sAW oe r considerati ‘ on of the. GovernrAnt w as the ttne he halasugges lad. And at the ° seine time, he - iTs - o - 01,1 earaaserty oreeommeaid . its hrae:ll2 , jestya , Government to motet a mild and coosid rate course. They bad already had before them the cote of Stockdale and Hansard, and he would entreat of the Government to bear wed in mind that case in coming to a decision upon this. With those observations Fie would leave the ease 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 bren recommended by sestet al other Hoe. Members.—( Hear.) Mr. C. W. W. WYNN said he felt a good deal of difficulty and diffidence in addre-stog the Monsoon this question, but at the same time he would be sorry to let the oppose unity pass of saying a few words on this subject , after w hat he had heard of the situation in which the Committee had bee n p laced in reference to is. If he could agree with his Noble Fru nd who had just sat down, that this .was an isolated and soli ary case, and one of little or no importance, then he (Mr. Wynn) should concur with t ins that there were strong grounds for adopting the course he had suegested But this case sppeared to him (Mr. Warin) to strike at. the root of all ariviloge—( Ilesr. hear)— and the bulwark of the rules of the House, upon which the alene was competent to decide.--( Hear, hear.) He would be ssrry to detain the House by entering into the details of this questions, 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 a dopted the course suegested, 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 Flue ?—( Hear, hear. ) tie contended there was not—for he had read of in stances in which the doors of the House Here locked in order that the public should nor know what the House was doing— hut the result was the issue of the Speaker's warrant for the pr. senee of a witness in a ease, without stating any explanation for the summons. In fact there were many cases in which the Rouse aursued a like asringent course; bat the occa-son jus t ified it, and to was one of those who supported the House on one or two cf tlio-e oceasisios 'I he Court of Queen's !lentils could not summons a witness -without setting forth the case in which he was summoned and all the ether particulars; but that was not nectosary for this House to do, and therefoieeo analoay could exist between thermos( Hear. ) In the case a Lord Coventry, in 1782, this quisstion was also rated; but they hail, withoto any question as to its authority being put, issued she Speaker', wet riot for that Nobleman's presence, and he was brought up. He thouaht they ought to b s 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 circumstancess and on no pretence, would he permit she courts of law to consider, still less to decide, the privileges of that House. But that was not the question which they had to eon-ider now. The question was, what course it was de. sirable for that House to pursue. He had no hesitation in stating that it was absolutely necessary that they should have the power of ordering persons into custody, and without assigning any reason. A warrant, he apprehended. was entirely unnecessary. There were many causes in which persons were ordered into arrest without any warrant whatever. The Court of Queen's Bench had the power even stronger than that House, for that House could only commit a person for the time of its sitting, whereas the Court of Queen's Bench might. commit a perst n for an indefinite period, as could any inferior Court of Record. This had been shown in the recent Jersey case. The Court of Queen's Bench seemed to judge the law of Parliament upon the same 1 rinciple as the common law. Now he could not too strongly assert the utter inapplicability of the same principle to both cases. In every one of its proceedings Parliament diffeted from the courts of law. They could give strangers and Members, and even the Speaker himself, into custody. Had the Court of Queen's Bench power like this ? And it was necessary that that House should possess this power. its value must have been tested in such a case as the gunpowder plot. (Hear, hear. ) In that case the Ho use might have ordered the Sergeant -at• Arms to have dragged the chief parties concerned in the conspiracy to the b..r of the House, and he might have done so without a warrant. They had now to consider what course they would take. In the case of Burdett, v. Abbott, they had appe a led to the Exchequer Chamber. In that ease they submitted to a court of appeal. Again, in the case of Stock • dale and Hansard they did the same, and in the present. ease they hail ordered the Attorney-General to plead. He appre heoded that what they had done was merely to show to the Queen's Bench that this case involved a breach of the privileges of Parliament. Should the decision be against that. House in the appeal, he apprehended that they would only be in the same situation that they were now. It would then become a question whi;ther they would appeal to the House of Lords or not. He had much confidence in the House of Lords, anti be thought that there would be no difficulty in making an appeal to them. He thought that it was absolutely necessary that they should assert their privileges to the utmost extent of their power. Lord J. RUSSELL did not feel that lie could altogether avoid the discussion of this question, after the statement that had been made by his Hon. Fiend 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 r, Bard to the power and privileges of that Itotise. which he' (Lord J. Ru sel) could not pa-s altogether unnoticed. The Noble Lord had told them of the various instances in which the power of that House .hstd been abused, and his Hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford advised them to treat these maters as matters of law, anti submit them in future tu the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now , that was totally inconsisten , with the view which he (Lord J.- (tassel]) had taken of the privikges of that Iloo.e.—( rear. ) He Considered that that Douse had a law and custom .if Par liament which it was hound to adhere to and obsetve. , tie sh uld think that, it was as prepn-terous for the Queen's B. nch to decide on tr.' authority and powers of that House, as fur that. }liaise to de-ide, by an arbitrary majority, that the judees of that Court Were wring in their interpretation of a question common law. Thep ivileges of Parliament were as much part of the lass. of this country, as those which the interior courts were instituted to administer.—( Hear, hear. ) It had been said that they must act in accordance with the law, hitt were they willing to' set up their privil..ges, as Judge Coleridge required,„ against the laws? His answer was, that their privileges were as muds law as the deei-ions of any Court.,--( Cheers.) What he therefore contended for was, that it was just as •-• consistent for them • to say to the Court of Queen's Bench that their adjudications were will and caprice. as for that Court to say tl.at their rleci-ion was nothing but the will and caprice of the 11 . 119 e of Commons. He could not but protest against any other assumption. than they were tie judges of their own pri, lieges. —(Loud cheers. ) With respect to the question of precedent, the lion. 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 witnessms and, on their refusal, compelling them to . attend. But it had been Said that the authority of the high, st judges was against teem. He was - free to admit that many of our ablest judges had entertained narr o w v i ews upcn ' t he privileges of Parliament. Lord Erskine, a m an o f transc e n dant legal powers. and -of un rivalled eloquence, entertained on the subject of the functions of Parliament totally inadequate view - ` ; he bad said that no -impeachment. could be brought awainst a Member, except where indictment would lie, whet eas the very 'pi osite was the es•ab lished law. Now, as in the cases • f 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 p wer, vested in Parliament, would endanger the liberty of the subject ?—( Loud cheers.) The House, therefore, must come to the cmielus,on that. they bad functisus higher in their nature than those which belonged to the Court of Queen's Bench.—(lsiii i d cries of t. Hear, hear.") It wss a tonsil% dif ferent que.tion as to h ow the privilege should be exercised in reference t o t h e sa f ety of t h e State. —( Hsar, hear.) Whi n a judge had said th at h e h a d l oo ked at a warrant of th e i rs as technically as h e wou ld t h at o f a justice of the peace, he hail totally mistaken th e f unct i ons of Parliament.—( Loud cheers from all parts of the House.) A debate had lately taken place on the defences of the wintry. and the war establishment it kept up. The first Minister of the Crown had then objected to such discussions, considering their publicity unadvisatde, if not dangerous. Supposi ng . b e ing of that opinion, the ter should suspect that some officer intrusted with secret in -formation, would confine it to a foreign warlike Power, - must the Speak er wa i t un til he had sent for an astute lawy er to see wh e th er the warrant was in exact accord ance withall the te c h n i ca li t i es of law, and -earth for prece dents which the C ourt o f Q ue en's Bench would he likey 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 Home of Commons the su preme power, he replied, that with regard to the power to be used, there must be some authority in whit:lL:supreme juris diction was vested. In so.ne cases the Queen's Bench possess el that power, and in some the Court of Chancery ; and the judges of the Court .4 Queen's Bench could be removed by address from Parliament. The right was invested for public safety: And was there no check upon it ? [lnds übtudly there was ; and it a tyranny were exercised, either for private individual interest or for despotic power, why, the reople themselves would find the remedy and eject the tyranny fr m its representative.—(Loud cSeers.) 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 lion 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 univ, rsal consent would now he as universally condemned. That proved his (Lord J oh n Russell's) proposition that an people would always prevent an infringement of But if the N o bl e L or d (Mahon) t a h p e p i e r al lib to a t t h ie e s._4 cheers. ) 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 Houle 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 tl at any Member of the House of Commons was Queen's Bench n o tone wou ld sa y. th a t any di-posed to push its p rivileges be y on d their legi t imate bounds, a o n f c - 1 in s e j Ile o f the the a - disposition to avail themselves of the odious powers contended for by . Judge Jeffery, or other of the justices; befcce the revolution of 1688. But if technicalities were to be required to b e nicely. observed i n warrants , th ose p o wers which Parliamen t exercised for the benefit of the c ountr y w upon ri°uslYth impaired.—(L ou d c h eers .) H e . h a d sa id thus ue utility of the privilege generally, be hsesclinnourable Member f or O x f or d ( Si r R. I ng li s ) the question of the privi leges of the House. As to the broad question of the extension chaa o d would l et d taken be uh en the opportunity of raising and definition of those p rivi leges it was easy to decide; hut as to the particular b antis before the House, he felt much more difficulty. Air. Justice Wightman, in his decis4an, had said that the warrant was not sufficient, because it said that Thomas Burton Howard was to be tsken into custody, but had neglected to state how he was then to be disposed of; in fact the warrant was to be invalid, I ecause it did not say that it the sffieer found this Thomas Burton Howard crossing over front Charing- cross he was to be kept there in the safe keeping of the Sergeant-at-Arms, while all the cony, yahces that were pa „( og might endanger their hives.—(Laughter and cheers ) objection is easily overcome; th' if that is all the difficulty. the e intentisn a the House on that Oh, said Mr. Jus tice Colerid g e palpable, but inasmuch as the warrant did not state ek cause for w Meth Howat d was taken into custody it was irFuffi - If the tot mer op inion w ere thought narrow and trli; g, h 'cl.' i eo , e v much more palpably ersonet,us was • the latter for it s extensive and enlarged. requirements. If the cause were assigner, t of course Air. Justice Coleridge would assume the right suffidency ; therefore if Matthew Prior was suspected of d ie ing engaged in intrigues with foreign Powers, dangerous to the country, arid subversive of th e dynasty as .established ,core - by the CtinAitution, and a warrant were to be issued for such a man, all these suspicions were to be put into the *arrant and Justice Wes - hie would- have to decide whether it was sufficient cause upon which to summon the man, Such a ere position that House could never assent to.—(Loud cheers. ) The Queen's Bench, by its limited arid narrow view with regard to their prisileees. virtually clagned the keeeing rf the con sCieneb f that Hbuse.—(,(;.heerse) .-Lord Deenearn e while di` • sewing from these opinions, still entail-al 1 a vie" e q u in e ' - se s eeetennablreeee( Ware-bear. ). -He hay t . t e l f i rt a l et n i !!. was not a sufficient plea to state out the was committed in accordance with the a r .est of the House. and such was the effect of theji,edJe;,:it in le g' es Stec dale v. Hansard. He confessed from all tb se-conflict ing opinions he felt not only alarmbut inseffse:, i tn y t eviden ce .- If he took the ease propoundei by Mr„fe s sset iehtman he could not consent that the warrant was to so as to suit the lover of technicalities ar ! seeeelli'ael"id to d pieces (Loud cheers.) If he adverted to opinion . hei p l ea ding. -_ not --rt e agree that every cause on which it, warrant was issued was to be inserted in the instrument, ant!. if he referred to Lord Den man's proposition that that R ou e e was not the ' , lace where its pi ivileges where to be dsscided, 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 et Error. He had never been able to perceive that there was any ground fur saying that a further sacrifice, though in a trifline degree, should be made of the privileges of the House. The question which the House had in the gist iestance submitted to the court of law, uainely, thrtt the act had been done in conformity e ith their privileges, and in pursuanee of the order of the House, was a question that would be submitted to the Court of Error. It did rot appear to him that the great and paramount question had been ttibmitted—whether the judges ought to have been li. st 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 Speak, r attached to the bottom. If the judges should decide in their favour, or should point our in what le sreet they considered the decision as to their privileges in firmer times had been mistaken by the Howe, a light would be afforded which wou d guide the House a, regarded its future course. He could not but think that that course must be grriunded in y rudence ; if it e ere not so, he should not be guided but by the judgment that was given, and by the reasons which would be deduced. That the House had the reat and paramount power of asserting its own privileges, he had the most intimate psrsuasion, but if it was meant to assert those rights by their entire authority, they must riot be daunted by the public inconsenience 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 railed o:i, when it had all the powers and privileges which would have enabled it to have exercised its functions safely. The declat a. dun of the House that they were so determined, that they held ea. ry power in the Constitution, whether tie warrant was submitted to the Executive for it,. delivery, or to the House of Lords for concurrence, would before long have obliged the Court of Queen's Bench to I ave coetplied with their fair and just ry quest ; but on making that demaed on the first occasion, it was not possible to deny that there would be great public excitement and consi;lerable agitation. Fur these reasons he thought it would he better to have further time for consideration before the House proceeded to asset t 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 Hou se i s , w i b out having reference to the }IOUS , of Lords, there will be abundant material to act upon. When this question was raised in 1843, he was distinctly of opinion that the House (aught to plead, as the court of law could not otherwise be in. firmed that their privileges were in question, and' no learned gentleman could suggest any other course of proceeding than that which the House had adopted. He was of ()pinion that all the parties concerned in the action, the plaintiff, with his counsel and attorneys should, one after the other, be sum moned to the bar, and if they psrsist in their course be punished accordingly, and eemsnitted fur a contempt of the House. That was a decision come to in Mr. Ponsonby's time, when he suggested a similar course, and said it was the best to which the House could come. At all events, he would be disposed to have the judgment of the Court of Error ; and to wait until they had been informed by that court, of the grounds on which their privileges ought not to be questioned by the court of law. He would not suggest that the Speaker should frame any other form of warrant, or use any technicality of con struction, to meet any question that might. occur. In his opi nion, the warrant which expressed is common sense language the authority to seize and bring a person to the bar in arrest, so that it could be understood by common men, was quite suffi cient for all purposes. He very much r) greeted that it teas part of the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, that a question had been raised as to the execution of the warrant. His Honourable Friend the Member for Ox ford thought it necessary to advert to this subject. If any mischief, if any violence should result in consequence of the decision of the law court, upon the judge who delivered it would rest the responsibility, The warrant had been issued as the authorized act of the Constitution. No person had at tempted by violence to be arrested by the warrants since the revolution of 1688. A question had been _raised that persons might be so arrested, but it was a dangerous precedent, arid he trusted the House would be well advised before proceeding to such an extreme measure. If the Sergeant-at-Arms, who was an officer sprinted 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 secu e the execution of their warrant ; and he thought it would be the iaty of the Crown thus to reinforce the Se geint-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 the military did not hesitate to assist in carrying ti-ce' War - rant-info 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 lamestable thing that the judges of the larirtshotild ques tion the authority of the House of COMMORS so as to oblige it to have recourse to military force in the exercise of its constiiu tien l rights, and on them'rested the reeionsibility of tour- fering. For his part he was in favour of enteierate force. The : House might be even called pusillanimous—it might . b said their privilei.ses were being endangered, but peaceful means, eipessible, were best.. But if it was necessary to. resent, to violent measures, he for one was ready to take them, fur ultimately he would not consent to relinquish those privileges, without which their existence was to be reg arded rather as an injury.. than as a good.—( Hear, and cheers ) . Mr. FPI ZROY KELLY begged to express his entire con currence wi h the Noble Lord who had just sat down, as to the manner in which he proposed to assert the privileges of the House. he privileges of the House ought to be respected, and their warrants by a definite resolution should be made part and parcel of the law. Ile conceived that a misapprehen sion existed as to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench that so many fierce acd unjust attacks had been made upon it. It was not his intention to offer an opposition to the motion of his lion.. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General, hut he considered it was his duty - to state the grounds on which he -(Mr: Kelly )-eoncurred, and also in favour of submitting the question tp trial in a Court o Error. He' would beg leave to say he felt inexpressible astonishment at what had 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 taste place beyond the Court of Queen's Tench, and that if that Court 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 'eserthateit - wasnet his impression; and he was quite uncon scious of uttering anything to warrant such a supposition. He recellected the Right Honourable Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government expressing an (Onion in which he was corroborated by the Hon. and Learwd Member fee- Worcester. to the effect that the inquiry in the Court of Queen's Bench was, whether the warrant was a properly drawn up and legal instrument, and not as to the privileges of the House. Hew it could be conceived that the Court could take any other course, appeared-to him perfectly incompre hensible. He (Mr. Kelly) had maintained that view of the question on a previous occasion, and in that view he was sup ported by the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester. He stated in the proposition, that in the action the real points at issue were those of law ; that it was impossible to take any other course than what. had been taken, without a violation of law ; and that to distinguish between that House and any other individual in the realm, was an improper and illegal Neese. His view then, as now, was, that there should be no difference ehethig 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 Quese's Beech was bound to construe the law on the same principle to these pa; ties as to the humblest mechanic in the :and. That was tut state of the law: - He would now direct himself to the guess tion itself, having made this reference to what he hail formerly stated on the subject. The action in the present instance had been brought against an officer of that House, and he was in struc'ed to place a plea of justification on the record. He was desirous of referring to the facts of the case, that the Reuse should understand the question, and be abl e to conrereherei the true effect of the judgment rte Court had givi n. Mr Howard alleged in his declaration that he hail been assaulted and imprisoned by Sir William Gossett, and. the defsndant, in answer to the charge, put in certain reolutions of the House an the Speaker's warrant. He just ifietf the c urse he had taken in virtue of the warrant. On such a plea. there fore, the defendant stood on the validity of the warrant. I. 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 firm 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 ;he 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 pursue:l. It was said the warrant set forth no cause, and it was an important point ss to why ther it ought to have had any attention paid ea it. `should it be decided that the warrant was a good one, should the Houle maintain and enforce the validity of such a warrant, then he was of pinion they might as well repeal the Habeas Corpus Act, and withdraw the whole protection of the law from her Majesty's subjects. It was, therefore, a question of the gravest importance, but as he before stated he would not at present enter into the eeghnicalities and details of the law. He had incurred the censuie of his Hon. and Learned Friend op posite (Mr.Sergeatit 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 dd not admit. The privileges of the House was not the question that was legally and col sue tutionally involved in the discussion. If he erred in that opinion, he erred along with several other Honourable arid - Learned Members in that House—with the late Attorney-General (Sir Frederick Pollock), and also with the present Solicitor-General, who on a previous occasion expressed the ()pinion that the inquiry into the va lidity of the warrant. was not opposed to the privileges of the House. H,- (Mr. Kelly) did not think that his giving his pito feel' 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 indeeendent opinion to the House. There was another consideration, not personal e which was worthy their attention. When an action was instituted aaainst an 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 reasonable, he would ask, to take . away from the constituency of that House the assistance of any meseber of the 1.) ir that might be of service to his cause—(Loul 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 allowed 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 ahogether denied ; it was no question of privilege at all. The only question was, whether the warrant was good. It was, in answer to this e 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 b een , c ommitted, which led to the issuing of the warr.nt. NI hat 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 Crimmons, but merely as one of her Majesty's subjects to try the validity of a warrant he had executed, and that the privileges of -the House formed no part of the case that had to be considered. An HON. MEMBER—Who held those opinions? Mr. F. KELLY—Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Coleride,e. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman proceeded. lie 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, foundeduierithe law r— and baerefore vr have I er.- eareassrs 44541 Wit t ., which you are hound to obey, arrest the Queen's subjeets, it wroild at least clear, iniellgible, and positive. But the plea con _ seed no such allegation. There was no question of privilege !Involved in the plea. Hen. Members mi g ht sa y t h at t h ese Arguments were ot a teermie,l and ft ivolnue (+erecter, tint be begged of tht m to recollect ttiat 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 tho e 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 po-sibly find that the . Queen's Bench would rive 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 could have i.ut a different construction on the warant. It had been said that the Court of Queen's Bench had set itself up in a conflict with that House against its privileges, and that it had been always ready to administer the I.w in a manner least fa vourable to the liberties at' the subject. He felt confident that both charges were utifoUnded.—( Hear, hear.) The Queen's Bench was r early to give effect to the privileges of that House: I and in the course of 724 ./ years had consistently elven effect to these privilges, a , though commitments for contempt hat' been brought before them in every possible form, no the authority of that House —warrant; tio vague and defective that. they would not have stood fur a moment in other cases; and yet, he re. prated, in na one case dui ing the last two cerituries, hail the House or its officers been before the Court of Queen's Bench upon cases of commitment in which the Queen's eneh had discharged the pa , ty complaining, or done otherwise than give effect to the warrants of that House.—( Hear.) In innu merable cases arising during these two hundred years, where even the undoubted privileges of that House came under the constderation he Court of Queen's. Bench, the judges had invariably given effect to those privileges when properly stated, and according to ihe volts of that House. Come, it be I therefore saiit,that the Coto t of Queen's Bench was adverse to the p.ivileges of that Howse? Even in this very case Lord Derunau had dtatinetly intimated his opinion that the• House had a right of sending for witnesses in the way which only the House of Lords could de,.without. previous summons or notice ; and bringing the witnesses up in cu•tody. With•respeet to the charge ot the lion. and Learned Member for Bath, that that Court had been adverse to their ptiviteges, he would observe that, although. they owed to the enlightened and patriotic feeling of both . Houses.of Parliament the habeas corpus Act. they were indebted, as had been un i vera ll y a d m i tte d , to. the • Court of Queen's Bench for the proper, administration of this the most valuable_ and. powerful bulwark of the liberty of the subject. He wished that his Hon. and Learned Friend, instead i of speaking in so vague and general a manner, had condescended to state any one instance of this opposition to the liberty of the subject. The Hon. and Learned Geutlentan spoke of the last 100 or 150 years, and had not been able to quote a solitary instance. He admitted that the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who went into the histoey of an anterior and more unrefined period, had quoted some.—( Hear, hear.) The question was-awhether ,the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench should .he submitted to a Court of Erior ? Whatever might be his own opinion, as one of the judges the Court of Queen's Bench had pronounced his opinion favourable to these privileges —as many lion. Friends 'of his ia that House, tor ,whose opinions he entertained the highest respect, thought similarly—arul as the House seemed to.take so• warm an interest, in- the subject, he would not wi hold 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 ty 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 r f imprison ments—was a precedent which he would not consent to es tablish. He would not sanction the imprisonment of attorneys, clerks, sheriffs, bathffs, counsel, and judges, in .vindi ca ti ng 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 be would call the attention of the House to what would be the natural course of such a line' of action. he House would first advise its officers net to plead to the action. It. depended upih itself whether or no it would vindicate its privileges, and it had resolved not to plead. Well then, he asked his Hun. 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 brough' an action against the House, lay ing his damages at perhaps 103,01/01., 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 eroceeded with the action. They committed him. He brought another action. They committed his at-. torney, counsel, and judges, end stopped the whole adm-nistra tion of the law, but in the meantime the action proceeded, the matter was brought tojudgment, but he waited for the promo. gat.iun of the House , until the House executed its judgment, and then he went before a jury. Would they appeal to a jury 7 ( Hear, hear.) Nu they would not condescend to do so, they would not direct the Attorney-Gsnetal to do so—the plaintiff might state what he liked—he might make out a case of pre eendedgrievances -he might make himsli out the most in jured yerson 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 prorooation. lle would ask his Hon. and Learned Friend the Msruber fur Worzeser what was to prevent the vying of. the execution—( Hear, hear)—upon your goods and laud, Sir, (turning to th e Sp ea k er ) or the, property o f . 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. unconititutional ; but. above all, they never. could tie maintained.—( Hear, hear.) They had no weapon to fight with-.no shield to corer themselves, and were in tr uth as posv-- 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, admit ation. and regard of those who sent them therea they would not enter into a stoutest 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 committ e es did they find any difficulty in procuring the atteni•atice of witnesses, or cempelling the attendatice of . any man though he might be in the most remote part of the kingdom? Well, but if they protecuted and were successful, would not the,vaoquished be considered as a martyr? Take care that you are within the bounda-ies of the law—take care that you are within the prerogative of the Sovereign— take care that your record is within the privileges of toe .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 ira ohich the defendants wele placed, to look at the powers with which they were, invested-1,1 at the posi-, tion to which the people was 'placed,. and the power with which they were invested; but they hid a decision here egainst 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 nut say that the privilege of the' House had been placed above the law, but it was evident that the House had entered into . a contest with the law, and' it was of the utmost importance that this privilege should be placed, not only in accordance with the law, but also in coincidence with the decisions of the courts of justice, so that there should be no doubt for the future .. of the extent of the obligation which the courts stood untler 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, stain 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 Hodse. Fr on the intelligence ; which he had always evinced, it was but right for the House to calculate on hls assistance in this extreme emergency ; but he was still aware that so much could hardly be ex pected of him, when it was impossible for him to enter into, the whole 'of the ar e umeet, and when he was precluded fram carrying it out to its utmost extent fr. to being counsel to the party chiefly interested. If there was. then, a case to consider in which the *privileges of the House were to be estimated, he certainly thought that. they ought to be estimated with a re ference to the privileges of the people. He did not precisely understand in what the privileges of the House were to be upheld. It his Honourable Friend oppo site had given his opinion, and that opinion was to be depended upon, that they were to go as nothing against the decision of a court of lew. He had obtruded so fr quently,• and fur such locg periods on the attention of the Heu..-, on this subject, that he felt in a v, ry painful position in entering fully into the subject, hut he could not retrain ft om reminding the . House that the 31embers of the House had been sent th o-e. for the mere purpose of upholding the privileges of the p -ogle through the privileges of that House; and he trusted that the Hon. Gentleman would not have lost sight of the sense of duty which had been entertained at the last election. Lie con d well understand tl at it was a duty of a Pafinnent elect e d to maintain the power of the people of England ; and this they were doing while dia;ntaining their own privileges. What was the statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend ? Why that he was precluded from expressing his opinion on the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench' But the HOUS2 had a right to enjoy the advantage of the learning and ability of his Hon. Friend. By that opinion the entire of Parliament might be affected to such extent that it had become a duty to give it. be had ditqualified hitpself from givirig an opinion, and the House vras prevented f,ornienpying the advise tage of his great experience and ability. Some Hon, Oen: tlemon ser - med to think that the proper course had not been taken, and he resist say he ti ought it would be ea: ier to' take a better course than a worse course,' for a worse eriurse he bought it was not possible to take. Some Hon. Gentlemen bait ex pressed strong opinion for the merits of the ease, without making themselves acquainted with all the circumstances..— ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had justly observed, that during the last 150 years, the House of Coin mons had always been considered as the judge oi its own 'prin.:. ciples, and its privileges had always been maintained by the courts of law. The House was now placed in a position the most remarkable, and fur the first time during that periOd its decisions were .invaadated by the adjudication of a court'sd and that was set. aside which had hitherto always been, con sidered the law of Parliament. It was evident from the deci sions of the Comm tree. that all their considerations had a view to legislation, but while he felt bound to treat their judgmeot with every respect, he must ray at the same time that legisla:. tion on this subject was impossible. It had olways been held by the courts of law, that the liberties obthe country depended on the privileges of Parliament. Mr Justice Coleridge, who had edited an edition of Blackstone, had never questioned the right" of Parliament, and the doctrine maintained ' in ail the 'text. hooks of English law, was, that the Houie was 'the sole judge of its own prerogative; From what quarter did they anticipate any resistance' to the judgment of the House ? Could they anticipate what necessity there might be fiir legislating in respect to conspiracy, or in respect to a:Varietfof knitters affecting • public opinion, or they might' require to legislate olireatters of polity ? Would'; he resistance come from the Crown, by the misconduct of Ministers,' or would it come from the courts of justice ? Would it be twee iioned conspiracy ? Who could tell until they knew the rights which might be raised? Who could say what the power might. tie which would require - te be overcome ? How Were they to be prepared for an unkniiwn exigency ? When was the power' to arise vh:ch would be required to meet it? The House had the power. It was impossible to define the privilegei of the House, for it was impossible to define the causes from which resistance might arise. This House then had the powers within itself. What were they? Just what they might require. The privileges of the House were certainly capable of being defined in one sense. They gave whit Was . necessary to meet the exigency of the time, and not one iota more. They had a right to exercise none, but when there was really occasion so to do. Hon. Members had referred to cases of abuse of those privileges. ( Sir T. Wilde) should wish ti know where they were to be found? What abuses had been remedied by the courts of law? 'None. Arid now what did they desire to do? To subject the House to the control of the courts of law. Why? They could' not remedy-the abuses of the Legislature, for the rem e dy f or suc h a b uses was inthe House abine. He said then, that first of all that th is was mis called a privilege in one sense. The qite o s'i r ion re lated to the power vested iii the Comtnon of d lau Commons, and to be txtreise • d • P g orn • f or fo: the com mon the benefit ofthe i weal. What wa , their legitimate poorer as a House of Corti- MOD SI The ',mud privilege seemed to some Hooonrsble . Members to carry whit an • aSss'aelSsi,d as if it wens a mere something for the twr efr of individual Members. But it related to th e psos e r of the House alone. The first instance on which this s ties, inn had arisen would be f suet in a pusisl:ed repsrt it, Jaques. The CiOWli then issued a c,, ietnisso... a presented to the Hittite, and und e r th e aut h o sit s f :he t se, it was printed, in order to justify the Legislature in the course they a ere abut to ether into. Before dealing with such an important subject the House wished to have the necessary in ;ormation before they legislated•on the subject, and therefore it was that this report was furn.shed. The power was stased to be essential to the Very essence of Parliament Nell; and was the . power abused ? 'Whit were the faCts? The House wished to enter into •an investigation, and a witness was desirel iii attend at the bar. 'He refused to do so. What was involved • in;this refusal ? The , public intere s t d e m an d e d t h a t an 'in quiry should be m a de. • There' was no insult offered to the wit. ness. They sent for hint, and he avoided them, and now the question arose as to what they must do to bring the individual before them. - Another' question- was, what were the proper • fornia to bring about this result? They were told that the forms were imperfect. - Their Only power of maintaining their parliamentary authority' was the power of the Speaker to issue his warrant. Was that wrier es firmly fixed now as it had been in previous years? • lie thought not. The authority of Parliament came into their possession at the last election in the state in which it had been held 'for centuries. The - Muse bast maintained its privileges-against every ismilant, and main tained them, too, in - the - very worst of times. They re. covered their parliamentary power 'entire, after having maintained a succeasfut conflh t against all enemies. How came it, then, that that which had kept the House in a state of y*oisr—bow came it that that power was tow . useiess in Bich hands ? Di.l- it not occur to them that they would be required to surrender their trust to their constituents much impaired, and in a very different state from that in which they received it ? That House was the crener- stone o? the arch of the Constitution They were charged with the admiristiation of justice, let' them then do justice to themselies, He mtiels regtetted than the Right Ilsn. Gentleman (Sir R. 11. 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 ()cession quoted the opinion of' the assembled judges at far back as the time of Henry the Sixth; when thee Were asked what was the extent of'the authorrly of the House of Commons ? They replied, that it was trot their province to-do so. The privileges of Par liament_ were known only to ParliaMent. and therefore they .declined to.giste an opinion on the subject. And from' That time to. this, ill the greatest lawyers of the cenntry had held the ;same opinion. In some'eaaes, it' wa: true, that 'the courts of law might - allude •to the privileges of Parliament, but - it could only be done so incidentally, and not directly. What has happened in their own day? In the case of Burdett and-Abbotti which - . the 'House would remember, arose out of a libel (on the':con.titution of the Houses of Parliament, when Parliament - exclted -a not very faiourable impression in the public mind. Sir Francis Burdett when committed, raised the question in the House, acd it decided, that by appearing to plead it did not in any degrescompromite 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 lobe that when the Speaker appeared to plead, the judges would not permit the case to 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 Mr.sHOlropd argued that the House of Commons did not posses the power to commit for libel. The judges decided that ih's House had the power, and' that no court of law could examine into the paivileges of the House or its manner of exercising them. Lord Ellenborough, however, in giving tart judgment, volunteered a strange dictium—" That there might be a case where all law, and justice, and decency. might be set at defiance, • and whets the courts of law might be obl ged to interfere:" It was not easy to say what the Learned Judge nieant when he laid down that extraordinary maxim of law. The Learned Lord had ruled that the House possessed the privilege, and that Court could not inquire into the exercise of it. Why, then, should he put the phypothetical and impossible case, that the House might commit an *Mt against law, and justice, and proprlety.—( Hear, heats) Most certainly, if a case had arisen which that Noble and s Learned Lord thought proper to consider as op posed to his notions of law, and justice, and proprity, and' he had taken the course which was insinuatedf the House of Commons of that day would not have hesitated the 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.—( Hear, hear.) But it was Said that a power so extensive was liable to abuse ; but there was that liability to _abuse in all courts and bodies of "last resort." The . House of Lords might, upon the hearing of an appeal, give away an estate from the rightful owner; but then there was this necessity in human affairs, that there must be a place cf final resort, and society must fake the hazard of whatever error might be committed by that la't tribunal.— ( Hear, hear.) hat other body but Parliament, then, could presume to take upon its If the power of controlling Parliament —the discretion to control Parliament—ire the definition of parliamentary privilege:, or in the mode of exercising them. —( Hear, hear,. hear.) When the Court of Queen's Bench decided against the attempt upon the privileges of the House, Sir Francit 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 etimmunicatim was - ever received by the House upon the subject. 'I hat case of Burdett against Abbot was supposed to establish the authorit of the House.—( Hear, hear.) Next came the case of Stecketale 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 wes a qui stion 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, whenever the, Court- should think proper to inquire into.the right of the Hone to commit et all. Then alone 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 doe cuments as soon as they read them, for they contained libels, and were 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 liw and to the Constiution.—( Hear, hear.) In the presen case Howard avoided the summons of the House. The officers were told at his residence that he was expected to return soon. They suited 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 Rouse should be alloWed to occupy in the discharge of an important duty—in fact, .to what r e c i lk t f e tos t r i . tir il H etah o ra u ,t s privile g es e i g t e h ß,, the execution its own war- it thN n a n rii a ni the n t rmebienr any i o g f h t t h e w da it 9 s g t7 , b t e he done ab b e before C ore o t rus h p eif A a c b t e rn as ig c h n t rp b u e susAsencptnted could i but m rn t w7a n t t be-suspended? 'there must be three sealed bags handed over to a secret tribune, upon whose report Parliament, would proced. Witnesses must be called, and examinud in 'secret. .--(Hear, hear.) Witnesses mutt be compelled to attend, And what would the Court of Queen's Bench do Hear, hear.) . What that Court had now decided that the House had no right to send its officer for three hours to any man's house. What potter had the Court of Queen's to know that there was stah a thing as attendance at the bsr at all ?—(Hear, hear.) What power had that Court to know What wete the motives or the objscts of any proceeding in that House?— ( Hear, hear.) Put to act consistentlyand it seemed that the Court was determined to be consistent—if ever a, question arose for the suspensien 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 acrid for witnesses at all.—(Hear, hear.) They *ere now Old that parliamentary privilege should be subject to revital by the most inferior tribunals. They were told that the Court coul.t determine hew far the Hou-e of Commons might go in.compelling the attea deuce of witnesses. Now, no man more respected the courts of law than he did—no uiati bad a greats r esteem for L'.rd Detiman's high qualities than he had, and no man ,would more rssdily 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 bad the greatest respect and friendship. But with all respect to those Learned 'Judges he could not .admit that Parliamentary proceedings should be subjedt to re vision in the inferior courts That was contrary to all that he .had ever read of Constitutional law. He thought that Parlia h importance : had privileges wen. exercised in cases of f sue that they could pot be quesuond. The law e Parliament, as - hment, was altogether inde pendentfor instance in the cases of impeac _ n Star, and when he looket to the power of the ottual w ' duties which it had to discharge, he s of the House and t was convinced that the interest of the S tate required it sbould have what the Constitution gave it the uncontrolled sigh' of immediately exercising its auth o rity. I he this and cost Learned Getaletnan, oppo site said that the Crown could not do ld not do that. Why, the Crow n cou ld 'issue o Warrant lest it should come into collision With other t :members of the State, and such collision would be resolution.4nem The Rig - ht Hon. Member for Oxford had said that the House oueht to prepare forms, but how could adapt forms to all the c ases that might arise ?--( Hear, hear.) And whom wou ld • -they .consult for drawing up those forms ?—( Hear, hear.) They would find in that very decision upon ''the• Speaker's- - warrant that Justice Wightma was `opposed to Justice Coleridge. -- Justice Williams thought th e warrant was 4,•ed, when Chief Justice Denman pronounced it to be bad—( A laugh)-and steers Justices Wighttnan and Coleridge agreed in thinking the warrant was bad, the Chief JustiCe and Judge Williams pronounced it to be good. Let theist' loiik to their condition. When would they awake? :They had a geheral doctrine asserted, and had -the - extent of their'pOwer under a tesarrant 'revieu ed. 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. Whoever heard of waiting to know the extent Of their 'authority until a moment when they were to de_ termine with promptitude and decision? Were they to wait until' 'Oldie safety was in jeopardy ? Would they - now try them' huthority when' judgment was . pronounced They hever ceatclbe -in abetter position for trying its extent, - His 'll,al. 'and - Learned- Friend' said that the • privilege of the House was 'hot - in question, • He heard that staoement with 'much surprise A A-astonishment. The question -was, whether may issue a warrant containing commonsense directions, and intelligible to a Cornrhon understanding, and whether the va lidity of a warrant 'or - that kind, issued by the direction of the Speaker of the - House, the only Minister through whom they moil act,' was a matter to be cided by the Court al, Queen a Bench. Was it. no 'part of the privileges as to tie Corm it should be in; The basif of the decision was that all-documents 'were subject 'to the same' rule, and the question was whether 'the *arrant of the Speaker of the House of Commons was to be treated in the same wap as a justice's warrant? • Was the Speaket of the House to issue a warrant plain to his own come mon-se ? What was the- present condition of the House of Comm Ons ? They had decision against their privilege. They were in diffiulty to khow horn to act., and as would ask what was it that brought them into that diffi culty. It was their own iatil.ation, because they had not acie'd on those powers Which were vested in them. How did they pet mit the sheriffs to insult them? A sheriff communi cated with him as to whether they were to submit to the authority of the House, and when he recommended theat to do so, and was about to draw up a petition, the Hon. Gentleman opposite directed them not to Pursue that course.---( Heart ) They permitted the sheriffs to insult them by holding levees in the lobby. Were they dealing fairly and honestly, with the public? Was the House fit to be entrusted with the mainte -hancerne of such important and constitutional p rso "e • t ? alked o y f had the course of law laid down for them ; would tell waiting for public opinion on the mattter ;1 lead public he eblic opinion. them that it was the duty of the House to thought eP those privi (Cheers.) They had shown that they _ ,ob,,y i could main min unnecessary tor the public safety; t a that this House had min authority who.acted the weak_fre part every Government acted. It was a difficult case, Id like to offer his powers to give his most humble -a ws old wish to shrieks . fie ssi veu stance in relieving the Govern nntest which no one would lik e to enter- into. meat* It wal c W s tre • they to wait till they brought the 'safety o , f She State into danger? The House had sufficient legitimate power for the present purpose, ' and for come reason ' the y •do not use it. The whole of thi s arose from ••the - elischarge of .tbcrise sherds who levied dig money ias lad Of ay- P ro• the tee . Ai° rr ow , r ing e 11 t° 110 b a • re r o o 0“ be• f ov a ' so 0 of tir' l a for, liii`° o rl be tii• :,..." 1 ,, tO cci;tiji Or e. JO' e e I s t e pli 01 013 10 e r, ~,I to , i. ei rt. i ; lerl‘g 0,43 , 10 3 r )*as 'tlV, :oet"