Star.
London, England, 1810-05-12 00:00:00

L

,

they were in at present;-hti huffing done
~ottla:lliemi as
stild not have shrunk from advising them,:
/40 riou7ht the House did. possess the power of coin;
mating ea a breach of privilege. If in making this
declaration he should be.come unpopular, he would
bear it with all the patience and resignation he was
able; for he would treat the people as he would
treatthe ging—he-would serve both, but flatter nei-
ther. The
House of Commties were undoubtedly
the sole judges of. their own privileges, and there was
40 Court in the kingdom which could or onght to in-
terfere ; and when the House had declared its will,
a the Court would not interfere. He •.
be Was certain
bad given the subject the most mature considera-
tw ; and that the House might have the exact
grounds on which he had foinded .his opinion, he
ad brought the .books from. tehick.he had taken
his law, rather than quote from them, and render him-
self :hereby liable to a charge of having misrepresen.,
red them, The first book he should produce as au-
thority for the doctrine he held, was Lord Hale's
Treatise on the• Original Institution, Power, and Ju-
risdiction of the House of Commons. He then read a
;a2ssage from k, which went to chew that the privileges
.of the House were not to be taken according to the
rules of the common law, but according to the cot:me-
al° and law of -Parliament. Lord Hale shewed,
throughout the whole of his Treatise, that he had
i;r„o,,,led himse very mch on the authorit of Lord
cok., whose legal kaavleudge was allowed to stand
in thebighest rank. It had, however, been said, that
Coke and Halo, had too Much reverence for Parlia-
ment. Modern law writers hads hOviever, not only
agreed to their doctrine, but one of the most cele-
brated among them had even carried it further. Sir
William Blackstone had often been teferrtd to. He
world not gam, but read from Illackstpne, who says,
Parliament is so high and mighty in itsuature, that
what was not law it might make law, and what was,
it ceuld make Rot law ;" and afterwards, speaking
of its privileges, he says, " they are not to be defined
—ft,r, that an attempt to define the privileges of Par-
liament would be an act subversive of it." He then
read a passage from a tract of Sir Robert Atkins, who
was aJudge in the Court of Common Pleas, who, in
the 69th page, had said, the House had three powers.
legislative, judicial, and Consilium Regni, to which
were itiached. privileges of which they were the sole
judges. There went many writers a Inoldred Tears
al.) who had held the same doctrine.. Lorol Holt,
indeed, had differed on this point wich:die other
eleven Judges,- and had said, that if this docrine was
true, there was no limit, and no one could say where
the power would end. He thought.LOrd Holes ar-
gument was a very weak one—for the question was,;
'not what is right, or what ought to be, bat what is ?
There must be a discretionary power somewhere ;;
and where could it be placed more safely than in the,
House of Commons ? And while the House of Com-
mons subsisted as it did, nothing could be more idle
and mischievous than to think to mend the House of
Commons, by depriving it ef its privileges.. ht an-
cient time% the greatest men of the State had no idea
of preserving the liberties of the people by destroying
the privileges of the House of Commons. They knew
it was impossible—they knew that the interests of
both were identified. At the Revolution, for in:
state, there were Lord Somers, a friend to liberty,
and a man of great constitutional information ; S!r
William Maynard, skilled in legal knowledge, and
ce:tainly no enemy to popular freedom ; Sir Joseph
ICIC:11, Who united an enlightened mind with an ar-
dent interest for whatever he conceived 'right—Did
those men, in consequence of the Kentish Petition,
attempt to diminish or destroy, or curtail the privi-
leges at that House ? Far from it. Did those zea-
lous champions for freedom, who were ever ready to
lay down their lives for the rights of the people, adopt
as their principle the depreciation of the Commons ?
Nothing could be farther from their thoughts.—
They knew the proper value of an Assembly, to
thich the people had delegated their privileges, and
knew also that that value was diminished when their
authority was called in question. He would not
tow lend himself to tear down. that Parliamentary
privilege which the wisest and bravest men in the land
tad thought was essential to a Constitution the best
'in the world.—(lfeer, hear.y When the Lords and
Commons sat together, they possessed those powers ;
and when for convenience they, each in a legislative
capacity, separated, it was only just that each should •
Individually retain what they possessed together. To
prove that this was borne out by precedent, he would
read to the House an opinion dt awn up for a cause
(though not dellierecl, because that cause was
cot concluded) by Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, a
man of the soundest knowledge and most strict inte-
grity. Chief Justice. Wilmot held that the power of
attachment in Court was coeval with their existence ;1
and that the power of Parliament was similar. This
power of attachment had,- by the nsage of the Court,
• become law, and that law was as strict as the letter
of Magna Charta. This was the opinion of Judge
'Wilmot. Now with respect to the provision in Magna
Charta which protected men from imprisonment
without trial by their Peers, all he should say was,
that it was impossible for any man, any school-boy,
who had taken up a law book, in his own closet, not
In see that there were many cases in which a man
rust necessarily be imprisoned before trial. They
might just as well object to the canonical law, be-
cause it was not in Magna Charta. The same authority.
<tlso went on to say, that he could not find the origin
fur this power of attachment by the Courts, but that
he found that usage immemorial. He found the usage
stand on as strong a ground as the trial by Jury—so
that it appeared Parliament had as good a right to
support their Privileges as the Judges of the land. It
Might be said, e What, allow the Judge to be both
Party, and judge, and executioner !" It was so even ,
in those times, and Parliament allowed it. Ho was
"indeed persuaded that the power .of attachment for
contempt by the Judges could not be relinquished
with safety to the people. Chief Justice Wilmot wasa
!riend to the establishment and existence of Juries ; but
he thought that Trial by Jury. and the authority of
the Juuges must be buried in the same grave.—l
(fteee,hean) He (Chief ustice Wilmot) asked, what
would be the situation of Judges if they had not
thi, power of committal ? Were they, when their
character or their authority were occulted, to stand
at the door of a Orand Jury-room for the finding of
Bill, or to consign themselves afterwards into the
1 ids of mer. li dile to be influenced by any popular
try ? Were they, perhaps, to wait for the clearance
It their character tor period of six or twelve, or it

. .
inigtt be eighteen itieftitils I if such *as the wise, in I titer rivilefeel. . .
. • . a -
,
tie hoped no transient Pasiioni Orel the course of prOceectmg, by ati applicats ou
what respect would the liresiclents over the Courts of 1 itionigtary quail-el between the I-louse of Commons Chancellor. In such a case the Speaker would ,
Justice in the nation be held ? (Rearihear.) Having 1 and the people, would induce the latter so wildly and 'to write a letter to the Chancellor, who would,
thus upon this important point stated the opinions of utterly to relinquish their liberties.. He would ask: consequence, issue an inhibition to the' parties against
the oldest Judges, he now came to that of Sir W. what was to be the limit to the privileges of that' proceeding, which inhibition would operate only
Black Stone, an authority which seemed to be insisted I House,. if they once became undefined or doubtful ? r ing the sitting of Parliament, after which the
on by some of those on the opposite side of the ques- Was it to be the King's Bench ? A man might in that might be continued till the next Session, so that,
tion. In the case of Oliver, when the privileges of case deny the power cf the House even to call him a course would by ne means answer their object.
Parliament were held in dispute,he ordered the man before, them at all, and the Bench would, be obliged had likewise been said that they should have .
who had been committed back to prison, from whence even of this plea to take notice. Was the limit to be mitted the Solicitor who had served the notice of
*he came. Now, after these authorities, he came to public opinion ? That could never be definite; one action. But such a proceeding would have been
the-main question, what course was to be adopted I man would say, 66 I will give the house so much la- no advantage. If the House had taken the
on the present occasion? He begged leave to decline titude." Another, anxious for popularity, cries out, portunity of exercising its power, when that
giving any advice or judgment of his own to the 66 No, no, I will not consent to so much ;" and thus 1 and nugatory paper was served on the Speaker,
of popularity the privileges of the House I
House ; he only meant to give an humble opinion, at this auction committed the Solicitor, he would probably
end so far only to be bound. The House had no ! arid the liberties of the people would fall together.— I employed another Solicitor to bring an action
right to have any advice from him, as any he had . (Ariear,hear,hear.) The immediate consequence would 1 out any notice, and that other Solicitor, if questioned
ever given had been constantly disregarded. The r• be a democracy of factions—then a p roscription— ! whether he knew diet the action was brought against
Right Honourable Gentleman opposite had contro-e tl, en an extinction—and, last of all, the fetal, inevi. 1 the Speaker in consequence of his act as Speaker
vetted, and the House regularly over-ruled him.— the consequence, the despotism of en individual!— !at that House, might decline to answer, as it would
His opinion was then that the House ought to go as (Hear, hear, hear.) Let the country beware of this; ' betray a client's secret. They could not, therefc
pear as possible to the ancient course of proceeding. let them remember how near to this catastrophe Eng- have brought the matter to its present stet.: without
He would go farther and say, no matter what odium Lind was once—let them remember the time when all proceeding to the length they had done. T
it might attach to him, that bad he been on the those honest and,good meti, who sought what they Gentlemen who had accused him of rashness, in
Committee, he would have advised the commitment •i
imagined a proper limit, and at last the unfortunate vising the commitment of Sir Francis, and not
of the Attorney who served the process. He knew ' Monarch who agreed to it was deluded and destroyed seen that he would have resisted the execution of
he was making a very unpopular declaration, but he i eiedestroyel hymen whovauntedpatriotism and loved Speaker's warrant, would do well just to reflect
stood fearlessly and disinterestedly upon the broad themselves—oho talked liberty and meant despotism, what charges they would have mule upon him •
ground of public duty. If in future times his name I who sought Taw, and found a crown--(Hear, hear.) had advised the commitment of the Selicitor, wit
was found upon the page of the present day and con- If with this example before their eyes—if with the foreseeing that that would not prevent the action ,
ceived worthy of notice, no person should point to it iimmediate view of every degraded State in modern proceeding. It they had done so, and the Solicitor
and say, 't Here is the man who betrayed the prim Europe existing in their sight—if against all expe w
- Ild
shouldoulcontinue the proceedings upon the action after
vileges of the Commons House of England, and con- ence and all reason—they deserted the House of the Session till the nett Session, then the He
tributed to the ruin of his country."—(Hear, hear.) ' Commons, and sought for protection of their
privi-
He declared then, that he would without kesitetion loges in the Crown, they would inevitably fall; with andappear to have shown its disposition to ,
violence without being eble to attain its object.
have committed the Attorney, and he would do so they would fall unpitied, unregretted, unrelieved i— He could easily conceive that Gentlemen might differ
even though it might not stop the action. If the (Hear, hear, heir!) . upon questions of this description ; but it was to
Chancellor served an injunction on a person in the Mr. ADANI had little to add; after the eloquent lamented that the subject bad nut been discussed
Courts of Law to stop an action, and that he thought speech which they had just heard. He ro•-- merely i rather in the Committee, with all the neutrality -'
proper to resist, the Chancellor would of course corn. for the purpose of stating that, in his opinion, the I usually prevails in such a case, than in the House
1 mit him, even though it might not put an end to the House ought to come to a full, clear, and distinct' where it was perhaps impossible to avoid some i;
action. Having thus stated his opinion on this point, declaration of their privileges, whi:ll would put a" fluence cf party feeling. He lamented that
the next question was, what was the conduct to be physical bar to any future litigation. Since, however, , Honourable Gentlemen opposite had felt such
pursued by the Speaker ? It struck some as n-wel this had nut been done, now that :hey were driven nation from their political adversaries on this occ
and extraordinary, that the Speaker of that H"use to an extremity, they must act according to the cite; Lion, as not to lend their assistance in the Com-
' should go down into a Court el Law, to vindicate cumstances of the case. He defended their exer- ! tee. In his view of the case, they had acted
the Privileges of the House of Commons. No doubt 1 cisc of that power of commitment which they invare in not committer.; the Solicitor, because that ml
e
it seas a very novel proceeding, bur stall, in his opi- I ably possessed and exerted. , have led to another action, and to further ditficub
nion, the Speaker ought to appear in the Court, and The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, : which could mit have been anticipated- He den
plead to the action ; and he hoped to be able to notwithstanding any warmth with which the Right ; the H use would act wisely in following the course
shew that this was ndt so dangerous a precedent as Hun. Gentleman opposite might hive pressed some • recommended, without adopting the further prnceed•
it appeared to some. This vas not inconsistent at charges against himself, vet as the whole tener of his : ing recemme:tded by his Hon. and Learned Ft "
all with the advice which he had given before, with i speech was consisteut with every thing that could Ste (Mr. Adam). As to what had fallen from the Ni
respect to the commitment of the Attorney. When advanced in support of the privileges of that House, I Lord opposite ( Lord Milton) respecting the no,
he had the honour to hold the seals in Ireland, if, in he should be sorry to say any thing that could divert ;of the: procoedings, he cou4l only say, that'
a case of action any attorney had served him with a.' the attention of the House from the impression made I Might not have been proceedings exactly similar .
process, hashould instantly have committed the attor- by the Right Hon. Gentleman. He should, there.; be found, yet in principle at least there was nothing
1
trey, but still he should have pleaded to the action. f •re, with the repst perfect calmness, state to the.' novel in this. That House in various cases directed
The Courts below must have jurisdiction to inform House the sentiments he entertained on ehis subject. i prosecutions in vindication of its privileges. Mane
themselves why an action was brought. With re- aHe had to regret that the Right Hon. Gentleman! cases of that description were annexed to the report.
spect to the idea of issuing a probibition to the Coins (Air. Ponsouby) had at any time refused to lend his In all such prosecutions, that House, without he
below, that was an idea which, he had never heard I assistance in directing the House to the right course ing its dignity, suffered its privileges to go to the
suggested before, nor never read of in the course of to be pursued. The Right Hon. Gentleirem had, I cieion of a Jury. In the case of writs of Habeas '
his studies. He could not recommend the adoption however. in this instance ably established the grounds, I pus, sited out for persons committed by the authority
of that course, nor could he support the idea of the I and clearly supported by reasoning, the propriety of lof that House, its privileges came within the cogni•
Speaker's writing to the Court. If he was acting as l the course recommended by the Committee. bat i sauce of the Courts below. The Judge could
a Judge, and that any such letter was brought to when the Right Hon. Gentleman had asked him f know till the return of the writ by what authority
him, he should consider it his duty wally to disre- across the table, whether he was prepared to support the commitment took piece. The return was in -
gard it, and inform himself by plea of the cause of the recommendation of the Committee, he would 1 case the proceeding that brought the matter of psi-
the action. Tewould be the height of injestice to own that he felt apprehensive lest the intention of the I lege within the knowledge of the Court below, which
blame the Court for interfering with the privileges of i Right Hon. Gentleman was to its him to a line from ! uniformly remanded the party, as the plea walla- i
the House; before it had any means of being inform- I which he could not retreat, with a view of afterwards I the present case be the proceeding to bring the r_
what those privileges were. He thought then ; endeay..nring to prove it wroug. The Right Hon. i vilege of that House within the cognizance of the
that the Speaker ought to appear in Court, and in- Gentlemen had stated that he would be the last to Judge. Though the House might not in either
form the Court that he was Speaker of the House of ', bring the House into the unfortunate situation in case cpmmic the Solicitor, it had the power, and a
Commons, and had been Speaker when the warrant 1 which it was placed, but that, if he had brought it perfect discretion whether it should be used. He wee
was issued ; that he had issued that warrant hr the into that situation, he should have pointed out some rejoiced to find how little likelihood there was that
authority, and under the order of the House of Com- j way to get out of it. But what was this unfortunate 1 the question before t'se House would cause any dif.
mons, and that he warned the Court that it had no situation of the House ? It was a situation in which fcreace of opinion. But he could not agree with his
right to relieve the plaintiff, or to examine into the ! that Reuse might be placed by every commitment 1 Honourable and Learned Friend, that the Solicitor
plea. If after this notice the Court thought proper Ito the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, for any should have been committed before the House came
to examine into the plea, he had no hesitation in say- i breach of its privileges, as well as by the rash act, as Ito the vote of that night. He was more desirous to
ing the Court would exceed its jurisdiction—(Hear,! it was called, that led to the 'present ing— have the vote first passed, before any further proceed.
irate) He did not think, however, that there was one ; which act tie had' recommended, anrbei:edHousee knee should take place ; and lie would ask the Right
Judge in the land who would, lie would not shy yen. t adopted. Was there any Gentleman who had mark- I Honourable Gentleman opposite ( Mr. Pontonhy),
titre, but even entertain a Wisleto commit se gross a I ed the conduct of Sir Frapcis Burdett, that could whether, when the notice served on the Speaker had
violation of his duty—(horn', hear.) He had now doubt, that, if he had been brought in custody to been first communicated to the House, he was of opi-
given very fully his opinion on this important sub- I be the bar ,to reprimanded, he would not have nion that the Solicitor should }nee been committed ?
jest—he had given it, he hoped, in a manner to pre., brought his action ? or if reprimanded, that he He would ask whether it had not been better, and
elude any accusation of concealment from fear of une i would not have taken means of insulting the more consistent with their dignity, to wait till the
' popularity—(Hear.) And he now thought it his . House, so as to compel them to bring on thin es discussions that had taken place, and the
duty to say, that if the people of this country were trial, as it was represented, between the House of more mature consideration of the question had en-
misled into a desire to undermine or diminish the j Commons and the people ? When this was the case, lightened their minds respecting it, than by the im-
privileges of the House of Commons, they would lie 1 what justice was there in the taunt that he had brought i mediate commitment to take a step, which, if it should
under a most fatal delusion—( Hear, hear.) The in- i than I mouse into th;, state of unexampled calamity and ;be necessary to resort in the end to the present course,
terests of the people were inseparably interwovt.n i distress ? If there were really any imbecility in the I they would be obliged to retread ? The coarse,
with. the privileges of that House ; and they ought i powers of that House, he did not feel any regret that' therefore, which had been taken, was the most wise
not to adopt any hasty animosity against it, because ;it should. be discovered. If they should not have any, and safe for the assertion of their dignity, and the
its decision on particular subjects might not accord legit} means of asserting their privileges, they certainly ; preservation of their rights and privileges. It was with
'With their sentiments. They ought coolly to consi- had constitutional means of protecting them. If I satisfaction he found they were agreed upon that
der that they did not merely hurt this House of Com- I qtly such imbecility should exist, it was the more de- j point upon which he apprehended the greatest diffe-
mons by abridging its privileges, but that they rat& 1 sirable that it should be discovered at a time when . rence ; for It+ had hest apprehensive that Gtntlemeti
-Lay hurt themselves by proportionably depressing i the session was -not too far advanced to allow them : would have been disposed to carry the exercise of the
every future House of Commons—(Hear, hear.)- —I to provide means to protect and confirm their privi- ! power of the House to a greater extent than he
Their ancestors, in times the most perilous and con-1 leges. But he was confident that they had exercised I thought the circumstances of the case required, add
flirts the most trying, hadinvariably maintained those I no authority which they did not possess—that they I which they might afterwards see reason to retract.
privileges now sought to be disputed. They had done I had not exceeded their just constitutional powers. I Mr. PONSONBY explained. He should always
so in the veryheight of their spirit, and asserted them I He was confident that there was no authority in the . think that the Right Honourable Gentleman, by m-
at hazard now, (thank Gaol) not necessary. On , country, no Judge of the land, that would hesitate, on : ducing the House to exercise their privilege of corn. •
those privileges depended not any particular indi. it finding that it was a question of privilege of Parlia.. mitment, in a case which did not call for it, had put
vidual authority, but the liberties of the people them- ! meat, to declare that such a question it was not ; the House in an unfortunate situation. He could
' selves. It was absurd and monstrous to talk of ' competent to any inferior Court to determine.— i never think any situation so unfortunate as when_ a
making the King the repository of the rights of the , Whether the power were exercised on right grounds' considerable portion of the people disapprved of their
people. He was as firm a friend as any man to the 'or not, still no Judge would attempt to inquire , proceedings—( Lend and repeated cries of No, no!)
reigning Sovereign; but still he would say there ne- into the merits of its exercise. He' was under no 1 Mr. W. WYNNE declared, that however unport-
ver reigned a Monarch who loved either the House apprehension that the dignity of the House would' lay the sentimem might be, he should be ashamed of
or the People. Those who expected that the King Ibe compromised by pursuing the coarse recommend. , himself if he hesitated to say, that, in his op nion,
would naturally protect the liberties of the people ! ed. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated, that if : the House, by committing the Solicitor, would have
might as well expect a prodigy. It was a physical t the individual should persevere in the action, that the shown their determination to defend their privileges
impossibility—no man could love the power by which House would be obliged to follow the course pointed by punishing those who infringed them.
he was contronled. The House of Brunswick would, . out, by giving leave to the Speaker and Serjeant ' Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, although he had no
he hoped, to the end; defend the principles by which, at Arms to appear and plead. On this head, he could • doubt that the Speaker and the Serjeant ought to be
they were placed on the throne ; but then it was idle see no ground for the delicacy which some Gentle- permitted to appear and plead, yet was unwilling that
to expect that any reigning family would naturally men felt at betraying any timidity respecting the thequestionshoulel go to a decisionwithoutstatingvery
be the guardians of the freedom of the people. Ntk hat soundness of their privileges. If way thing should sherd his opinion on some of the doctrines that had
was, during the whole history of this country, the na- ' occur to call for their interference, they would still been that evening advanced. Heshould not occupy
ture of the political conflicts by which England has • have the constitutional power of vindicating their much of the attention of the House, as he he' no
been agitated ? Did it not exhibit one continued , privileges. He did not thini the precedent of the pleasure in stating to any audtence opinions different
struggle between the King and the people ? For what . commitment cf Sir Francis Pemberton and Sir Tho- from theirs. Besides. he did not think that the d ry
reason was the House of Stuart dethroned ? Where inns Jones of any great weight. It was necessary for of a Member of the House permitted him to plea tin
WAS the man who could promise that we might not them, before they took any step, to know, not only the House arguments against the Hous e whit h ist
hereafter have some degenerate descendant even of the their own privileges, hut what was doing in the t'ie present case mi ' reeeeted 'n an' .hsr place.
House of 'Brunswick, who might prove equally am- Courts below respecting them. The Judges must be Hl should therefere silently acienitece in e a e ponds
bitions ? 'lt was one of the grossest errors of modern judicially made acquainted with the circumstance of whic'i he believed that be would an, sr H • c.o.
delusion to think of making the people, under any the Speaker having acted under the authority of an f eeed that he did not entais re he 01,
circumstances, look up to the Throne for the safety Of order Of that figuack Much had been said of enc. privileges of the House sot Commons

111(41 tit

to dia
dhow
aid, is;
against
ly dur.
he suit
it such
ct. It
corn-
of the
k_en o:
he op.
it idle.
r, and
r have
with.
itioned '
gainst
peaker .
would
reforef
rithout
in pi-
t fore.
of the
ect on
, if le
ithout
from
•
a after
House
to act
tbject.
differ
to be
sussed
y that
Louse,
me in-
at tbe
alie.
occl.
omit•
right
might
cull ies
might
course
mceed-
Fi ;end
Noble
ovr•lty
' there
filar to
aching
rested
Many
twin.
lower.
he de.
s Cos-
hority
cogni.
Id not
:hority
in tliat
p. .
whies
nalin
to pri.
of the
either
and a
le was
a that '
ay dif.
ith his
Visitor
' CM.
MU to
oceed.
Right
er had

A• d il,ofb

. ..
_ of Commons formed a part of the law of the .land,
^ and •as such must be recognized in the Courts of Law.
Tere was a distinction on which he would say a few
words between the cases of the Speaker and the Ser-
jeant. He ,had understood abroad that the allega-
tion against the Serjeant was, not that he had exe-
ces.ed the warrant of the House of Commons, but that
he had executed it in an unjustifiable manner. Now
whatever opinion any one might entertain with re-
spect to submitting the privileges of the House of
Commons to ) a Court of Law, no man could ques-
tion the right of a Court of Law to try the mode in
which the ditty' imposed upon their officer by the
House of Commons, in the exercise of their privile-
ges, had been executed. In case, therefore, of such
an action against the Serjeant, he could not conceive
the possibility of its being set aside merely by the
entry on the record, that he had acted under the
authority of the House. In the doctrine that the pri-
vileges of the House of Commons could not be dis-
cussed in the Courts of Law, he could not concur.—
It Was extremely dangerous to say, that not any thing
done by either House of Parliament in vindication of
Its priviles, could be submitted to discussion in a
Xcturt ()flaw. He would imagine the case. He
wquld suppoie that if either House came to a resolu-
tion that any particular individual should not exercise
that which was a legal right. Such a case had
happened, and at no very distant period, The
' Irish House of Commons, a few years ago, came
to A resolution that any- man who claimed agist.
; went of tithes was an enemy to his country !—A
similar case might exist again, and would any
one coltend that k ought not to bk submitted to
a Court of Law ? Besides, there were cases of I-Meat
Corftut, in which discussions had taken place in Courts
of Law. An analogy had been attempted to be
established between the cases of commitment by the
`House. of Commons and commitment by a Court of
Law for contempt ; and it had been contended, that
when an individual was committed by a Court of
Law for contempt, no other jurisdiction had a right
sto ii terfere. There were instances, however, where
a c mmittal for contempt by one Court had been de-
cid d by another, as erroneous. One most important
case eras in the reign of Charles 11. when Penn and
Mead. two Quakers, were tried at the Old Bailey be-
fore Jeffreys, then the Recorder, and acquitted,—
. Jeffreys committed all the Jury for contempt, because
they lad founded a verdict against his direction. The
ense,bowever, was brought before Lord Chief Jostiee
Vaughan in the Common Pleas, who entered fully 1
Into the discussion, and held, tat though this was a
committal for contempt, he had a right to enter into
the circumstances of the case; citing many instances
in support of his opinion, among Which he recollected
that of Sir Nicholas Bacon, who had been commit-
ted for contempt by the Court of Chancery, and sub-
sequently discharged by the Court of King's Bench,
'because the precise mode of the contempt had not
been stated. lie repeated, that in his opinion not any
thing could be more dangerous than the possession by
the House of Commons of such a power, free from
the cognizance of the Courts of Law.. To the privi-
leges of the House of Commons be was a friend, for
the privileges cf the House of Commons were the pri-
vileges of the people. They could be legitimately ‘
etercised, however, only for the good of the people,
anci calamitous indeed would be the situation of the
"House, and of the country, if the period should ever
arrive when the people should be of opinion that those
folvilcfcs were exercised, not for their protection, but
or their oppression.
Mr. WlNDHAMdeseanted at some length on the
0 'necessity of discrotionary and summary powers being
lodged. in a superior Court, such as the House of
Comitions.was.
''' 'The ATFORNEY:GENE,RAL observed, that
tislion. and Learned Friead opposite could not sub-
'scribe to the doctrine, that the decision of the House
of Comttnns, in cases of privilege, ought to he con-
tlusiee in Courts of Law. He for one could not be
suppoted to be inclined to deduct from the rights
of the Courts of Law.. But the authorities quoted
by the Right non. Gentleman opposite, who had
spoken Right-
on the-subject, were perfectly satisfac•
toil in estitblishing *at the privileges of the House
of Commons could be decided only by themselves.
-After -the i ble detail of those authorities he owned
Oat he w ts a little astonished to hear the argument
sor his. li.n. and Learned Friend. It the privileges of
'the House of Comm-ons were a fit subject of discus-
'siozi in Courts of Law, how. many Judges had be-
trayed their duty by declining any interference with
them ? This had particularly occurred to him, per•
sons committed by the House have been brought up
by ,Habeas Corpus. Among* the rest Lord Chief
Justice Grey lied stated that the Court possesed no ju-
st isilietion over the privileges cf the House of Com-
mons, and-that the Court must give effect to those
privileges by remanding the person broughi before it
' to that custody to which he had been committed by
the House of,Commons. There were many other
al Uuthorities to establish the doctrine that the
Ruv,e bad a right to decide oil their own privileges,
and tktt discussion was final. His Hon. and Learned
'Friend had recommended that a different plea should
be put in by the Seejeant and the Speaker to the ac-
•• tion. As' he understood that the defence was to be
• entrusted fit his care (.although he wished.that some
better qualified person might he appointed), he
*wet it but risilit to say something of the plea.—
'His Right Hon. Friend had taken a good view of
doe conduct of the Court of King's Bench in pleas
of abatement. Hccould not but think that it was
'be province of thiJudges to decide on the plea. ile
epoke ie the presejice of learned persons very compe-
tent to .correct hum, but it appeared to him that the
proper plea would he a plea in tier ; and that was, that
'I he person bi ingieg the action could in no plea main,
tain it. He apprehended also that whatever might
appear upon: the face of the proceedings of the House
with respect to "then- privileges, would be received by
_anyCourt as decisive, upon that eubject ; and concluded
- by eitieOug'birovif ready to answer any quesions
1* eleatinilbehe put to hlrei iiy Hon. Gentlemen.
Mi. VILL.I.ttM SMITH, though against giving
l' tinlimited'priiiiie.ge to he House of Commons, was
. tor abi,Vng b 7 1:-1.• precedents adduced, and had no
'''lstilitetitin in sayieg,taint it was highly necessary that
' he Hot* shotit Maintaid those pritileges which
'''. " ben or4i,kies ieetblished, and he had, gies.lorel
, , * to the pieseet.tuotion!, .

was apprehensive that by agreeing
the House would put the privileges

The Resolution was then put and carried without
a dissenting voice.
Mr. WYNNE then said, that be wished to know
whether in future it was to be generally understood,
that any body might bring actions of this sort against
the House, without fear of its exercising the privilege
of commitment ? A recent case had been determined
in the House of Lords, upon a question of privilege,
which he therefore considered as analogous to the
present. A Mr. Hesse, a Justice of Pe gc, had acted
under the immediate orders of that House, for the
purpose of suppressing a riot. An action at law had
been brought against him for this conduct, but the
House of Lords committed both the principal and his
agent, and would not consent to release them until
they gave Mr. Hesse a discharge from his action.—
He wished to know whether the House was now to
be understood as abandoning that course of proceeding?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, that he was net then prepared to give an answer
to the general question ; but he would say, that in
every particular case, he thought the House was
perfectly at liberty to exercise its own discretion, and
in the exercise of his best discretion and judgment, he
did not at present think that it. was necessary to com-
mit the Agent.
Mr. WINDHAM began to speak, but was called
to order, there being no question before the House.

PRISONERS OiP WAR.

Mr. ROSE wished to know from a Noble Lord
(Cochrane) whether he intended to bring on his mo-
tion respecting the treatment of prisoners of war in
this country.
Lord COCHRANE said, he had not lost sight of
the subject, and would take an early slay for submit-
ting it to the House.

mhtlnto Court of Law:He had no doubt( Lord MILTON %vs
• • 'whatever AI the privilege of the House to commit; to the Resolution, the
-but !'e a pprehended that the privileges of the House N out of their own hand!
ID —z.....1..•:••••• ern

.
.1
lodged. in a superior Court, such as
Comitions.was.
• . The ATTORNEY:GENE,RAL
. lie Hon. and Learned Friend opposite
'scribe to the doctrine, that the decisioi
of Commons, in vices of privilege, of
tlissiee in Courts of Law. He for ci
suppOted to be inclined to deduct fi
of the Courts of Law. • But the anti
- , by the Rightl-ton. Gentleman opp
stioken.so'ably in the-subject, were pe
te+y in-estliblishing at die privilege
of Commons could be decided only
.`After-the tble detail of those author
ithat he suit a little aitonished to hear
' able Hou. and Leained Friend. If 1
'the House of Commons were a fit su
'sion in Courts of 'Law, how many J
trtiyed— their duty by declining any it
`then l' 'this had particiilaily occurr
• sons cominitted by the House have b
by Habeas Corpus. Among the V
Justice Grey had stated that the Court
-risaktion over the chlvileges of the :
mons; and that the Court must give
privileges by remanding the percon bi
• •to that custody to which he had bees
the House of• Commons. There wl
legal huthorities to establish the d
• Howe bad a right to decide oil their
:aid di on -tt discussi was final. Hit H(
rriend had recommended thai a diffe
be put in by the Serjcint and the Sp
tion. As‘he understood that the a
entrusted Eh his care (although he iv
-.? better qualified pessm might he
. thought it but riocht to say sosuethin
1-lis Right Hon. Friend had , taken
ii.e conduct of the Court of King's
of abatement. 1-kcotild not but t
tli,e province of the Judges to decide
spoke in the prrsexe of learned pets
tent to correCi hint, hut it appe.,red
prt'per plea wooll Le a plea in 1).,.r ; a
'the person bt 'owing thy action could
1 tarn it. •He apprehended also that
.., appear upon: the face of the. proceede
.. with respect to their privsleget, wool
' ' _anyCourt as detisive upon that !•übjer
- l' lisy eitieving himself ready to answi
.. tOtieinigfabe put to hlin by Son. C
- ... Mi. 'WILLIAM SMITH, thoug
~ A l'sii;dimited.privileige to the House Di
' "for abang by s:ie precedents addu
' t esh?diOn in iiayitiiiit it was high
*he Howie shobid• ulaintaili those.
been b for%irs t stablished, and 1
i.igt. 1 jectiuu to tne vrxsent 11/4)01111.
b