The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1846-06-16 00:00:00

NORTHERN SUMMER CIRCUIT,

Mr. Justice Wightman and Mr. Justice Erle.
Yorkshire—Thursday, July 9, at the Castle at York.
City of York.—The same day at the Guildhall of the
City of York.
Durham, Thursday, July 23, at Durham.
Northumberland—Wednesday, July 29, at Newcastle.
Cumberland, Tuesday, August 4, at Carlisle.
Westmoreland—Saturday, August 8, at Appleby.
North Division of Lancashire—Tuesday, August 11, at

_
Lancaster.
South Division of Lancashire—Saturday, August 15,
at Liverpool.

COURT OFEXCHEQUER CHAMBER-SATURDAY

Befo;.e Lord Chief Justice Tindal
Mr. Baron Alderson, Mr. Justice Coltman, Mr
Justice Cresswell, Mr. Baron Rolfe, and Mr. Justice

Baron Parke,

HOWARD V

GOSSETT.

This very important case, which affects so deeply the
privileges of the House of Commons, and especially the
power of commitment, was brought before the Court to-
day, on a writ of error, from the judgment of the Court
of Queen's Bench. The Attorney-General had not
finished his arguments when the court rose. In the
course of the proceedings, the following smart dialogue
took place :
Mr. Baron Alderson.---Suppose the House of Commons
ordered a man to be executed, would he have no remedy ?
The Attorney General would decline to argue so ex-
travagant an hypothesis.

Mr: Baron Alderson.—Or to be turned out of his free-

The Attorney General.—He would not occupy time in
the argument of anything so improbable.
Mr. Baron Alderson.—lt may not suit your views now
to contend for that, but it follows necessarily from your
proposition.
The Attorney General.—lt would be easy to show how
the well-known powers of the courts of law might be
abused, to the grievous oppression of the subject, without
his having any redress.

Baron Alderson.—Yes, but there is a material dis-
tinction between the abuse of known powers, and the
abuse of unknown powers. You could not have had the
slightest difficulty in answering the question in the case
of the Queen, for if she were to order a man to be exe-
cuted, or to be turned out of his freehold, the law would
interpose and protect him.

The Attorney-General.—But if the Sovereign were per-
sonally, and with her own hand, to inflict an injury ou a
subject, he could have no redress ?
Mr. Baron Alderson.—Yes ; and if the House of Com-
mons were to do it with their own hand, perhaps there
would be no redress for it. But if they do it by the hand
of another, is not that other responsible to the party in-
jured ? That is the question.
The Attorney-General.—lf the House of Lerds were to
direct their officer to commit an offence, even murder,
they could protect him by having the case brought before
them on a writ of error. _ _

Mr. Baron Alderson.—They could not have it brought
before them unless the jury found a special verdict.
Again, the House of Lords, as a legislative body, was
very different from the House of Lords as a judicial body.
The constitution had clearly made them in the latter
capacity the ultimate court of appeal ; and it was impos-
sible to make any provision against their abusing the
judicial authority with which they were invested.
The Attorney-General said it was not necessary for him
to contend that the House of Commons could do what
they liked. All he now contended for was that they had
acted rightly in the course pursued by them in the present
case.