The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-26 00:00:00

EDINBURGH AND NORTHERN BILL.

On the motion of Mr. E. ELLICE. this Bill was or-
dered to he

PETITIONS.

Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Hibernian
British India Society, complaining that injustice had
been done to several Indian Princes, more particularly
to the King of Delhi, and the Raja of Sattara, and pray-
ing the House to remedy the injustice complained of.
FISHERIES.

Captain PECIIEL inquired if the Lords of the Coun-
cil had issued any rules for the regulation of the
fisheries, and if so, whether those rules would be laid
be laid before Parliament, as directed by the Act ?
Sir G. CLERK said that he would inquire what bye-
laws had been issued by the Board of Trade on the sub-
ject, and if they hal riot been already laid before the
House, he would take care that they should be so.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

Captain BERKELEY gave notice that to-morrow, at
the time of private business, he would draw the attention
of the House to the hardship and injeustice inflicted on
the public by the promoters of railway schemes pro-
posing to interfere with the navigation of arms of the
sea, and navigable rivers, and to move that Committees
should not entertain such schemes without the sanction
of the Lords of the Admiralty.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN gave notice that to-morrow
he shoul ask the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
if it was the intention of the Government to bring
forward in that House any measure founded on the re-
port of the Land Commissioners of Ireland.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL gave notice that he in-
tended in Committee on the Colleges (Ireland) Bill to
propose various amendments. The Noble Lord then
laid on the table copies of the amendments which
he intended to propose. They are as follows :
First to insert the " nall's" among the buildings to be
provided for by the grant ; secondly, to omit the limita-
tion of the money to be applied to each college and have
only the gross sum ; thirdly, to give the nomination of
professors after 1846 to the president, vice-president, and
professors ; fourthly, to insert the chaplain before the
" bursars" and librarians. These amendments, if
adopted, will require some additional clauses.
RETURNS.

Mr. HUME moved for various returns of the number
of visitors, &c. to Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's, and
the Tower, and of the sums received from them, and of
the number of visitors admitted gratuitothly to Hamp-
ton Court in the years 1841, 1842, 1843, and 1844, in
continuation of, former returns on the same subject.—
Agreed to.
Mr. HUME complained that certain returns to be
made from the Treasury, which he had moved for since
time since had not been made, and moved that they be
made forthwith.

Sir G. CLERK made some reply, which was quite
inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. HUME—The returns are made to the Treasury
quarterly. All they have to do then is to extract them.
The returns can be made in a day, and I cannot wait.—
(A laugh.)
The motion was agreed to.
Sir C. NAPIER moved for certain returns relating to
the manning and outfit of the ships of the experimental
squadron, which were ordered.
FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.

Dr. BOWRING presented a petition of rather a re-
markable character from Liverpool. It was signed by
3,185 individuals, and prayed for the abolition of the de-
grading punishment of flogging in the army and the
navy. The petition had originated with a lady, the
daughter of Sir W. Ross, and she had obtained the whole
of the signatures.
Mr. HUME begged to inform his Hon. Friend that he
had moved for returns in continuation of former returns
of the number of instances in which corporal punishment
had been inflicted in the army and navy, and as soon as
those returns should have been printed, and should be
in the hands of Members, he would call the attention of
the House to the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IN YORKSHIRE.

Lord G. SOMERSET gAve notice that, on Monday,
he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish
certain private jurisdictions in Yorkshire.
POST-OFFICE COMMUNICATION WITH THE
SCILLY ISLANDS.
Captain PECIIELL moved for copies of, correspon-
dence between Mr. Augustus Smith and the Postmaster-
General, on the subject of the Post-office service of the
Scilly Islands, in continuation of certain returns moved
for on the 6th of March.

The GALLANT tOFFICER, in reference to the returns
which ha had moved for in six months, asked when it
was likely they would be made ?
Mr. CARDWELL would inquire into the subject,
and would inform the lion. and Gallant Gentleman to-
morrow.

JUSTICES' CLERKS BILL.
Captain PECHELL asked the Right Hon. Baronet
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if it
it was his intention to proceed with the Justices' Clerks
Bill to-morrow ?

Sir J. GRAHAM replied that it was.
MEDICAL BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL asked if the Right Hon.
Gentleman was prepared to state whether or not he
would proceed with the Medical Bill?
Sir J. GRAHAM was not prepared so soon as he had
expected to state his intentions with regard to the
Medical Bill.

PRIX ILLGES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
On the order of the day for the House taking into its
consideration the report of the Committee on Printed
Papers, on the subject of the case Howard v. Gossett,
being read,
The SOLICITOR•GENERAL said that he rose to
moved, in accordance with the recommendations of the
Committee, that, in the case of Howard v. Gossett, a
writ of error should be brought against the judgment of
the Court of Queen's Bench. The House would
observe that that report was not founded on the
unanimous recommendation of the Committee.
His Honourable and Learned Friend the Mem'
for Worcester, his Hon. Friend the Member for the
University of Oxford, and his Noble Friend the Member
for Shropshire had dissented from the recommendation
of that report, but he was bound to say,
that notwithstanding • this difference of opinion,
the Committee had received most useful information, and
most desirable information and assistance from those
lion. Members.—(Hear, hear.) He was not insensible
of the difficulty of the task which he had un-
dertaken, or of the hopelessness of attempting to
reconcile those differences of opinion which invariably
arose whenever the privileges of that House became
matter of discussion. He was aware that he should be
opposed by two very different classes of opponents. On
the one side he should ba m t ty some of the most
talented and powerful Members :ef that House.
With regard to the first class of opponents, he would
venture to mention, in reply to them, the names
of some of the Members who composed the Com-
mittee ; and he would select those names without
any invidious distinction. He would mention the name
of Noble Lord, the Member for London, and the
Right Honourable Baronet at the head of her Majesty's
Government. In mentioning their names, he would ven-
ture(alnley ar compro-
mise, hear.)
to appeal to the noble stand which they had alvtays
taken in defence of the privileges of the house.—(Hear)—
and lie -would take it that their names would be a
guaraonftetheethparivil
ttheeygews-ooufldthneotcroemcommomnse.n_d
With respect to another class of opponents, and he re-
ferred more especially to the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), he would ask
that Right lion. Gentleman how could he maintain
that the course which was proposed was inconsistent
with the principles which he (Sir R. Inglis) profes• ed
The Right Hon. Baronet was an advocate for the autho-
rity of the law, but surely lie was, not an advocate for
tßhe
:tinfallibilityofs oainieyitpoar.r(tiiceunlearrai timucrott.i—ldoi nut think
hear.)
think
Now it was impossible to say that the authority of the
law would be impaired by an appeal in this case to a
higher tribunal. Such were the opponents who joined
to resist that middle course, which he (the Soli-
citor-General) was now going to recommend. The
case was most important, and he trusted
that the House would listen to the few observations
which he had to make. He must assume that in a
matter of such importance as this every Member wag
acquainted with the facts out of which this
question arose. He took it for granted that every
Member had read the report of the Committee,
in which the details of those occurrences were fully
stated. He trusted that without repeating those details
he might be allowed to trespass on the House with a few
words in referen e to the more prominent circum-
stances. He thought it was a mistake to suppose
that the question of privilege Was at all inywycs

in the present part of the case ; which had,
however, arisen out of the exercise of a power
which was inherent in the House, and a hich was
essential to the maintenance of its privileges.
fie meant the power of requiring and of compelling the
attendance of all persons at the bar of the House, for the
purpose of examination. Now, that the House had a
right to institute an inquiry into all matters of public
interest, there could be no doubt whatever, and that this
power was necessary to the exercise of that
right, was clearly unquestionable, because as it
applied to him if they deprived the House of the means
of compelling parties to appear before it, they actually
deprived them of the right of compelling them, and
therefore the House need not be surprised to find that
this right was recognised and acknowledged in the
courts of law. It was the exercise of thif undoubted
right that the present question originally arose.
It would be recollected that certain inquiries
took place in a question instituted by Stock-
dale against Hansard, and Mr. Howard was ordered to
attend at the bar of the House for the purposes of in-
quiry. He did appear at the bar, he ad-
mitted the fact that was charged against him,
he submitted himself entirely to the House,
and, after some explanation, he was discharged.
In a very short time afterwards he repeated the offence
by commencing a fresh action in the name of Mr. Stock-
dale. It was not expected that the House would submit
to be trifled with in this manner ; and. therefore, it was
again necessary that Mr. Howard should attend at the bar.
There could be no doubt that he endeavoured to evade the
service of that House, and there was equally little doubt
that he was perfectly aware of the fact of the order
being issued and on that very error, he was decidedly
guilty of contempt of the authority of that House. The
House then should have adjudged him guilty orcontenist,
and if they had proceeded in that course, no rower in
the country could have questioned the Act. But they
chose to proceed in a milder and more favourable manner,
and acting upon a precedent in 17:31, they directed that
Mr. Howard should be sent for to the bar of the House
in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms' and that
the Speaker's warrant should be issued against
him. The Speaker's warrant was issued, and
directed to be served to any person endowed with
common sense and powers of reason, there could be no
doubt at all that the warrant was perfectly good. The
House kind decided that the Sergeant-at-Arms should
take Mr. Howard into custody, and he was sure that
any man, not illnmined with any knowledge of the
law, and applying common sense to the subject,
could not entertain the slightest doubt as to the
force of the warrant which the Serjeant had served
namely the taking of the party in question into cus-
tody, and bringing him to the bar of the House. On
Mr. 'Toward being informed of the desire of the
House, he accompanied the Sergeant-at-Arms to the
bar, where, failing to give satisfaction to the breach of
privilege he had committed, it was agreed by
the House that he was guilty of contempt,
and committed to Newgate. Three days after,
in 1843, the year when Mr. Howard was
committed, being 1840, Mr. Howard commenced his
present action against the officer of that House. The
long time he had allowed to elapse before the committal,
and instituting proceedings, showed at least that his
sense of the injury done him was not very great. On the
action being commenced, a communication was made to
the House of the fact. After a long debate,
flonourable Members came to a resolution that
the Sergeant should appear and defend the ac-
tion, and that the Attorney-General should
conduct the defence. The terms of the resolution did
not instruct the Attorney-General to appear on behalf
of the authority of the House, but simply to defend the
action. lie (the Solicitor-General) was disposed to agree
with the report of the Committee. In the resolution of
1843 there was no intention of defending the rights and
privileges of the House in a court of law, the impres-
sion being, that if the question of the legality of
the Speaker's warrant were argued btelore the courts of
late, they would decide in its favour. This view of the
matter was in agreement with what had been decided in
the first action of Stockdale against Hansard, in 1837.