The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-30 00:00:00

1,11,
biCaltlata

s,ONDON, MONDAY, JUANE 30. 7'4

The pending " privilege question," between the
Courts of La' and the House of C:,•inmons,Ts every day
assuming a more grave and unsatisfactory aspect. We
cannot deem so lightly of it, in common with some
of our Contemporaries, as to regard it as a
mere question of smart practice between the So-
licitor appointed to act for the Sergeant-at-
Arms and the Solicitor HOWARD, who is the plaintiff
in the action. Neither is our interest limited to the
..onsideration whither the law laid down in this matter
by the Judges of the Queen's Bench, and especially by
the Lord Chief, was. as some contend it to have been,
most dangerous; to the independence of Parliament, or,
as others consider it, most valuable as an exposition of
the rights of the people. The prospect of way colli-
sion between the Common Law Courts and the High
Court of Parliament, at any time, and under any
circumstances, is calculated to excite in every
reflecting mind much uneasiness; and the v.- ry many
difficulties that must attend the issue at stake are by no
means to be disposed of by the ordinary rule of solution
.ve apply to litigated questions in this country—" Let
it be determined in the ordinary course of law "—for
that course is not applicable to it. The privilege itself is
an anomaly, by the very confession and argument of its
advocates, overriding the law ; but no Englishman can
honestly deny that the law exists, at this day, in its
strength and integrity, mainly by reason of that privilege
exerted in darker and more stormy periods of its
existence for
_its protection and support. And it may
be safely affirmed that whatever objections may have
attached, from time to time, to the privilege of Par-
liament in the abst att. that privil ge has worked
practically to the signal benefit the p. ople. Were
there no other considerations but these to rest it upon,
upon these we would found our earnest appeal to the
two parties in the House of Cemmons anti among
the public, who advocate, the one the most extreme
amount and exercise of the privilege, arid the
other, its reduction within li'nits whi.th would neutralise
its all-ctive action al, og,ther,— to dismiss all heat
and passion in dealing with the subject. If they are
rash and unreasonable. who would stretch the cord of
privilege to the tension it had attained in the days of the
Long Parliament, or of the Convention Perhaweet
which enforced forfeiture of the Crown against one
dynasty, and established its succession in another ;
they are heithcr more reasonable nor less rash who
denude the h f use of Commons of all privilege beyond
that possessed by any individual subject of the QUEEN
in her courts of law. The second report of the Select
Committee of the House of Commons appointed to in.
quire into the proceedings of the action of HOWARD V.
GOSSETT, is a-document to which it is not difficult to pre-
dict a character of both historic and legal importance'
At the present moment it suggests some refl ethic's that
powerfully confirm us in the appeal we thus make to the
good sense and good feeling of all parties.
The Committee, in con,idering the course which, in
the present stage of the proceedings, it may be most
desirable for the House to pursue, admit that they have
found the case to be one of great difficulty. The facts
of the case it can scarcely be necessary to bring in de-
tail before the reader. L,t us suppose them to arise
out of the service of a Speaker's warrant, and an entry
upon premises in virtue of that w 'Treat, in the absence
of the party against whom it had been taken He brings
his action against the officer of the House, and in a court
of law a verdict of damages is returned, upon which
proceedings are taken and a judgment obtained. Prior
to aslev under this judgment, the question arose—
should the House interfere to prevent, by its own au-
thority, the execution of a judgment so granted by a
court of law, or seek to reverse that judgment on a writ
of error ? The Committee declare " that they
feel it to be of the utmost importance that
the House should maintain the entire privi-
leges which ,ire essential to the discharg, of it,
constitutional functions." This may sound like beg-
ging the question, but it does, at all events, very fairly
raise it, and it is of a two-fold character. 1. What is
this privilege of Parliament ? 2. Is it expedient to vin-
dicate it ?

With regard to the former of these branches, it seems
to us obvious that the privilege is an adjunct naturally
arising out of the free exerci,e of the functions proper
to a representative body of this lescripti,m. I; this were
even to be disputed, the fact of preecriptien could not be.
Sir EDWARD COKE says that the power and jurisdic-
tion or Parliament are so transcendent and absolute, that
it cennot be confined, either for persons or causes, within
any bounds. It haih sov, reign and meaner liable ao-
thority iii making and r,-p• aling laws." In the large
ness of this estimate they ina) find an answer to the r
objections who insist that the wrath
Yirlia-
ment claims as inherent in irselt (eight to be defined.
The very first step towards sui.h a detioition
would not only destroy the salutary principle
on which it exists, cawely, an exclusive power
in the fourt,in of the laws to •• control," as
COKE has it, tteir course ace, tdirg to ilie par-
ticular exigeney )and of which it alone can be permitted
to judge) ; but it would sufject its own action to in-
c2ssauc interruption and idipedimt,uts. invokal under
the general authority of any specific law, or which it
might stick to -modify or to repeal the enactment!,.
As to the latter branch of the qitt.aion, may we not
well ask, it, on the authority of COKE, this transcendent
privilege is indispensable to the theory of an indepen-
dent Parliament, its practical necessity has been less
strongly shown in all our experience of its working since
the reign of EDWARD I. ? On how many occasions, dur•
ing that interval, has Parliament exercised this privilege
to protect the vassal from the rapacity of his lord?
When tenures by grand and petit-sergeantry were
abolished, it was argued that there could be no further
necessity for the maintenance of Parliamentary privi-
lege. In how many subsequent cases, occurring in how
many subsequent years, and down to our own times,
has the same privilege been extended as a shield over
the subject, to protect him from the aggressions, or
the threatened violence of the Crown ? But were we
to attempt to assign a tithe of the reasons that may be
adduced, to show why it is expedient to vindicate the
privilege of Parliament, we should be oppressed with
their number. If it be a salutary aid to support the
popular branch of the Constitution against the en-
croachments of the Throne, it is fully as important in
protecting the popular branch from the too stringent
pressure and irregular passion of its own constituency.
Perhaps it is this very " privilege" in the Commons of a
limited Monarchy which makes the popular Member of
the State the very ark of the monarchical Constitution ;
whilst the want of it, in pure republics. leaves their court-
cilsso open to external,but direct influences, so much at the
mercy of the impetuous and intemperate purpeses of the
democracy, as too frequently to entail the decay and
ultimate ruin of the Commonwealth. On a large and
general view of the subject, therefore, we are clearly of
opinion that the privilege of Parliament ought to be
upheld. Its abuses, particularly if you will have trien-
nial or shorter Parliaments, are sufficiently guarded
against by the powers of reconstruction vested in the
electoral body who return the Commons. Descending
to particular objections. we come to ono very candidly
re-stated in the Select Committee's Report. We allude