The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-25 00:00:00

PRIVILEGES OF COMMITTEES OF TUE HOUSE

OF COMMONS.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Duress via Law Cum liasom aen A Senvie. ham
LIVER O. Luxe CHARLEK
. . .

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, • butler in
the service of the Earl of Vernlam, and one of the voters of
the Borough of St. Alban's, against the defendant, a. Ser-
jeant-A-Arms of the Mouse of Coalmen., for having taken
into custody and imprisoned the plaintiff', under a warrant
from the chairman (E. Ellice, jun., E.q.) of a committee
appointed by the house to try the validity of the
return of Mr. Jacob Bell as a member for St. Alban's, upon
the petition of Alderman Sir It. Carden, the rejected candi-
date. The plaintiff was produced as a witness before the
committee, but refused to answer any questions tending to
shoo, bribery hail been practised, upon which refusol the
committee, under the powers vested in them by the statute
of the II and Victoria, cap. 9s, the tart section giving
the power, issued their warrant by the chairman, directed
to the Serjeant-at-Arms, to take the plaintiff into custody,
upon which the Deputy-tierjeant immediately took the
plaintiff into his custody, and kept him until discharged by an
trice of the committee. The defendant pleaded such warrant
and order as a justification.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff; and
the Attorney-General for the defendant.
Mr. James, in opening the ease, contended that the chair-
man of the committee, who had issued the warrant, Iced no
power to do so, without, in the first instance, obtaining the
.annctimhof the Mouse of C and a *errant signed by
the speaker of that house. Upon tlls warrant plaintiff was
taken into custody on the Friday, but on the Monday be was
discharged by the hou.e. The warrant vet out that the
plaintiff had misconducted himself before a committee
and prevaricated in giving evidence, and refused to answer
questions put to him. That was a question more for the
th•cisioii of the house itself than the committee, the house
alone being the judge of that matter. The learned counsel
said he believed it would be contended that a committee of
I the house had the same powers as the house, though the
Sicaker, to issue a warrant, but there was a greet die-
" tinction between the two authorities, as decided in
various eases from the time of the celebrated rose of Wilkes
down to that of Howard T. Gossett. The authority of the
committee was under statute, whilst that of the house was
• that of the constitution.
• The Lord Chief baron here interposed, and asked the
learned counsel whether he did not think a special case
would he the best mode of trying the qui stMn.
t Mr. James replied by saying he was quite neatly to adopt
• that course. . • . . .

Ihe Attorney-General said, before doing so, they must
tint agree upon the facts.
The Lord Chief Baron—Nu doubt, hut I may express my
opinion that the proceedings of the committee, nr any war-
rant issued by them, is entitled to the same authority so an
order of the house, equal to that of the warrant of any court
in Westminater•hall. 'fhe course of modern legislation
and modern decisions was against any technical objection to
such warrants. What was the real truth and common sense
messing of the matter? The committee had no doubt
the right to ezereise its authority with respect to the pre•
varicatinn of the witness, and were the proper judges as
to the issuing of the warrant and placing him in custody.
In my opinion the warrant justified the defendant in taking ,
the plaintiff into custody, and that was a sufficient justifica-
tion; and I shall therefore at once stop the ca-e, and simply
direct the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff, with nomi-
nal damages on the first issue, and for the defendant on the
plea of justification.
Mr. E. James agreed to the ruling of the learned baron,
but tendered a bill of exceptions, so that tha point of law
as to the powers of the committee might be discussed and
decided elsewhere.
Ihe Learned Judge then directed the jury to find a ver-
dict for the plaintiff on the first issue, and for the defendant
on the second.
The jury returned a verdict accordingly, with 40s. da-
mages en the first issue.