The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-21 00:00:00

A cents, and as his Courpel had a•tended, he thought the Homo
would go beyond its usual pr .ctice if it entertained the petition.
Mr. C W. WYNN said that the petition prayed of the Man.
House to take the rase or the petitioner into consideration, and do
jugiee in his ease. Then was a.** the copy of a letter attached to
it, and no petition could be received with any paper attached td it.
The House might. if It pleased, tali for the paper, ancdhave the
hand-writin proved.
Mr. AHIRCftuMRY said thit the conduct of the petitioner
was the most extraordinary and irregular posable. The flou,o
had resolved iateif into a t'dmmittee .0 inqtere into Mr. Renrirife
conduct; his Couneel and Agent hid attended. and had had an
opportunity of producing eery fact before the House; but if any
fact had been omitted to be stated, it could have been done by
Counsel. For Mr.Kenrick, after the whole case had been gone into,
to come down to the House *ith a peiitton, was the most irregular
and extraordinary proceeding that ever took place. The Chair bad
stated the anxiety of the !loose to give the petitioner every proper
latitude; but what was the sltitatioh of Mr. Peterill? If tb re had
been any ground for doing so could he not have been cross-se.
'mined ? Mr. Peters wAs a gentleman of the greatest respect*.
bility and a 31agistrre, e.'nd whose testimony stood trampreched
benne the House and the country, and it would be highly improper
to take any stiventent of fact. from that petition to be true and just
in the absence of Mr. Peters. The Hon. Oentleman said that he
was sure the House, to sense dr jiistice, would never entertain
the petition.

The SPEAKER fetid then, was a double objection to receiving
the petition ; the first etas its containing the copy or a letter, and
the second that the letter itself was an original one and in ea,
lstence.

Slr. Secretary PEET/ said that If any obstruc•inn of jystferg
were to take place from rejecting the petition, the House perhaps
would pulse in doing so ; hut if the petition was withdrawn, there
would he no objection to receiving a statement when the subjei3
came again under discussion.

PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. lIOLFORD said he had been served with a summons to
sttend on a Jury in the Court of ExchNt cr. but he understood
that by the last Act passed, called the Jury Act, there was an
express exemption for Members of Parliament.
Mr. SCARLETT was understood to ,ay that he did not know,
of any each exemption.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scarier.)
could sorely not be ignorant of, or so great a torttrger to, the
vilegea of Parliament. as not to know that a Member could not be

called upon in serve on any Jury during the sining of Parliament.
The duty of attending Paelitment wan partinount to all other.,
which must he sufficiently a matter of nontriety. The questien
was not a new one; for though privileged during the sitting of
Parliament, the privilege did not extend when i: was not sitting :
and that had been decided by Lord liardwi ke, in the case ut the
then Member for Shoreham. Lord Ilardwicke was sating at Nisi ,
Prins. and the Hon. 3lember wan summoned to attend on a Jury.
Conceiving himself privileged Lem attending, he ne,tiected :co dx
so. and Lord Hardwick:: tined him, on the char understanding
that he was privileged during the sitting of iatharuent, and at 02
other time.
Mr. ELLICE said he could state that he had had the misfortune
to be fined ; and that all his efforts to relieve himself from it had
been ineffictual. the Court of Exchequer would Ilse,: the ti e.
Mr. 11E1tRIES raid the words of the Act clearly intended to
protect Members of Parliament during the sitting : :f ;hoe were
any doubts nn the subject they certainly ought to be cle4red up.
Mr. A DERCRO3IBY said that as there was a question
raised, he hoped the next Act would include a precise eseinptica
of Members during the sitting of Parliament.
Mr. SCAR LL l'T thought that a Committee of Privileges wee
flit:pont competent authority on a subject like tae present; if the
point of privilege grew out set an Act of Parlian;ei t the cast
might be otherwise
" Mr. WILLIAMS said that whatever mistake minht have arisen
upon the present subject, he was decidedly of opitiMa thst when
Member of Parliament was retending•to tae duttes as a Member or
that llou•e. either in the House itself or in a 'private Committee,
he was exempted from attendance on any other Court. Ile cons'.
dered that the authority of Parlinfnent overruled that of the inferio:
courts, The Court of Exchequer eutertained a eontrary opinion :
he did not, hOwever, feel less confident in the correctness of the view
Ile had taken.
Mr. PEEL sled that a Committee of Priel7egcs could remove ail
doubt on die point, and not have morn for tiny piwaibility of cavil
on the subject. A physician, while practising, was by law exctot.t
twin attending en Courts of Justice as Jura: but though he had
taken care of that phut in the Itiq he irtroenced into the House.
; he did not like to tread on the heelsof the privileges of Parliamen,.
lie would therefore move, " That the objeetion ►.erefrmd to &
tCommittee of Privileges, to sit to.tnormw."—Agreed to.