The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-19 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL begged leave to call
the attention of the House to a matter of importance
affecting the privileges of the House. The House would
of course understand that he alluded to the recent
ecision in the Court of Queen's Bench in the
action of Howard. Against Gossett. Howard having
been taken into custody on the a arrant of the Speaker,
issued by order of the House. It wou'd be in the recol-
lection of the House, that in the year 1840, in conse-
quence of proceedings instituted by a person named
Stockdale against the Messrs. Hansard, the printers
to the House, it• was considered necessary that
Howard, who conducted those proceedings as the
attorney of Stockdale, should attend at the bar to be
examined. Howard had malice to that effect, but he
did not attend or pay any respect to the notice. In
consequence of that contempt an order was made by
the Hcuse that he should be brought up in custody of
the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Speaker's warrant was
issued accordingly. He was taken into custody upon
that warrant, and subsequently he brought an action
against the Assistant-Sergeant and others of the
officers for excess in the execut:on of the warrant.
The sole complaint against the officers was, that they
had been guilty of excess ; and upon that complaint the
House came to the decision that the officers be per-
mitted to appear and plead to the action. They pleaded
accordingly ; the case came on for trial in the Court of
Queen's Bench, merely on- the general issue of the de-
nial of the fact. The jury were of opinion that the
officers bad been guilty of excess, and found a verdict
against them for 100 L That the 1001 and the costs were
paid by the House. In the year 1843, Mr. Howard com-
menced the action in question against the sergeant, and
communication of the fact was made by the Sergeant-at-
Arms to the House. Ills (the Solicitor-General)
Honourable and Learned Friend, the Attorney- General
moved that the notice which had been given should be
printed, and on the following day he proposed to the
House that the Sergeant-at-Arms should be at liberty
to plead to the action. That proposal gave rise to a con-
siderable debate. That debate was adjourned, and ulti-
mately the House came to the resolution that Sir W. Ges-
set have leave to appear and defend the action brought
against him by Mr. T. B. Howard for trespass. After
that, the House agreed to another resolution,' that Wil-
liam Bellamy have leave to defend the action brought
against him, and that the Attorney-General be directed
to defend Sir William Gosset and William Bellamy.
Upon that authority several pleas were put on the
record in the action of Howard against Gesset; and,
gripping those pleas of their technicalities, the effect
was, that the 'imprisonment which had been com-
plained of was to be-justified by the authority of the
Speaker's warrant. In those pleas there was a demurrer,
and on that demurrer an argument took place in the
Court of Queen's Bench, in the month of November
last. The Judges appeared to have entertained
very considerable doubt on the subject, for they took
time to consider their opinion, and did not deliver their
judgment until Thursday last. When they pronounced
judgment, the majority of the Judges were of opinion
that the pleas constituted no sufficient justification
of the complaint contained in the plaintiff's declaration.
In that judgment, however,- Mn Justice Williams dif-
fered from the majority of the judges. • But of course it
would be premature to discuss that part of the subject
further until the whole of the proceedings were before
the House. However, it would be right of him to say
that the judger, one and all, had stated that their
decision did not in any way refer to any of the
privileges of this house, but to the fact of the
Sergeant-at-Arms having exceeded the authority vested
in him by the House.—(Hear, hear.) Now he would
suggest that before the House took any proceedings in
reterence to this subject, they should have before
them all the proceedings in reference to the trial,
and therefore he would move that copies of
the record and of the short-hand-writers' notes
should be laid before it. It would be nett ssary that the
House should proceed upon the matter as speedily as
possible, in order to come to a determination. But in
the mean time he would state what the steps were
which the plaintiff could take. The plaintiff was
now at liberty to enter what was technically
called an interlocutory judgment, and then pro-
ceed to assess damages, first having served an eight-
days' notice. Now, as it was impossible to say how soon
the plaintiff might enter upon judgment, it would be
advisable that the House should proceed with as
little delay as possible, because, after the damages
had been assessed, the plaintiff might sue for
final judgment, and proceed to levy the damages on the
goods of the defendant. Under these circumstances he
(the Solicitor-General) felt a great degree of anxiety
upon the subject, and how necessary it would be for
the House to act promptly upon it. But at the same time
they should act with calmness and deliberation, and
take care they had all the necessary material for so doing
before them. He found, upon referring to the case of
Stockdale, • that Lord Campbell, the then Attorney-
General, moved for a Committee of this House upon
that occasion ; and he (the Solicitor-General) did think
it would be extremely desirable to follow a simi-
lar course on the present occasion, and therefore be
would be prepared to move a resolution to that effect.
And then he would propose, in terms of that resolu-
tion, that a Select Committee should be appointed, for
the purpose cf inquiring into the proceedings in the
case of Howard and Gossett, and then to report their
decisions and observations thereupon to the House. He
(the Solicitor-General) would be prepared, in the
course of the evening, -to lay on the table of the house
the names of the proposed Committee, so that the House
might come to a decision upon the subject.
The Committee was agreed to.
Lord HOWICK said that he did not object to the
motion of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman the
Solicitor-General, but he could not help saying that the
present position of the House realised the remarks
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester (Sir T.
Wilde) on a former occasion. He said that when he re-
collected the weak and pusillanimous coarse which the
House had on a former occasion adopted, and were now
proceeding to adopt, he found it only realising the
opinion expressed by that Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
They were dragged on step by step till they lost all their
privileges by their submissive concessions to the courts
of law.

Sir R. 11. INGLIS seid that he had not intended to
have said one word upon that occasion, but when ho found
the Noble Lord taunting the Legislature of the Country
with pusillanimity and weakness, he for one could not
sit still in his place without replying to him. He (Sir
R. H. Inglis) was present in the Court of Queen's Bench,
and he could verify the assertion of the Noble and
Learned Gentleman, that the Learned Judges there did
not decide against the warrant as a warrant, but they ob-
jrcted to it that no specific object was mentioned in it.
If the observation of the Noble Lord were correct it
was suffi2ient that the Sergeant-at-Arms should come
to the place and seize the first Peer of the realm. He
hoped that the House would not have the pusillanimity
to deal otherwise with inferior persons. If the powers
of the House be good for Justice Coleridge and Justice
Iknman they were good for every Justice. If he wished to
strugele with the Courts ef law, he would bring the
Lord Chief Justice before the bar of the House, instead
of the sheriff, or any other Ministerial officer. Every
other warrant specified the case and the time that the
person should remain in custody. The warrant did not
constitute such authority as they acted on in the name of
the Queen.—The motion was then put and carried.

-MAYNOOTIL
Sirß. INGLIS presented petitions from several places
in. England, Scotland, and Wales, against the grant to
May nooth, from several Presbyteries in Scotland, which
were signed on behalf of them by the Moderators.
Mr. BANKES presented petitions from divers places
in Smersetshire, Wiltshire, and various other places,
against the grant.
Lord BERNARD presented petitions from places in
Ireland to a similar ettict.
Mr. PATTESON presented several petitions against
the grant.
Mr. SHAW, from Dublin and other places, to a like
effect.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented petitions
from several places in the north of England against the
grant, one signed by 20,000 people, and he thought it
would be right to state the prayer t.f this
petition. The
petitionerss stated that they were opposed to all State
grants, and especially to the present, because it would tend
to the endowment of the Catholic priesthood. At the
same time they expressed their strong dislike to the
Established Church in Ireland, which had been sustained
against the feelings of the people.
Sir Thomas Spry, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Stuart Wortley,
and Lord Castlereagh, presented petitions from various
places in England and Ireland to a similar effect.
Sir R. PEEL presented petitions from Limerick and
other places in favour of the grant.
Mr. HINDLEY presented a great number of petitions
from various places in England against the grant.
Sir 11. Raiford, Mr. Darby, Mr. Duncan, and Colonel
Wood presented petitions against the grant.
, .An Hex, MEXBZII (whose name we could not learn)