The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-16 00:00:00

into custody, but it does not say where he is to be taken.
How can that be a justification?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL apprehended that as the
order of the House for his attendance at the bar was re-
cited in the warrant, that was sufficient to show the
place to which he was to be taken. But he would not
agree to argue this question on the low ground taken by
the other side. He would not submit to the low and de-
grading compromise sought to be instituted between
warrants issued by justices of the peace, and other in-
ferior tribunals, and a warrant emanating from one of
the supreme assemblies of the land. In early times no
warrant at all was issued. The House sent the mace and
that was sufficient authority. He denied the right of
the Court to consider the validity of the warrant. The
attachments for contempt issued by the superior courts
never set forth for what it was that the person attached
was to be examined. It had been laid down by Lord
Coke that the House of Commons was a court of judi-
cature, and in such cases one court of co-ordinate juris-
diction could not question the validity of the proceeding
of another. He, therefore, submitted that their Lord-
ships would not take upon themselves to decide against
the practice of the Commons House of Parliament be-
cause that practice differed from the forms
observed in this and the other courts. He
next proceeded to contend that it being thought the
House had in this proceeded in a matter over which it
undoubtedly possessed no jurisdiction, a court of com-
mon law had neither right nor power to inquire into the
discretion of the House of Commons in this matter, nor
into the formal manner in which that discretion was ex-
ercised. If it were admitted, as it must be, that the
House of Commons possessed the power of compelling
the attendance of persons before them to give
evidence, no court would inquire into the man-
ner in which that power had been exercised.
(The Learned Gentlemen cited an immense mass of
authorities in support of his position.) But, supposing
the Court had power to scan this warrant, still be con-
tended that the warrant was quite certain enough for
the purpose required. It was more certain than sending
the mace to require his immediate attendance. He con-
tended that he had a right to bring in the averments in
the plea in aid of the warrant, and if so, the ob-
ject and intention of the warrant would become
apparent. He submitted, therefore, that a complete
answer had been given to all the objections raised by his
Learned Friend, and that the Court should give its
judgment in favour of the defendant. He also submitted
that even if the Court should be of opinion that the pro-
ceedings were void, there could be no action against the
officer who executed the warrant.

Lord DENMAN—We will bear you upon that point
then on Tuesday.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

A lad named John Johnson was charged with
having stolen a package containing sixteen pieces of
Orleans cloth, each being about twenty-nine yards
in length, the property of Mr. Dade, in Friday-
street.

A clerk of Mr. Dade, who was agent to a firm,
stated that he saw the prisoner and another man near
the premises, and the prisoner took up the package of
cloth which lay in the passage of the warehouse, and
walked away with it upon his shoulder. The witness
followed, secured, and gave the prisoner into custody.
The prisoner said the package had been placed upon
his shoulder by another person, who promised to pay
him for carrying it.—Committed for trial.
Five young women who had been just discharged
from Peckham workhouse, connected with the City
of London Union, was charged with having broken
eighteen panes of glass in the Mansion-house
windows.

The defendants, it appeared, could never be pre-
vailed upon to work for their bread, but were per-
petually in and out of the workhouse. They all
came to town that morning apparently with the de-
termination to do mischief, and it was stated that
while in the act of smashing the windows they in-
dulged themselves in roars of laughter. Each of the
panes cost seven shillings.
The LORD MAYOR asked each of the prisoners why
they did so much mischief? They all declared they
were prompted by distress.
The LORD MAYOR—You shall all go to Bridewell
to hard labour, and economical diet for two months,
and so shall every window breaker who is brought
before me.