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

EV RNING EDITION.

• came to the judgment of Lord Holt, which their Lordships
had adopted in the case of Sto&dale v. Hansard, and where
the judgment of the Court in the ease of the Queen v. Patey,
wes proved to be erroneous. The Learned Counsel then
referred to several other cases, in order to show that the
ground of contempt should be set forth in the warrant of
the Speaker, and proceeded. The House of Commons
first alleged that they had a right to Publish libels, and
then they went a step further, and said that any party
proceeding against any of their officers foi the publica-
tion of such libels was guilty of a contempt. He appre-
hended, therefore, that the great ground on which these
privileges, which were so vague in their nature, could be
defended, was the stating the precise ground of contempt.
He submitted that the power of the Houie of Commons
with regard to privilege was limited,—that any assumption
of power on its part could be put down by the authority of
that Court, and to that Court the public looked for its
protection from any arbitrary assumption of power on the
part of the House of Commons. Mr. Watson then
proceeded to point out several objections to the
warrant in point of form. The signature was
—" Charles Shaw Lefevre, Speaker," but it did not
state that he was Speaker of the Ilouse of Commons. An-
other point was, that it was not stated to be "in the House
of Commons," as every order issuing from any court of
law should set forth, as its title or heading, the court *from
which it was issued. These were the arguments he had to
submit to their Lordships ; and it was for them to say whe-
ther the House of Commons should usurp an authority to
which, he contended, they had no title whatever, or whether
the protection of that Court, the highest. Court in the em-
pire, should.be thrown around those individuals who hap-
pened to fall under the displeasure of the House of
Commons.
Mr. KENNEDY followed on the same side; and, aft r
alluding to the painful situation of his clients, the collision
between Parliament and the 'Courts, and the general.
anxiety felt on the subject, declared that he would do his
duty in the painful and onerous situation in which he was
placed.

" Lo:d DENMAN thought that was a topic to which it was
not necessary to refer. There was no doubt every gentle-
man at the bar would do his duty, and so would the Judges ;
but the sole question they had to consider was, whether the
return made to the writ was sufficient?
Mr. KENNEDY was proceeding to detail the circum-
stances attending the conduct of the Sheriffs throughout
the case of Stockdale and Hansard, when he was inter-
rupted by
Lord DENMAN, who requested he would confine himself
to the matter before the Court.
Mr. KENNEDY knew not why any body of persons should
refuse to submit their privileges to the jurisdiction of the
Court. The duty of Parliament was to make laws, but
the Sovereign was the sole executive power, and his power
was delegated to the Judges for the purposes of distribut-
ing justice, and the Crown lent them its ministerial officer
the Sheriff, without whose aid the Court could not
enforce its decrees. It remained to be seen whe-
ther he had to fear opposition in the execution of
his duty from the turbulence of faction and the sa-
tellites of a fierce democracy. He called upon the
Court to protect those Sheriffs, or the law would be
the scorn and mockery of every person in the land. The
Habeas Corpus was conferred by the Common Law for
the protection of the liber'y of the subject. He knew there
were many precedents adverse to it on this occasion, but this
was a case not to be deter mined by a slavish adherence to pre-
cedent. These were rights which precedent did not give, and
which precedent could not take away, and every, argument
which had been used in support of privilege had been used
in support of prerogative, and the question to be considered
was, whether those precedents ought to be overruled. In the
argument on the question of ship money, powerful prece-
dents were advanced in behalf of the crew. The Learned
Counsel then recited several cases which had been brought
forward on that occasion. The Learned Gentleman then

quoted several other cases in support of his argument, that
the cause of committal ought to be sot forth in the warrant.
The case of general warrants was one of a similar kind ;
precedents were quoted in support of them, and yet they
were declared illegal. In the present warrant the cause
of committal was not sufficiently expressed, and therefore
the return was bad, and the Court ought to discharge it.
The House had not exercised their jurisdiction properly;
they ought to have stated the precise nature of the con-
tempt committed, and the Sheriff was not informed in
any judicial way how he could purge the contempt. The
decision in the Queen and Patey, upon which all
adverse precedents depended, was against Magna
Charta, and therefore he impugned it. He denied that
the House of Commons was a superior' Court in the legal
sense to the Court of Queen's Bench. He next contended
that it was competent for him to make use of his affidavits,
rancionf tudstaiovnic; os nt
oti rt apdayi eth but
eumt
appearedot on
techyxa, pt
aft" iden -ntols
Sheriff
froe r t urn,
st
eacmnodpi
ntfront t these
for
the Co
tuh
erwtyas would oud
could
illegal.
egnanolo.
not do
daTol
directly,
he pe rs o
as to
Learned
n and therefore
hudneors
eetflhoatrhtee indirectly
lm'a'rhigtimeehelyntfrom the judgment of the Court in Steckdaleucooarneda
Hansard in support of his argument. If these gentlemen
were not discharged, no one would be found to undertake
the office, and the right arm of the Court would be lopped
off, and this would be the only instance known to the law
of a wrong without redress, be knew not if he was justified
in adding, of a tyranny without resistance.
Lord DENMAN said that he was of opinion that the judg-
ment which had been delivered by the Court in the case
of Stockdale and Hansard, in Trinity Term last, ap-
peared to him to be correct—the decision had not been
appealed against as it might have beety either by carrying
the question by writ of error in the Exchequer Chamber,
or carried to the highest tribunal of the country, the
House of Lords. That decision had been come to on his
part after grave deliberation and calm consideration of the
various arguments addressed to the Court on that occasion,
and if persons felt dissatlsfied with that decision, it was
better to appeal against than to impugn it. He could not
imagine that having consented to submit his plea to the
judgment of that Court, the defendant, if dissatisfied with
their judgment, could refuse to go to the Exchequer
Chamber or to the House of Lords. There could
be no degradation in this course of conduct, and
as it was admitted that the privileges of the House
of Lords were identical with those of the Commons, that
House might be said to have a direct interest in the pro-
ceeding. This would have been a much better course
to pursue than to cast reflections on that judgment without
at the same time adopting measures to get it reversed.
And if the judgment of the Court on the occasion alluded
to had been the reverse of what it was, there was nothing
to prevent Stockdale dragging the defendant before the
Exchequer Chamber on writ of error, and afterwards be-
fore the House of Peers, or rather before the High Court
of Parliament, for on those occasions the Houses of
Peers sat as such, and the presence of the other branch
of the Legislature was always supposed. For his part he
felt no objection to submit that judgment to that superior
tribunal, or to the still .higher tribunal of public opinion.
That case he bad decided according to his opinion of the
law, and according to the best of his judgment. On the
present question he should also decide upon the strict
construction of the law of the case. It was a writ of Ha-
beas Corpus, directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms of
the House of Commons, directing him to bring up the bo-
dies of two gentlemen whom he had in his custody, and to
explain the cause of their committal. The return stated
that they were committed by the warrant of the Speaker
for a contempt and breach of the privileges of the House
of Commons. Three objections had been made to this
return ; first, that the warrant did not set forth the nature
of the contempt, but from the various precedents adduced
he must come to the opinion that it was unnecessary that
the writ should state on the face of it the particular fact
which constituted the contempt; had it stated what the
contempt was the Court might have adjudicated upon it,
but such not being the case, they were bound to treat the
commitment as valid. The next ground was that there
was no resolution, of the House directing the Speaker to
issue his warrant. This he thought of no importance, for
the House having declared these gentlemen guilty Of con-
tempt the Speaker had full authority to issue his warrant for
'the committal. The third objection was, it was not dated
from the House of Commons, and that the participle
"having," did not refer sufficiently to the earlier part of the
warrant to show that the House of Commons was meant.
He could not forget, however, that the Court had very re
centlydecided that the participle in a similar case, did
possess the force which the Learned Counsel here con-
tended it ought not to po4scss; and as it was directed to •
the Sergeant-at-Arms of` the House of Commons, he
thought that was sufficiently explicit. His Lordship
then went minutely through the different cases which had

been adduced, said he could not imagine that as bad been
insinuated the nature of the contempt had been studiously
kept out of the writ, in order to prevent the Courtirom
adjudicating upon the question ; he could cot think that
any one would advise the House of Commons to pursue
such a line of conduct, or that that House would consent to
adopt it. Sure he was, if such were the case, that those who
had aided, would on reflection bitterly regret the adoption of
a course of conduct, the effect of which would be to pre-
vent two gentlemen, their fellow-countrymen, from being
set at liberty. On these grounds he was of opinion that
the Sheriffs must be remanded back to custody.
The other Judges concurred 'and the Court adjourned.
The Sheriffs were then removed from the Court by Sir
William Gossett, and were taken through the entrance at
the end of Westminster Hall into the House of Commons.
They were repeatedly cheered in their progress up the
Hall.

The news of the death of Cabrera is generally
believed at Saragossa, Espartero's head-quarters.

. -
SOUTHWARK ELECTION.--S 0 confident were
the leading Tories of success, that, we are assured, a certain
Alderman, who possesses more wealth than wit, lost to the tune
of a thousand pounds in bets of five to one on Mr. Walter's
return.