The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-02 00:00:00

a the House. Honourable Members were perfectly aware that
the moment the session ended the party was entitled to be
relieved from. imprisonment.—( Hear, hear.) He would take
mother case. It frequently occurred that shortly before the
end of the session of Parliament, a motion was made that a
particular Bill be read that day six months. Now the object
of such a motion was not to enable the House, supposing it
should reassemble before the expiration of the period, to take
up the Bill in the state in which it had been left, but the
object was to get rid of the Bill, or compel the party
to renew it in the nett session. If it were agreed by
the House that a Bill should be read that day six months,

and there happened to be a new session of Parliament,
before the period expired, that Bill could not lie taken up in
the state in which it had been left, but the Honourable
Member who introduced it must begin de noro.—( Hear,
hear, he r.) Now he would next submit to the House
;hat the wa►rant of the Speaker was not a warrant esta-
blished by any statute, but that it emanated from the House.
If he was right in his premises, the warrant expired in the
last session of Parliament, and there was no authority
to compel the witness to attend after the close of the session.
The Hon. Member for Devoriport (Sir G. Grey) had, he
thought, on a former discussion of this question, cited the Sad
section •of the 4th and sth of Victoria, as having the effect of

continuing the Speaker's warrant
S:r G. GREY made an observation across the table dissent-
ing-, as we understood, from what the Hon. and Learned Mem-

her attributed to him
Mr. 'FHESIGEB. hoped the lion. Gentleman would not
suppose that he had any desire to misrepresent him, but he
Thesiger) had so understood the Hon. Cientlemsn's ar-
gunietet. However, it would be seen, upon referring •to thgt
section of the Act that it did nut apply to this warrant
of the Speaker. Ile trusted he was se tar advanced in his
argument as to have satisfied the House that this statute,
to which he had just referred,' was not a statute of au-
thority in the present instance, and that it was situated
in the same respect as all the other orders and proceed•
logs connected with the privileges of the House,
and coming to an end upon the termination of the session.
But the decision as to the propriety or impropriety of keeping
this party in custody would not depend altogether upon she
decision they might come to as to this point, because, if the
House should be of opinion that this authority had been con-
ferred upon the Speaker by the Act
.of Parliament, the ques-
tion would . still remain if the warrant was such as to
render the party disobeying it guilty of a con.
tempt of the House.—( Hear.) The warrant commanded '
the party on whom it was served to attend the Committee aps
pointed to try the merits of a petition, complaining of an undue
election for the borough of Southampton during the present
session of Parliament, and he apprehended that the authority
of the warrant, from the manner in which it was framed, was
not such as to compel the attendance of the witness during
the present session of Parliament. He would refer
the House to what was the practice of Courts of Law
under analogous circumstances. If a subpoena were served
upon a witness, requiring his attendance at a particular
sittings or assizes—if the cause were made what was techni-
cally called a remanet, the party on whom the subpcina had
been served could not be compelled by any intimation from
the attorney or agent of the other side to attend at any subse-
quent sittings or assizes by that enhpcena.— ( Hear,
near.) There was no reason why there should be any
difference between the warrant of the Speaker
and a subpmna. Even if it were admitted to be a floating
warrant, he conteudrd that no warrant so worded would be
compulsory on a party to attend in a totally different session to
that mentioned in the warrant. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath had alluded to the case of a person bound over
in recognizanccs to appear at the Quarter Seisions, but when a
party attended on his recognizances, and was ordered to attend
at a subsequent Court, his recognizances had to be respited in or-
der tom-lapel his attendance. Some act must be done to trans-
fer the obligation of attendance from one Quarter Session to an-
other. His lion and Learned Friend the Member for Bath would
forgive him for saving, that the analogy to which he referred
militated against his own position. 'There was another point
to se lab he wished to allude, and which appeared to have
made some impression on the minds of lion. Gentlemen
on both sides of the House; he alluded to the circumstance of
the party being supposed to have waived any advantage he
might have derived from the invalidity of the warrant, by his
having chosen to appear before the Committee.
( Hear, hear hear.) The question had no doubt
been raised in the first instance in the House,
and had not been brought under the consideration of the Com-
mittee by the' able counsel for the sitting Member, his Learned
Friend, Mr. Austin. But he should observe that his Learned
Friend bad had no opportunity of bringing the objection
before the Select Committee before the party was in
attendance. The answer of the Committee to the objection
would be that they had nothing to do with any argument re-
specting the validity or invalidity of the warrant. They had
the 'witness before them, and whether he was there voluntarily
or upon compulsitel, it was their duly to put any
questions to him they might think proper touching
the petition which they we re called upon to try.
It. should al.o be observed that the witness had not been com-
mitted for anything he had done before they Committee, but for
refusing to produce. a certain paper which it was alleged had
been in custody at the time the warrant was issued. It was
one thing to say that a witness having attended was compelled
to answer fairly and honestly whatever questions might be put
to him; and it was another thing to say that coming
before the Committee, either voluntarily or upon a
notice served upon him, ' he ought to have produced
the documents referred to in the Speaker's warrant.
That was perfectly clear. His desire was, to follow the wish of
the House, because he was sure they were all desirous to do
justice to the individual who.e case was under consideration.—
( Hear. hear.) Ile was sure if they had taken a false step,
they would recede as quickly as possible ; if they acted without
sufficient authority, they should redress the injury
they had done as soon as possible. (Hear, hear.)
He trusted that he had, with fairness, with ealmnese, and
due deliberation, broUght the subject before the House,
under the sincere conviction of the validity of the argu-
ment he had addres:ted to them—a conviction which he had
come to before he had been able to consider the matter as
fully as he had since done. At all events he hoped the
House would take the matter into its serious deliberation,
and show an anxious desire to do justice to this individual.—
( Hear, hear.) Ile hoped he would succeed in having that,
justice done, for it .was infinitely more important than the re-
sult of the inquiry itself ; and though sure of being correct in
the result lie had come to, that was of little consequence
in comparison with the it justice of detaining this individual.
He should, therefore, move that William Rout Mabson should
be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant. at- Arms.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said he rove to second t!le motion of
his lion. and Learned Friend. During tl:e many years lie had
sat in 'that House, he trusted he never showed any want
of application or care in preserving its due authority.
It naught be useful to look back to the nature of the
jurisdiction of the House of Commons. They would
find that a petition complaining of an undue election,
if continued to the .next session, became necessary
to be renewed, or it became valueless. Why, then
was the Speaker's warrant greater now than it had been
before? The Hon. Member described the former practice of
the House with considerable minuteness, and was understood
to argue generally against the validity of the present warrant.
Mr. REDINGTON would not speak as to the legal mat-
ters to which the Right Honourable Gentleman who had
just sat down referred, but he trusted the House would
believe him when he said, that the Committee, in committing
this individual, did so from a sense of their duty.
The Committee considered that the warrant was a perfect one,
till it had been questioned in that House. They considered
that this individual had been guilty of a contempt of their
orders, but if there was any doubt as to the legality of the war-
rant, the House would give him the benefit of it. He was sure,
after the unprecedented occurrence of last night, the House
would expect that he should say a few words upon that sub-
ject. He had only casually heard that this motion was to be
made ; and if the Hon. Member for Woodstock had wished
that Hon. Members should know that he intended to
bring forward the subject, he had adopted a very
inefficient course to effect that object. He felt con•
fident that the House was taken by surprise last night, and
that the course adopted by the Hun. Member for Woodstock
was not very respectful towards it. There was another
point to which he wished to advert. An expression had
been made use of in the House last night, which had
been withdrawn that day, which, if be had been in
the House, he should have been induced to repel
in the strongest terms, for he believed that a more foul or gross
aspersion had never been threwn on seven sworn men.—( Great
cheering.) Much had been said on the subject by men
eminent at the Bar. He would not gainsay their states
merits, he trusted that justice would never be forgot-
ten by those who practised in Westminster Hall.—(Cheers.)
Mr. THEeIGEIt said that he rose to explain, after the as-
persions which had been made against him, with reference to
his notice of motion, that he erred entirely through ignorance.
Sir G. 'GREY said he did not meats to impute to the Hon.
Member for Woodstock that hu had intentionally given his
notice in an irregular way, but he must say that having
heard, at five o'clock last night, the Honourable Mem-
ber give notice that he intended at the next meeting of
the House, to take the sense of the House, he (Sir G. Grey)
was certainly under the impression that the motion would have
been made on Monday.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the
Hon. Member ought to have stated that at a late hour
of the night, he should move that the House meet
again on Saturday.—( Hear, hear.) It was quite accidentally
that casting his eyes over the Votes he perceived that the
Speaker was to take the Chair at Two o'Clock.—( Hear, hear. )
He did not rise to follow the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman through the whole of his learned speech,
but he really did not think—and he said it with all defer-
ence to the House—tht that House was a tribunal capable of
judging of the legal arguments which *might be made use of, or
of the legal merits of the ease now under their consideration.
Grave doubts had been expressed on the subject of the warrant
by Hon. and Learned Gentlemen, whose authority he thought
entitled to great respect, and he ;was quite ready to
admit that means might be taken to ascertain,
whether those doubts were well-founded, and if so,
to provide a remedy for the evil.—(Hear, hear.) But '
were they then competent to do that? Notwithstanding all
that had been said by the lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite
and from the Law Officers of the Crown, he was not prepared,
on the statement of any Hen. Member, to assume that a
practise, which had existed for such a length of time.
was illegal. What he would venture, therefore, to
suggest to the House was, not that they would entertain the
motion upon the ground either of the legality or illegality of
the 'warrant, but that they should decide whether or not the
witness should be discharged upon the merits of the case.—
t" No, no," from the Ministerial benches.) He would also
suggest that a notice of motion should be given cn an early day
for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire as to what
the practice of the House then was with regard to the issuing
of summonses for the attendance of witnesses before Com-
mittees, and that the Committee should report whether any
and what law was requisite on that subject. He would pro-
pose that the Speaker should give that Committee the benefit
of his expel ience. The Repot tof that Committee would be a
document on which the liouse might rely.—(Hear, hear.)
With regard to the warrant, he scat prepared to say that it had
not been proved to be illegal ; but the question of its legality or
was one which could not then be decided. It would involve
a reference to the Journals of the House for several sears past,
and he must -say, with reerence to what had fallen from
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, that he thought
it might involve a reference to the proceedings
of the other House of Parliament. There were many cases in
which resolutions of the other House had been held to be hireling
betond the session; and he thought that was a case somewhat
analogous teethe one w hich they were then engaged in considering.
The necessary inference from the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman's argument was that every warrant issued since the
beginning of the present session by the Speaker, having been
issued on the authority given in the session of 1841,
was invalid. If he understood the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man's arguments right it was this,• that the authority given
in the session of If{4l had ceased with the termina-
tion of that session, and that the warrants issued under
such authority had also ceased to be valid. The result of
such a doctrine being adopted would .be that the
five election petition warrants now issued by the Speaker, sum-
moning witnesses to give evidence before the respective Com-
mittees, having been issued under circumstances similar
to that in the Southampton case, would not be attended
to by the witnesses; and was it a desirable result,
he would ask, that those witnesses should be empowered to
say that they would not attend the Committees, because
the House of Commons had declared that the Speaker's
warrant issued in those cases was illegal. With regard to
the merits of the case, he certainly was not prepared
to dissent upon the merits from the motion of the Hon. and