The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-05 00:00:00

Mr. l'EsteEtroNtaPPea;d for the plaintiff and said
it was an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court
of Newfoundland uader these circumstances. On the
6th of August, IS3B, the plaintiff met with a Mr. Kent,
who was a Member of the House of Assembly, in the
streets of St. John, they had some disagreement, and a 1..,
plaintiff was induced to apply some very harsh and se-
vere language to Mr. Kent. The plaintiff denied that
the language applied at all to the House of Assembly or
its proceedings, but Mr. Kent went on the same day and
made a complaint to that body that Mr. Kielley had
been guilty of contempt of the House. On the motion
of Mr. Kent the House resolved itself into a Committee
of Privileges, and without summoning or hearing any
defence from him, they proceeded to examine witnesses,
and then resolved that he had been guilty of a breach of
their privileges, and he was ordered to be taken into
custody. On the 7th the appellant was brought up to
the Bar of the House, and he was ordered to make an
apology dictated by the House, or to remain in custody
till he did so. He declined to make the required apo-
logy, and he was again guilty of using some hasty words
to Mr. Kent before the Assembly. He was remanded
into custody. He applied for, and having obtained a writ
of Habeas Corpus, he was discharged on the 13th. In
the following tetra he commenced his action for false
imprisonment, asa4ult-i- leant flattery. - The de ftfri dan t
pleaded the resolution of tIA-11ouse of Assembly as a
justification, and after bearing the facts argued upon
demurrer, the Court, by a majority of 3 to 1, held the
justification to be good, and in that shape the case now
came before their Lordships. He had to contend that
the appeal ought to be allowed-Ist, Because the House
of Assembly did not possess by law the power of .r-
-resting and imprisoning, as for breach of privilege. 2d,
That supposing the power to exist, it can, at any rate,
only be exercised as against its own members, and not
as against strangers, for alleged contempt committed
out of doors. 3d, That no breach of privilege was in
fact committed, or alleged to have been committed by
the appellant before the first warrant was issued ; on
the contrary, it is presumeable, from the tenor of the
warrant itself, set forth in the pleas, that the appellant's
conduct had no relation to the House, and could Lot
amount to a breach of privilege ; and the Court below
was not by law precluded from examining into the al-
leged contempt, to ascertain whether it were or were
not a breach of privilege. 4th, That supposing the
power of commitment to exist, the manner of exercis-

ing it in the present instance was illegal, the Assembly
having resolved itself into Committee upon the com-
plaint of the aggrieved party, and having examined
witnesses against the appellant in his absence, and
finally arrested and imprisoned him as a criminal,
without first summoning him to appear, or call-
ing upon him for his defence, which, as the
appellant submits, is contrary to every principle of
justice, and cannot be vindicated on any pretence of
privilege. sth. That the proceeding was also illegal,
because the warrant did not purport to be found upon
the offence of which complaint was made, and of which
the appellant was declared guilty, but described the
supposed offence in a diffaent manner. 6th. Because

the appellant was ordered to be imprisoned tincif—he
should make such an apology as the House should dic-
tate ; an order clearly beyond the power of the Assembly
to make, even supposing it to possess the right of com-
mitment ; and, lastly, because, in point of pleading,
several of the pleas are bad, as they purport to justify
without confessing the battery. The Learned Gentle-
man said there was a very great difference between the
colony of Newfoundland and the other provinces in
America. The former was a settled colony—the
others were conquered. It bad always been
held as good law, that all settlers took
the common law of England, and the very first principle
of it was security to the subject against all power but
the law. The Learned Counsel contended that any
power or authority possessed by the House of Assembly
of Newfoundland must have existed from its constitu-
tion in 1832, and that the Proclamation by which it was
constituted recognised no such power. The House of
Assembly was incorporated by the Crown for the pur-
poses of local legislation, precisely in the same manlier
as corporations were conferred upon the city of Lon-
don, Liverpool, Manchester, and other large toe ns.
The House of Assembly' giounded its authority upon
its analogy to the House of Commons of that country,
but ne one would assert that the House of Commons,
as such, had the power of commitment for contempt ;
nor could it be supposed that the Crown would dele-
gate so monstrous a power to a merely legislative body.
The power of commitment possessed by the House of
Commons was enjoyed by it in virtue of its being a
part of Parliament, and in accordance with the law and
custom of Parliament. The House of Assembly could
not arrogate to itself the title of a high Court of Par-
liament for any such purpose. He was at a loss to
know, therefore, upon what grouuds the analogy rested.
The House of Commons was an ancient, immemorial
Court ; while the House of Assembly was a body con-
stituted by the Crown for particular specific purposes.
It never was contemplated, and indeed would be at-
tended with the most dangerous consequences, to en
trust so large a {power to a remote colonial legislative
Assembly.
At four o'clock the Committee rose, and the further
hearing of the case was adjourned till this day.

THE BISHOP OF EXETER AND
THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SlR,—Relying on your courtesy, I have ventured to re-
mark, through the medium of your enlightened columns,
on the exultation with which certain Journals are retailing
the anecdote of the Duke of Wellington having said, at
an education meeting, that unless the principles of religion
(Query—which religion?) were the basis of a popular
education, that the population would only turn out a set of
clever devils. The Bishop of Exeter is reported to be
the narrator of the sentiment at a late meeting in the west
of England.

After much converse with the intelligent part of the
community in all parts of this kingdom and Scotland, I
can venture to apprise the Duke of Wellington and the
Bishop of Exeter that, however much..they may be re-
strained, from motives of respect or prudence, from giving
an open opinion on the subject, the general sentiment
among that class I have just mentioned, and whose opinion
is worth having, is that man, even in this life, is destined
for higher purposes than to be the dupe of priests of any
persuasion, and that this opinion is rapidly gaining grouild.
I am, your Subscriber,
A TRAVELLER OF THIRTY YEARS'
STANDING.
Newark-upon Trent, Jan, 2, 1841.