The Sun.
London, England, 1811-02-09 00:00:00

liberation being orilend by the Speaker, the Ser.
jean(' I.Vent co:n• ter, win:re be WO5 COhlitled,
• and demanded his delivery. This' was r-flised ; and
an affray followed, " so that the Berjeant was driven
to defend himself with Iris mace of arms, and had
the crown thereOf broken.by bearing (wardiog) otr
a Airdke, aod iris man stricken down." Doling this
brawl, the Sheriffs of London tante thither, to
whcm the Serjeaut complaini'd of. ink injury, and
f,f • ihi:.LO o..livery trf alto sal bur,ess,
ai afol%! ; they t‘earrig- with tin•ir °dicer., in .de
little iiccount ciiliar of his wanii iint or of his mes-
tho Ya ne conietor.uously, with
touch proud laugnaiiie, so a$ the S,:rjeaut va forced
i'o.retorts ithorit the plisonet.- The' House of
Commons itt,attcli.tHety complained' to the Upper
House of dill; ColVititi.i " who, judging the con-
' lefil!,i; be very great, ieferred the pnoislitnent
then Of to the oi,4er of the Coalitions
They ac ordti,gly resolved that their Serjeant sits uld
again rectutre of the Sheriffs the del very of their
Member, hoot any writ or warrant, " albeit the
Lord Chancellor offered to grant a writ, which they
retailed,. of a ttar opinitn t kit all command.
.meuts and other Aas prdceeding from the nether
Hodse were to be done and executed by their Sr.e'
.tant,. without wt it, by sitew of his Mace,
which was his warrant." The Member WAS deli-
vered tmon this second application ; and the Sherilfs
were afterwards committed to the Tower for the
contempt. It was frr this contempt indeed, that
the complaint here was made, rather than for the
breach of privilege : " And forasmuch as the said
Fetters being in exueution upon a cendetnnation of
debt, a, d set at large by privi_ege of Path:l6)omi
was not by law to be brought again into exeentk)n;
and so the party was %it! out retriei y for his debt; as
well against him 'as his principal debtor, an Act of
P.lrraitient was made to revise the execution of the
..said debt against the ,principal debtor, and to !dbl.;
charge Ferrets." Here it would have been danger 4
,ons for the Sheriff to haye discharged the Member
for if the mace We.,e nut good authority, he s:s °it'd
have been himself accountabie fer the; ettit. BA
hmst-be recolieaed, that in'this.tase, the Nlembeta,
was also the King's servant, and „the King claiMed
as his prerog Ane the exiftuptioti fruit' theta of all
his servants during the sitting of Pai liament ; so that
we bad theliJudges here giving their'opintoti but 4
with 'ltalica to the privilege of the House of Cormo
mons and the prerogative .of the King. In the same)
, Parliament occurred the case of `frewytniard, which
would be found iii t Hatseli, p. :A. upon -a judg;
ment. agaitisi Trewyttuard, a writ of eve;ent in out-
law ry was awarded ; upon which he soriendered
'himself to the Sherif'', who let hitn go upon the
..King's writ of pri% liege of Pirliameto. Upon argu-',
it g this' (WC on a demurrer to the Sheriff's plea of
• the' writ of privilege, iti an action biungt t against
him fur the escape, Dyer iaitt 'that kvtrets ought
to have hail his priiy„,;.-ge," and that Trewynnard
was discharged fro:n his ext:cutioti only for t, certain
time.

cussion or the decision confined exclusively to them.'
helves.. It was argued in ,the Exchequer. Chamber
before all the Justices- of 4egland; and by •thiir
advice the Count of Common Pleas gave a decision
in' favour of the anion. He here quoted another
case of a double return, where a jedgm ent w as git en,
which was, after the Revolution, invalidated by the
whole Parliament. In the case of, Maidleti.n and
Wynne, the iljdges gave ;heir • opinion, -,that an
notion tor:it. talse return should lie at common lOW ;
but that the act must be brought 'withal tt.t 0
years of such, false or, double lei urn. 4 prok tit was
issued against the dectsiott of the House- 04
Cotturions ben% final. in W, solihister Hall, heeausit
they had not the power to impose an oath". and, cif
course, the evideoeo could tint be considered either
as complete or couclus've. The: case of Ashby and
While would chew of, itself that. an adion Cotild lie
'4l cemioon law. It. • was au aliuu on the case
agaiust a returning officer. Chief Justice Holt held
that the acticio was maintainable, Dud he held Eit)
against the opposed opinions of the other three
Judges of his Court. The case went up to the
Uoutie of Lord!, and alter a long discussion, the
judgment of the King's Bench, which had been
given agaiust opinion, was reversed by a de-
cision of .50 to 16 ; and it . was there decided
that the aCtiou lay. The Commons were at this
decision very meld) discontented, :hut.. still it was
then considered.as law, and had net been controvert-
ed ever since that period. 'After that a case was
proposed .in. the Court of king's Beech, but Lord
Chief Justice' Maoshald persisted irt refusing to. hear
any argument whatever on the subjea, uolest a.
difference could be.bliewt) between it and the:case
of Ashby and White, which, axilie said, had been
already decided by the House' of Lords. He also
(looted the case of Fos v. Corbett, the High
Kttt-
litf of Westminster, brought against him tor going
en with the scrutiny; at the time when be should
have made his return of the writ.
Lord 14.1.Esatosouott.—That .case is not re-
ported.
Mr. lismaovo.!---I believe it is not, or I shauld
be likely to liaVV, found it. •
Mr. Justice BAY Liot.---.l,Vhat Was the result ?

Mr. lioLiwYn.—There Was -a verdict for the
plaintiff for 2000 i.. damages. The defendant had
protracted the scrutiny above three weeks alter he
ho.e rLturned ihe writ.

now was come to :mother deers of cases—he
wale those of HateaveCorpus. They were few in
!twitter, and he did. not consider that they governed
the pterot case, The first ease was that or Shaftes-
bury ; it , was to be. found in the 1g Modern Re-
ports, 144 ; and altio in the State *Vitals, ties. He
had been committed for contempt ;, and on ahe re-
. turn of the Helical Corpus, the dt-cisiun took
on the, priuciple that the contempt wasn't!, finite
was also on tile principle of an ha:I4HW judgment,
01141 nut directly ,as an +labor. Carpus. He would
put a Cii*e UO this ,sui)jedir-suppose an action was
brought in the Court of Common Pleas, and that
the party was brought up into the King:* Bench on
an Habeas Corpus, surely the haug's Bench would
not discharge bin, but would order him ba, k to the
Court. which had cummitted him. Unless the
Bench did this, what would the cuosequeuce bt ?
Why, no writ of error could he, and a coil:Av:tit
struggle, Without ,4 decision, must take place be-
tween the tWo Courts.
The COURT --What was the decision in the case
of Shaticebury ?
Mi. Hoeuovn.—The Parliament Was sitting at
the time, mid so tie was trot discharged, as it was
the !same Session in which. be Iliad been committed.
He 'intended to,aigue these Ca3itS just as .it the Ha..
• beas Corpus Ad was .not in existence. Heairgned
'heat ou the broad principle, that if one court chute
to overthrow another 's jurisdietiun, and that on a
print e here no erit Of error could he, it, could only
induce a ItOittetiri stru, gle between them.
Mr. I-loesovb ,then,proceeded to consider the
"Speaker's warraet, of commitment in the preseat
ease. lie submitted, that'every warrant or corn
initial must hate the averment on which -it is
,preiale,tly set out; there must be ,no defect
or error, tlierwise, an attion for fake imprisoe-
meet was tnaititataable. In such a case, every
subiea aggrieved had a right to appeal to the laws;
I,oFuships had clearly is jiirisdret ion, and, couki
take cogniz awe of the action. J. justification of
the warrapt was, that there Was a resolution of the
fouse.ef C0011))011S to the following effete name-
ly, that Sir Francis Burdett bad admitted that a
1011(r was printed by his authority, which letter was
a . and, scandalous paper, , raleding upon
the proeeedioga ut the,House, and that Su Francis
'Burdett had thereby been guilty of a breach of
the privileges oft he House. Mr. Hoiroyd submit-
ted, that there, was-net sufficient stated here to
strew that there really was a breach of privilege;
and as, tbe.warrant , ran in the. same form with the
resolutions, therefore an ae,lon for false impritun-
went was maintainable. If the warrant issued by
the Speaker was not a legal warrant, then he was
answerable in the saute manner as a Magistrate who
issued a defective or illegal warrant, against whom
an_ valor) would lie for ao doing. The warrant
stated, " that Sir; Francis Burdett had admitted a
certain letter and argument to be printed by his Au-
thority, which letter and argument are called it a
liballoua and scandalous paper." Now a libel,. as
!kW, was no breach of the privilege of the House
iii Cemmons. lie submitted, that there must be
Oething more stated,:to make it. come older that
nomination. Libels upon Parliament had been
pften prosecuted in. the Courts below; and when a
paper. was said to be libellous of the procuedings''of
the House,. it Aid not immediately follow that it
Was a breach of privilege. So; far, their, the war.
rant was defeetive. But, in the next place,` a libel;
tube an offence At all, must be stated to have been
published.: was not enough that it was written
or printed ; the mere printing was not a groend; of
action for libel, for a man might print what he
did not wean to publish,. ,Now it did not appear on
the face .of the warrant that the paper in question
was published at all, but met ely printed ; the woi&
were, that " Sir Francis ,Burdett had admitted a
Certain letter, and the accompaitying paper, to be,

The Learned Counsel then quoted a case from
Mr. Pryon, 441 t Register, which occurred, in the
16th ot Charles If. It originated on toe will of the
Earl of Essex, which was to be tried before the de-
legates,. The Theo Earl of I..ssex..as a Peer of the
realm, -detnandedliS a Privilege of Parliament, the,
suspension of the seotence for 40 days previ -us to
the „sitting of Parliament. Judges • did not
agree to this, and t heyrooreaver tame to a resolo-
tion not to proceetton the totes of 'either' Hone in
cas,a of ivi iege, but to deft, to the known laws and
customs of the reJlin-:.to their oaths laid the -trust
reposed in rtem., They hiso del vered ju 'gritent,
ant decided it to be no 'breach 'of ptivilege.- A. :le-
rtial of ptiVilege also took' pl ice in- tre LaSe of :Eve-
lyn, where d s as` also decidi d, that., hey should not.
be uoutuf by the resolutions ot 'either .I"lotnie ; and
Where $ Carle Wai cited to hheAr, thatif a Cilt:se went
.out of the COolltroll' Pleas to the Lords, and if the'
Dods decided 41044 to (musts a -chltibt r t the,deeigion
in the tninda &dile Court, it might go Wei( attain to,
ltc ruled by 111. e: COWL • His rfrxt case it'a4 LA of
the King t;. Knowles, in ed•Chall,lhni, 'an
indicAtnent wa, drawn op at ' Hall against -
KnOwies: for trinttler. Knowles • &acted that- he
iwas the, Fearf 83nhury by descent', land put 'in a
4.replication, which rephontiott it till 'd
tOihe 'bad.
.The, Lords-di.allowcd the file, by &scent. He
quoted these erlseS to show t n cotme A 4114 had, to
law to confirm the pi iVilegcs halitiMetit,-i•;4l4tit
those only were allowed to be pritileges-whichlweie
claimed tiyithe whole body; and not 'by ont Hotise
.---that the ussge of one Boos;- -kas to'lay the- !nat-
ter COMphOIICd, befOre the other, so that it be-
clime an. Att of Parliament.
Lord Et.t..eNtleacietili.—Mr. Holroyd; surely the 's
cl..led of the two Houses, without the consent oldie
Kiug, is not 'an Act -of Parharneot.
Mr. HOLUM).—An apidication was always made
to the King„to make it au A& of Parliament.
Lord. Et.hestaoxotion.----Then, ot course., it be-
came irref:agable authority.
Mr. flohrtovo.--Alwdys before the case of r-
rnrK K!tie, was petiiiened on the subjeet as a
matter, -tot of grace, hut of-right. The tither con-
to be drawn liikm those cases was, that the
,„111 tg. , bad e- right, to .determi:ie all cartes which
CattlO hetwO them as- to the breach ot privilege, ex-
ce=pt when th"y were assemh;ed in Parliament, end,
cd course, parties io Ate -04. t and dUermination.
They might:win:lr ist Parlianient itself, deliver their
o;,inton otohesul,,jett ; bat when they Wert* in their
own Coorni, (.;,m.!nelor'e them; they Wight decides
and udjudp, b“d iio/11C e ISO tO cite' ropeeoag ,
false- and double returns, and as to the' refusal :of
80tri,, Alt these cuts' s- went to show -the 41,0311)e-
-.tency -of, the Courts of Law to :take cognizance of
ihese subjttts even though they especially apper.
Lipecd to the :Houses of •Parliament.' Tne result
wt tilts stiew. that they might take Cognizance •of
,tin in in rho way ()Eamon, and to an' extent, also,
which would 'comprehend the-present case. The
Case f N viro Stroutie was a case of a false
mum, too the Reporiersald had often been argued
toe -King's Bench, but was niterwards adjobrtr-
oil to Pal hatneric lit was by Parliament itself re- ,
tiLlictk, to the-Exchequer Chamber, 30 that this %cry
art shoal .d that-Paritaineut did not consider the disc-

►
prinied by MS al*thOelly." There was another de-
fect in the warrant,' t hat it did not say precisely upon
whom the libel was written. The words were-•-
a libellous and scandalous paper, refleaing on
~ the proceedings of the House." • It did not
,specir•
on what House of Parliament 'whether on tbetords
or Commons. But, besides, the weird ce retied-
ing " was:very inadequate and insufficient on such
an occasion. That word might be used either hi p
geodror a bad sense, and indeed was often so ; and
many books had' contained' reflettions on indivia
(hada and nedies ot-meti, which were‘by no manna
meant or intended to be injutiotee The word "'re-
tie:Aug," ust-d simply by itself," did not import that
the reflections were scandalous or libellous.
Lord EI.LII/11101101,641.—Cerulinly not. There
could be no °erasion to argue that point. There
could be no doubt that, the meaning might have
been better exi-resled. But was not the intent
sufficieetiy manifest ia a reasonable and common
manner i - • .•
Mr. Ifouloyu.stihmitted that in legrd: proceed-
ings of a penal nature, it was • not Sufficient to ga-
ther the intent frorn the general scope of the words
but they must be set out in the most t rc eise manner,
so as to be incapable of any other meaning, Upon
the whole, he had only to add, that if a committal
might be made tor contempt by a particular body;
and there •was ttoLvet ion so lie, then there could 'bO
no remedy for any abuse that mighebe miide.. But
if, on the other nand, an action did lie, then 'the
whole miget•De eventually brought before, the
per House, the higheil Court. of Judidattire„ who
would be a check •on the proceedings of tie Other
Beaten .ofolie Legislature. The aish'Coastitu-
lion was
,a syStem e,t cht-cks 'and b,slance•,. nod this
might be one that was not of-least itnl ortarice. '['tie
present case was on'e rather of a novel nature, as
well as of public ieterest, 'and then tore he had en,
rod into it at very considerable letigth. ha.j
How, to enticat the indoigence of the Court kr y
ing occupied bo it .ch ui their time.
'rite ouNea-Gaxattaaa—Mr. Hoirot d
nt)! touched neon that pats of the case as rlO 111
breaking et (loom It wOuld probably save ttoine
terinptime to the. eel l:,•„ if he ,at inesetit delivered'
what he to say et) -that point. •
Mr, klotatoin' bag:Aed paidna of their Lordships
tor having ovetlooki,d antidst 'the ionitipiicity of
arguments iliac lire--aed Mind; It %anti- a
common wade?, true a tyina„ that every English-
' man's hoeae %acids castle, 'I lie l.tw gave no privilege
to break open the autear door of. a house, Lilt for te-,
Jetty, as: a here the :King %vita a pal ty. appearedi
from tadechion of the Court in the Kith of
where it e ~,.said, that fir debt or trespaSi none. Can
break the house, but only tor felony." There was a
simaar decision in ,:Sernayne'a case, 5 Coke where it'
Wai,Sind, that Oh: liberty of a f ()NW doeS-noi stand
againstahe King. :These castaAventto prove, hat the:
door could nothe broken for cibt- or tre•pasg; e% en by.
the King's writ;: but only in cases'. of felony, Where
• the writ' was nun orniltas prepte aliquOmulibertairm
Nay, it appeared trout, 4 .C6kes Lout: to have been
e.lt.tll the •law. then, though altered since, that no
• magistrate in ease of -Wetly could break open tha
dour on barE surmise;, but that •it was' nere-,sary,
that the.peison whom he was
,ira pirsilit of should
have been indiOrd, or a ,trne bill: found against him
by. the Grand Jury. Lord Coke' says, expressly,
" it was against Magna Charta for justices to break
open houses ,on surrnisee.' 8 ' subinitred,
teat there was. •no. one' ease on `record, of the
door bvieg broken :open hot tor • softie crime,
and by process in the name of the King for
that crime.' It- could not, be broken open for
a libel, nor fur a breach of the peaer,
against ,an individual, or a particular body ; but ooly
torerimes against the Siate:or the kingdom at' large..
The teaaoe of this was eVittellt ; it) the Use of a
breach el the peace, agairesv a particular per4ue, no
mischief., ceeald come to that person, if the aggressor -
:shut himself up in his house; hot not se; a the
crime was against the whole land.' No one c.!a",e
had occurred of breakieg into a titan's hotter tor libel'
.or , breach of privilege; it was coiar qty to 11)
in On law, and therefore the athen on •that gioutid
was .maintainable.
Mr, Hoettoin here concluded his argument.
Lord 41.-IyENLIOHOUGII /Uptight it • would 'not be
conVenion for the Court to .hear: the Attorney-Ga.
aural in reply., The farther hearing was. therefore 1,
postponed.

BIS 1-101) OF :LONDON'S cotißT, DOCTORS'
COMMONS, Ftit: 8.

COI v. GOODDAY.

This was a suit ,promoted by Miss Hannah Cox,
of time parish of: Terling,, in the county of Essex,
against the Rev. Wm. Goodday, Vicar of the said
parish, for chiding and brawling in Ow said Church.
It appeared, that on a Sabbath day, .during Divine
Service, the Rev. Win. Gu°dila), addressed Mks
Om- to the:l6llo*h% etre& Miss Cox,, 1 live
observed the most indecent behaviour hem you in
this Church from time. to time, and ,if :you cannot
behave better I will order the .sexton to turn you'
out. I have represented you to the litshop„ anti it
that will not do, I will put you into the Spl,rittl3l
Court." -
This day the Rev. 'Wm. Goodday appeartql per-
sonally in the Court (having by his an,..veti
ted the- fads alleged in the artjele,),; n the
Learned Judge (Sir Win. Scott) delivuteil mid-
able admonition, in which heOblerved, tii.a the It.v.
Gentleman had been betrayed 11110 an sift of. itotN-
credos), net; it sesned, by any criminal
by inteinperate 7,0,0 ; btit.addtd, lie &mist, el
pantie +Alit) mite S,atine, decree Mini to be suipvii(l, d
one fortnight,' to commence Amin ;1114 ii y, and
condemn him in Costs; but in consiLie,;mon 01 hispersonal
attetldaMe; be 0941 not diteitt the seu•
,truce to be published in the Church.

Fliday next, the Whoti, of the State Lottety will
be drawn.. l'iektia' and Sit,tros are on Sakt
RICOARDS6IO (ioonl.tiCK, Ht)() Co.at lbeir-Odicts,
Corner ofßalik
and lacing the
kin 'a Mtlws, Charing Cros; where No. , Et
Prize of 20,00ut. was sold in Sixteen SixteLtititA,
ilst Lott try,'

by WII.I.IAM M(4IAIt;ER scitirrs, South Moiton
100 ND to)N 12111:
'11.14031:1151're,:f Stitora. c 4 lawrible:e;c4l"dr;ti'lebrtoiwYtm-itetretuts: iiiirddre;:sbiliasrhelithe Paper, 1-I‘terl for the Editor acs. ,