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

%MB VN, VON DON, FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE tit 1841,

the country? The ancient Commons; of England had preserved '
the liberties of the country. They had stood up for the lei •
fiiegis of t Oirlinuseltratireitf.trehble and's/anger.. Theyee
were seeeessints of thiese Comte °es of •England and it was on
that floor, in tharllonsee that7thelibeefrernsfetheepeople- of
England were to be preserved. The quiestitin could not now
be def. rred and now was the time at which it should he 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 stsars hence the seine 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 deci ion should
remain as it had pasted the Exchequer, or whether there should
be an a •peal 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 interfsred.wiihe and •the question was whether the extreme
courewhich the Hen. Member had just proposed, or whether
fie y should suffer the privileges of
.the House to be alto•
gether neglected, or whether they should pursue a medium
course by which both objects might be attained. He thought
that with respect to the inflammatory proceedings which the
Honourable and Learned Member had proposed, that the better
plan would be to secure their object by a reasneable course of
legislation, and he thought that security would be better ob-
tained tiy•this course than by the violent proceedings which he
had advised the House to take. He thought, indeed, that the
remedy which he propose t would entail upon the House greater
inconvenience than ans advantage which they would gain by
the remedy %thief' he sought. lie perfectly :greed with
the Honourable Member that whether the decision
was taken now, or whether it was deferred to five
years hence, she difficulty would still be the same. But
still he thought that in ;he decision to which that Hon. Gen-
tleman had come, he had neglected that rt ost reaeonable cow.- e.
The Hoe. Member fur elontroSe had been with him a member
of that. Committee and if he recollected rightly, hod been roe
of the minority, and was certainly not at that time an advocate
of those extreme lengths which he now advised. With re-pest
to persons being called to the bar of the Heuse, it was easy le
say that such or such ; person was to be apprehended and placed
in custody ; and this might tie all very well,during a certain
portion of the year. and while the House was sitting; hut
what would they de 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 opportnnity
bseng 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 he a very different matter
when next November arrived, and a decision might he given
b 'fore 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. ROEB YCK—No, 1 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, whotheugh 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 submit to the
dictation of the House of Commons? The unflinching inte-
grity of purpose of Mr. Justice Coleridge, and his simi licity
of heart, would always ensure the full performance of his duty,
and what position would they now be in, if they were thus
to he placed in collision with the judges of that court? The
result had proved 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, arid 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
suffer the judgment to take its course, and then to legislate
for the future. The doctrines of the Hon. and Learned
Member 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
term of emifinement, and therefore the Hen. and Learned
Member fir Bath was mistaken in his assumption that the pri-
vilege. of the House of C .mmons were infringed upon. ' He
theueht 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
tuture, 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 cont-
inents ealth. and he apprehended that the great body of their
fellee-sulijects. while content to live as they had hitherto done
under the government of the law, were entitled to be coll9i.
(feted in their . eliberations. The privileges of the House of
Cemmons 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 thi it encroachments ; and it was because he dreaded gi ri-g
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 subj. et, he repeated, was involved in this ~
matter. sod by ca. rying out the principle contended for by the
Flon: aria 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. Whv, ,if life were lust in
the carrying out of their orders, a coroner's jury would have to
investigate arid adjudicate on the subject. I, was leis 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!puwer
of issuing warrants fir arreq, without the benefit of bi?beas
e rpus, the right of .habeas corpus would be taken awe's,. Trim
the people of :this country. The second was, NO. the
flute had admitted the informality of the writ issued on
the 4th of February, 1841, by issuing another and incir'e 'legal
writ urn the 6th. Thr third was, that there was no col; eietion
of warrants issued by the House, t °serve as precedents, a et that
such a collection should be provided. The fourth recited ,bs iefls .
the proceedings adopted by 'the Haute in this case, slitter the
15th of Match, 1841, and resolved that the House Would; race
no further steps. He could not think of proposing all .:those
tour reselutions now, but he was not awate,that in moving the
fourth he need say anything further. .'
The SPEAK ER said that the House having decided` that
the words proposed by the former amenemt nt to be left nut
should stand, part of the resolution, the latter could not to
amended.

The motion of Sir Robert Inglis according'y fell' to the
ground.
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 preposition
that the subject should be dropped. But he agreed with the
Soliceor-General that the House had merely ordered that. the
warrant should be pleaded as a sufficient answer. The ! House
bad assumed that when the judges found the privileges of
;he 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. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath seemed to overlook what had really taken
place.—( Hear, hear.) The House had not subMitted
its privileges to the judgment of the Queen's Bench. But
he thought that after the decision of that Court the House
ought. to see it the other judges would' take the
,samo mon-
strous view of the question.—( Hear, hear.) He did nut think
that. the House would place itself in a worse position by taking
the opinion of a higher Court,—(Hear.) If the.deeision of that
tribunal should be against then, the country would not' fail to
sups eh them in the assertion of their privileges.—Q
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath could not think that
the House would not be strong enough. and firm enough, and.
have heart enough, to overcome any Court which should at-
tempt to overthrow their privileges,. which they held 'lOr the
benefit and the defeece . of the people of England.—( Hear,
hear.) The Right Hon.: Gentleman the Member for !Oxford
told them that they ought not to question the conduct of the
judges. But the highest function of the House was te ,ques-
tMn the conduct of the judges.—(Hear, hear.) It was the
highest privilege of the house to address the Sovereign- for the
dismissal of the judges, an he could not. understand a: more
fit oecesion fur the exercise of that function than where an at-
tempt was made to crush their privileges. It was not
to be endured that the Court of Queen's Be' ch
should assume the power to judge the writs of that House
upon mere technicalities, as they would the writs of any justice
id the , eace.—(llear, hear.) He understood that the de-
vision of the eourt of error would not be final. but that the
defendant wriultt have an appeal to the House of Lords: Ile
adroit ed that there was a great difficulty in submitting any
euestion of privilege' of the Commons to the diction of
the 1-1
-use of Lords, but whatever that might be the pourer of
the House te maintain its privileges would remain uniffected.•
—( Hear, hear.) He supported the recommendation of the
C immittee.
Mr. Se•gearit MURPHY thought that the House could not
expect the country at lsrge to have much regard to its
privileges, when the paucity of Members now present showed
that in the House i self but little interest was felt upon the
subj ct. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then glanced over
the circumstances of the ease, and the arguments that had taken
place
.in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Solicitor General
was mistaken when lie said that the privileges of the House
were not submitted to the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench. They were so submitted, and the Court cla.lt with
the warrant 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 House ill tords had been pleaded in
answer to an action the Court of Queen's Bench would say at
on ce t, at they were stopped.—( Hear.) He could not help
deprecating the shill -shady course which was recommended.
If Le selected a lay arbitrator, and he gave a judgnient con-
trary to the law, his next coursewould be to apply to a court of
lawewherte he would be told that he ought to abide by the de-
cision of his own arbitrator. The report stated that if the
court of error confirmed the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench, it would be then for the House to determine what
course they would pursue with respect to 'their priirileges.
They would only then do what they should have done in the
first instance, and would create a greater degree of prejudice
against them. The course recommended by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Baih was the only one which they ought
to adopt.. It was true that they had made a mistake. The
Right Hon Baronet Ought to have said, in the first instance,
that Mr. Howard has had his verdict, and let him have the
benefit of his 40C/. That was the course the Hen. and
Learned Member for Bath had advised, and it was the best
course; for if they 'bad recourse to the means advised by the
Committee, they should have their privileges determined in a
less fevourable way.
Lord MA HON said, thaZ he regretted the cause that had
given rise to this meter. He hot ed the House would forgive
him for taking this opportunity of stetting his deep regret for
the absence of his Friend the Hon. and Learned Member for
Exeter, whose eloquent voice they had often listened to, and
which they were perhaps likely never to hear again. With
respect to the writ of error, as proposed by the Solicitor-
General, he was of opinion that it was a course which would
be in no degree a Violation of the privileges of the House. But
he objected to it on the grounds of expediency and prudence.
Ile found it laid down by the learned judges who pronounced
the judgment in the strongest terms that they did not mean
any invasion of the privileges of that House. It would be im-
possible for any Member of the House to express such senti-
ments in stronger terms than they had expressed them. Justice
Wightman and Justice Coleridge rested their judgment on the
want of technicality, and the want of form in the warrant
which bad been issued. Justice Coleridge went so far as to
say that deny other authority than that House had issued it, it
would not have been recognised. He was bound to say, as a
Member of the Committee, that this warrant was not given in
conformity with the precedents which they had before them.
He thought that there had been no violation of principle. It
would be better for the Home to wait for a warrant that was
free from flaw It was riot right thst the House should have
the power of trying every question partaking of the privileges
of that House. There was another question of great import-
ance which he should entreat the House not to forget. He
meant the great importance of taking no step in support of
their privileges without, if possible. being upheld by the public
opinion out of doors. Did they at present enjoy that advert--
tage ? The opinion of the Member for Edinburgh, delivered
in the year 1828, in an es-ay, was that th see privileges which
in 1642 all London rose in arms to defend, which they con-
! sidered as synonymous with their own liberty, and in tom;
parison with which they took no account of the safe principles
ut jurisprudence, have now become nearly a- bad as tho-wor et
riSuur of the suarttailaw. From the grubs and fladraut abuse

of those privileges in former years. unpopularity gathered
around them. Let them wait till some opportunity arose
iresphich Hs; jonstisutienal powers were evidently involved.
The st4se7fM woultillsish, to pees sAW oerconsiderati‘on of
the. GovernrAnt was the ttne he halasugges lad. And at the°
seine time, he -
iTs-o-01,1 earaaserty oreeommeaid. its hrae:ll2,jestya,
Government to motet a mild and coosid rate course. They
bad already had before them the cote of Stockdale and
Hansard, and he would entreat of the Government to bear
wed in mind that case in coming to a decision upon this.
With those observations Fie would leave the ease in the hands
of the House, trusting that the House would be guided in
its decisions by what he conceived was the right course they
ought to follow, and which course had bren recommended by
sestet al other Hoe. Members.—( Hear.)
Mr. C. W. W. WYNN said he felt a good deal of difficulty
and diffidence in addre-stog the Monsoon this question, but at
the same time he would be sorry to let the oppose unity pass of
saying a few words on this subject, after what he had heard of the
situation in which the Committee had been placed in reference
to is. If he could agree with his Noble Fru nd who had just
sat down, that this .was an isolated and soli ary case, and one of
little or no importance, then he (Mr. Wynn) should concur
with t ins that there were strong grounds for adopting the
course he had suegested But this case sppeared to him (Mr.
Warin) to strike at. the root of all ariviloge—( Ilesr. hear)—
and the bulwark of the rules of the House, upon which the
alene was competent to decide.--( Hear, hear.) He
would be ssrry to detain the House by entering into the
details of this questions, but without doing so, he
would say the case was one which afforded
strong grounds for the prompt interference of the
House. If the House adopted the course suegested, then
it should take into consideration the validity of the authority
of the Queen's Bench. Let him ask was there any analogy
between the authority of that Court and the Flue ?—( Hear,
hear. ) tie contended there was not—for he had read of in-
stances in which the doors of the House Here locked in order
that the public should nor know what the House was doing—
hut the result was the issue of the Speaker's warrant for the
pr. senee of a witness in a ease, without stating any explanation
for the summons. In fact there were many cases in which the
Rouse aursued a like asringent course; bat the occa-son jus-
t ified it, and to was one of those who supported the House on
one or two cf tlio-e oceasisios 'I he Court of Queen's !lentils
could not summons a witness -without setting forth the case in
which he was summoned and all the ether particulars; but that
was not nectosary for this House to do, and therefoieeo analoay
could exist between thermos( Hear. ) In the case a Lord
Coventry, in 1782, this quisstion was also rated; but they hail,
withoto any question as to its authority being put, issued she
Speaker', wet riot for that Nobleman's presence, and he was
brought up. He thouaht they ought to b s ready to main-
tain their privileges by their own means, for their functions
could not be carried on with advantage to the public or with
credit to themselves unless they did so.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY ( Bute) did not consider that this
was any question as to whether they should submit to have
their privileges decided by a court of law. If he felt that that
were the issue he would have no hesitation in declaring that,
under no circumstancess and on no pretence, would he permit
she courts of law to consider, still less to decide, the privileges
of that House. But that was not the question which they had
to eon-ider now. The question was, what course it was de.
sirable for that House to pursue. He had no hesitation in
stating that it was absolutely necessary that they should have
the power of ordering persons into custody, and without
assigning any reason. A warrant, he apprehended.
was entirely unnecessary. There were many causes in which
persons were ordered into arrest without any warrant
whatever. The Court of Queen's Bench had the power even
stronger than that House, for that House could only commit a
person for the time of its sitting, whereas the Court of Queen's
Bench might. commit a perst n for an indefinite period, as could
any inferior Court of Record. This had been shown in the
recent Jersey case. The Court of Queen's Bench seemed to
judge the law of Parliament upon the same 1 rinciple as the
common law. Now he could not too strongly assert the utter
inapplicability of the same principle to both cases. In every
one of its proceedings Parliament diffeted from the courts of
law. They could give strangers and Members, and even the
Speaker himself, into custody. Had the Court of Queen's
Bench power like this ? And it was necessary that that House
should possess this power. its value must have been tested in
such a case as the gunpowder plot. (Hear, hear. )
In that case the Ho use might have ordered the
Sergeant-at• Arms to have dragged the chief parties concerned
in the conspiracy to the b..r of the House, and he might have
done so without a warrant. They had now to consider what
course they would take. In the case of Burdett, v. Abbott, they
had appealed to the Exchequer Chamber. In that ease they
submitted to a court of appeal. Again, in the case of Stock •
dale and Hansard they did the same, and in the present. ease
they hail ordered the Attorney-General to plead. He appre-
heoded that what they had done was merely to show to the
Queen's Bench that this case involved a breach of the privileges
of Parliament. Should the decision be against that. House in
the appeal, he apprehended that they would only be in the
same situation that they were now. It would then become a
question whi;ther they would appeal to the House of Lords or
not. He had much confidence in the House of Lords, anti be
thought that there would be no difficulty in making an appeal
to them. He thought that it was absolutely necessary that
they should assert their privileges to the utmost extent of
their power.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not feel that lie could altogether
avoid the discussion of this question, after the statement that
had been made by his Hon. Fiend the Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford and the Noble Lord the 'Member for Hert-
ford. 'Had the only question discussed been that which had
been submitted by the Solicitor-General, he would have been
satisfied with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's statement,
clear and able as it was, and would not have - troubled the
House with any observations` of his own. But his Noble
Friend had given to the House a statement of his opinion with
r, Bard to the power and privileges of that Itotise. which he'
(Lord J. Ru sel) could not pa-s altogether unnoticed. The
Noble Lord had told them of the various instances in which the
power of that House .hstd been abused, and his Hon. Friend
the Member for the University of Oxford advised them to
treat these maters as matters of law, anti submit them in
future tu the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Now,

that was totally inconsisten, with the view which he (Lord J.-
(tassel]) had taken of the privikges of that Iloo.e.—( rear. )
He Considered that that Douse had a law and custom .if Par-
liament which it was hound to adhere to and obsetve. ,
tie sh uld think that, it was as prepn-terous for the Queen's
B. nch to decide on tr.' authority and powers of that House, as
fur that. }liaise to de-ide, by an arbitrary majority, that the

judees of that Court Were wring in their interpretation of a
question common law. Thep ivileges of Parliament were
as much part of the lass. of this country, as those which the
interior courts were instituted to administer.—( Hear, hear. )
It had been said that they must act in accordance with the
law, hitt were they willing to' set up their privil..ges, as Judge
Coleridge required,„ against the laws? His answer was, that
their privileges were as muds law as the deei-ions of any
Court.,--( Cheers.) What he therefore contended for
was, that it was just as •-• consistent for them •
to say to the Court of Queen's Bench that their
adjudications were will and caprice. as for that Court to say
tl.at their rleci-ion was nothing but the will and caprice of the
11.119 e of Commons. He could not but protest against any other
assumption. than they were tie judges of their own pri, lieges.
—(Loud cheers. ) With respect to the question of precedent,
the lion. Member far Montgomery ( Mr. Wynn). by far the most
able and competent authority in the House, had satisfactorily
settled that point. The use-of the power. was necessary for in-
quiries which could not be carried on without many witnessms
and, on their refusal, compelling them to. attend. But it had
been Said that the authority of the high, st judges was against
teem. He was-free to admit that many of our ablest judges had
entertained narrow views upcn'the privileges of Parliament.
Lord Erskine, a man of transcendant legal powers. and -of un-
rivalled eloquence, entertained on the subject of the functions
of Parliament totally inadequate view-` ; he bad said that no
-impeachment. could be brought awainst a Member, except where
indictment would lie, whet eas the very 'pi osite was the es•ab-
lished law. Now, as in the cases • f Lords Orford, Boling-
broke, and Somers, and Warren Hastings, where especially
in the last instance the most extensive privileges of Govern-
ment were involved, how could they argue the balance of
p wer, vested in Parliament, would endanger the liberty of
the subject ?—( Loud cheers.) The House, therefore, must
come to the cmielus,on that. they bad functisus higher in their
nature than those which belonged to the Court of Queen's
Bench.—(lsiiiid cries of t. Hear, hear.") It wss a tonsil% dif
ferent que.tion as to how the privilege should be exercised
in reference to the safety of the State. —( Hsar, hear.) Whi n
a judge had said that he had looked at a warrant of theirs as
technically as he would that of a justice of the peace, he hailtotally mistaken the functions of Parliament.—( Loud cheers
from all parts of the House.) A debate had lately taken place
on the defences of the wintry. and the war establishment it
kept up. The first Minister of the Crown had then objected
to such discussions, considering their publicity unadvisatde, if
not dangerous. Supposing. being of that opinion, the
ter should suspect that some officer intrusted with secret in-
-formation, would confine it to a foreign warlike Power,
-
must the Speaker wait until he had sent for an
astute lawyer to see whether the warrant was in exact accord-
ance withall the technicalities of law, and -earth for prece-
dents which the Court of Queen's Bench would he likey to
admit, with all their refinement of special pleading, before he
issued his warrant —( Hear, hear.) He contended it was for
the benefit of the country that that power was accorded, and
when he was told that. it made the Home of Commons the su-
preme power, he replied, that with regard to the power to be
used, there must be some authority in whit:lL:supreme juris-
diction was vested. In so.ne cases the Queen's Bench possess el
that power, and in some the Court of Chancery ; and the judges
of the Court .4 Queen's Bench could be removed by address from
Parliament. The right was invested for public safety: And
was there no check upon it ? [lnds übtudly there was ; and it
a tyranny were exercised, either for private individual interest
or for despotic power, why, the reople themselves
would find the remedy and eject the tyranny fr m
its representative.—(Loud cSeers.) The Queen exercised
her power according to the constitution ; the Queen's Bench
exercised its power according to the constitution, and the House
of Parliament exercised its power according to the constitu-
lion
also, with an ultimate appeal to the people of the country,
who, loving the constitution, would resist any attempt to in-
fringe it.—( Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Hertford ( Lord
Mahon) had said that the power used in the last century by
univ, rsal consent would now he as universally condemned.
That proved his (Lord John Russell's) proposition that an
people would always prevent an infringement of
But if the Noble Lord (Mahon)tahpepierallibtoatthiees._4 cheers. )
referred to the last century, he would carry him back to the
century before, where, in the Court of Queen's Bench, Judge
Jeffery had laid down the most preposterous injunctions.—
( Hear, hear.) Surely, then, if the Houle of Commons could
be accused of having once had a tendency, or even a
possibility to abuse, this objection was also attachable
to the Court of Queen's Bench, but no one would
say tl at any Member of the House of Commons was
Queen's Bench no tone would say. that any
di-posed to push its privileges beyond their legitimate bounds,
aonfc-1 insej Ile of the thea- disposition to avail themselves of the odious
powers contended for by. Judge Jeffery, or other of the justices;
befcce the revolution of 1688. But if technicalities were to
be required to be nicely. observed in warrants, those powers
which Parliament exercised for the benefit of the country
w
upon
ri°uslYth impaired.—(Loud cheers.) He . had said
thus
ue utility of the privilege generally, be-
hsesclinnourable Member for Oxford ( Sir R. Inglis)
the question of the privi-
leges of the House. As to the broad question of the extension
chaaod would l
et d
taken
be
uhen the opportunity of raising
and definition of those privileges it was easy to decide; hut
as to the particular b antis before the House, he felt much
more difficulty. Air. Justice Wightman, in his decis4an, had
said that the warrant was not sufficient, because it said that
Thomas Burton Howard was to be tsken into custody, but had
neglected to state how he was then to be disposed of; in fact
the warrant was to be invalid, I ecause it did not say that it the
sffieer found this Thomas Burton Howard crossing over front
Charing- cross he was to be kept there in the safe keeping of
the Sergeant-at-Arms, while all the cony, yahces that were
pa„(og might endanger their hives.—(Laughter and cheers )
objection is easily overcome; th' if that is all the difficulty. the
e intentisn a the House on that
Oh, said Mr. Justice Coleridge
palpable, but inasmuch as the warrant did not state
ek
cause for w Meth Howat d was taken into custody it was irFuffi-
- If the tot mer opinion were thought narrow and trli; g,
h'cl.'ieo,ev much more
palpably ersonet,us was • the latter for
its extensive and enlarged. requirements. If the cause were
assigner, t of course Air. Justice Coleridge would assume the
right
suffidency ; therefore if Matthew Prior was suspected
of dieing engaged in intrigues with foreign Powers, dangerous
to the country, arid subversive of the dynasty as .established
,core
-
by the CtinAitution, and a warrant were to be issued for such
a man, all these suspicions were to be put into the *arrant and
Justice Wes-hie would- have to decide whether it was

sufficient cause upon which to summon the man, Such a ere-
position that House could never assent to.—(Loud cheers. )
The Queen's Bench, by its limited arid narrow view with regard
to their prisileees. virtually clagned the keeeing rf the con-
sCieneb f that Hbuse.—(,(;.heerse) .-Lord Deenearne while di`
•
sewing from these opinions, still entail-al 1 a vie"
equine' - seseeetennablreeee( Ware-bear. ). -He hay t .telfirtaletni!!.
was not a sufficient plea to state out the
was committed in accordance with the a r .est
of the House. and such was the effect of theji,edJe;,:it in
leg'es
Stec dale v. Hansard. He confessed from all
tb se-conflict-
ing opinions he felt not only alarmbut inseffse:,itnyt evidence.-
If he took the ease propoundei by Mr„fessset
iehtman he
could not consent that the warrant was to
so as to suit the lover of technicalities ar!
seeeelli'ael"id to
d pieces
(Loud cheers.) If he adverted to opinion. hei pleading.-_
not--rte
agree that every cause on which it, warrant was issued was to
be inserted in the instrument, ant!. if he referred to Lord Den-
man's proposition that that Roue
e was not the ',lace where its
pi ivileges where to be dsscided, or as to their definition, from
that also he disagreed. All those opinions in-
clined him, nevertheless, to accede to the pro-
posal for an appeal to the Court et Error. He had
never been able to perceive that there was any ground
fur saying that a further sacrifice, though in a trifline degree,
should be made of the privileges of the House. The question
which the House had in the gist iestance submitted to the
court of law, uainely, thrtt the act had been done in conformity
e ith their privileges, and in pursuanee of the order of the
House, was a question that would be submitted to the Court of
Error. It did rot appear to him that the great and paramount
question had been ttibmitted—whether the judges ought to
have been li. st told what were the privileges of the House, and
then to have examined them with the warrant that was issued.
bearing the name of the Speak, r attached to the bottom. If the
judges should decide in their favour, or should point our in
what le sreet they considered the decision as to their privileges
in firmer times had been mistaken by the Howe, a light would
be afforded which wou d guide the House a, regarded its future
course. He could not but think that that course must be
grriunded in y rudence ; if it e ere not so, he should not be
guided but by the judgment that was given, and by the
reasons which would be deduced. That the House had the
reat and paramount power of asserting its own privileges, he
had the most intimate psrsuasion, but if it was meant to assert
those rights by their entire authority, they must riot be daunted
by the public inconsenience that the subject would occasion.
The House had committed an error at the beginning of
the session by not assuming the exercise of those functions
—by refusing to act when railed o:i, when it
had all the powers and privileges which would have
enabled it to have exercised its functions safely. The declat a.
dun of the House that they were so determined, that they
held ea. ry power in the Constitution, whether tie warrant
was submitted to the Executive for it,. delivery, or to the House
of Lords for concurrence, would before long have obliged the
Court of Queen's Bench to I ave coetplied with their fair and
just ry quest ; but on making that demaed on the first occasion,
it was not possible to deny that there would be great public
excitement and consi;lerable agitation. Fur these reasons he
thought it would he better to have further time for consideration
before the House proceeded to asset t its privileges in the ex.
treme manner suggested by the Hon. Member for Montrose ;
but when the time shall have arrived, when the Court of Error
shall have decided what the true, position of the House is, wi b-
out having reference to the }IOUS, of Lords, there will be
abundant material to act upon. When this question was
raised in 1843, he was distinctly of opinion that the House
(aught to plead, as the court of law could not otherwise be in.
firmed that their privileges were in question, and' no learned
gentleman could suggest any other course of proceeding than
that which the House had adopted. He was of ()pinion that
all the parties concerned in the action, the plaintiff, with his
counsel and attorneys should, one after the other, be sum-
moned to the bar, and if they psrsist in their course be punished
accordingly, and eemsnitted fur a contempt of the House.
That was a decision come to in Mr. Ponsonby's time, when
he suggested a similar course, and said it was the best to
which the House could come. At all events, he would be
disposed to have the judgment of the Court of Error ; and
to wait until they had been informed by that court, of the
grounds on which their privileges ought not to be questioned by
the court of law. He would not suggest that the Speaker should
frame any other form of warrant, or use any technicality of con-
struction, to meet any question that might. occur. In his opi-
nion, the warrant which expressed is common sense language
the authority to seize and bring a person to the bar in arrest,
so that it could be understood by common men, was quite suffi-
cient for all purposes. He very much r) greeted that it teas
part of the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, that a
question had been raised as to the execution of the
warrant. His Honourable Friend the Member for Ox-
ford thought it necessary to advert to this subject.
If any mischief, if any violence should result in consequence of
the decision of the law court, upon the judge who delivered it
would rest the responsibility, The warrant had been issued as
the authorized act of the Constitution. No person had at-
tempted by violence to be arrested by the warrants since the
revolution of 1688. A question had been
_raised that persons
might be so arrested, but it was a dangerous precedent, arid he
trusted the House would be well advised before proceeding
to such an extreme measure. If the Sergeant-at-Arms, who
was an officer sprinted by the Crown to do the,
behests of the House of Commons, was not sufficient'to per-
form their bidding, then the House must address the Crown.
for the purpose of obtaining any armed force to secu e the
execution of their warrant ; and he thought it would be the
iaty of the Crown thus to reinforce the Se geint-at- Arms,
in order to secure the vindication of their authority. In the
case of Sir Francis Burdett, who had shut himself up in his
house, .to resist the execution of the warrant. issued against
the military did not hesitate to assist in carrying
ti-ce' War-rant-info effect, and the judges, on delivering
their opinions on the subject, pointed out in a particular manner
that the soldiers had acted in the exercise of their duty. It
was a lamestable thing that the judges of the larirtshotild ques-
tion the authority of the House of COMMORS so as to oblige it to
have recourse to military force in the exercise of its constiiu-
tien l rights, and on them'rested the reeionsibility of tour-
fering. For his part he was in favour of enteierate force. The:
House might be even called pusillanimous—it might . b
said their privilei.ses were being endangered, but peaceful means,
eipessible, were best.. But if it was necessary to. resent, to violent
measures, he for one was ready to take them, fur ultimately
he would not consent to relinquish those privileges, without
which their existence was to be regarded rather as an injury..
than as a good.—( Hear, and cheers )
. Mr. FPI ZROY KELLY begged to express his entire con-
currence wi h the Noble Lord who had just sat down, as to the
manner in which he proposed to assert the privileges of the
House. he privileges of the House ought to be respected,
and their warrants by a definite resolution should be made
part and parcel of the law. Ile conceived that a misapprehen-
sion existed as to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench
that so many fierce acd unjust attacks had been made upon it.
It was not his intention to offer an opposition to the motion of
his lion.. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General, hut he
considered it was his duty- to state the grounds on which he
-(Mr: Kelly )-eoncurred, and also in favour of submitting the
question tp trial in a Court o Error. He' would beg leave to
say he felt inexpressible astonishment at what had been stated
on a former occasion by the Hon. and Learned Member for the
city of Worcester. He had made a statement,. which state-
ment was confirmed by the House, that he (Mr. Kelly) had
supported the view that no inquiry should taste place beyond
the Court of Queen's Tench, and that if that Court decided
adversely then that the House was at once bound to submit.
If that was the impression of the House he would beg leave to
'eserthateit-wasnet his impression; and he was quite uncon-
scious of uttering anything to warrant such a supposition.
He recellected the Right Honourable Gentleman at the head
of her Majesty's Government expressing an (Onion in which
he was corroborated by the Hon. and Learwd Member fee-
Worcester. to the effect that the inquiry in the Court of
Queen's Bench was, whether the warrant was a properly
drawn up and legal instrument, and not as to the privileges of
the House. Hew it could be conceived that the Court could
take any other course, appeared-to him perfectly incompre-
hensible. He (Mr. Kelly) had maintained that view of the
question on a previous occasion, and in that view he was sup-
ported by the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester. He
stated in the proposition, that in the action the real points at
issue were those of law ; that it was impossible to take any
other course than what. had been taken, without a violation of
law ; and that to distinguish between that House and any other
individual in the realm, was an improper and illegal Neese.
His view then, as now, was, that there should be no difference
ehethig the plaintiff was an officer of the House of Lords, of
the House of Commons, or of the Crown, and any other in-
dividual in the State; that the Court of Quese's Beech was
bound to construe the law on the same principle to these
pa; ties as to the humblest mechanic in the :and. That was tut
state of the law:- He would now direct himself to the guess
tion itself, having made this reference to what he hail formerly
stated on the subject. The action in the present instance had
been brought against an officer of that House, and he was in-
struc'ed to place a plea of justification on the record. He was
desirous of referring to the facts of the case, that the Reuse
should understand the question, and be able to conrereherei
the true effect of the judgment rte Court had givi n. Mr
Howard alleged in his declaration that he hail been assaulted
and imprisoned by Sir William Gossett, and. the defsndant,
in answer to the charge, put in certain reolutions of the
House an the Speaker's warrant. He just ifietf the c urse he
had taken in virtue of the warrant. On such a plea. there-
fore, the defendant stood on the validity of the warrant. I.
was a plea that. left the question to be decided by the Court of
Queen's Bench. whether the warrant was a legal instrument in
point of firm and substance, and accorded with the law of the
land. He would not at present enter into the legal:features
of the question, as the House was not the proper place for ;he
technical points of law to be discussed, but into a question
of far greater importance—namely, whether the House con-
sidered the tender of the warrant had been legal, and
also as to the course that should now be pursue:l. It was said
the warrant set forth no cause, and it was an important point ss
to why ther it ought to have had any attention paid ea it.
`should it be decided that the warrant was a good one, should
the Houle maintain and enforce the validity of such a warrant,
then he was of pinion they might as well repeal the Habeas
Corpus Act, and withdraw the whole protection of the law from
her Majesty's subjects. It was, therefore, a question of the
gravest importance, but as he before stated he would not at
present enter into the eeghnicalities and details of the law. He
had incurred the censuie of his Hon. and Learned Friend op-
posite (Mr.Sergeatit Wilde), and also of the Noble Lord the
Member for the City of London, because he (Mr. Kelly), as
represented by them, argued in a court of law against the privi-
leges of the House. This he dd not admit. The privileges
of the House was not the question that was legally and col sue
tutionally involved in the discussion. If he erred in that
opinion, he erred along with several other Honourable
arid- Learned Members in that House—with the late
Attorney-General (Sir Frederick Pollock), and also
with the present Solicitor-General, who on a previous
occasion expressed the ()pinion that the inquiry into the va-
lidity of the warrant. was not opposed to the privileges of the
House. H,- (Mr. Kelly) did not think that his giving his pito-
feel' nal services in the manner he had done, and on the view
of the question he had stated, could at all be supposed to inter-
fere with his giving a fair and indeeendent opinion to the
House. There was another consideration, not personalewhich
was worthy their attention. When an action was instituted
aaainst an officer, he was supplied with ample funds from the
public; he had unlimited means at his disposal, and the Attor-
ney-General and Solicitor-General were instructed to conduct
his defence. This being done, was it reasonable, he would
ask, to take . away from the constituency of that House
the assistance of any meseber of the 1.) ir that might be
of service to his cause—(Loul cries of " Hear, hear.'-') If
so, he would pray the House boldly and unhesitatingly
to come forward, and say by resolution what questions Honour-
able Members of the bar in that House should or should not be
allowed to appear in, and then he would determine what course
it would be necessary for him to take. It was said the Court
of Queen's Bench had attacked the privileges of the House.
This he ahogether denied ; it was no question of privilege at
all. The only question was, whether the warrant was good.
It was, in answer to thisesaid that Mr. Howard being summoned
to appear before the House, and failing to do so, had been
guilty of contempt. and that a breach of privilege had been
,
committed, which led to the issuing of the warr.nt. NI hat
the Court of Queen's Bench, on the other hand, held was,
that the defendant did not appear there as the officer of the
House of Crimmons, but merely as one of her Majesty's subjects
to try the validity of a warrant he had executed, and that the
privileges of -the House formed no part of the case that had to
be considered.
An HON. MEMBER—Who held those opinions?
Mr. F. KELLY—Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Coleride,e.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman proceeded. lie must
venture to observe that if this plea, instead of containing the
general language which it did contain, had contained what it
ought, and told the Court of Queen's Bench it is our privilege,

foundeduierithe law r—
and baerefore vr-
have I er.-

eareassrs
44541 Witt., which you are hound to obey,
arrest the Queen's subjeets, it wroild at least
clear, iniellgible, and positive. But the plea con-
_ seed no such allegation. There was no question of privilege
!Involved in the plea. Hen. Members might say that these
Arguments were ot a teermie,l and ft ivolnue (+erecter, tint be
begged of tht m to recollect ttiat the technical rules of pleading
must be observed, and that the judges were.bound upon oath
to interpret every plea that came before them by tho e very
rules. If the House meant to assert its privileges by arrest
upon a warrant. of this kind, it ought to take care that the
privileges upon which
,the warrant was founded were properly,
stated, and if they did so they might po-sibly find that the.
Queen's Bench would rive a different judgment He knew not,
unless the Court of Queen's Bench was bound to hold that the
House might arrest any of the Queen's subjects, with or without
cause, how it could have done otherwise than it did, or how it
could have i.ut a different construction on the warant. It had
been said that the Court of Queen's Bench had set itself up in
a conflict with that House against its privileges, and that it had
been always ready to administer the I.w in a manner least fa-
vourable to the liberties at' the subject. He felt confident that
both charges were utifoUnded.—( Hear, hear.) The Queen's
Bench was r early to give effect to the privileges of that House:
I and in the course of 724 ./ years had consistently elven effect to
these privilges, a,though commitments for contempt hat' been
brought before them in every possible form, no the authority
of that House—warrant; tio vague and defective that. they would
not have stood fur a moment in other cases; and yet, he re.
prated, in na one case dui ing the last two cerituries, hail the
House or its officers been before the Court of Queen's Bench
upon cases of commitment in which the Queen's eneh had
discharged the pa, ty complaining, or done otherwise than give
effect to the warrants of that House.—( Hear.) In innu-
merable cases arising during these two hundred years, where
even the undoubted privileges of that House came under the
constderation he Court of Queen's. Bench, the judges had
invariably given effect to those privileges when properly
stated, and according to ihe volts of that House. Come, it be I
therefore saiit,that the Coto t of Queen's Bench was adverse to
the p.ivileges of that Howse? Even in this very case Lord
Derunau had dtatinetly intimated his opinion that the• House
had a right of sending for witnesses in the way which only the
House of Lords could de,.without. previous summons or notice;
and bringing the witnesses up in cu•tody. With•respeet to the
charge ot the lion. and Learned Member for Bath, that that
Court had been adverse to their ptiviteges, he would observe
that, although. they owed to the enlightened and patriotic
feeling of both. Houses.of Parliament the habeas corpus Act.
they were indebted, as had been univerally admitted, to. the •
Court of Queen's Bench for the proper, administration of this
the most valuable_ and. powerful bulwark of the liberty of the
subject. He wished that his Hon. and Learned Friend, instead i
of speaking in so vague and general a manner, had condescended
to state any one instance of this opposition to the liberty of
the subject. The Hon. and Learned Geutlentan spoke of the-
last 100 or 150 years, and had not been able to quote a solitary
instance. He admitted that the Noble Lord the Member for
the City of London, who went into the histoey of an anterior
and more unrefined period, had quoted some.—( Hear, hear.)
The question was-awhether ,the decision of the Court of
Queen's Bench should .he submitted to a Court of Erior ?
Whatever might be his own opinion, as one of the judges
the Court of Queen's Bench had pronounced his opinion
favourable to these privileges—as many lion. Friends 'of his
ia that House, tor
,whose opinions he entertained the highest
respect, thought similarly—arul as the House seemed to.take so•
warm an interest, in- the subject, he would not wi hold his
assent from considering the matter in
.a Court of Error.—
(Hear, hear.) He trusted, and firmly believed that ample
justice would be done by that Court. But another course had
been suggested ty his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member'
for Worcester, to which he could not assent. He meant an-
appeal to force. Resorting to force, in at least doubtful cases
—defending the privileges of that House by a series r f imprison-
ments—was a precedent which he would not consent to es-
tablish. He would not sanction the imprisonment of attorneys,
clerks, sheriffs, bathffs, counsel, and judges, in .vindicating
what was called the privileges of that House. It was too large
a field for present discussion to. argue whether or not the House
possessed those privileges; but be would call the attention of
the House to what would be the natural course of such a line'
of action. he House would first advise its officers net to
plead to the action. It. depended upih itself whether or no it
would vindicate its privileges, and it had resolved not to plead.
Well then, he asked his Hun. and Learned Friend the Member
for Worcester to tell him what the consequence would
be? There was the plaintiff, perhaps some unworthy and
reckless, person who brough' an action against the House, lay-
ing his damages at perhaps 103,01/01., for some imprisonment
which he might or might not have deserved, and if the House,
had pleaded to the action they would probably show he deserved
it. Well, he eroceeded with the action. They committed
him. He brought another action. They committed his at-.
torney, counsel, and judges, end stopped the whole adm-nistra-
tion of the law, but in the meantime the action proceeded, the
matter was brought tojudgment, but he waited for the promo.
gat.iun of the House, until the House executed its judgment, and
then he went before a jury. Would they appeal to a jury 7
( Hear, hear.) Nu they would not condescend to do so, they
would not direct the Attorney-Gsnetal to do so—the plaintiff
might state what he liked—he might make out a case of pre-
eendedgrievances -he might make himsli out the most in-
jured yerson in the world, but no answer would be given.
He might be supposed as one oppressed by a tyrannical and
powerful body and obtained._ perhaps, one-half of the amount of
:damages he sought for, but took care not to issue an,execution
until after the prorooation. lle would ask his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Msruber fur Worzeser what was to prevent
the vying of. the execution—( Hear, hear)—upon your goods
and laud, Sir, (turning to the Speaker) or the, property of.
any other :officer of the House ? , At the assembling
of Parliament they. committed him. He went through the
same process again, and obtained damages. What could they
do? The truth was, when they resorted to force, their privi-
leges were useless, or worse than useless—mischievous, danger-
ous. unconititutional ; but. above all, they never. could tie
maintained.—( Hear, hear.) They had no weapon to fight
with-.no shield to corer themselves, and were in tr uth as posv--
erless under such circumstances as the most helpless subject in
the realm. Therefore he prayed ,the House not to sanction
so dangerous a course. They might find precedent to justify
them,: but if they valued the true interests, respect, admit ation.
and regard of those who sent them therea they would not enter
into a stoutest in which they must be severely and discreditably
defeated. And why should they? Was there anything in the
present state of society to enforce such a line of proceeding ?
In their numerous committees did they find any difficulty in
procuring the atteni•atice of witnesses, or cempelling the
attendatice of.any man though he might be in the most remote
part of the kingdom? Well, but if they protecuted and were
successful, would not the,vaoquished be considered as a martyr?
Take care that you are within the bounda-ies of the law—take
care that you are within the prerogative of the Sovereign—
take care that your record is within the privileges of toe
.law.
But if they were disposed to accede to the advice of his Hon.
Friend opposite—if they were disposed •to look at the position
of the.parties.or ira ohich the defendants wele placed, to look at
the powers with which they were, invested-1,1 at the posi-,
tion to which the people was 'placed,. and the power with
which they were invested; but they hid a decision here egainst
them in the courts of law, and they were by this means bring-
ing the whole of their privileges into question, and they were
thus compromising the law of England by their negligence on a
great point. It was certainly desirable that this action
should be settled, and that the principle on which it was
based shoUld be disposed of. In' this case he would nut say
that the privilege of the' House had been placed above the
law, but it was evident that the House had entered into
.a
contest with the law, and' it was of the utmost importance that
this privilege should be placed, not only in accordance with
the law, but also in coincidence with the decisions of the
courts of justice, so that there should be no doubt for the future..
of the extent of the obligation which the courts stood untler to
recognise the privileges of the-House. •
Sir T. WILDE was not surprised at the determination,
which his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Fitzroy Kelly) had ex-
pressed, not to give his opinion on the, stain question before
the House, for he stood in that position, from his connexion
with the several parties in this case, which precluded him from
expressing an opinion in that Hodse. Fr on the intelligence;
which he had always evinced, it was but right for the House
to calculate on hls assistance in this extreme emergency ;
but he was still aware that so much could hardly be ex-
pected of him, when it was impossible for him to enter into,
the whole 'of the areumeet, and when he was precluded fram
carrying it out to its utmost extent fr. to being counsel to the
party chiefly interested. If there was. then, a case to consider
in which the *privileges of the House were to be estimated, he
certainly thought that. they ought to be estimated with a re-
ference to the privileges of the people. He did not
precisely understand in what the privileges of the House
were to be upheld. It his Honourable Friend oppo-
site had given his opinion, and that opinion was
to be depended upon, that they were to go as nothing against
the decision of a court of lew. He had obtruded so fr quently,•
and fur such locg periods on the attention of the Heu..-, on this
subject, that he felt in a v, ry painful position in entering fully
into the subject, hut he could not retrain ft om reminding the.
House that the 31embers of the House had been sent th o-e. for

the mere purpose of upholding the privileges of the p -ogle
through the privileges of that House; and he trusted that the
Hon. Gentleman would not have lost sight of the sense of
duty which had been entertained at the last election. Lie
con d well understand tl at it was a duty of a Pafinnent elected
to maintain the power of the people of England ; and this they
were doing while dia;ntaining their own privileges. What was
the statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend ? Why that he
was precluded from expressing his opinion on the judgment of
the Court of Queen's Bench' But the HOUS2 had a right to
enjoy the advantage of the learning and ability of his Hon.
Friend. By that opinion the entire of Parliament might be
affected to such extent that it had become a duty to
give it. be had ditqualified hitpself from givirig an
opinion, and the House vras prevented f,ornienpying the advise-
tage of his great experience and ability. Some Hon, Oen:
tlemon ser-med to think that the proper course had not been
taken, and he resist say he ti ought it would be ea: ier to' take a
better course than a worse course,' for a worse eriurse he bought
it was not possible to take. Some Hon. Gentlemen bait ex-
pressed strong opinion for the merits of the ease, without
making themselves acquainted with all the circumstances..—
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had justly
observed, that during the last 150 years, the House of Coin-
mons had always been considered as the judge oi its own 'prin.:.
ciples, and its privileges had always been maintained by the
courts of law. The House was now placed in a position the
most remarkable, and fur the first time during that periOd its
decisions were .invaadated by the adjudication of a court'sd
and that was set. aside which had hitherto always been, con-
sidered the law of Parliament. It was evident from the deci-
sions of the Comm tree. that all their considerations had a view
to legislation, but while he felt bound to treat their judgmeot
with every respect, he must ray at the same time that legisla:.
tion on this subject was impossible. It had olways been held
by the courts of law, that the liberties obthe country depended
on the privileges of Parliament. Mr Justice Coleridge, who
had edited an edition of Blackstone, had never questioned the
right" of Parliament, and the doctrine maintained ' in
ail the 'text. hooks of English law, was, that
the Houie was 'the sole judge of its own prerogative;
From what quarter did they anticipate any resistance' to the
judgment of the House ? Could they anticipate what necessity
there might be fiir legislating in respect to conspiracy, or in respect
to a:Varietfof knitters affecting • public opinion, or they might'
require to legislate olireatters of polity ? Would'; he resistance
come from the Crown, by the misconduct of Ministers,' or
would it come from the courts of justice ? Would it be twee-
iioned conspiracy ? Who could tell until they knew
the rights which might be raised? Who could say what the
power might. tie which would require-te be overcome ? How
Were they to be prepared for an unkniiwn exigency ? When
was the power' to arise vh:ch would be required to meet it?
The House had the power. It was impossible to define the
privilegei of the House, for it was impossible to define the
causes from which resistance might arise. This House then had
the powers within itself. What were they? Just what they
might require. The privileges of the House were certainly
capable of being defined in one sense. They gave whit Was.
necessary to meet the exigency of the time, and not one iota
more. They had a right to exercise none, but when there was
really occasion so to do. Hon. Members had referred to cases of
abuse of those privileges. ( Sir T. Wilde) should wish ti
know where they were to be found? What abuses had been
remedied by the courts of law? 'None. Arid now what did
they desire to do? To subject the House to the control of the
courts of law. Why? They could' not remedy-the abuses of
the Legislature, for the remedy for such abuses was
inthe
House abine. He said then, that first of all that this was mis-
called a privilege in one sense. The qiteos'irion related to the
power vested iii the Comtnon of d lau
Commons, and to be txtreise • d • Pgorn • for
fo: the common the
benefit
ofthe
i weal. What wa, their legitimate poorer as a House of Corti-
MODSI The ',mud privilege seemed to some Hooonrsble

. Members to carry whit an • aSss'aelSsi,d-
as if it wens a mere something for the twr efr
of individual Members. But it related to the psoser
of the House alone. The first instance on which this sties, inn
had arisen would be f suet in a pusisl:ed repsrt it,
Jaques. The CiOWli then issued a c,, ietnisso... a
presented to the Hittite, and under the authosits f :he t se,
it was printed, in order to justify the Legislature in the course
they a ere abut to ether into. Before dealing with such an
important subject the House wished to have the necessary in-
;ormation before they legislated•on the subject, and therefore it
was that this report was furn.shed. The power was stased to
be essential to the Very essence of Parliament Nell; and was
the. power abused ? 'Whit were the faCts? The House wished
to enter into •an investigation, and a witness was desirel iii
attend at the bar. 'He refused to do so. What was involved
• in;this refusal ? The, public interest demanded that an 'in-
quiry should be made. • There' was no insult offered to the wit.
ness. They sent for hint, and he avoided them, and now the
question arose as to what they must do to bring the individual
before them. -Another' question- was, what were the proper
• fornia to bring about this result? They were told that the
forms were imperfect. - Their Only power of maintaining their
parliamentary authority' was the power of the Speaker to issue
his warrant. Was that wrier es firmly fixed now as it had
been in previous years? • lie thought not. The authority of
Parliament came into their possession at the last election in
the state in which it had been held 'for centuries. The -Muse
bast maintained its privileges-against every ismilant, and main-
tained them, too, in - the -very worst of times. They re.
covered their parliamentary power 'entire, after having
maintained a succeasfut conflh t against all enemies.
How came it, then, that that which had kept the House in a
state of y*oisr—bow came it that that power was tow
.useiess
in Bich hands ? Di.l- it not occur to them that they would be
required to surrender their trust to their constituents much
impaired, and in a very different state from that in which they
received it ? That House was the crener- stone o? the arch of
the Constitution They were charged with the admiristiation
of justice, let' them then do justice to themselies, He mtiels
regtetted than the Right Ilsn. Gentleman (Sir R. 11. Inglis)
had delivered an opinion' that the power of this House
should be placed under the • guardianship of a court
of law. He had on a former ()cession quoted the opinion
of' the assembled judges at far back as the time of Henry
the Sixth; when thee Were asked what was the extent of'the
authorrly of the House of Commons ? They replied, that
it was trot their province to-do so. The privileges of Par-
liament_ were known only to ParliaMent. and therefore they
.declined to.giste an opinion on the subject. And from' That
time to. this, ill the greatest lawyers of the cenntry had held
the ;same opinion. In some'eaaes, it' wa: true, that 'the
courts of law might- allude •to the privileges of Parliament,
but-it could only be done so incidentally, and not directly.
What has happened in their own day? In the case of Burdett
and-Abbotti which-. the 'House would remember, arose out of a
libel (on the':con.titution of the Houses of Parliament, when
Parliament -exclted -a not very faiourable impression in the
public mind. Sir Francis Burdett when committed, raised the
question in the House, acd it decided, that by appearing to
plead it did not in any degrescompromite the authority of. the
House. The Attorney-General beguiled the House into
pleading, by stating the unanimous opinion of all the lawyers
in the House lobe that when the Speaker appeared to plead, the
judges would not permit the case to any further. —( Hear.)
That was the ground, and- diStinctly the ground, on which
the House was beguiled to plead. The case came on for trial,
and Mr.sHOlropd argued that the House of Commons did not
posses the power to commit for libel. The judges decided that
ih's House had the power, and' that no court of law could
examine into the paivileges of the House or its manner of
exercising them. Lord Ellenborough, however, in giving tart
judgment, volunteered a strange dictium—" That there might
be a case where all law, and justice, and decency. might be set
at defiance, • and whets the courts of law might be
obl ged to interfere:" It was not easy to say
what the Learned Judge nieant when he laid down that
extraordinary maxim of law. The Learned Lord had ruled
that the House possessed the privilege, and that Court could
not inquire into the exercise of it. Why, then, should he put
the phypothetical and impossible case, that the House might
commit an *Mt against law, and justice, and proprlety.—( Hear,
heats) Most certainly, if a case had arisen which that Noble
and s Learned Lord thought proper to consider as op-
posed to his notions of law, and justice, and proprity,
and' he had taken the course which was insinuatedf
the House of Commons of that day would not have
hesitated the moment to commit the Learned Judge to New-
gate.—( Hear, hear.) The supposition was uncalled for, and
it was monstrous in itself.—( Cheers ) Where had the Con-
stitution placed the power of controlling the privileges of Par-
liament ?—in Parliament itself.—( Hear, hear.) But it was
Said that a power so extensive was liable to abuse ; but there
was that liability to _abuse in all courts and bodies of "last
resort." The . House of Lords might, upon the hearing of an
appeal, give away an estate from the rightful owner; but then
there was this necessity in human affairs, that there must be
a place cf final resort, and society must fake the hazard of
whatever error might be committed by that la't tribunal.—
( Hear, hear.) hat other body but Parliament, then, could
presume to take upon its If the power of controlling Parliament
—the discretion to control Parliament—ire the definition
of parliamentary privilege:, or in the mode of exercising them.
—( Hear, hear,. hear.) When the Court of Queen's Bench
decided against the attempt upon the privileges of the House,
Sir Francit Burdett brought a writ of error, but the House was
never informed of any proceedings consequent upon that writ.
Liberty, however, was taken, without the authority of the House,
to appear in the Exchequer Chamber, and afterwards. when
the appeal was carried further before the House of. Lords.
But the House . never gave any authority and no
etimmunicatim was -ever received by the House upon the
subject. 'I hat case of Burdett against Abbot was supposed to
establish the authorit of the House.—( Hear, hear.) Next
came the case of Stecketale against Hansard, and then the
sheriffs were taken into custody for contempt. The Court of
Queen's Bench was applied to on behalf of the sheriffs, and
the Court decided that, as it wes a qui stion of contempt, the
judges had no, power to interfere. However, on that
question Lord Denman threw out a dictum, which
would lay the foundation for their future judg-
ment, whenever the, Court- should think proper to inquire
into.the right of the Hone to commit et all. Then alone the
question as to the right of the House to publish documents.
One of the judges then raid that it might be, advisable for
.Members of the House of Commons to burn their printed doe
cuments as soon as they read them, for they contained libels,
and were read by other persons who found them in their libra-
ries, such Members might be subject to actions for publishing
libels.—( Hear, and a laugh,) All these dicta and in-
sinuations were entirely opposed to Parliamentary liw and
to the Constiution.—( Hear, hear.) In the presen case
Howard avoided the summons of the House. The officers
were told at his residence that he was expected to return soon.
They suited until twelve o'clock, and as some objection was
made to their remaining- longer, they went away. Well, in
that case the Queen's Bench took upon itself to decide what
length of time the officers of the Rouse should be alloWed to
occupy in the discharge of an important duty—in fact, .to what
recilkt
fetostri. tirilHetahorau,ts
privileges
eigtehß,, the execution its own war-
it thN nanrii a
nithe n t
rmebienr
any
iogfhtth e
wdait9sgt7,btehedoneabbe
before
CoreotrushpeifAacbternasigchntrpbue susAsencptnted
could
ibutm rn
tw7antt
be-suspended? 'there must be three sealed bags handed over
to a secret tribune, upon whose report Parliament, would
proced. Witnesses must be called, and examinud in 'secret.
.--(Hear, hear.) Witnesses mutt be compelled to attend,
And what would the Court of Queen's Bench do Hear,
hear.)
.What that Court had now decided that the House
had no right to send its officer for three hours to any man's
house. What potter had the Court of Queen's to know
that there was stah a thing as attendance at the bsr at
all ?—(Hear, hear.) What power had that Court to know
What wete the motives or the objscts of any proceeding in
that House?— ( Hear, hear.) Put to act consistentlyand it
seemed that the Court was determined to be consistent—if
ever a, question arose for the suspensien of the Habeas
Corpus Act—if ever the State should be placed in immi-
nent danger, the Court of Queen's Bench would investigate
the privileges of the Commons, and inquire into its right to
acrid for witnesses at all.—(Hear, hear.) They *ere now
Old that parliamentary privilege should be subject to revital
by the most inferior tribunals. They were told that the
Court coul.t determine hew far the Hou-e of Commons might
go in.compelling the attea deuce of witnesses. Now, no man
more respected the courts of law than he did—no uiati bad a
greats r esteem for L'.rd Detiman's high qualities than he had,
and no man ,would more rssdily acquit that Learned Judge of
any intention to seek popularity by the mode in which 'he dis-
charged his judicial duties.—(Hear, hear.) For Mr. 'Justice
Coleridge also he bad the greatest respect and friendship.
But with all respect to those Learned 'Judges he could not
.admit that Parliamentary proceedings should be subjedt to re-
vision in the inferior courts That was contrary to all that he
.had ever read of Constitutional law. He thought that Parlia-
h importance
:had
privileges wen. exercised in cases of
fsue
that they could pot be quesuond. The law e Parliament, as
- hment, was altogether inde-
pendentfor instance in the cases of impeac _
n Star, and when he looket to the power
of the ottualw
'duties which it had to discharge, he
sof the House and t
was convinced that the interest of the State
required it sbould have what the Constitution gave
it the uncontrolled sigh' of immediately exercising its authority.
I he
this and cost
Learned Getaletnan, oppo site said that the Crown could
not do ld not do that. Why, the Crown could
'issue o
Warrant lest it should come into collision With other
t
:members of the State, and such collision would be resolution.4nem
The Rig -ht Hon. Member for Oxford had said that the House
oueht to prepare forms, but how could adapt forms to all the
cases that might arise ?--( Hear, hear.) And whom would
•
-they .consult for drawing up those forms ?—( Hear,
hear.) They would find in that very decision upon
''the• Speaker's- - warrant that Justice Wightma was
`opposed to Justice Coleridge.-- Justice Williams thought the
warrant was 4,•ed, when Chief Justice Denman pronounced
it to be bad—( A laugh)-and steers Justices Wighttnan and
Coleridge agreed in thinking the warrant was bad, the Chief
JustiCe and Judge Williams pronounced it to be good. Let
theist' loiik to their condition. When would they awake?
:They had a geheral doctrine asserted, and had -the -extent of
their'pOwer under a tesarrant 'revieu ed. What had they left?
No power but 'commitment;' and how would they 'Venture to
exercise it' if this be law. They talked of waiting for an
emergency. Whoever heard of waiting to know the extent
Of their 'authority until a moment when they were to de_
termine with promptitude and decision? Were they to
wait until' 'Oldie safety was in jeopardy ? Would they
-now try them' huthority when' judgment was . pronounced
They hever ceatclbe -in abetter position for trying its extent,
-His 'll,al. 'and- Learned- Friend' said that the • privilege of the
House was 'hot- in question, • He heard that staoement with
'much surprise AA-astonishment. The question -was, whether
may issue a warrant containing commonsense directions, and
intelligible to a Cornrhon understanding, and whether the va-
lidity of a warrant 'or-that kind, issued by the direction of the
Speaker of the- House, the only Minister through whom they
moil act,' was a matter to be cided by the Court al, Queen a
Bench. Was it. no 'part of the privileges as to tie Corm it
should be in; The basif of the decision was that all-documents
'were subject 'to the same' rule, and the question was whether
'the *arrant of the Speaker of the House of Commons was to be
treated in the same wap as a justice's warrant? • Was the
Speaket of the House to issue a warrant plain to his own come
mon-se ? What was the- present condition of the House of
Comm Ons ? They had decision against their privilege. They
were in diffiulty to khow horn to act., and as would
ask what was it that brought them into that diffi-
culty. It was their own iatil.ation, because they had not
acie'd on those powers Which were vested in them. How did
they pet mit the sheriffs to insult them? A sheriff communi-
cated with him as to whether they were to submit to the
authority of the House, and when he recommended theat to
do so, and was about to draw up a petition, the Hon. Gentleman
opposite directed them not to Pursue that course.---( Heart )
They permitted the sheriffs to insult them by holding levees in
the lobby. Were they dealing fairly and honestly, with the
public? Was the House fit to be entrusted with the mainte-
-hancerne of such important and constitutional p rso
"e
• t?alked oyf
had the course of law laid down for them ;
would tell
waiting for public opinion on the mattter ;1
lead public he
eblic opinion.
them that it was the duty of the House to
thoughteP those privi-
(Cheers.) They had shown that they
_,ob,,y
i could main-
min unnecessary tor the public safety;t
a that this House had
min authority who.acted the weak_fre part
every Government
acted. It was a difficult case,
Id like to offer his powers to
give his most humble -a
ws old wish to shrieks . fiessiveustance in relieving the Govern-
nntest
which no one would like
to enter- into.
meat* It wal
cWstre • they to wait till they
brought the 'safety o ,
f She State into danger? The
House had sufficient legitimate power for the present purpose,
'
and for come reason 'they •do not use it. The whole of this
arose from ••the-elischarge of .tbcrise sherds who levied dig money

CtiNt MI 1 ELS
- Mr. DANIEL—To proceed with the Cheltenham Extension at
- once.
(YESTERDAY.) The CHAIRMAV—Do you cbjert, Mr. Cripps
Mr. Coders—Certainly, Sir. we do.
HOUSE OF LORDS. Mr. DANIEL then proceeded to state that this Bill was merely to
give the Birmingham and Gieucerter Company the power to rotas
N.T.WCABTLE AND BERWICK RAILWAY. a curve of ahr,ut a quarter of a mile in extent, in order to avoid an
the Committee on this scheme assembled this moraing in the angle. The Great Western Company had petitioned against the line
Court of Chancery, as the Lord Chaim, llor was not sitting. "on thearrtnind that it would interfere with their works, and with
Mr. Ausata opened the case on behalf of the promoters of the land which they bad purchased. This he denied, and frequently
line. Having given a general description of the line and its advan- referred to the plans to prove his case.
tages, with which the public is well acquainted, the Learned Mr. Caters explained that in consequence of an agreement (the
Counsel proceeded to say that the principal opposition to the terms of which he explained, and which appeared to be
scheme before their Lordships wuted be from the promoters of the of a most complicated character) the Great Western
atmospheric principle, tint he would urge that, even if it could be Company had acquired the right of making the line.
proved hereafter, when the atmospheric system had been suffi- The Act of Parliament fixed the mode by which all traffic should
cier4ly testeu, that it was preferable to the present system, it i be brought to Cheltenham, rendering It incumbent on the Great
would be very ea.-y to aaatioilate the line to Mr. Stephen• Western Company to makes narrow gauge line, in conjunction with
son's plan. rhe principal argument in tavour of the the broad gauge of the Birmingham and Gloucester Company, and
atmospheric principle was its comparative economy in point give notice that they wanted the construction of such a rail. That
of working. It was said it could be worked for one penny notice had been given, the land had been purchased, the rails tiar-
a mile, while the present system cost from tenpence to a shlling tially laid down, and therefore it was an injustice that after ja-
per rmie. If its superior cneapnese should be hereatter proved, it I curring all these expenses, another line should step in and take
would be very easy to adopt the principle. He would appeal to away all the traffic from Gloucester.
the opponents wnether they would persist in their opposition, as it Mr. WIIATELEY, Q. C., could not I, e that the construction of
would wily be wasting the time of the Committee. The Learned the loop would draw off any traffic from the other branch ; however
Gentleman concluded his address by stating that he would proceed if the oppasing Company would themselves undertake to make the
to cal. wanes-es to prove the traffic, the nature of the country i Cheltenham Extension, he would concede that right, or he would
through which the line would pass, and the engineering points. even agree to take th• Bill himself with a postponing clause,
Soate con, r,ariou tr.ving ensued between Counsel as to the having the contingency of the formation of the required line
manner in which the opposition suoulei be conducted, tle, examine. ' within six months.
twit of witnesses for the promoters of the line was proceeded with. I Mr. Corms declined to adopt this suggestion, unless a pledge
Mr, Allhause and Mr. Shield, both merchants of Newcastle, was given that they would use the whr.le of the line.
and also Mr. Phillips, a magistrate of that piece, were then called, Mr. Saunders, Secretary to the Great Western Company, said that
and severaily deposed as to the great commercial advantages which that Company was quite ready to make the loop if proper notice
would result to the borough and its vicinity if the proposed rail. were given them, under the Act of Parliament, which would bind
way were constructed. the other Company to use the line.
The evidence of the traffic and of the general advantages of the Mr. WIIATELEV We give you that notice now.
one were then gone into, after which their Lordships adjourned. It was then arranged that it should be entered on the notes that
the notice was given, and that the Great Western Compels, should
make the hoe, and lay down narrow.gauee rails; and the Bill was
wi hdrawn.
The Ceatameal—Then we shall report that the preamble is not
proved.
This concluded the business before the Committee, and
Mr. Caters, on behalf of his brethren of the bar, expresso('
their thanks to the Committee for the manuer in which the pro-
ceedings had been conducted throughout.

GROUP GG.

GLASGOW, DA.ERHSAD, AND NEILSTON

L.►NE.

The Committee re-assembled at twelve o'clock in the Sessions
House. Present—Mr. Evans (Chairman), Mr. Newdegate, Mr.
Kuntz, and Mr. P. S. Miles.
The CHAIRMAN having again announced the decision of the
Committee on the competing lines, . .

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS said that, after the opinion expressed
by the Hoe. Committee, his clients were not desirous of adducing
further evidence as to the competirg (branch) line; but with
respect to the Glasgow and Paisley Canal, he should be obliged to
tri,uble them with a few observations. The La arned Counsel then
referred to the injury inflicted upon the canal proprietors by
the crossing of the canal by the railway. and he contended that
their terminus might be male on the south side, which woold
avoid this evil, and only be 300 yards further from the city of
Glasgow. He afterwards referred to another mode of passing the
canal by a bridge, raised sufficiently above the water level, and
this he maintained could be effected without any bad gradient.
The Learned Sergeant then, argued that the railway bridge wcu:d
offer an insuperable barrier to their traffic, because as the trains
could not be regularly expected at a certain hour, the canal boats
would be kept in from minute to minute, and hour perhaps to
hour, until the locomotive should:actually:arrive. These injuries
ought to be obviated, and he thought the Committee would not
pass the scheme according to its present plan.
A long discussion ensued between counsel and the Committee
as to the possibility of crossing the canal by a fixed bridge, so as to
obviate the evil arising from the proposed crossing on, a level, and
it was ultimately agreed to craw up a clause to meet the wishes or
both parties.

The preamble and clauses were passed with some verbal amend-
ments, and the Committee then rose a. five o'clock.

GROUP K.
CADIZIZIDGE AND BURT LINE.

The resumption of evidence on behalf of the promoters of this
Bill commenced the business of the Ccmmittee this day.

Mr. Radcliffe, a postmaster at Cambridge, and Mr. Daubeteau, a
large fdrmer at Bu y, gave coi•6rmatery proof of the importance
of the line to the districts they represented.

Mr. Manning. an extensive cattle dealer, from the neighbour.
hood of Newmarket, deposed to the great importance of the line to
the oilcake, manure, cheeses, and vast quantities of cattle that
passed 'hrough Harwich and Ipswich at present, which would un-
exceptional) y come upon the line oil their route to CAmbridge and
Huntingdon.
:the CHAIRMAN intimated an opinion of the Committee that a
line south of Newmarket would be tar more advantageous to the
nece,siti s of the district than either of the projects now under
cor.sideretion

Mr. AUUTIN assured the Committee that the engineering diffi-
culties on sudi a line would present almost insuperable obj ctions
to its constructions.

Mr. Braithwaite, C.E., cr •ss•examined by Mr. A t7sTiN— lie
stated that the entire length of the line would be about 25k miles,
and would accommodate a population of 40 000 inhabitawts, ex.
c usive of the termini. It could he worked at a cost of i 2,000/.
a mile, the gradients being very favourable, and the engine, tiny
difficulties insignificalt. Stations would be placed at Botti-ham,
swatTh3m Prior, a point near Newmarket, Nloulten, and Itisby.
Confirmation wag al, en of the traffic evidence adduced seater.
day ; it was stated that 3,000 tons of cheese are annually lin
ported into Ipswich from Derby, and 1,500 tons from Ho land.
Other evidence of Mr. C. May, as respected the trade of th it
locality, being t onfirmed,
Tire Committee adjourned till the usual hour to.morrow.