The Sun.
London, England, 1810-05-12 00:00:00

nentr
malt
ct its
their
'Doing

De"
iroJi)
Qi

i 3

+IOC
coj-
fie

la

0 Lls9°

ro'

,15'

L~ ~;H
u~5~

!iet;;
iell
ireit
004

IL. 11

lica-
fiod

°cid
SJth
wed

t-1-``

llntliputed precedents could-make it. That House
~,e'°,;lll‘l commit for libel,. it was impossible to.deny.
there was no L`rgoing against it; for it could
n,ot be rebutted by any 'evidenCe less than its'Af.E--
ike usage i•f Parliament Was, as. it were, a deed In
e,idetice not, to be defeated .by moral testimony to
!11,, contrary. He could not say, that tl!e House .
Lad Ito such right, because their 'records said they
so that he was .(to' Make use. of a law term),
e,,,3fopPed from denying the fuelum, to, which, as a
4,lember of that House; he was a party. But there
• aceil a gOod teal Of, declamatory noise about
the invasion of the liberty of the subjede There
had lived before them men, as 'much attached to
!he -right of personal liberty as any the pre,ent
Alines could boast. When the Habeas corpus., Act
41id 14e Bur of Rights were passed into. laws,
;lid -the men whose public virtue consigned this
Invaluable legacy an Englishmen for ever—did
Alley feel it necessary to come 'forward and Clain) of
that House the redemption of the liberty of. the suh-
leet from the teazing tyranny of their caprice ? Did
they-express . their apprehensions of. very undue
PQ-wers.issurned .by: the House of Commons ? Did
they feel any alarm, at -our privileges, oe think those
Privileges -incompatible with the liberties they were
created to secure ? He had already spoken to the
tight—Ao the necessity, of vesting a discretioeary
Povier 'somewhere in every government. The
Qoustitution vested -that discretion in them; but it
Was Objeded--:the Constitution vested it no where
else.;- and where, he would ask, in such a Go-
verntnent as: this—where could that discretion be
toore.2,properlyr vested than in the Commons Re-
Presentatives of a free Oeople?Were the great.
men 'who-- Worked out' the salvation of our fiber-
,t'es.i in the expulsion of. the' 'Stuarts '-from the
Throne; and in the establishment of the Constito-
tion--were they hostile, either in principle or edn-
°ation, to the personal liberty of the subjeCt ? Was
Ahe great‘Lord Somers a friend to arbitrary power in
shy shape?' Was the able Sir William Maynard an
'nerny-to -the-Constitution ? Was Sir Joseph Jekyl
man indifferent to 'the rights and privileges of Erig-
'shnien ? Did these' men, upon" the memorable
tittestion of the Kentish Petition—did. they for one.
kloinent entertain a doubt of the legal and constitu-
tional right of that House to commit for libel? Did
enY One of them question the privileges of that House?
id they not rather give to them - the weight
°lits their united aut.,orities ? When Lfind, said Mr.
isc?ilsenby, the privileges-of this House sanctioned
u3' the ablest and most upright Judges of the- Land
"-by the most 'profound and incorrupt Statesmen
by the purest Patriots—by the most constitu-
',Dual' acid popular Ministers—by 'men who did net
talk about AiDerty, but hazarded their lives 'to
mare it ;-.-when I find he progress' of time
'ite•
ngthening the work of their uoticd virtue with
vie claims of antiquity--a work that it was not
'ecesaary ter:antiquity to make venetable—when I
.411,1 d all thi,, I own that -were it possible for me. to
• ho",diipased, that my hand would tremble in the
"ttempt.-ro tear down that noble fabric their patriot-
441 liaif reared; and their wisdom had pronou:lced
the faiteit and the firmest. in the world ! 'With
t'speiit lathe doctrine of contempts (hit bad recently
-gone abroad, he must say that he did not concur In
that Ooctr1; e.. Jt was knows, that formerly the two
Hatises of Varliamece sat under the same roof, and
transacted !winless together. The time of their sepa-
ration is not exactly known. The right of the tw.o
'louses, sitting thus in the High Court of Parliathent,
t° commit for conteiripf, would not be disputed. Did
then the separation which afterwards, for obvious
reasons of mutual convenience; took place bet Ween
the two Houses, as tlic form of their-sitting together
"-did that separation divest them oftheir respective
to assert the authority of ',heir C-iurt, and pro-
tect the proCek:detgs therein from Al obstruction, ?
whether cOnstructiv,: or otherwise ? He had no cl,-)uht
that when' they seperated each retained the same
Power. The Rib A Hon. Gentleman next proceeded •
quote the' am hority Df Lord Chief Justice Wit,
mot, in support of the Right of the House to corn-
thtt generally. He' stated that -Chief Justice Wit:
thot, „f the. Kiag'S Bench, was a man of admirable
aPaeity, deep and extensite learning, and unith-
tachable integrity. The passage to which' he was
qi)t)Ut to refer was from a judgment prepa.ed by
Chief Justice Wilinote but the case to which it re-
lated not having come on, the juCtlnent-itself had
't;ever been delivered. Here the Right 1-166.Gen-
t:',hait proceeded to read florn a book Which. lie
ett• ld in his hand, observations to .the. following
one was, " that in all Courts whatever,
)4 !his country, the power of vindicating the rights,-,
Privileges; acid authority of any Court, was. co- •
with the existence of the Court itself." Ano-
her stated, " that the power of Parliament was.a
Necessary incident- to Parliament, because it was
)11cident to all Courts-Of Justice, whether of record
(4' hot : .aucl'another'passage laid it down,
.that Pti-
t
liege of Parliament was as much lex .terrce, and
.i.riaucti within the exception of Maori Charta as
`l.,t'Y one' part of the. known law -of the land that
":4 come , within its exceptions.—Here Mr. Pon,.
-Zlithby commented on the_alisurslity of construing
"Aagria Ctiarta .striEtly in every case. Did punish-
i!lientS 'affecting personal liberty never take place but
‘') conse
man uence of convietion on Trial .by,. Jury -1-
that ever Was.in Court-of Law, that ever-
ove leaves of a law book for half an hour
his stUdy, but kneW' the' contrary ? If it were not
4,1 c), there could- be no C.inon,:no ecclesiastical law.-
t'v hat had il,ey to do with the striaconstruaion
Magna Charm, and yet they Were no part of-
, law, ? 'Atiother- passage stated, that he 'had
",aced every vestige otprivikege, but could not as-
its- introduCtiotrinto the common law. He
1)c)k it therefore to be as ancient as the common
It did' not make the common law, but it
'"te'st' in' alliance with it. Attachments were the
eeryo s
° old and legal means of punishing contempts.
`-otitem t I Ct.° be punished forthwith, because
theY P g
had the' effect of shaking men's allegiance to
"le l by vilifying the judges (that is the Court)
`:''110 are the channel through which the King's ills-
'ee is 'to be communicated to the people. The
t
x:v() modes are attachment and trial by jury--they
ere Pet to be confounded.—Murders were not to
& Pt:wished by attachments, nor contempts to be
tried qy juries---the Court was to judge of what
i
-'n'Pected the course of justice, and it "was not turn
!s4le to others to remove that obstruCtion, ler during
-itch rut:note application justice was delayed.
,There.
1
Judges
are not to be kept in Waiting at the dOor
-1 a ?rand Jury room for that Grand Jury to deter-•

mine whether ..heir proceedings have been ,ota
structede of . which -they are the : best judges...—.
Mr—Poosonby next proteedej to lead at .mate
length detached passages from the judgerkeet of
Lord Chief Justice xVilmot, ',shewing the right of
Judges to COiernit for libel Construed as Cotnemtets,
auji construetive.obstruetions to. the course of jus-
tice; and there:oee to be punished by the summary,
mode or attachment. Such was the reasoning of
Lord . Chief Justice Wilmot; whichbelieved
would be found to be a satisfactory cOonnentary. Upon
t he sagaciouSpornplain ts of those who ranted so loudly
against what' they called the absurdity of 'being ac
:cusers, judges, aod executioners in their own cause.,
In thus cotrununicating his sentiments open the '
question before the House, he wished to be con-
sidered as not presumiog to give any advice, as to
the course which then- ought to be pursued. In
of any attempt to direct the Condo of. this
House, he wished to be considered as delivering- his
own horrible opinion in . his capacity of a Member
of ParliaMent. And, indeed,,,from all that had al-
ready passed upon that subjea, .the Right Honour-
able Gentleman opposite possessed no right to call
upon him for his views .or his opinion: On- pre-
vious occasions he stated both; but every thing he
had said, every proposition he had offered,. were by
them disregarded. No one was more proMpt than the
Right grin. Gentleman (Mr, Percesefl) to controvert;
and the House in its wisclem, was pleased to oVer-
rulethem. Nevertheless lie then felt it his duty to
stand by the privileges of the Commons of England ;
and in the exercise of that duty, lin adverting to
. the particular line of conduct, . which in his view
should then be' purined, ehe 'begged to impress
upon -the House the paramount and absolute neces-
sity of adhering, in every step • that it took; to the
ancient rule of practice observed by their ancestors;
in their genies-Is for the preservation of their
privileges. He was aware that in-what he. was about
to recommend, he run the risque cif expoiing him-
self to a considerable degree of popular odium:
But that man would ill deserve consideration, who,
deterred by the- apprehenSion of popUlar reproof,
would in any great and presssing emergepcY, sur-
renderto hiS fears the conviaion of his judgirient.
By such an impresSion he trusted never to 'he In-
fluenced to swerve from his public duty. Never,
he trusted, when the events of- that day u...carne
the subjects of future recital and rem .1 ke shOuld
it be said of him; if so huMble an! individual grad
claim to observation, that he was a man, in
contradiction to his ftsllest cenVietiou, but in eoin-
pliance with popular delusion, surrendered theprivi-
leges of the Commons of England, and by such
surrender,- gave a fatal :lid irrecoverable blow to the
liberties of England. Reverting then to the ancient
.rule of practice; it was,invariably the custom of that
House to commit any person who made himself the
instrument of calling into question its privileges.—
Upou that rule of practice, -he-did feel it• his duty, to
state his opinion, that the Solicitor who had caused the
notice of adion to be served upon the Speaker should
be committed. Such a course was not alone the prac-
tice-of that- House,; it was ailed open in all Courts
invested 'with the power of commitment for a con-
tempt of its jurisdiction. In the Court of Chancery,
for instance, where an injunction had been granted i
--to stay proceediugs in an action at lawe the Aitor-
ney who would, atter such an injunction, venture
to proceed, would subject- himself to an attachment,
and be most certainly punished for a contempt of
the jurisdiction of that Court. Was. not diet' the
House of Com:lons fully empowered to take steps
against a Solicitor who had proceeded to call its
Speaker to. answer- for condila taken-in obedience
.to its will, -and: which that 'House had adjudged to
be necessary for the proteCtion of its privilegese?—,
Most undoubtedly it had, and as in such a case the
most correct line was to follow the conduct of their
ancestors, the enforcement 'of such kt right in the
present' instance was most advisable. • The next
question to be considered was the peculiar situation
in which the Speaker of that. House was at present
placed. To many Members it appeared a tnost
monstrous novelty, that the Speaker of the House of
Commons should be obliged to appear in one of the
Courts below, for au act which he had done in pur-
suance of the orders of that House. A novel pro-
ceeding it" certainly was, for which there was no
precedent ; as to an action! brought against the
Speaker, and of information, the' instatices were
rare. Yet monstrous as it' appeared to-soma,
and -novel 'as it must seem to all, it was his
firm persuasion that- the Speaker ought to appear
and put- in his plea to the action. Such course
was open to him without the-slightest apprehension
of his surrendering in the remotest degree the pri-
vileges of that Ho,..te, and such -course the House
- could adopt, although it had determined to commit
the Solicitor. As' an illustration of that opinion,
he would suppose the case of an individual com-
misted by, the Court of Chancery for Contempt,
whose Solicitor -had instituted an ae-tion in a
Court of •Law for false imprisonment against
the Chancellor. What were' the steps which it
must be presumed the Lord -Chancellor would 'Un-
der such circumstances take For himself he would
say, that if such a proceeding had occurred w hen he
had the honour of holding the &eat Seal in Ireland,
he would' have certainly felt 'it his -botiticien duty,
under the jurisdiction of his own Court, to com-
mit--the solicitor, and to appear in the Court of
Law to put 1-,:s plea. For unless such a course
was adopted, hoW was it possible for the Courts
belows to be apprised of the nature of the case ?
how was it possible for theM to inform 'themselves
-of those faase without the knoWledge of which
they could not know whether the injury complained
of was committed in a private or public capacity?
With respect to that House agreeing to Resolutions
in the shape Of prohibition;;. to the Courts of Law
not-to entertain causes in which its privileges were
involved; such a course was a complete novelty,
! on which he could not be expeceted decidedly to
pronounce ; inasmuch as in the whole course of
reading and. of practice he had never met with ,
such a precedent. It was necessary that. the CoUrts
shoeld be informed of the na:ure-of the proceeding.
The difficulty was as to the manner_ of making
the communication.. Should the Speaker write ?
If he did so, and were he (Mr. Ponsonby) a Judge
! presiding in the Court where the proceSs was
instituted, without meaning-any personal disrespect
• to the Speaker, he would most certainly take no
notice of the letter, nor -treat it in that Court with
the smallestete4pece If, there, • there was no proper
mode of proceeding, either by prohibition from that

House, or by notification frorri the Cpeaker, ho'N
was-41)e House to pi oceed, except by'his,ap.:
pellrance ?: For, tirely, to Court of Law

in ignorance of the naaire of the case, aria after-
Wards to find fault and quaKrel. with ptoceedings
which that -Court might allow, from the want of_
the information .-which the Speaker could give;.
would be an extreme exerc'tc;e.of th'e power of that
Stretch of its privileges, which, with
sortie justice, might subject them to the severest re-
' probation of the people. Upon cvery view of thease;
it was his opinion tllat the Speaker should plead,
and rhaftlie prea-sitoulit sta.e, that the a& of which,
the
.Platirtif cornPliitted , was done in obediefiCe to
the orders of the douse of Commons, and that there.
existed in no -Other Court a power to relieve
him If after that appeararice.‘iAas.rnade, and such in-
; formation wasconornunicated, a Count of LAWshould
thirikstill .proper to proceed, by such no 7‘t onld,
in his view, most certainly exceed, its, jarris
diationit would go , tar beyond, the limits of its
authority .?nd pOwer ; but, indeed, he could not
• bring himself to conceive that,
,aity constitutional
tribunal of the land, that any Judge would, venture
—venture, he would not say, qeca,tse be could not
imagine that those placed in such .wise
..and elevated
situations could', under ady circumstances, be guilty
of that which would most cetiai* amount to a
gross dereliCtion of their duty. —a gross transgres-
sion of the law of the land. But such a conse-
quence he Could not anticipate, feeling the confidence
he did in the learning, the wisddm, and the .pn-
NIT of the t-ibonals of the countty. Nor would
lie restric' CIA confidence to the Courts of Law ;
bk,wout,.l extend it most anxi-ously.
,to the good.
, -
; sense art'. observation of the country large.
Should c.v.:ntS unfortanately prove that he had been
Mstakea in :the dependence • that he had pl iced
upon Lie nation's sense,-should it, or any 'con-

siderahve iportion of it continue to be impt-essed
with be fallacious thought that the possessio,n
of the privileges of the liouse of Commons were
fatal tone libetties of the people—should it exert,

itself br the- pernicious purpose of undermining
those privileges, then most certainly -,hu people of
Enghnd would lat. 'greatly and fatally misled. -It
wat not because the vote of-that House; upon this
or that public Measure), was opposed to the wish
and opinion of the people ; it wos not because- their
Representatives. had evinced a conduct which• the
constituent . body at large disapproved ; it was not
becauSe tibme-of 'their decisions could -not be defend-
ed, that the power of the Commons of England
should beithen curtailed. No they were to be
defended even under such circumstances, because a.
blow,aime.d.at them-even in that House of Coin-
mons would affect and overthrovvits privileges, and
with them the --ix:ople's liberties- through everysuc-
cceding Parliament. Bat it might be contended that
the possession and exercise of such privileges as
that recently questioned. was too great and too dan-
gerousio be continued in any House of CommonS.
They were, hoWever,
.bortie in period's of otir his-
tory in WhiCh the people of England were most high
nettled, and jealous, of the slightet invasion of their

liberties. They were, admitted in some of ►he best
periods of our hi,tory,'when many of our ablest.pre-
.decessors were engaged in arduous contests fur the
rights of the.people. It was sincerely to be 'hoped
that the people would continue to respea them, in-

asmuch as they were the best barriers of proteaion
to, their own most valuable interests. For in that
-HOuse ought the people to expect, and to it they
should look for security and proteetion. There was
a new dottine afloat, and a strange
.direction given
to the popular hope.' Whilst 'their feelings were
estranged frbm the Commons, the people of, Eng-
land were.dire6ted to look to the Crown for the
guardian Ship. of their rights. .; What ! the Crown
proteet the liberties of the English people ? At-
tached as he was to a limiledunonarchy, he would
contend there never was, during the whole period
of our history, a monarch, except the virtuous trio-
4iarch now upon the throne of these realms,. who
ever loved a House of Commons—there never was
a King, with the same exception, who was not an.
enemy to public liberty. He founded this opinion
upon no invidious,comparisons of one reign with an-
other.: It was human nature; and there never yet
lived the man Who loved that! power, which acted\
as
.a cootroul upon his wishes,and his passions.. That
-the family of Brunswick would long. continue to
sopptrq*these uefeilco of whicii
the- people of England placed them on the throne,
all were ready to believe. But who would take
upon himself to say, that: "even in future successions
of that family A Prince might not appear jealous of
the influence of the people, and anxious to destroy
their weight:tit the constitutional balance: Under,
such a state of events; to whom could the people
look for proteaion and support ? What brc.neh of
the Constitution could they- depend upon for a suc-
cessful resistance to the encroachment-, that th.:eat-
-ened their liberties with extinai6n ? To the HoUse
of Commons in the full posseision of these privi-
leges, the efficacy of which' the rash and the deluded
would now wish to dimini'sh. Was it not 'the
House of Ccimmons; supported by the voice of the
Nation, that resisted scccesshilly the tyrannic
encroachments of the Stuarts, and uliiina:ely de-
throned that family, when it was found impoS-
sible to induce them_ to desist from their arhi-
trary proceedings ? Never. Was there , propagated
doctrine more pernicious ; clelonive than that
Which went to alienate thin that House the
-popular 'Confidence,. in order to give it to the Crown.
True tt Might be, that from Aets of that House the
confidence of the Nation was shaken—true it might
be, thafit was considered rather the instrument of
the tlinisier than the organ of the public voice, (an
- opinion which he considered pressed too Jar in this I,
country) yet even under all these admissions, it was
not upon the Crown that he could he induced to de-
pend for the preservation of the people's rights. If
the grievances of which the country complained
were to be attributed to the construion of that
House, let that coiistruCtion. be altered, if the Na-
tion- Wished' and demanded it.- But whilst it was
necessary that a discretionary power
;should elist,
where, be asked, could it be entrusted with -more
slifety, than to the Representatives of the People of
England,-;.-But then it had been contended, that .
though there was .no objection to concede a -dis-
cretionary pov, er to that House, yet its exercise
should be limited. 'Was then the Court of King's
Bench, or was the public opinion to he the-stan-
' dard Of-regulating to what extent the power should
be exercised ? It the King's Bench was to possess

• ,M
pri‘c ty,ying tot .lgattypf, itsprtv4egeA or?}}} ,
committnet4s,' for Would be, inOsted,with..
theipoWer of being,the Judo;ofevery
that House..:. There could he rip limitation.,..
:y.,ery right of. hob-ling a, plea the casp,pf,b6,aa,
Would cor,stittate, the right of trying ,the.exteht
privilege in any other case. .Suppose a,,persen, was
mnaliti!,l for stril.:ing rind violently assaulting the,
Seljeant at Arms, or any
.Mes?enger of the Rel.-vie
in the ex-eo!iion of theirduty, and that for staff
breach. of privilcg,! it Cortitnitted 3e brings
Isis action in, a •Court of Law ; nrithing,can pteVent,
him, and the Court must bold plea, upon:the: prin7
ciple, that it had interfered before in the
.case et
libel, acid,that it must nrftw see whether the Hotne •
of Corm-110s had the power to do the aX,or
In - such_ case what became of the privii.egesof the.
Commons of England ? Again--WaS, public opi- . -
nion' to be the crit:'rion for .limi•ing tki2ir exercise,
Set up such astandard, and fancy, if you can, the tnis-
chiets which would most infallibly be the coln4?-
oence. Then would you place the privileges cf
this House at the mercy of contending. fadions
lin.th bidding against each other at this Auction of
Popularity,.uni il privilege and liberty fell a sacrifice
to fteir selish and Unprincipled objects. Oae de-
mocracy of faclion would, be destroy, 4 cniy to hc
succeeded by. a xvorse ; extinction of all order and all
virtuewouid follow in their train, ultimately to
cure the absolute rule of a single individual. • Let the
country remetnt:er the miseries under which, from
such causes, it once suffered.: Let it: remember
• the recovery it has, had :. Let it rernembrAr that
period of its history When, in the reign of the
first Charles, that unhappy Prince .was reduced
by the constitutional exertions of the House I f
Commons to desist in a great, degree, from his
arbitrary acts of prerogative,' and the salutary pro-
spect presented itself of a free •and legitimate Go-
. vertiment. From 'what cause was it:that such ex..,
enions proved abortive 'lt was because a- fac=
.
tion sprung up in that house and. in this country,
who, arrogating to themselves all the patriotism
and public 'spirit in the nation, misrepresented'
defamed, and crushed the wise and honest ,rnen of
all parties—a faCtion who possessed great talt•mts bdt
no virtues7,with purity in theit-mouths, but profli-
gacy in their hearts—Who, talked of liberty, but
meant despolism—wlio sought.the Lord, but found
~a Crown. If England, with the example of all
former, iges before her; and particularly with the
‘awful example of' such a calaMitous Visita ion, shall
'be so infatuated as to relapse into such dangerous
and delusive errors, then I pronounce- that she is
doomed -to saffer.more grievous calamities than MIS
ever yet befallen any nation upon the,earth—and
what is more .galling ,and more aggravated, . she is
doomed so to suffer minified and unreprieved. ,
Mr, ADAM complimented, in the-highest terms,
the able, eloquent, and constitotionatspeech of his
Right Hon. Friend. Although he was aware that
the shortness of the time would render it difficult to
frame such a declaration, yet he could nor help sug-
gesting, that previous to the measure under dsetis-
. sion, it would be advisable for the House 'to conic

. •
to some clear declaration of:their privileges, so as
to prevent any diffieully in the sully:Tr:mit pro-
c.'.!ez.lingsi‘ and which Woold \tend-most effectually
to the maintenance of their privileges.
The CHANCELLOR of -the EXCHEQUER declared,
that the general tenor of the eloquent speeCh of the,
Right Hon. Gentleman opposite was such,, that' he
should, be sorry, by recut ring to any irr;tating slab-
jea, to • interrupt the impression which that speech
must necessarily hove
.made-on the House. He
could not refrain from repeating his regret,. that in
a•Case' in which the Right Hon.' Gentleman himself
conceived that the rights and privileges of 0,9
House . were at stake, he had abstained fromlend-
ing his assistance to the Committee,- iti'6crifer that
they might arrive at a right conclusion.- TWRight
Hon. gentleman -had talked of the unfortunate i-
tuation in which the House stood:--What unfortn-
nate situation ? Only that situation to which it most
bu necessarily exposed on every exercise of its privi-
leges, hoWever moderate. The mere temporary
imprisonment-of a Member, for the porpOse of bring-
ing him to the Bar to receive a reprimand, would
form as good a ground for an action as the rash step
(as the Right Hon. Gentleman termed it) which he
had advised the. House to adopt with respect to 'Sir
Francis Burdett. Besides, could any one who had-
fobserved the subsequent conduct of that. Hon. 'Ba-
ronet doubt, that if he had been brought to the Bar
to be reprimandekins;ead of having been sent to. the
Tower, he would have preferred an thion against the
Speaker for ordering him into .custody, or that he
would, when at the.B tr, have so insulted the dig-
'nity of the House; as to drive them to the adoption
of the severer measure With what justice, I here-
fore, could it be said that the Houtse of Commons
had. been brought into unheard of and unspeakabe
•

„ .
calamity and distress •If there was any irnbec:lity
in their privilege% be did not regret that that

. .
cility had been discovered at a time when atey,would
have ample oppottunityeither to consider the mode
of protecting the,right.which they ha 1, or the con-
stitutional means of itcquiring the power to proteel
them. He deprecated, thereiorei: such a❑ emphasis
on the difficulty of the situaticin in which the House
was placed, contident.that:the irlonse had not exer-
cised a right which they did not posses—he was con.
Went that they hid not exceeded their "privdeg•S
—he was confident that no au. hority, -no Judge irr
the land, when he, learned that was a titletlon
in Which the ptivikges of the House of Commons
were implicated, would determine urou it. - He

entertained no applebonsion, therefore, ;that eitlitr
the dignity or the privilege of the House of Cotn-
mons was endangered. The Law prescribed the
course which the House ought to ptirsue, and which
they might therefore tread without danger. After :a-
biding to tI:N precedent of Sir F. Pe'roberton and Sir
T. Jones, he adverted to the statement made by
his. Hon.. Friend, namely, that a letter might be
written by the Speaker to the Lord. Chancellor, tn.
which i!)" 'Chancellor would'necessarily issue a rit.
'of supersedeas. Although he could not admit that
this alternative of his Hon. Friend was so absut das it
was.asserted to be, yet, as such a measure would ne
'etfeclive only during the Session, he must allow, that
the proceeding would be of too limited a nature tor
the titj,se to adopt. He, and those who acted witja
him, had been, thought. deficient in their duty f r
not having recommended the commitment of .the
Solicitor. For his part, he thought it wise in the
House not to avail itself for that purpose of the
preCedented and unnecessary notice which had b ;!3