The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-03-17 00:00:00

WAP

inouti fbr i s'ccial cotlittlate to inqiiir6
re any pteuliti4 burdens spee!ally ufk.ctin

landed interests, or N4lietlie

there were aryst pe

exemp

Lions enjoyed by that interest, and if sr_

Certain their

nature and extent. lie was of opinion thz'A Inquiry would
show a case of exemption on the part of the landed interest
without parallel in the history of the world. A corn law was
per se a bad thing, and could only be justified by very pecu-
liar circumstances. .

, .
Sit' T Wilcit, he had net sagge,iteti hoW the houst Was fA
proceed in order to avoid the difficulty. Ile quite agreed
that no one eotxld be a proper judge of the privileges of the
House of Commons. It must itself be the only judge ef
those privileges. Still pleading to the action mould not pre-
vent the house from taking any other step it thought neces-
sary; and if they did not plead what would be the result?
Judgment would go by default, and the under-sheriff would
have to assess the damages with the aid of a jury. Would
the lion. member for Worcester, in that case, imprison the
under-sheriff and the jury, and also those who were subse-
quently called on to levy the execution ? If the sheriffs re-
fuse to levy the judges will issue an attachment against them;
and in that case would they call the judges to answer at the
bar before them ? The honourable and learned gentleman
argued at great length that it was impossible to exclude the
jurisdiction of the courts of law, and quoted a variety of pre-
cedents in which privileges claimed by the house were dis-
cussed in courts of law. If the latter decided against the
privileges of the house (which they had no right beforehand
to assume they would do), the only remedy was by a legisla-
tive enactment. He also contended against the propriety of
calling Mr. Howard to the bar, even if they should decide
upon telling the officers of the house to plead to the action.
Lord Howtcx protested against the course they were
about to adopt. The whole argument of Sir William Follett
amounted to this—that the House of Commons ought to be
and was the only judge of its own privileges, but that they
had no earthly power to enforce them—that to enforce them
they must trust to the courts of law, although those courts
had, according to Sir William Follett's own opinion, decided
wrongfully against the privileges of the house in the case of
" Stockdale v. Hansard." The house had sufficient power
to enforce its privileges, for though its power of commitment
was confined to the session, yet the session might be length-
ened by adjourning instead of proroguing parliament.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that this action was on the part
of Mr. Howard a wanton defiance of the authority
_of the
house, for he questioned the legality of the Speaker's war-
rant after stating formerly that it was not his intention to do
so, and thereby having obtained the omission from the Printed
Papers Bill of the clause which would have put an end to the
actions then existing. He supported the motion of Lord J.
Russell, for if the house did not make a stand, there would
be no end to these actions.
Sir R. INGLIS opposed the proposition of Lord Jolla

Russell.
After a few words from Mr. HARDY the house divided,
and the amendment was negatived by a majority of 157 to
31. The original motion was then agreed to by a majority
of 135 to 71.