Star.
London, England, 1811-05-18 00:00:00

•
almost to the. prevent. Itere.was the history of thl.
tittles to which he alluded; iiid the unan:m its opinion
of every enlightened man at the time, all conviring
in sapport of the doctrine, whit)* he this day contend-
ed for, That the House of Commons did possess the
Privilege of committing for t nnempt, and that they
alone were the Judges of what were those
The question, therefore, whether the conduct of Sir
r, Barden was a Breach 'of the Privileges, of the
House ofCommOns; was tiot one for the fit con stderat ion
of the King's Beitch Court ; the House itself- alone
had that power. They determined that he had been
guilty of a breach of one4f its privilege; they voted
him to be committed to tRe Tovrir, and they ordered
the Speaker to/issue his warrant for his commitment,
and also the %Varmint directing the Governor of de
Tower to receive him into his custody. In execution

of these orders, the Speaker did issue his warrant, and
Sir F. Burdctt was eventually sent to the Tower. For
this act of duty, on the part of the officer of the
House, in obedience to his orders, Sir F. Burdett had
thought proper to bring his action. Upon this pail
of the case, he trusted he had said enough to shew
how the Court ought to act upon this occasion ; and
that they would have no difficulty in giving an opi-
nion in favour of the defendant. He was not a*are

that he had neglected to touch upon any of the topics
urged by his Learned Friend en this part of the case ;
if he had, it was from an unwillingness on his part to
take up the time of the Court unnecessarily. The
only question remaining for his consideration was
that touching the question of right to break the outer
door. His Learned Friend had stated, that this being
a proceeding at the suit of the House of Commons,
and net of the Crown, the defendants were not ju►ti.
fled in breaking the outer door of Si rFrancis Burdett's
house, although due notice was given to him of the
cause of their coming, and although he refused to
open his door when summoned by the person who
served the warrant. His Learned Friend had laid it
down as the law, that no officer of justice had a right
to break the outer door of a man's dwelling, unless it
was at the suit of the King. This, he contended,
was not a correct statement of the law. He would

admit, that no man had a right to invade the sanc-
tity of another's private dwelling, upon an individual
and private wrong ; but, when the injury complained
of went farther, and affected the public weal, then
that extraordinary power, as in the case of the King,
was given upon the same principles to the House of
Commons, whose interposing authority was exercised
for the public advantage. The doctrine he had thus
quoted was laid down in several cases upon record.
It had been held on many occasions, that the gang,
being the guardian of the public property, he, alone,
had such a power, but only upon the principle of his
interposing such an authority for the public advan-
tage. In Cruain's case, in Cook's Reports, in the
reign of Elizabeth, and afterwards finally determined
in the second of James I. the Judges came to this de-
termination, 44 That no officer had power to break the
miter door of the subject, upon any pretence whatever, ,
except or unless in the cause of the Queen, or for
coatenritt." Now he took this opinion to be decisive
on the present question—What did the word content/et
apply to? Why, it must be applied in its proper
meaning, to coedgmpt of Court. It applied to every
thing in which the Public were concerned; to every
Court where the public interests Were affected by the
maintenance of the Court's authority. The privileges
of the House of Commons were calculated for the
benefit of the Public, and every violation of them was
a violation of the public authority ; and it was, more
properly speaking, a public wrong. Therefore he
contended, that the interposition of the House of
Commons, was but an extension of their legitimate
authority for the benefit of the Public. This was not
the cause of a private individual ; it affected the
privileges of the whole House of Commons. Any
man who would contumaciously resist the authority
of the House of Commons, he must take the conse-
quences of such disobedience. If the House of Com-
mons had not acted as they had done—if they had not
proceeded immediately to carry into execution the
power they possessed—,and had submitted to the slow
process of a suit in a Court of Law, in order to de-
termine the extent of their Privileges, the number of
persons disposed to treat their power and authority
with contempt would increase in thousands every hour.
But he did not wish the Court to adopt his ( Mr. At-
torney-General's) reasoning upon the case ; he would
beg their Lordships, in addition to Cemain's Case, to
turn their attention to that of Briggs-Ist Rolls Re-
ports, 336, in which the same doctrine he had just
quoted from the former, was laid down by the Learned
Judge, namely, for contempt of Court, the same au-
thority was granted to the King, as for other offences,
where the common weal was affected. With respect
to the objection of his Learned Friend to the warrant
by which Sir F. Burdett was committed by the House,
namely, that the offence for which he was committed
was not sufficiently described thereon ; be should
only briefly observe, that it was quite sufficient for
his purpose if the plain meaning of the words were
understood. He would admit, that had the instru-
ment been prepared by his Learned Friend, or any
other Gentleman more conversant with the technica-
lities of suck proceedings, the same objection would
not have occurred. But the House of Commons was
not bound down by the same forms and precis tech-
nicalities as Courts of Law. It was quite sufficient
if the offence was described with so much intelligence
as to meet the level of every man's understanding.—
He was not now aware of any other point to which he
thought it was necessary to make any reply. Hoping
that he had shewn that what the House of Commons
had done was perfectly justifiable in law, that their
conduct, in all its parts, was not only justifiable, but
in its manner strictly legal. He should leave the
cause of his clients with perfect confidence in the
hands of the Court.
Mr. HOLROYD, in reply, said, he wished, that on a
question of so much importance as the present, he
had the ability and talents with which his Learned
Friend had so handsomely complimented him ;—be-
cause the subject was of so much importance, a.ni
involved such a great variety of topics, that he was
afraid he should not be able to explain himself with
sufficient intelligence to the Com t. His Learned
Friend had said that he had established no substantial
proposition upon this subject. to, which the Court
could turn their serious attention. For his own part
he thought he had established many important ones.
In the first place, it was admitted to him that he had
gone upon a line of argument, on which, he had every
reason to expect he would meet with must opposition;
-Ad

, .