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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF -COMMONS, April 30.
The SPEAKER. took his scat at Two o'Clock.
' CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES.
Mr. P. HOWARD presented a petition from a town in
Yorkshire, prayingthat the grievances under %chicle the human
Catholic subjects laboured might be remedied. The Hon.
Gentleman presented similar petitions from a place in Stafford-
shire, from Wintehavon, and from Chepstow.
INCOME TAX.
Mr. BERNAL presented a petition against the Income-tax.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION,
Mr. THESIGF.R said, that before proceeding to address
the House on a subject of great importance, he trusted he would
hepermitte,i to say a few words, in order to set himself right in
the opinion of the Houle, an to the course he had pursued on
the Present occasion. It had been stated in the course of the
debate that morning, that he had taken advantage of the House
in bringing this grave and serious question before them, when
many Hon. Members had left the House under the impression
that the debate would not be brought forward that evening,
and that he, iu that way, took there by surprise. He confessed
it. wrs with considerable pain and regret he heard that impu-
tation cast upon him by his own side of the Clouse, because he
thought that the course Ire-pursued was so well known to
many of his Honourable and Right Honourable Friends near
hint, they would have acquitted him of any imputation of a very
serious eaaracter, and which left a very painful impression on
his mind, from its being supposed, that he could be capatle of
not dealing fairly with the House.—( Hear, hear. ) When he
came to the House yesterday, he made up his mind to gite
notice of motion for diseharging the individual in question.
But he found that the Honourable Member for Knares-
ho, ough had befog z ~ bins given notice, of a similar
=mien to the Clerk of the ileuse. Ile (Mr. "Manger)
mentioned to him his intention of snaking a motion or,
the subject, and the Honourable Member very courteously
permitted hint (Mr. 'l'.) to substitute his own tiatne fur
the Honourable Member's, and after his arrival in
the House he communicated to the Speaker his inteutien of
opposing the motion for adjournment till . Monday, and
N% as resolved, as far as he possibly could accomplish
it, that the House should meet this day, in order
to determine whether the custody of this individual was legal
or not. He communicated his intention to the Chancellor ot
the Exchequer, to one of the Secretaries of the Treasury, and
he believed also to the Secretary of the House Department,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that his opposition
ould probably lead to a debate, and requested of him to defer it
t ill after the debateen the Income-tax, and that the adjournment
of the House would not be moved till after his Hon. mend the
Member for Cirencester communicated his intention to several
afeinbers on the opposite side of the House, so that he 'did ever)
thing in his power to make his intention known.—(Hear,
Lear.) Ile thought that statement was necessary to
vindicate his character. With regard 'to an observe-
that made by the llonourable Member for Chester,
that the notice of motions showed " Monday," that hap-
pened by mistake,' for he stesirect the Clerk to take out Mcnitay,
which he said lie would do when the motion was made.
He felt it due to himself to snake these few remarks, fur he
mnnessed that he had entertained the deepest feelings of regret
for the situation in which he was placed, by no one who -knew
all t li a circumstances being g,euerousenough to stand forward in.
his Vindication. lie felt it cue to himself to explain those cir-
cumstances previous to going into this grave and serious. ques-
tion. It, the discussions which had occurred upon previous eights
upon this question, as to the coetinuance in custody of this
individual, he contested that lie might have expressed himself
with an undue degtee of warmth, He felt very strongly on
the subject of. the validity of the warrant. Ile felt that the
House was coinmitting a grievous injustice towards this indi-
sidurd by continuii him in custody upon a warrant which
appeared to he illegal, and lie therefore had expressed himself
fiery strongly on the subject; and having then accomplished his
&dune., which seas to assembie the House as early as possible, for
a grave and calm consideration of that question, he might be
eermitted to spoloaise toraey warmth he might have betrayed,
end to call upon the House with him to consider with all the
calureesse which befitted the dignity and impoi tatter, of that
subject—the crave and serious question which was then sub-
stained for dismission. On the one hand they had
a long continued practice, which was of course entitled to their
respect. On the other hand, they had to deal with the liberty
of a fellow subject, and they must take care that that liberty
saes nut improperly infringed upon, and that the person ought
not to be eontinue.l in custody beyond the period absolutely
necessary to determine the fact whether it was an improper on-
. teauence in custody. With these remarks he would proceed to
insider the question which had been submitted to the House.
lie apprehended that they would have nothirie on that occasion
to do with the question as to what bad been the ordinary
tome of these warrants, except so far as to be
cautious that they did not supersede any prat:-
icier, or any rule of that House, upon goad and suffi-
cient grounds; but provided that practice had been abandoned,
and therefore became illegal, be was quite sure that the
House would feel that it was absolutely necessary at the
earliest possible period their attentions should be called to the
subject, for the purpose of discontinuitig the practice. Nor
eat he consider on the present occasion it would be at
all necessary to introduce Into the discussion any-
thing regarding the conduct of the Southampton
4 '.olainittee, of the behaviour of the winless before that Com-
mittee, or before the House. Different opinions might be
eutettained on that subject. Some honogeable :Mem-
tors might thick that the witness had exhibitted a
disposition to conceal the truth, which would make him a fit
subject of punishment. Others might believe that he meant
:etty and fairly to state everything which he knew regarding
e. he subject matter before the Committee. Hut whatever opt-
niou Ilon. Gentlemen might entertain on the subject, they
ought then to enter. into the discussion of the question.
Ito contended that the tenni...id of the prisoner was not what
they bad to consider. If he had not misconducted himself, it
was of course an irresistible argument in favour of proceeding
• immediately to discharge him. But they were not here to ex-
ercise any discretion on the subject, or to consider whether the
iudividual deserved punishment or not. Ile wished
• to call the attention of the House to the validity
of the proceedings under which the alleged contempt arose.
tie wished to point out.to the House, the view he had taken, after
the most anxious consideration, of the warrant under which
ltiis party had been supposed to be compelled to attend
• before a Committee of the House of .Commons,
assembling in the present. session of Parliament, but which was
not a valid or even an existing warrant for t. at purpose.
Therefere there could not be a contempt committed by
the witness refusing to produce papers which were
specified in the warrant. It might be useful if he
first called the attention of the House to the torm of the
warrant itself, Oil which the question arose. It was dated the
tllth of September, 1841, which an Hun. Member might
• recollect' was during the last Session of• Parliament.
It recited that, '° Whereas a petition had been presented corn-
plaiiiing of an undue election for the town and county of South-
- asepton to the present House of Commons, the matter
of which petit ion is to be tried in the present.
Session of Parliament by a Select Committee, ap-
pointed under the Act passed in the 4th and sth year of her
present Majesty, he there:nre required, more* others, Mr.
• etabatm, and each and every person, to bring in their
custody every list, with accounts," and other general
words, no doubt sufficient to include the hook of counter-
toils:and cheques which had been mentioned, and therewith to
be and appear before the said Select Committee, and receive
such further orders as such Select Committee should appoint
and decide. Now, he was informed that warrants formerly
',geared parties to attend on the day on which such Committee
1% as to be struck, and to attend from day to day under the
orders of the House. The consequence of this form was,
the parties were in the habit of attending on the day when
the Committee was struck, and to the great. expense of parties
continue their attendance in London. Very frequently
notice was given that their attendance would not
be required for the • present, and they were discharged,
and a new warrant afterwards applied for, which
was issued by the Speaker, to compel their attendance
at the particular period whets their attendance was required.
In cyder to obviate the manifest inconvenience and expense
sit this son of attendance of witnesses when they were not
*anted, the form at present in question had been devised,
which form might be an extremely good one,
.to compel the attendance of parties and witnesses during the
'Session of Parliament, to which the warrant applied. It might
be perfectly efficacious for that purpose, and yet might
cot lie of the slightest validity to compel their at-
tendance in the subsequent Session.—( Hear, hear.)
.That was the question which time House had to determine—a
emestion depending upon the character of the warrant, and the
ornthority from which it emanated, whether it was a warrant
• *hat proceeded from the authority of the House, and therefore
• like all other proceedings terminated with the end of the Sew ion,
or whether it was a statutable authority, which, therefore, would
not terminete with the Session, but would he operative at at
subsequent 'peried. Ptior to the Oreuville Act, In 1770, that
House was alone the tribunal to try contested elections. The
Speaker, by the authority of the House, issued his warrant to
iti log hp parties, genets, and records berme the House, in order
hat the House might determine upon those documents, and
-age examination of the witnesses, whether that election was
good Or bad. Of course the inconveelenee of that was seri-
ously felt, and the Grenville Act. was passed i u 1770, by which
Act the House delegated its authority to a Select Com-
mittee, to be appointed at a particular clay named, to try the
merits of the petition, end under that Act the Committee had
power to summon parties, and to order the production of papers
and records, and without that power the Committee would
be deprived of any authority over the witnesses'; that. autho-
:lily Was given them by Statute, and continued by subsequent
statutes. but it was not until the '2B Geo. 111. that the warrant
"of the Speaker was mentioned in the trial of controverted
:elections; and when ii was mentioned, it was mentioned not as
tin authority conveyed to the Speaker by the House, but a
secoghised authority io the Speaker to issue his warrant. He
believer the invariable custom had been, from the passing
est else ttreaeine Act down to the present time, for the Speaker,
under tbe ord., or itse Clouse, to is .ue his warrant to summon
-parties. and senA -toe t,arere and .record,. From the time
w 'ell the authority v; as delegated:tea- a Committee, down to the
present -time, the warrant of the Speaker was not treated as an
authority • in him, but as •• an authority in the
House. and ' conferred by it on the Speaker.
Now this was a moat important consideration, and he wished to
al the particular attention of the House to it, because on this
,determination the great part of the question turned. It this
were an authority proceeding; from the House like every
other order made 'and proceeding from the House, with a few ex •
ceptions, it would terminate with the conclusion of the session,
and Inc should he able to show by authority, not to be
'disputed, that it could not be resun ed at any future
session, but there must be a renewal of the authority.—
" l( Ilear. ) He would call the attentions of the House in the first
Thee to //ased; in the 2,1 vol. p. 5.3:), the different effects of a
imerreeition and an adjournment were stated to be, that with
:regard to a prorogation, any Bills or other proceedings not
ecritscleded at the end of one session in either House,
'whatever state they might be in, were entirely
'put an end to, and must in the next session be
cot-time:need again ; whereas, on an adjouinment every
'proceeding remained entire, and might, after the recess,
'be taken tio where left. It, a note to that page to which
lie had referretlit would be theindthat there were exceptions men-
tioned, sdeleas eases of privilege; and the House would observe
by reference to the journals, that where a bleach had been
committed in one session, the House had in a subsequent
ose,. • resumed the consideration of that breach, had
(suet ml o.i it, and had punished the individual
guilty nt it, l,ut not without resuming the consideration
sd it. He Sped. that the obsert ations wh:tlt lie had made
.woidil induce the House td hesitate bef• re they came
se a rash conclusion, because he apprehended that at
site conclusion of the last session, tie wars act had ex-
hausted its force, anti had ne power to imptirc that w
'attendance on Parliement. Ice would now briefly call the at tun-
lion of the il, use to serne great legal anti orities on Else subject.
Without enterieg lute detail, he would refer to the general
,e result of the ewes, a, contieneet in a tassage contained it,
Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, ch. 16, tee. is i. •It was there
...atel that a person who had been committed for contemr., by
tie order of either. House of Parliament might be dis-
etergid ft bin the King's Bench after the disso
lotion or prorogatien of the Parliament ; and that all
matters before either House must be commenced anew in the
next Parliament, except in the ease of a wilt of error. To
this he ( Mr. Thesiger)might add the case of an impeachment.
Hawkins referred to several cases in illustration of his state-
anent, but this eassage contained the substance. Now the
.authorities appeared to Lave determined this, that
every order anti proceeding connected with the privileges
.of the House terminated with the termination of the Session of
—Parliament. Ile would put the familiar case of a person who
was committed for contempt, or for a breach of the privileges