The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-02-07 00:00:00

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

Abrahams and Myers, Mile-Town, Kent. pawnbrokers—
Narrows and Riley. Coventry. ribbon-ntannfacittrers--Lowe
and Wylde, Biaopagate-Without, chemists—Orinisbaw.
Leighley, sad Fairbank. Parsely, York. clothiers--Brown
and Rishon. New-road, Ht. Pancras. nurser) nien —T. and J.
Ellis. Hoyle. Cornwall, maltsteri—llieks and Edwards.
Blourester. builders—Cohen and Job, Bastin /tot. Musses.
watch-makers—Nelsoles and Kirk, Manchester, cotton-mer-
enants—J. and O. Blow's, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. hookcel-
le►s—l'. and W. Granger, Bristol, coopers—ll. and F. Trim-
mer. Farnham, drapers—Simpson and Comber. Tbresd-
needle-street, merchants—Ransom and Dawson. Itotherhithe.

ata.st and bloek-makers—Cos and Shepherd, Fridav-oreet.
Cheopside, wholesale haberdashers--Diton and Overton.
Llaadeity. Brecknoek. colliers—Fell and Rehm. London-
street. nserchants—Partington end Usherwood. High-street.
Mary•-le-bone, annatto-manufacturers— N. S., C., sad J.
Johnson, Manchester, cotton-manufacturers.

MR. HOBHOUSE.

31r. Haiphong, was brought up on Saturday to the
Court of King's by a writ of Habeas Corpus, for the pur•
pose of moving the Court to discharge hint from New.
gate.
After several parish appeals had been heard, the
Court signified to Mr. Evans (Mr. H.'s Counsel), that
they were ready to bear him in behalf of his client.
Mr. 13vsae replied, that Mr. Hobbouse was himself
in Court, and intended to address their Lordships him-
self.

The return of Mr. Brown, the Keeper of Senate, in
which the warrant of committal was recited, wu then
read; after which, Mr. Hobhouse addressed the Court.

My Lords—lt is my intention to attempt to argue this
ease myself. But, from the lateness of the hour, as well
as from some indisposition under which I at present la-
bour, 1 must request to have the bearing of this case
deferred nntil another day.

Chief .I,ixtire- A- ; R -0- TT. LI t is probable that the Court

PRICE 7D. i

may comply with your request; but, before this can 111 i
done, it is necessary that you should inform us to whai
point you mean to call our attention.
Mr. Hobhnnse.-1 mean, in the first place, my Lord:
to submit that there is an informality upon tbe very '
face of the warrant, which must entirely vitiate its atv
thority. My second objection is, that the House of
Commons, by which I have been committed, is not s
Court of Judicature. And thirdly, that, even assuming
that it does possess the power of adjadicatios, still, I
contend, that a material error has been committed in,
condemning me unheard; thus depriving me of a HO%
which belongs to every Englishman. My fourth °krt.
don is, that, even allowing the assumption of authority..
the offence for which I stand committed ought, of right!
to have been noticed by an action at common law.
The Cater JCSTICE here requested to know the ob
jection which Mr. Hohhnuse took to the warrant.
Mr. Hobhonse replied, that he had notify r
Ms atoll tke general artiste came on; but tkat7thic'
Court wished it, he won state his objection.
The Cater Jos-rico expressed a desire to bear it; a
Mr. tiobbouse said, that the publication of the pang)
let was not mentioned in the warrant, and that it wq
not there alleged to be printed. This, he cootendefft
was contrary to every rule of law and practice, and mait
prove fatal to Its authority altogether.
After a short consultation with the other Jed
Chief Justice Assorr informed Mr. Hobbouse that
would be impossible for the Court to hear him upon an?
of the points which he had inentiosed, inasmuch as •
Court of Law had no cognisance or power over the pros
ceedings of the !louse of Co tttttt ons. This principle, b
maintained, had always been allowed, and had from ti
to time been confirmed by different decisions ; and by
sone more decidedly than in the case of Sir Presets
Burdett, against the Sheriff for an illegal arrest, where
a writ of error had been carried to the House of Lords.
and they had affirm's! the judment of the Court. The I
!loose of Commons had unquestionably a right to coin
wit any person for a contempt of Privileges; and surely
tF ey were best qualified to judge what constituted a
contempt.

Mr. Justice HAT !Av.—There hare been eases expressly
decisive of this question. The first case upon the sub-
ject is that of Lord Shaftesbury, Ist Mad. 144, and the
principle there laid down is this:—That a commitment
by either House of Parliament for a contempt, is a com-
mitment in execution, and the Courts of Law cannot
during the Session discharge or bail the party. They
have on jurisdiction so to do. The Judges cannot judger'
of any law, custom, or usage of Parliament. A commit•
men' for a contempt of either House cannot be inquired
of by the Judges; they cannot inquire for what the com-
mitment was ; it Is sufficient that the party was committed
for a contempt of the House. These are the principles
that are to be deduced from Lord Sbafteshory's case.
The next case was that of the Queen e. Pattie, reported
in Lord Raymond, 1105. There the question under the
consideration of the Court of King's Beach was, sa to the
right of the House oft:ominous to commit, and similsrprin-
ciples were laid down to those 1 have went ed. 'l here
Rosa, Jestiescesid, " That the Courts of Westminster
Hall cannot judge of the privileges of the House of
Commons : those they must debate wrong themselves. )
When a commitment by the House of Commons is re.
turned, though it does not set out sufficitq cause acme.
mitment, no objection can be taken. The Judges arc,
not to answer matters urged against this privilege of
Parliament, because the privilege of Parliament cutout
he determined be Common law. If the cause of com-
mitment is stated to be in breach of the privilege of the
House, the Courts of Westminster cannot know of. the
sufficiency of the cause, for they have no rules to pro-
duce whereby to judge of its sufficiency." This is said
by Pow's, Justice : The Courts and Judges have au ,
jurisdiction to discharge a man committed ivy th-i
House of Commons fur what they have adjudged to be,
a contempt," &c. &c. This question has again and'
again been under the consideration of this Court on,
different occasions, and was particularly under its con.
sidevation, in the case of Sir Francis Burdett v. Abbott..'
It was with a view to that, that I have collected the au-
thorities to which I have now referred ; sad it was set-•'
tied and adjudzed in that case, that the House of Com
moss have power to commit, and that this Court could
not enter into the propriety of that cowutitmeni. We 1
have not the mesas of :orming a judgment, whether the
commitment was right or not. That case was under the
consideration of the Court of Excheqner Chamber, and!
there the Jneiges were saanimonsly of opinion that the
decisiou of this Court was right. That decision, I be-
lieve, went afterwards under the consideration of the
House of Lords, and there our decision was ultimately
affirmed upon the principle to which I have been refer-
ring.. For these reasons it seems to me that we are not
competent to hear any discussion upon this subject. It
we see on the face of the warrant, that the party is com-
mitted fur that which the House have adjudged to be a
contempt of that House, I have no difficulty in saying
that the House had a right to make such an adjudica-
tion, and that we have no authority to call it in ques-
tion. At the time when the application for this Habeas
Corpus was made, I believe the words of the Stet ate of 31
Car. 11, were not so accurately eonsidemi, or perhar
brought to the attention of the Court as they ought
to have been. It was assumed as a proposition sot
to be doubted, that a party had a plain, clear, legal
right to a writ of Habeas Corpus upon such a coniniit-
ment as this. t'er'ainly, if the words of the Habeas
Corpus Act are looked to, it will be found that it does
not apply to a case of this description ; for the benefit of
that Act is confined wholly to the case where the com-
mitment is for a crime, except treason or felony, or sl14•
picion thereof. It is clear that the Act does mot extend
to a case of this description. At the same time, inde-
pendently of the Habeas,Corpns Act, this Court has a
annm:titian' jurisdiction to grant a Habeas Corpse ' • bat
in Moth cagey there ought always to be proper ground of
law before the Court to justify them in granting sorb a
writ ; and it must not be taken that any man, under any
eircuinstance, has a right, as a matter of coarse, to the
writ of Habeas Corpus. I merely throw Ibis out in con-
sequence of the manner in which this writ was first ob •
tamed, because, upon carefully lookiag at the Statutet f
31 Car. 2, it appears to me that this is a case in which
the party is nit entitleu to Habeas Corpus as a matter of
course. Every man who applies for a Habeas Corpus, is
bound to lay such a case upon affidavits before the Court,
as will be sufficient to regulate the discretion of the
Court in that respect. Upon the whole, it appears to
that this Court is not competent to hear say argvmen:
on the points which have been mentioned, and that se.
should not be warranted in acceding to the motion.
Mr. Justice HOLROTD expressed his opinion to be in
unison with those which had just bees laid down.
Mr. Justice Hair took a comprehensive view of the
subject, in the course of which be observed, that he was
now convinced that a writ of Habeas Co s ought not
ro have been granted et all. , The Coeweel.
•