The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-28 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,JAbr. 27.
PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT.
It having been understood that the return to the writ of
liabeas corpus, obtained in the case of the Sheriffs of
London on Friday last would • be made this day, at three
o'clock, all the avenues leading to the Court were densely
crowded in every part. At a few minutes past three the
Sergeant-at-Arms (Sir Wiliam Gossett), the Deputy-
Sergeant, and two other officers of the House of Commons,
came into Court with/ the Sheriffs, the crowd in the
vicinity of the Court/cheering them loudly as they pro-
ceeded through the passages. The Sheriffs, who were
in their state robes, were aceontuneteeted with seats in the
small box en the right of the Judges, and Sir Wm. Gossett
sat in the box behind them. There were some demon-
strations cf applause after the Sheriffs had taken their
seats, which were immediately 'repressed by the
officers of the Court. Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Humphreys,
and several other Members of the House of Commons and
of the Corporation of the City of London were present.
At ten minutes past three o'clock Lord Denman and
Justices Littledale, Williams, and Coleridge took their
scats on the beuch.
Sir WILLIAM GoSsETT immediately rose and said—My
Lords, I appear here with a return to the writ of Habeas
Corpus from this Court to produce the bodies of William
Evans end John Wheelton, Esqrs., who were now before
the Court.
The return, which set forth the Speaker's warrant for
the commitment of the Sheriffs for, contempt of the privi-
leges of the House of Commons, was then handed in and
read by the officer of the Court.
Lord DENMAN—You wish to make some exceptions to
the return, Mr. Richards?
Mr. RiettAuDs—Yes, my Lord, I first move that .he re-
turn be.filecl.
This having been done,
Mr. RIGUARD3 rose and said, on behalf of the Sheriffs
he now moved that the Sheriffs be discharged from cus-
tody. He should, in his observations, confine himself as
shortly as possible to the • matter before them, but it was
necessary to advert to some of the grounds on which the
writ of habeas corpus had been sued out, and the position
in which these gentlemen were placed. He should also
refer to the decision which the Court had come to in the
case of Stockdale v. Hansard, and the consequences that
resulted from it. It appeared that the House, after appeal-
ing-, to the law, and finding that that law was against
them; had resorted to the present most extraordinary
proceedings. The House having in the present case acted
directly contrary to law, it was now left to their
decision what stops they should take to vindicate the law.
He would now move for the discharge of these gentlemen
on three distinct grounds :—First, he contended the
Court was bound to inquire into the truth of the statement
in the return; secondly, that the contempt of which they
stood charged was not set forth in the return ; and,
thirdly, that there had been no legal jurisdiction shown
by the House for holding any person in custody. He
would now call their attention to the resolutions of tho
House of Commons, and it would be evident at once that
they had been compelled to resort to a miserable subter-
fuge, because, in the first case, the contempt alleged was
having executed the writ of Fi. Fa., while it was subse-
quently alleged to be their not having paid the money over
to the, Messrs. Hansard. Now, with respect to the first
point, he would refer their Lordships to the Stith ceo. 111.
chap. 100, to show that they were authorised to inquire
into the facts set forth in the return. The third
section provided that in all cases other than
criminal, in which writs of habeas corpus were sued
out, the Court was authorised to inquire into the facts set
forth in the return. Ile had, therefore, only to show that
the charge against these two most respectable gentlemen
was not cr minal. It could not for one moment be con-
tended that the contempt of which the House of Commons
had found them guilty could be considered a crime. A
variety of cases had been already before the Courts, founded
upon that construction of the third section, and even the
privileges of the House of Commons in the case of the
King v. Hobhou e, had been brought under the considera-
tion of the Court on the same ground. In the case of Hob-
house it was ruled that the Judges would be subjected to a
penalty of 5004 for refusing to grant the writ. Sir J. Hob-
house was accordingly brought up and remanded bythe Court
for the reasons assigned in the decision of the Chief Justice.
This judgment showed that according to the judgment of
Court at that time he did not stand in any criminal position ;
and as the Ssrgeant-at-Arms had not made any affidavit
in the case, he was surely at liberty to show that the cause
of commitment was not fairly stated. The case of Bar-
dett v. Abbott was before the passing of this Act ; in
Hobhouse's case it was not pleaded. On this - first
point, therefore, he submitted, that he was en-
titled to investigate the matter on affidavit, and as
the affidavits remained unanswered these gentlemen
were entitled to their discharge. There were many con-
tempts which were riot crimes 2* indeed the generality of
• contempts- were not crimes. If the- House-of Chmtreons
made a general return they must be bound by it, and they
were bound to show that the contempt was a crime. As
no gentleman at the bar had been opposed to him, he felt
a difficulty in addressing the Court on this subject. As-
suming his right to controvert the return, it would
appear from the affidavits that the contempt Of
which these gentlemen were accused, was, in fact, an
obedience to the orders of that Court. It appeared to him
that the objects of the framers of that Act was that every
warrant, except issued by a Court of Record, should set
forth the ground of the committal. If the resolutions of
the House were looked into, it would appear that the os-
tensible cause was a pretext, bet the real cause was their
refusal to pay over the !Loney to Messrs. Hansard, and
therefore he assumed that that which they were com-
mitted for was not what the House of Commons
said they were committed for. Was it because the warrant
stated the result, and not the causes of the commitment,
that the latv should be trifled with, and this Act of Parlia-
ment set at nought. Suppose bad times should revive,
and the first law officer of the Crown, forgetful of the duty
he owed to the Court, should advise the House of Com-
mons to make this return to shield themselves—not that
he would impute such conduct to the Attorney-Ge-
neral ; he was too straightforward to do so, but the
Court should look to all the tricks that might be
practised to prevent the interference of the Court.
Ile now came to his second objection, and he would con-
tend that there was no distinction between an attachment
issued out of that Court, and a commitment for contempt
of the privileges of the House. Now the warrant of com-
mitment, both in law and equity, invariably recited the
cause of commitment. There were only three cases in
which the House of Commons had ventured to commit
without assigning the cause. These cases were the cases
of Capt. Shelter, which had been very fully commented on
in Stockdale and Hansard, and the two cases of Lord
Shaftesbury and Alexander Murray. The question was,
had the House of Commons any general right to commit?
They might as well commit a man for wearing a white hat
in Cornwall,. as to declare a privilege generally to commit
for contempt without any cause being assigned. He would
ask what ground could there be for refusing to set forth
the ground of commitment? Had they been told not
to do so ? Had they been told that the commit-
ment would be illegal if the ground of commitment
had been set forth ? The three most modern cases of
Crosby, Burdett, and Hobhouse were all in favoor of his
position, that the ground of commitment should he set
ferth. The warrant of the speaker recited that the House
of Commons had resolved that these. gentlemen had
committed a contempt of the privileges of the house, and
that they therefore be taken into custody. But where was
the authority of the Speaker for issuing that warrant ?
Could he do so of his own mere motion? Certainly not—
he was for such purposes no more than any other member
of that house. The commitment was !‘ during the plea-
sure of the house," but what house did it refer to—was it
the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or what house
was it. In the three cases he had referred to of Crosby,
Burdett, and Hobhouse, the words were, during the plea-
sure of the said house, and if that had been done in the
present case,and for same grounds, best known to themselves,
they had departed from the oriinary form of the warrant.
On these three grounds, therefore, he prayed that these
gentlemen be discharged. No man who understood the
law would say but that they ought to pay the money to
Stockdale, and no man could say but that they had endea-
voured most conscientiously to do their duty, and the
House of Commons, if there was to be a conflict, ought
not to have committed their subordinate agents, while the
Attorney and Counsel were passed over ; and he asked if
it was possible for any gentlemen to be more free from
blame than they were? Their crime was, that they had
obeyed their oath, had done their duty, and had done all
they could do to deserve the praise of every honest man.
All he asked the Court to do was, that they might be dis-
charged from custody. They asked no more—they felt
that this Court would best vindicate the outraged justice
of the country, and relieve the anxiety of countless num-
bers who were now looking to this Court alone fcr their
rescue from a tyranny the most odious that ever itnpended
over a free country.
riteesrpahelacl
ydt
Mr. sti followed oni
whichtt
she P sraomvh
iiessi
esLindeseam.r
nuesdt Withb eFriendl
Gsnehomrgietteldllt.h,atto
crteoornetshrtrereusdedhhaes regards the present case. or merely as the ministerial officers of that CourtF the Sheriffsactin had been voted
Co guil
m monsty of a contempt of the privileges of the
House of . Now he contended that if the sub
stantial cause of contempt had been set forth in the warrant
the Court was fully justified in investigating and ascot—
he
in theh
agdr out Ent d assigned
i g n
tend
thew was
objectionta ing if
warrantgood rinses.
that
Thet firsts
not alleged that the Sheriffs had committed
any coanttelmwpat.
Another objection which he wished to point out to their
Lordships was that there was no resolution of the House
directing the Speaker to issue his warrant ; and further
he would urge that it did not distinctly appear that that
was an order of the House of Commons. If the
Court decided that the ground of commitment should
not be set forth, then he feared that the privilege,
if privilege it were, would lead to very serious
mischief, and be capable of great abuse and oppression.
He would now call their attention to the fountain from
whence all the authorities on the point of a general
power of commitment sprung—that was Lord Shaftesbury's
case, which occurred in 1677, and yet it could not be con-
sidered a very strong one in point of authority, because
three years afterwards the House of Commons resolved
umdogness,
that the House of Lords had acted improperly. In the
case of the Queen v. Patev, which occurred subsequently,
and which was a commitment by the (louse
of
the ground of contempt was set forth, and the thCreoern judges
who. gave an opinion on .it cbscrved, that they tould not
inquire into the facts of the case, when the ground alleged
was a contempt of the privileges of the House. He now