The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-27 00:00:00

practice of th.o House should be departed from on the present
occasion; and.; to the present question, they would be only
getting more 'and more into difficulties as they went further in
the matter. - The conflicting arguments of the Learned So-
licitor-Genero only confirmed him in that belief, as at one
time he tdetznded cue thing and at another time another.
He admitted all his hopes were disappointed—that a false step
—a palpable error had been committed—and yet he advised
them to go on in their mistake. He (Mr. Hume) thought
they would be degrading themselves below any other court in
the kingdom, if they submitted to the indignity of repeated
defeat. The simple question was, whether the House would
surrender their' ights to any other tribunal, or reserve to
themselves the „Amer of defining their own privileges. The
Solicitor-General had alternately speculated upon a favourable
and unfavourable result in their appeal to the superior House
in error; and while such uncertainty existed, the best course
the House could adopt was that recommended by the Right
Hon. Baronet opposite, and settle whatever was to be done at
the present moment. It was a want of real courage not to
encounter the real difficulties of the case. The House ought
at once to take the course which became it. If they could
have affirmed that it was a breach of privilege to levy the
money, it was no less a breach of privilege now that it had
been levied. He would conclude by proposing the following
amendment, " that it is inexpedient to entrust the privileges of
this House to any other tribunal than the House itself."
TI-,e gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap-
peared—

For the amendment 46
Against it
Majority against the amendment —32
Mr. ROEBUCK resumed on the original motion, and said
the question now was as to what they were to do. The speech
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General
had sufficiently laid open the weak points of the case, and had
shown that threats alone would be the issue of the whole
of the warrants on which so much stress had been laid.
This was evidently the long and short of what would arise from
the termination of the pleading. In fact, there was no doubt
that these warrants were at issue with the ordinary law of the
land. One of the most eminent of the Solicitor-Generals
who had ever graced the Bench had first expressed that opinion,
and when he looked at the speech of the Solicitor-General he
saw that he came to the same conclusion. He did not say so
certainly, but that was the real English of his meaning. He
acknowledged that this was not so openly expressed as it might
have been, but still it was quite evident what the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman's meaning was at the bottom. He said
that he did not wish to speak with any disrespect of the Court
of Queen's Bench, but it was evident that he thought that the
law of that court was very bad law, and that if they were
asked, the greater part of the judges would say so. But
the Honourable Gentleman said, " Let us get to the Court
above." Why, what would be the result of such an applica-
tion? Why, that they would be exposed to greater danger
than they were before. He would advise the taking an alto-
gether different course. For what were they to do, supposing
the judges, or a majority of them, were to take the same view
of the case as the Court of Queen's Bench ? They would then
have all the judges against them. And what view did they
think the people of England would take of this proceeding—
with what eye would they look upon the House of Commons ?
With any respect or with contempt ? They would some of
them soon have to consider the opinions of the people. He
would suggest, then, whether it would not be better to take
another course, and to at once get rid of the difficulty in which
they had been placed for the last ten years ? Let them
say at once that they had not taken the best time to vindicate
their privileges, but they were resolved to vindicate them in
future. Let the judgment be levied, and not in the usual way.
Let the 2001. go by the board. But, then, there were three
other eases, and what was to be done with them ? Why, let
them on those occasions re-assert the privileges of that House.
Let them determine that they would be treated with proper re-
spect. They could not pursue the inferior ministers of the law
before that House. Let them apprehend every person en-
gaged in commencing or carrying on any suit—plaintiff, attor-
ney, witnesses, whoever they might be, and imprison them.
Let every person who was engaged in any way in committing
a breach of the privileges of the House be brought forward and
laid by the heels. Let them assert their privilege, and go the
whole length of it. Let them not have any of this trusting to
chances. Have no more of this shuffling, this handling of the
cards in the hope 'heat it might turn up hearts for trumps.
Supposing the House were now, for some secret purpose, de-
termined to sit with cl wed doors. Supposing they were to ex-
elude all strangers and turn out the reporters opposite—how
were they to be affected by a :habeas corpus, supposing for the
right decision it was necessary to call some eight or ten men
to the bar of the House. Were they to
,be interrupted in this
fulfilment of duty because of the interference of the Court of
Queen's Bench ? They were sitting in secret conclave on
come case of emergency In which the country was in danger,
and was the first Minister of the Crown to he told by some Hon.
Gentleman that it was all a mistake, that he knew better than the
Prime Minister what the state of the case was, and that he
would not suffer the rights of the public to a knowledge of the
debates to be kept from the public on that occasion. Let then
the question be set at rest. Let them come to a resolution that
their privileges should not be invaded and commit any party
persisting in violating them, and maintain their privileges
with all the force which they could command. ( The Solicitor-
General intimated some dissent.) The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman intimated some dissent. But supposing the writ of
error were to be annulled by the Court above and the decision
were to be against him ; how would he then proceed in up-
holding the liberties of England ? He (Mr. Roebuck) knew
something of the way in which the liberties of Englishmen
were protected by the Court of Queen's Bench. The whole of
the judges might take the same view as the Court of Queen's
Bench—where, then, would be the preservation of the liberties of
the country ? The ancient Commons of England had preserved
the liberties of the country. They had stood up for the pri-
vileges of their House in a time of trouble and danger. They
were successors of those Commons of England and it was ma
that floor, in that House, that the liberties of the people of
England were to be preserved. The question could not now
be deferred and now was the time at which it should be settled.
Sir R. INGLIS quite agreed with the Hon. Member who
had just sat down, that the question must now be settled, for
whether now or five years hence the same difficulty would exist
and the decision must at one time or other be taken. The
House must make up its mind a. to whether the decision should
remain as it had passed the Exchequer, or whether there should
be an appeal to the House of Lords. But there was a course
which had been neglected by which the privileges of the House
might be upheld, and yet the liberties of the subject would not
be interfered with, and the question was whether the extreme
course which the Hen. Member had just proposed, or whether
they should N u ff, r the privileges of the House to bo alto-
gether neglected, or whether they should pursue a medium
course by which;beth;objects might. be attained. With respect
to persons being called to the bar of the House, it was easy to
say that such or such a person was to be apprehended and placed
in custody ; and thin might be all very well during a certain
portion of the year, and while the House wasgitting ; but
what would they do when the House was not sitting? During
which time an action might be commenced, and the decision
of the legal tribunal might be come to without any opportunity
bung given to set it aside. They might very well enter into
any arrangement and issue the warrant on the 26th June, when
the House was sitting, but it would be a very different matter
when next November arrived, and a decision might he given
before the House would have any opportunity of revising it.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was inclined to bring all the
persons, whatever might be their class, to the bar of the
House.
Mr. ROEBUCK—No, I would expressly except all Peers
—all who have the privilege of Parliament.
Sir R. INGLIS—The Hon. Member would except all
who enjoyed the privilege of Parliament, but what would
they do with those who did not enjoy that privilege? What
would they do with Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice
Wightman, and all the other judges, who though sitting in the
Court of Queen's Bench, had no seat in that House ? Did
they suppose that the Chief Justice of England would not
order the liberation of Mr. Justice Coleridge the moment a
writ of habeas corpus was sued for, and did they suppose that
the legal tribunals of this country would ever
submitp to the
dictation of the House of Commons? The unflinching inte-
grity of purpose of Mr. Justice Coleridge, and his simplicity
of heart, would always ensure the full performance of his duty,
and what position would they now be in, if they were thus
to be placed in collision with the judges of that court? The
result had preyed the wisdom of the decision at which
the minority of the Committee had arrived. That Committee
had been more fully attended than any Committee to which
he had ever belonged. In no instance had there ever been
less than ten Members present ; in some instances there had
been fourteen present, and in two instances fifteen, the whole
number of the Committee, had been present. He quite agreed
with the Hon. Member for Bath, that it would be better to
softer the judgment to take its course, and then to legislate
for the future. The doctrines of the Hon. and Learned
Meinber for Bath, if carried out by the House, would place
absolutely in its power the rights and liberties of all parties,
even to the Lord Chief Justice himself. The judgment of
the Court of Queen's Bench went on the ground that the
warrant did not sufficiently express the cause of arrest, or the
terns of confinement, and therefore the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath was mistaken in his assumption that the pri-
vileges of the House of Commons were infringed upon. He
thought that if forms of warrants were prepared by
the law advisers of the Crown, and sanctioned by
the House, such collisions as these would be, for the
future, avoided. But an Hon. Member, who was not then in
his place, had said, "We (the House) are everything." He
(Sir R. H. Inglis) thought they were only a part of the com-
monwealth, and he apprehended that the great body of their
fellow-subjects, while content to live as they had hitherto done
under the government of the law, were entitled to be consi-
dered in their deliberations. The privileges of the House of
Commons had not for many_ years been endangered by the en-
croachments of the other House of Parliament, and certainly
not by the courts of law. He maintained, on the contrary,
that the liberty of the subject was likely to be interfered with
by their encroachments ; and it was because he dreaded giving
them an unlimited power, that he had all along taken the stand,
firmly and consistently, that he had done in this matter. The
personal liberty of the subject, he repeated, was involved in this
matter, and by carrying out the principle contended for by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, the lives of the lieges
might be put in danger by the prerogatives of that House. It
had been said that the authority of the House was supreme,
and could stoop to no jurisdiction. Why, if life were lost in
the carrying out of their orders, a coroner's jury would have to
investigate and adjudicate on the subject. It was his intention
to move one of the resolutions which he had proposed in the
Committee. The Right Hon. Baronet then read the resolu-
tions. The first was to the effect that if anybody had the power
of issuing warrants for arrest, without the benefit of habeas
corpus, the right of habeas corpus would be taken away from
thepeople of this country. The second was, that the
House had admitted the informality of the writ issued on
the 4th of February, 1841, by issuing another and more legal
writ upon the 6th. The third was, that there was no collection
of warrants issued by the House, to serve as precedents, and that
such a collection should be provided. The fourth recited briefly
the proceedings adopted by the House in this case, since the
lath of March, 184.. e id
ls and resolved that the House would taire
no further steps.
He notf n
think
wainakorfe
four resolutions now,-but he was pt
hr oat oisni ng
movingall t those
fourth he need say anything
The SPEAKER said tit"tthheerHouse having decided that
the words proposed by the former amendment to be left out
should stand part of the resolution, the latter could not be
amended.
The
ground, motion of Sir Robert Inglis accordingly fell to the
Mr. ESTCOURT said that if he had understood the
House to have submitted the validity of the warrant to. the
Court of Queen's Bench, he should agree to the proposition
thou the subject should be dropped. But he agreed with the
Solicitor-General that the House had merely ordered that the
warrant should be pleaded as a sufficient answer. The House
had assumed that when ;the judges found the privileges of
the House pleaded they would at once admit the plea. But
the Court decided,
against law and against reason, to crush
the privileges of the House. He supported the recommenda-

•
tion of the Committee.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY thought that the House could not
expect the country at large to have much regard to its
privileges, when the paucity of Members now present showed
that in the House itself but little interest was felt upon the
subject. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then glanced over
the circumstances of the case, and the arguments that had taken
place in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Solicitor-General
was mistaken when he said that the privileges of the House
were not submitted to the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Ikaph. They were so submitted, and the Court dealt with
the vi,.rrant of the great inquest of the nation as they would
with that of a justice of petty sessions.—(Hear, hear.) Now
if a judgment of the Hbuso of I.ords had been pleaded in