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

FINE ARTS.

ROYAL ACADEMY EXHIBITION.—(THIS DAY.)
The seventy-fourth Exhibition of the Royal Academy
opened this day ; an immense crowd waited with eager-
ness the. opening of the doors, and the rooms were
speedily thronged, so.much so, indeed, that it was with
difficulty we could elbow our way through the close=
wedged mass. The Exhibition contains several striking
pictures, some few of first-rate merit, and many of a very
interior character. Among the exhibitors, we are glad to
find La.ndseer, Maelise, Piekersgill,Collins, Lee, an-d seve-
ral other popular pitinters. We will just enter erat e a few
of the piettrres that mesa-strnek es, on a neeessarily hasti
glance.—No. 62, The Play Scene in Ilandft, is front the
pencil of Maclise. It is a showy, imposing production,
antl exhibits some or the worst. emits, as lvell as thi
greatest excellencies, of this clever artist. The concep.:
troll as a whole is good, but the ex:ecution in some
places is feeble, and in others exaggerated. The
countenance of Hamlet, who is reclining on the
ground, attentively watching the countenances of the King
:led queen, is too violent and passionate in expression,
and that of the Kin.,' is quite a caricature. There arc
some rich effects of colouring, and some judicious group-
ing in, what may be called, the back-ground of the pic-
ture, but ut should have been glad to have seen a little
more repose of manner. However, despite its defects, the
work is an animated one, and will be sure to find numerous
admirers. No. 63, Portrad of the Queen, by Partridge,'
is too chalky in its flesh tints ; but the rich, lustrous
satin drapery is very effectively painted. No. 118, Por-
trait of the Right. Hon. the Speaker, is in Sir Martin
Archer Shee's quietest and soberest manner. A little
more vigour of colouring would not have been amiss.
No. 141, Ziva, a badger dog belonging to the Prince of
Saxe Cobourg, is more like life itself than an imitation
of it. It is one of Landseer's happiest productions.
No. 166, An Italian Landscape, is not unlike the glowing,
• poetical style of Claude. The . details are wrought
•up with uncommon care. ('allcott is the painter
of this sterlinggem. No. 171, Portrait of Prince Albeit,
is a creditable likeness, but there is a little too much stiff-
ness about the figure, and the eyes are deficient in that
softness which characterises the original. It •is
in the lower part of the face that the re-
semblance is most easily to be traced. No. 182,
Snow Storm—Steam-boat oft a Ihrbour's Mouth, is
one of Turner's extraordinary freaks. What he means
by it, it is impossible to say; for never was there
so utterly unintelligible a performance. No. 201, The
Battle of Prestonpans is one of Allan's clever, animated
works. The figure of the wounded Col. Gardiner, who is
represented in the act of falling back on his rearing and
alarmed horse, is excellent. No. 220, The Chapel of
the Convent of St. Catherine, is in Roberts's most truthful,
chaste, and forcible style of colouring. • The mellowed
light, glimmering in at the stained window, and lighting
up portions of the•chapel, produces some striking effects.
No. 229, A Conte.d of the Lyre and the Pipe, in the Val-
ley of Tempe, is a. trubr poetical conception, by Danb-.
No. 230, Portrait o/' Dr. Barclay, is a sober, graceful
piece of colouring by Mr. Irvine. There are numerous other
deserving paintings, a notice of which we must reserve
to another opportunity. In the Sculpture-room we were
greatly pleased with an admirable bust of Sir William
Follett, by E. B. Stephens, a sculptor of much promise. ,

9.5111 REGIMENT.—The Depot Companies of this
s lendid • corps, 400 strong, under command of Lieutenant.
Colonel Young, came from Winchester this morning, and
embarked at London-bridge wharf en route to Gravesend, there
to embark in the Repulse for Madras, the drums and fifes play-
ing The Girls we left behind us," and the fine fellows cheer.
ing as they went down the River, which was cordially responded
to by multitudes on the shore.
ATAI. ACCIDENT ON TUE lIIVER.—Last night,
shortly before eight o'clock, a youth, name at present unknown,
was playing, with several other lads, upon some logs of timber
lying in the water near Waterloo-hridge, when he was amusing
himself by kicking a knot in the wood, in so doing he stumbled
forward, and fell head foremost into the river and was drowned.
Upwards of an hour elapsed before the body was found.
A sheet was immediately procured, and the body given into the
charge of Mr. Brown, the beadle, who had it conveyed to the
bone-house under St. John's church, Waterloo road. The
youth was dressed in corderoy trowsers and jacket, black ,tock-
logs, new boots, and wore a white pinafore and blue cap, at:d
had a brass latch key in his pocket.
SI:FEOLK STREET GALLERY.—The second on:-
venyazione of the season took place on Saturday, at these
elegant rooms. The company was more numerous than we
have seen it for some time, and as we had occasion to notice,
when referring to the first conversazione, everything was of the
most. recherche order, and went off with considerable eclat.
We cannot but regret, however, that the lectures, which used
to form
,so great an attraction in the preceding seasons, have
not been renewed.

Two speeches of Lord Ilowiek, one on the Corn-
law Bill, and the other on the Financial measures of the Go-
vernment, corrected by his Lordship, have been eery generally
circulated in Northumberland. They are dedicated to the
tarmere, and, in a short notice prefixed, the Noble Lord con-
traits the professions of Lord Ossulston and Mr. Cresswell with
the opinions delivered by himself; and after adverting to the
new Corn Act, the Tariff, and the Income- tax, significantly
asks—" Who have been sour truest friends?"
The General Steam Navigation Company's vessel
the Giraffe, from Rotterdam, arrived off the Custom- house
yesterday, with the Dutch mail.
The Duke de Montpensier is to undergo en eta-
mniation by a special military jury, of which Marshal
Vallee is President, in order that he may enter the arre-i,
as sub-lieutenant of the Artillery. The young Prince
Rill he subjected to the examination imposed upon the pupils
of the Ecole Polytechnique. A grand banquet will, it is un-
derstood, be given to the garrison of Vincennes, in the wood of
that place, on this occasion.
During the storm of Tuesday, the church at Net-
tleton, in this county, was twice struck by the lightning, which
/14! considerable mischief. The roof of the church ignited, but
by prompt exertion the -Are was soon extinguished. *About 150
panes of glass were 'hilt ed to pieces. The thunder Wa3 ter-
rule, and the lightning most vivid:—Devizes Gazette.
1) 1: uor GENERAL. Scorr.—This distinguished
veteran, who was the oldest officer in the British army, died
yesterday, at his residence, Alalleney House. He was in the
inth year of
.his agn, having been born in the eventful:l74b,
and appeared to be,in his usual health on the day preadiss
bit 'death, wilichAvitiquite tudden.— Edinburgh paper.

aroma I
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 30.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
Mr. THESIGER (in coniinuation from our After-
ntein Edition of Saturday, Said— In order to obviate
the manifest inconvenience and expense of this sort
of attendarce cf witnesses when they were not wanted,
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
he perfectly efficacious for that purpose, and yet might
not be of the slightest validity tu compel their at-
tendance .is the subsequent Session.—( Hear, hear.)
That was th® question which the House had to determine—a
question depending upon the character of the warrant, and the
authority from which it emanated, whether it was a warrant
tisatsproceeded from the authority of the House, and therefore
like AM other proceedings terminated with the end of the Session.
or whether it was a statutable authority, which, therefore, would
not terminate with the Session, but would be operative at a
subsequent period. Prior to the Grenville 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
bring up parties, papers, and records before the House, in order
that the House might determine upon those documents, and
the examination of the witnesses, whether that election was
eed or bad. Of course the inconvenience of that was seri-
nusle 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 day named, to try the
merits of the petition, sod under that Act the Committee had
pows rto martin-ion parties, and to order the production of papers
:sea rricords, and without that power the Committee would
h dsprivad of any authority over the witnesses ; that audio-
ray N, as given them by Statute, and continued by subsequent
statutes. but it was not until the 28 Geo. 111. that the warrant
of (the Speaker was mentioned in the trial of controverted
eleet ions ; and when it was mentioned, it was mentioned not as
an minority conveyed to the Speaker by the House, but a
resognised authority in the Speaker to issue his warrant. He
believed the invariable custom had been, from the 'passing
of the tat enville Act down to the present time, for the Speaker,
under the order of the House, to issue his warrant to summon
parties, and soma fur papers and records. From the time
when the authority was delegated to a Committee, down to the
present time, the warrant of the Speaker was not treated as an
authority in him, fret as an authority in the
House, and conferred by it on the Speaker.
New this was a meat important consideration, and he wished to
call the, particular attention of the House to it, because on this
determinatien the great, part of the question turned. If this
were an authority proceeding from the House like every
other order made and proceeding from the House, with a few ex.
cep:ions, it would terminate with the conclusion of the session,
and he should I.e able to show by authority, not to be
disputed, that it could not be resumed at any future
session, but there must be a renewal of the authority.—
. ( Hear. ) He would call the attention of the House in the first
place to lirdsell; in the 2d vol. p. 335, the different effects of a
prorhgation and an adjournment were stated to be, that with
regard to a prorogation, any Bills or other proceedings not
concluded at the end of one session in either House,
in whatever state they might be in, were entirely
put an end to, and must in the next session be
commenced again ; whereas, on an adjournment every
proceeding remained entire, and might, after the recess,
he taken up where left. In a note to that page to which
he had referred.it would be foundthat there were exceptions men.
tinned, such as cases of privilege; and the House would observe
by reference to the journals, that where a breach had been
committed in one session, the House had in a subsequent
session resumed the consideration of that breach, had
a eted upon it, and bad punished the individual
ettiltyof it, . but not without resuming the consideration
of it. He hoped that the observations which he had made
would induce the House to hesitate before they came
to a rash - conclusion, because he apprehended that at
the conclusion of the last session, the warrant had ex-
hausted its force, and had no power to require that witness's
attendance on Parliament. He would,new briefly call the atten-
tion of the House to same great legal authorities on the subject.
Without entering into detail, he would refer to the general
result of the cases, as condensed in a passage contained in
IlawkinskPleas of the Crown, ch. 16, sec. 54. It was there
stated that a person who had been committed for contempt by
this order of either House of Parliament might be dis-
ialarged from the King's Bench after the disso-
lution or prorogation of the Parliament; and that all
matters before either House must be commenced anew in the
next Parliament, except in the case of a writ of error. To
this he ( Mr. Thesiger) might add the case of an impeachment.
Hawkins referred to several cases in illustration of his state-
ment, but this passage contained the substance. Now the
authorities appeared to have determined this, that
every order and proceeding connected with the privileges
of the House terminated with the termination of the Session of
Parliament. He would put the familiar case of a person who
was committed for contempt, or for a breach of the privileges
of the House. Honourable Members were perfectly aware that
the moment the session ended the party was entitled to be
relieved from imprisonment.—(Hear, hear.) He would take
sinother case. It frequently occurred that shortly before the
owl of the session of Parliament, a motion was made that a
particular Bill be read that day six months. Now the object
of such a motion was not to enable the House, supposing it
should reassemble before the expiration of the period, to take
up the Bill in the state in which it had been left, but the
object was to get rid of the Bill, or compel the party
to renew it in the nest session. If it were agreed by
the Home that a Bill should be read that day six months,
and there happened to be a new session of Parliament,
hefore the periodrespired, that Bill could not be taken up in
the state in which it had been left, but the Honourable
Member who introduced it must begin de novo.—( Hear,
hear, he r.) Now he would next submit to the House
that the warrant' of the Speaker was not a warrant esta•
blished by any statute, but that it emanated from the House.
If he was right in his premises, the warrant- expired in the '
last session' of Parliament, and there was no authority
to compel the witness to attend after the close of the session.
The lion. Member for Devonport (Sir G. Grey) had, he
thought, on a former discussion of this question, cited the 83d
section of the 4th and sth of Victoria, as having the effect of
contintriog the Speaker's warrant.
Sir G. GREY made an observation across the table dissent-
ine, as we understood, from what the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber attributed to him.
Mr. THESIGER hoped the Hon. Gentleman would not
suppose that he had any desire to misrepresent him, but he
(Flr. Thesiger) had so understood the Hon. Gentleman's ar-
gument. However, it would be seen, upon referring to that
section of the Act that it did not apply to this warrant
Of the Speaker. He trusted he was sa far advanced in his
argument as to have satisfied the House that this statute,
to which be had just referred, was not a statute of au-
thority in the present instance, and that it was situated
in the same respect as all the other orders and proceed•
ings connected with the privileges of the House,
and coming to an end upon the termination of the session.
But the decision as to the propriety or impropriety of keeping
this party in custody would not depend altogether upon the
decision they might come to as to this point, because, if the
House should be of opinion that this authority had been con-
ferred upon the Speaker by the Act ;of Parliament; the ques-
tion would still remain if the warrant was such as to
render the party disobeying it guilty of a con-
tempt of the House.—( Hear.) The warrant commanded
the party on whom it was served to attend the Committee ap-
pointed to try the merits of a petition, complaining of an undue
election for the borough of Southampton during the present
session of Parliament, and he apprehended that the authority
of the warrant, from the manner in which it was framed, was
not such as to compel the attendance of the witness during
the present session of Parliament. He would refer
the House to what was the practice of Courts of Law
under analogous circumstances. If a subpoena were served
upon a witness, requiring• his attendance at a particular
sittings or assizes if the cause were made what was techni-
cally called a remunet, the party on whom the subixena had
been served could not be compelled by any intimation from
the attorney or agent of the other side to -attend at any subse-
quent sittings or assizes by that subpcena. (Hear,
bear.) There was no reason why there should be any
difference between the warrant of the Speaker
end a subpoena. Even if it were admitted to be a floating
warrant, he conteuded that no warrant so worded would be
compulsory on a party to attend in a totally different session to
that mentioned in the warrant. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath. had alluded to the case of a person bound over
in recognizances to appear at the Quarter Sessions, but when a
part, attended cn his recognizances, and was ordered to attend
at a subsequent Court, his rccognizances had to be respited in or-
der to corneel his attendance. Some act must be dune to trans-
fer the obligation of attendance from ore Quarter Session to an-
other. his Hon and Learned Friend the Member fur Bath would
forgive him for saving, that the analogy to la hick he referred
militated against his own position. 'I here was another point
to which he wished to allude, and which appeared to have
made some impression on the minds of lion. Gentlemen
on both sides of the House; he alluded to the cirenmstance of
the party being supposed to have waived any advantage he
might have derived from the invalidity of the warrant, by his
.having chosen to appear before the Committee.
(Hear, hear hear.) The question
,had . no doubt
been raised in the first instance in the Howe,
'and had nut been brought under the consideration of the 5,%/ois
4nittee by the able counsel fot the sitting Member, his Learned
Frieiel,-Mr. Austin. But be should observe that hi 3 Learned
Friend had had no opportunity of bringing the objection
Iseecew the Select Committee before the party s •n
attendance. The answer of the Committee to the ei;jeacloo la
earleuldese that thee had nothing to do with any argument re-
siseerine the validity or invalidity of the war
the witness before teem, and whether he -"n'• They had
.or opals compu:sion, it was e , Yras th,re voluntarily
questions to him they - _ . ..leis duty to put any
ion petition which ...opt think proper touchintz
they ware ealed upon to try.
It should also bo 0,
...erred that the witness had not li
stilted for an ,ring he had done before the Committee,
but for
le:using to pussies, 1s it certain pap•r which it was alleged, hid
been, imps custody at the time the warrant was issued. It was
',131 thin to say that a witness having attended was compelled
..t.e, answer- fairly and honestly whatever questions might be put
'sw bins ; and it was another thing to say that coming
Wore the Committee, either voluntarily or upon a
notice served upon him, he ought to • have produced
the documents referred to in the Speaker's \variant.
That was perfectly clear. His desire was, to follow the wish of
the House, because he was sure they were all desirous to do
justice to the int'iieldull who o case was under consideration.—
( Hear. beer.) He was sure if they had taken a false step,
then wotild recede as quickly as possible; if they acted without
t'veiticient authority, they should redress the injury
• !Ley had done as soon as possible. (Hear, hear. )
lie trusted that he had, with fairness, with calmness, and
glue deliberation, brought the subject before the Hiouse,
-under the sincere conviction of the validity of the argu-
ment lie had addressed to them—a conviction which he had
voine to before he.had been able to consider the matter as
fully as he had since done. At all events he hoped the
House would take the matter into its serious deliberation,
and show an anxious desire to do justice to this individual.
(Hear, hear.) He hoped he weuld succeed in having that
*tic() done, for it was infinitely inure important than the re-
sult of the inquiry itself; and though sure of being correct in
the result he had conic to, that was of little consequence
in comparison with the injustice of detaining this individual.
Ile should, therefore, move that William Rous Mabson should
be discharged from the custody of the Sergeant. at-Arms.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said he rose to second tie motion of
his Hoe. and Learned Friend. During the many years he had
t4L in that Nouse, he trusted he never showed any want
of application or care in preserving its due authority.
it might be useful to look baek to the nature -of . the
jut- tsdietion of the House of Commons. They would
' _lied that a petition complaining cf an undue election,
if continued to the next session, became necessary
to be renewed, or it became valueless. Why, then,
was the Speaker's warrant greater now than it had been
beloie? 'the Hon. Member described the former practice of
the noose with considerable minuteness, and was understood
to argue generally against the validity of the present warran t
Mr. REDINGTON would not speak as to the legal sisa:sd_
lien n
to which the Right Honourable Gentleman 'ho i
ig,t, sat down referred, but he trusted the House would
believe him when he said, that the Committee, in committing
``this' individual, did so from a sense of their duty.
I.a The Committee col-181(10 that the warrant was a perfect one,
---` . till ' till it had been questioned in that House. They considered
ytootfhe a
l e
s,,
s.N,
---....id
er_ ute the. Howe would give bins the benefit contemptofgiatlegality-
yB of thea
se wof sure,
~;lu
arier.
ei r.
.4 ,7- atenth,ibsutinidi itvhiedruealwahsadanbyedenoubgtuailst

-

-:.~ t
#~.

after the unprecedented occurrence of last night,
.the House
would expect that he should say a few words upon that sub-
ject. He had only casually heard that this motion was to be
made; and if the lion. Member for Woodstock had wished
that Hon. Members should know that he intended to
bring forward the subject, he. had adopted a very
inefficient course to effect that object. He felt con•
fident that the House was taken by surprise last night, and
that the course adopted by the Hon. Member for Woodstock
was not very respectful towards it. There was another
point to which he wished to advert. An expression hat
been made use of in the House last night, which had
been withdrawn that day, which, if he had been in
the House, he should have been induced to repel
in the strongest terms, for he believed that a more foul or groat
aspersion had never been thrown on seven sworn men.—(Great.
cheering.) Much had been said on the subject by met
eminent at the Bar. lie would not gainsay their state-
ments, he trusted that justice would never be forgot-
ten by those who practised in Westminster Hall.—(Cheers.)
Mr. THESIGER said that he rose to explain, after the as-
persions which had been made against him, with reference to
his notice of motion, that he erred entirely through ignorance.
Sir G. GREY said he did not mean to impute to the Hon.
Member fur Woodstock that he had intentionally given hi,
notice in an irregular way, but he must 4ay that having
heard, at five o'clock last night, the Honourable Mem-
ber give notice that he intended at the next meeting o;
the House, to take the sense of the House, he (Sir G. Grey)
was certainly under the impression that the motion would have
been made on Monday.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the
Hon. Member ought to have stated that at a late hour
of the night; he should move that the House meet
again on Saturday.—( Hear, hear.) It was quite aecidentall:
that casting his eyes over the Votes he perceived that tin
Speaker was to take the Chair at Two o'Clock.—( Hear, hear. )
He did not rise to follow the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman through the whole of • his learned speech,
but he really did not think—and he said it with all defer-
ence to the House—that that House was a tribunal capable of
judging Of the legal arguments which might be made use of, or
of the legal merits of the case now under their consideration.
Grave doubts had been expressed on the subject of the warrant
by Hon. and Learned Gentlemen, whose authority he though.
entitled to great respect, and he was quite ready ti
admit that means might be taken to ascertain
whether those doubts were well-founded, awl if se
to provide a remedy for the evil.—(Hear, hear.) But
were they then competent to do that? Notwithstanding all
that had been said by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite
and from the Law Officers of the Crown, he was not prepared,
on the statement of any Hen. Member, to assume that a
practice, which had existed for such a length of time.
was illegal. What he would venture, therefore, "to
suggest to the House was, not that they would entertain the
motion upon the ground either of the legality or illegality of
the warrant, but that they should decide whether or not the
witness should be discharged upon the merits of the, case.—.
(" No, no," from the Ministerial benches.) He would also
suggest that a notice of motion should be given cn en early day
for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire as to what
the practice of the House then Was with regard to the issuing
of summonses for the attendance of witnesses before Com-
mittees, arid that the Committee should retort whether am
and what law was requisite on that subject. He would pro-
pose that the Speaker should give that Committee the benefit
of his experience. The Report of that Committee would be
document on which the House might rely.—( Hear, hear.)
With regard to the warrant, he was prepared to say that it had
not been proved tobe illegal ; but the question of its legality or il-
legality was one which could not then be decided. It would involve
a reference to the Journals of the House for several years past,
and he must say, with reference to what had fallen from
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, that he thought
it might involve a reference to the proceedings
of the ether House of Parliament. There were many cases in
which resolutions of the other House had been held to be binding
beyond the session; and he thought that was a case somewhat
analagous to the one se hich they were then engaged in considering.
The necessary inference from the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman's argument was that every warrant issued since the
beginning of the present session by the Speaker, having been
issued on the authority given in the session of 1841,
was invalid. If he understood the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man's arguments right it was this, that the authority given
in the session of 1841 had ceased with the termina-
tion of that session, and that the warrants issued tinder
such authority had also ceased to be valid. The result of
such a doctrine being adopted would be that the
five election petition warrants now issued by the Speaker, sum-
moning witnesses to give evidence before the respective Com-
mittees, having been issued under circumstances similar
to that in the Southampton case, would not be attended
to by the witnesses ; and was it a desirable result,
he would ask, that these witnesses should be empowered to
say that they would not attend the Committees, because
the House of Commons had declared that the Speaker's
warrant issued in those ,cases was illegal. With regard to
the merits of the case, be certainly was not prepared
to dissent upon the merits from the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman (Mr. Thesiger) to discharge the witness
from custody. With regard to the legality or illegality of the
summons, it was admitted by the House, that if the summons
was not legal, it was because there was a defect in the law,
and whether the summons was, legal or not when the witness
had the document in his possession at -the time he was called
upon to attend a Committee, the House would do
right in visiting the individual with its displeasure.
He would not advert to the conduct of the witness before the
Committee ; he had no right to -do so ; but looking at the evi-
dence which he had given at the bar, it appeared to him (Sir
G.. Grey) to amount tothie, that he had possession of these do-
cuments—that he knew they would be wanted—and that he
had incautiously parted with them but since the witness had
stated that he was willing to make inquiries as to the individual
by whom he had sent these documents to Captain Ward, and as
there was no -suspicion that he had absconded, he thought
it just,.. as -he _had been kept in confinement for three
days, that he should now be discharged—( Hear, hear )
but still liable to be called before the Committee, still being
bound to exert himself for the recovery of these papers,
and . Vowed to exonerate himself before the Commit-
tee, and, it might be, hereafter before the House,
from the charge ,of having knowingly got rid of the
papers. If the motion for his discharge was rested
upon those grounds, and not upon the ground of the
illegality of the warrant, he would consent to it.
He would not consent to declare that warrant illegal; but
he would, as grave doubts seemed to be entertained on the
subject, suggest that some course ought to be adopted
analogous to the one he had pointed out for
the purpose of setting the question at rest.—(Hear.)
Mr. FERRAND would not have trespassed upon
the House, had it not been for the strong language
that had been used by Hon. Gentleman opposite.—( Cheers. )
The Speaker last night had told him (Mr. Ferraud) 'that
he was out of ordere in making . use of the language which he
had used, and he had immediately withdrawn that expres-
sion.—( Hear, hear.) He had wished to call the atten-
tion- of the House to the fact that the Chairman of the
Southampton Committee had reported to the House,
thit he had eomniitted the witness to the custody of the Ser-
geant-at-Arms for having disobeyed- the Speaker's warrant.
He found On inquiry that the 'person had been met with
in London accidentally, that he - had been taken be-
fore the Committee without having any opportunity
given him, to go down to Southampton, and that it bad been
impossible for him to go down to search for the paper. He
(Mr. F.) had heard with 'surprise the Hon. Member for Gates-
head assert-that the majority of the Cornmitteehad reported the
conduct of that man, and had directed that he should be placed
in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, not for the par pose of
procuring additional evidence from him, but as a punishment
for the manner in which he had given his evidence. He felt
that in using the expressions he had done, after that avowal of
the Hon. Member for Gateshead—
Mr. HUTT—I rise to order, Sir. I feel, Sir, that that
Hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say, after having used the
indecent expression—(" Order, order.")
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman is clearly out of
order in characterising any expression of an Hon. Member-in
the Howe-a, indreent.—(Cheers. )
Mr. HUTT—Sir, I apologise to the House for having been
so far carried away by. the warmth of my feelings as to give
utterance to an expression unworthy of my position as a Member
of this House. I rise to order, Sir. It is evidently out of order
for the Hon. Gentleman opposite, after having made use of an
expression with regard to the Southampton Election Committee,
and after having been called to order by you for using that ex •
pression, and after having retracted that expression, to attempt
now to justify it. If he have retracted—which I understand
he has done—the expressions which he applied last night, I
presume he is not now to rise here in his place to justify them.
He apprehended that that was the line of argument which the
Hon. Member was pursuing, if he did not use the very words;
and es it appeared to him that such conduct was in the highest
degree objectionable, he had thought it his duty to call the Hon.
Gentleman to order.
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member for Knaresbo-
rough had last night made use of a term for which he had found
it his duty to call him to order. He had used the word " v:n-
-d ctive," but when that expression was withdrawn, no reflect ices
should have been made upon it in any other form. If he had
tucertained, after the Hon. Member had concluded his sentence,
that it was his intention to justify the expression he had before
used, it would be his (the Speaker's) duty, and he should cer-
tainly have' found it necessary, to call him to order again.
He was sure the Hon. Gentleman would perceive that no
Member had a right to refiect upon the conduct of a Coromi4.lee
which was sitting to deride a case upon the, authority delegated
to it by the House.—( Neer.)
Mr. FERRI% ND said, that he sincetely regretted • that
he had used the language complained of last night.—(ll(llr,
hear.) But he did not knew whether it was necessary for hull
any farther to justify the language he had used.—( Loud laugh-
ter.) Ile was not going to jus*.if c the word " vindictive," but
he did think that the Hon. Meinbe: would allow him to say
that the language he had used was %ery extraordinary language
for a Member of a Committee.
Mr. HUTT—What was ?
Mr. Fl-....ItRAND said that he had understood the
Member to make the very extraordinary assertion that, the
Committee had not confined tho witness for the purpOse of
obtaining Any further evidence from him.
Mr. HUTT—I did not. say so.
Mr: FERRAND said that, so far as he remembered,
that was the language used by the Honourable Member.
Mr. BERNA L rose to order. Ile was sure the House
and the Hon. Member himself would perceive that it would be
highly injudicious and highly indecorous that the time of the
Mouse should be wasted by repetitions of what had passed in
former debates.
Mr. FERRAND said that he had first been attacked in very
strong language, and he had only risen for the purpose of re-
planting. 't he lion Member had at all events used very strong
language towards him personally.—( Cries of " Order.")
The SPEAKER said, that the Hon. Member for Knares-
borough had acted most properly by retracting the exptgiror
he had used last night, after he had been called to order. The
Hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Redington) had not, on that
evening, as he (the Speaker) !earl understood him, attacked
the Honourable Member for having used that ex-
pression. But the Honourable Member for Dundalk
had said, that if that word were applied again, he should feel it
his duty to use the strongest terms which the forms of the
[louse would allow. The lion. Member had not, however, as
it appeared to him, used any strong expression affecting the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough. He trusted the lion.
Member for Knaresborough would allow him to say, that it was
perfectly irregular• to allude to what had been said in a former
debate.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUTT—Perhaps, if I am perfectly:in order the House
.will permit me—(Loud cries of" Chair," and "Order.") I
presume the House is not going to refuse to hear me, in expla •
nation of my course of proceeding—some explanation of the
charges made against me. Sir, lam disposed to approach this
subject in all ealenne-s. As I have stated, I did not use the
expression attributed to me. The expression 1 did use was—
( The Hon. Member was again interrupted by loud cries of
.t. Order," and "Chair.") Surely the commonest indulgence
might be granted me. 1 did not say that "for the purpose of
obtaining evidence, I did think it was desirable to. retain the
witness."—( Cries of " Order, order.")
The SPEAKER said, that after his having
.called cne Hon.•
Member to order, it was quite unnecessary Le. the Hon. Mem-
ber. (Mr. Hutt) to explain.
Mr. HUTT—I will not 'Tess.
An How. MEMBER en the Ministerial benclies—Orou have
to_right.
Mr. HUTT—Who says I have" no presume, Sir —.
Mr. C. W. WYNN-1 thought that the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough had not concluded his speech. He was inter-
rupted by a speech to order. He is therefore in possession of
the House.—(Hear, hear.)

Mr. FERRAND—After the remarks which have fallen
from the Hon. Gentleman opposite, I shall not go on.--( Hear.)
Mr. HUTT—I can assure the House that I had no intention
of interrupting the Hon. Member for Knaresborough. I
thought he had concluded his speech. It is impossible for
me not to feel myself seriously affected by the different
charges made against the Committee of which I am
a member. I can assure the House that, according to the best
of my ability, I have endeavoured to discharge my duty upon
that Committee.—( Hear, he3r.) I will say, that with respect
toemy acting as a member of this Committee, if any one should
say that I have made an unjust application of my oath, or in
any way perverted my duties' as a man of honour—if such an
allegation were made, either in this House or elsewhere, I
,vould treat that person who made it as a calumniator and a
!iar !--(Loud cries of " Order, order," "Chair, chair," and
great confusion.)
The SPEAKER—I must tell the Hon. Member that such
,xpressions cannot be tolerated here.—(Tremendous cheering.)

is my duty to call on the Hon. Member to retract his

pression.
Mr. HUTT—I assure you, Sir, and the House, that I feel
,incerely sorry if I have in any way offended against the regu-
lations of this Holl3e.—( II( ar, hear.) Using the expression I
did, I thought it was a part of speech which was per-
mitted in this House. I had no intention of going
tieyend the regulations of the House. Both these
eepressions, then, I regret to have u ed." The Hon.
tiember continued. He would dismiss this subject. He
was surprised that the Right Hon. Gentlemen who occupied
the Treasury benches did not stand forward in defence
of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman. He thought
that the Honourable Gentleman hart given notice of a motion
for Monday to bring this subject under the consideration of the
House, and he thought he would have acted a more becoming
and a far fairer part if he had communicated his intention to
the Committee or to one of the Members of that Committee,
instead of bringing the subject under consideration late in the
evening. He was not surprised that many exalted and lion.
Members did not acquit the lion. arid Learned Member of
disingenuousne-s. lie thought he acted with a great want of
candour.
Mr. THESIGER said he did in t know if the Hon. Member
was in order. He had enderen ured to explain to the House,
that he had not any improper n otives, and he trusted he had
explained that satisfactorily.—( Hear.)
Mr. HUTT presumed he was in order.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman had made an explanation which might
be satisfactory to his own mind, but it was not so to his ( Mr.
Hutt's) mind, nor to a majority of that House.—( Hear,
hear.) With regard to the motion which had been brought
before the House, he could only say, that gentlemen of the
legal procession on both sides of the House having decided that
the warrant was not a legal instrument, the individual in ques-
tion ought to be discharged. But the House must recollect that
it was not for disobeying a legal warrant that he was confined.
He would say in addition, that Members who served upon
Committees, had a very arduous duty to perform—(Hear,
hear)—which was rendered still more so, when, after serving
upon a Committee from 11 to 4 o'clock, and then, performing
their duty as Members in the House, they were called upon at
half-past two to defend any portion of their conduct.—( Cheers.)
The SOL)CITOR-GENERAL said that after the debate
which had taken place there could be little doubt that this
individual ought to be discharged from custody. His Right
Honourable Friend near him, who had given his
opinion on the subject, ought to be conclusive on the point.
the present was a question of great constitutional importance.
He should not enter into anything like an argument upon it,
but should merely call the attention of the House to it, and they
wodd at once ere its very great importance. He could not
quite agree with his Hon. Friend, that there had been any
practice prevailing in that House which the present notice fell
in with, because the point was altogether a new one,
and it' was because it was a new one that he con-
sidered it of so much importance. He woulA show the
House that the question could not have arisen before. Pre-
vious to the passing of the present Act, it was so well confirined
that everything of this kind, commenced in one session of Par-
liament ended with that session, that evenn petition against a
return, if prepared but not presented in that session, was with-
drawn, and a new, petition presented in the subse-
quent one.-(Hear, hear.) Thus, not only everything in-the
shape of orders and warrants ceased with the session, but even a
petition itself. Then it was usual for the House to give the
customary order to the Speaker to issue his summons to the
witnesses to attend. Under the Bill of his Right Hon. Friend,
(Sir Robert Peel,) a clause was, for the first time, introduced,
by which a petition presented but not prosecuted in one session
of Parliament, might be left over to the next one. He did not
think that it had ever occurred, that a petition presented in
one session of Parliament had been tried in another.
Sir G. GREY—A few sessions ago.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—But no such question as the
present bad ever occurred. The present case had not arisen from the
Bill of his Right Hon. Friend, but from the circumstance that
so many petitions were presented after the general election,
that in the short session of Parliament, it was not possible
to try them. It was thus the question had arisen, whether
the warrants then issued were binding in the present session.
That had arisen from the peculiar state of the circumstances
arising from the short session of Parliament. This had given
rise to a serious question, and when the warrant was read at
the table, he (the S'olicitor-General) asked the Speaker whether
that was a regular warrant? At the One he put that ques-
tion, he was not aware that there were any other warrants
of a similar description, but he considered it to
be a mistake of the parties in the peculiar
case. Now that the question had been moved, it became a
serious matter as to how that question was to be settled. He
agreed that the opinion of lawyers given in that House could
not be considered as satisfactory. He believed that no direct
legislative power was given to the Speaker to issue his warrant.
It was issued as one of the privileges of the House of Common 3,
and therefore it was an authority derived from the House, and
not held by the Speaker independent of it. Under such cir-
cumstances, the question was, whether any authority given by
the House was not put an end to by the termination of the
session. There was great doubt upon the subject, and such
being the case, he thought the party in custody ought to
have the benefit of that doubt. After the party
was discharged, they could then discuss. the-matter calmly, and
deal with it as they should think fit. For his own part, he
thought that alt these subjects would be better decided by a
tribunal out of the House, and be had come down with a deter-
mination to move for a Committee to inquire into the subject.
He did not say that this question should be removed altogether
from the House, bathe thought it right certainly to remove it
from the body of the House, and that every matter should
be decided by: the Committee appointed to try
it. He wished to express his entire concurrence
in what had. fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, and if that
House consented to the discharge of the witness, he should give
notice—and he would now give notice, that on Monday next
he should moss that a Select. Committee be appointed to
inquire into the practice of the House with regard to the
summoning of witnesses to the Bar of the House, and to report
what alterations in the present law were requisite.
Sir T. WILDE said, he apprehended that no feeling could
exist in the House but that of perfect concurrence with
what had fallen from his Honourable and Learned Friend,
namely, that a Committee of inquiry should be appointed. The
Committee which sat, and had made this Report to the House,
appeared to have made the Report in such a form as to give rise
to a question of legality. The debate which had arisen on this
question had strikingly proved that very little good could follow
discussion on such a question in that House. This had arisen
more from the peculiar form of that Report than from the parti-
cular nature of the subject matter. He did not think that a new
Act of Parliament was required in this instance. The House
was perfectly efficient to decide on the question before it. All the
original constitutional authority which, it alone possessed it still
retained, and he was of opinion that the Speaker's warrant was
issued by him under his general Parliamentary authority. The
Committee appointed to try a contested election was authorised
to report whether witnesses had disobeyed the Speaker's
summons, or the summons of the Chairman, or had given false
evidence, or hid otherwise misbehaved himself. What was the
condition in which the matter stood? A person had been
before the Committee to be examined. It was a matter of
- perfect indifference whether he went there by virtue
of a summons or warrant. He was there voluntarily
under. examination ; he was called on to produce certain
papers, and it was for the Committee to decide
whether his conduct was contumacious in not pro-
ducing them. If the Committee were of opinion that
he had had reasonable notice to produce the papers, and that
having had that, he made away will them, in order to prevent
the jurisdiction of the Committee, he was guilty of contempt
of the authority of the House, and was liable to be committed.
Much ambiguity appeared to have arisen from calling the docu-
ment a warrant. In point of fact it was nothing more than a
notice to produce, elli a the sole question was whether that dom.
meet, signed by the Speaker, was a reasonable notice. If the
witness had asked for further time to comply with
the terms of the warrant, are Committee would, no
doubt, have granted his request; but, his statement was
that he had put it out of his power to produce them,
and that took place three
.months after he had received
notice.—( Hear, hear.) It was a momentous question
whether a witness should be allowed to destroy papers on the
ground that the summons had expired. 11 a Committee
reported that a witness had misbehaved himself, what was the
House to do ? Under the Act of Parliament the Chairman of the
Committee, by their direction, might, at any time, in the
course of their proceedings, resort to the House, for the
interposition of its authority or censure.—( Hear, hear.)
All that was deputed to the House by the Act of Par-
liament was, whether censure or commitment should be
the consequence of the verdict of the 'Committee. It
always gave him discomfort to hear Hon. Members refuting
la that House to the proceedings and practice of the Courts
in Westminster Hall. The practice of that House was
founded upon higher principles than were then proceeding in
the Courts of Law. It it should turn out upon inquiry
that this authority of the House issued in one ses-
sion ceased in. another, he deprecated remedying that
by Act of Parliament. They could make Standing Or-
ders in one session, which would govern the proceed-
ings of the 'louse in that and future sessions. If the
, douse is Sailed on to decide, whether a witness had or had
not been guilty of prevarication, it unfortunately happened that
the opinions of Members on that subject would be' too often
foretold by knowing on which side of the House he sat --
( Ikar, hear.) A nether important circumstance Wes,
that in 1 he3l discussions they saw Members of the saute
Commit tee rising on opposite sides of the House, and giving oppo-
site opinions, and mithing could more incapacitate Gentlemen
nssembled together in Committee for coming to acalm judgment
than being thus brought into collision one with another. The
HOll5O would du %tell to consider, that in all those cases they
had not to decide on the conduct of the witness—
all that they bad, to do was to look to the record.
That record set forth that the party had been con-
victed by a proper tribunal, and all that the House
had to do, sitting in - its judicial capacity, was to
consider the sentence which should be passed upon
' it. He should vote for the discharge of the man, because
he thought that pending the inquiry, which had been
Proposed, he ought. not to be kept in custody.
He approved of the
_condnct of his Hon. and Learned Friend
in expressing a doubt on the subject, and although he ( Sir T. W. )
entertained no doubt whatever, yet he thought that after a
doubt had been expressed by such high authority as his
Honourable anti Learned Friend, inquiry was necessary.
He did not think that the witness should now be kept in cus-
tody ; and he should therefore vote in favour of his dismissal,
with the understanding that he should be ready to attend again
before the Committee if his attendance were required.
Sir C. NAPIER said that he had been last night charged
by the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury,
with having brought forward a motion of an unparalleled cha-
racter.... (Cries of " Order.")
Lord MA 110 N rose to order. He submitted that it was not
proper, in the absence of the Right lion. Baronet, to refer to
what had fallen from him on a former evening.
Sir C. NAPIER would only say that in the course he had
taken last night, it had not been his intention to embarrass
either the House or the Government, or the Committee. He
was happy to find that the motion he had made last night, and
ehich was rejected by a large majority, was now unanimously
adopted.
After a few words from Sir R. INGLIS,
.Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said he had been much surprised at
the course adopted the minority in the Committee. He
thought it was decidedly wrong in them to state their opinions
nintil the whole dare proceedings -were before the House. He
should support the motion of the Hon. .111einber for Devonport.
• After agweworde from Mr. Reningeon and Sir. Y. Issue,
Mr. THASIGER moved that the prisoner be discharged
from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The motion was then agreed to.
At the suggestion of Mr. C. WOOD, it was added to the