who violated their privileges; there must prehend that individual, and detain him be such a conviction of their duty towards as long as they thought fit. He thought the Commons of this country that the peo- that was a power, considering their posiple would feel that there was no alternative tion in the State, which was necessarily but that the House should act for them- inherent in the House of Commons; and selves and assert their own authority. to question a power of that nature was to Much of the speech of the hon. and learn- question privileges without which their ed Gentleman appeared to tell in favour power of rendering service to the country of an appeal to a Court of Law. Would would be altogether impossible. He could he allow the House to leave the judgment not reconcile the doctrines recently laid of the Court of Queen's Bench untouched? down by the Judges of the Queen's Bench The hon. and learned Gentleman said, with those pronounced by the highest that Mr. Justice Wightman delivered a Judges in the best periods of our history. certain opinion; that Mr. Justice Coleridge The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that entirely destroyed the authority of Mr. for 150 years the Courts had not denied Justice Wightman's opinion; and that Lord the power of the House of Commons to Denman entirely destroyed the authority commit for contempt. He was not at all of Mr. Justice Coleridge's opinion. If satisfied with that. To limit by such a that were so, it appeared to be a very restriction their power would, in his opinstrong reason for not permitting the judg-ion, be fatal to the proper exercise of their ment to remain entirely unquestioned. functions. He claimed for the House the It appeared to afford to him ground for right to commit both for contempt, and hope that an application to other Judges where there was no allegation of contempt; would lead to a reversal of the opinions of and he thought he could prove by the dethe Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. cisions of the highest judicial authorities, The only way to question their judgment that the House of Commons did possess was to go before a Court of Error with the power so to commit, independently of merely the same plea with which they the power of committing for contempt. went before the Court of Queen's Bench, When it was said if the House had such which, according to the hon. and learned a power there was an end of Magna Charta, Gentleman, was no recognition of their that very allegation was made to the jurisdiction. It was merely a statement Judges in former periods, and scouted, as of a fact: "This was done by our no reason for interfering with the power authority, and we deny the competency of the House of Commons. In the King of a court of law to deal with it." When v. Patey, Mr. Justice Gould said— they stated that to a Court of Error, why did they make a greater concession than when they went to the Queen's Bench? especially when the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that it was no concession of jurisdiction whatever. With respect to the importance of their privileges, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that they were essen-i tial to the proper exercise of their duties. He claimed for the House of Commons the power of committal without the assignment of any reason. He thought that what the noble Lord said was true, that in cases, not of such extreme necessity as that which had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the power might be exercised. It would be a sufficient reason for having recourse to it, that some public officer or private individual might be about to depart from this country to give information to some other power; he thought in such a case the House of Commons had a right without a warrant even without a warrant―to ap- | Parliamenti.” "If this return were the commitment of it did not set out a sufficient cause of coman inferior court, it had been nought, because mittal: but this return being of a commitment by the House of Commons, which is superior to this court, it is not reversible for mere form." Was there ever a more express admission that the House differed from an inferior court, than by this sanction of its warrant, which would have been reversible if issued by an inferior court? Mr. Justice Powis said "It is objected that by Magna Charta no man can be taken or imprisoned except by the law of the land." And it was then said, as now, let the House obey the law of the land, and it is safe. But what said the Judge "The lex terra is not merely the Common Law, but is composed of the Canon and the Civil Law, &c., and among the rest of the Lex Mr. Justice Powell said "The prisoners were committed by another law, and therefore, can't be discharged by the law according to which they were not committed." Now, he must say, that so far from think. ing the House likely to err on the side of an abuse of privilege, his experience led him to think that their leaning would be to too great forbearance. Looking at the judicial decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, if he merely saw there the autho A distinct admission that the law of Parliament was a distinct branch of the law, and not merged in the Common and Sta-rity of the court opposed to that of the tute law. Throughout this discussion, too there was an universal admission that Parliament was the only judge of its own privileges. But he came to later times, and to the opinion of a Judge of higher eminence than even those he had quoted, who had no leaning towards the House of Commons, and who did honour to the very court whose judgment they now disputed. House, he should have a less confident hope that it would be reversed by the deliberate decision of a Court of Error, than when it was supported, as that judgment must be admitted to be, by reasons inconsistent with each other, and at variance with the highest judicial authorities of former, and even of recent times. After having given the case the best consideration he couldafter having discharged the not very agreeable duty of serving on the Select Com"It has been settled by many precedents mittee of Privileges, he was inclined to brought forward at different periods in the think it would be prudent to make an ap Courts of Westminster, and finally in Burdett v. Abbott, which went on writ of error to the peal to another tribunal. He dreaded the Exchequer Chamber, and ultimately to the consequence of allowing that judgment to House of Lords, that it was competent to the remain undisturbed. He spoke not of the House to commit for a contempt of its privi-technical judgment of Mr. Justice Wightleges; and they are the judges and the only judges of that contempt." Chief Justice Tenterden said Now on the first reading of that it would appear that Chief Justice Tenterden mere. ly conceded a power of committal for contempt. But he went on to say "In a great many cases of Shaftesbury, Patey, &c., there is decisive authority to show that the courts cannot judge of the law, custom and usage of Parliament, and consequently cannot discharge a person committed by Parliament for contempt." man; but he saw in the other doctrines advanced as to the rights and privileges of that House, which he would like to see fairly questioned in a higher tribunal. His chief ground for advising that course was, that until they satisfied the House and the public that they had left no means untried of vindicating their privileges, they could not succeed in any more strong measures for the purpose. He would not antici pate what their course should be if the decision of the Court of Error was unfavourable. He did not feel they were thus and learned Gentleman said, the Parlia making any undue concessions. The hon. ment of 1841 met with the full possession of its privileges, and we have not been the Parliament of 1841 was more faulty able to maintain them. He could not see He thus deduced the inability to discharge for contempt, not from anything peculiar to contempt, but because the courts had no authority over the "law, custom, and usage of Parliament." How his authority must be condemned by those who would set aside our committal for in-than its predecessors. In Burdett and formality; for he says "We cannot inquire into the force of the commitment, even supposing it to be open to the objection of informality." Again, here was the opinion of another Judge, not so high as a legal authority, but held in universal estimation he meant Mr. Justice Blackstone. That Judge said "We can't inquire into the particular words of the warrant, or into the circumstances of the execution. It is our duty to presume these were the orders of the House, and that they were carried into execution according to law." Abbott the Committee of that Parliament advised the House to plead. In 1837, another Parliament consented to plead. He believed the Attorney General of that day did not do so without mature consideration of all the difficulties of any other course. He (Sir R. Peel) consented with the utmost reluctance to that first step. In Howard v. Gossett, it was thought damages. The hon. and learned Gentle necessary to plead on account of excess of man was Solicitor General, and consented to that course. [Sir T. Wilde was understood to say no.] After the experience of Stockdale and Hansard, Lord Campbell advised that course. Therefore, the acquiescence, if it be such, in the jurisdiction of the court is not chargeable on this House alone. No one held more strongly than he did, that the House had these privileges, that they were essential to the performance of its duty, that by the law and Constitution of the country it was intended the House should have the power of vindicating its own authority; but, at the same time, the presumption was, that the courts would sometimes interfere. Don't let them forget the power of committal was limited to the Session, and there was nothing to prevent an action from being commenced, and brought to a close during the recess. When the Sheriffs were committed, that did not prevent the payment of the money. The Sheriffs might be again committed; but other officers would supply their place, and when once the contest was entered on, there would be an abundant supply of martyrs. And, after all, imprisonment was their only they had no power to fine. Would they limit their imprisonment to inferior offices? It was impossible to deny that public sympathy was on the side of officers placed in the painful situation of having to contend with two authorities. If there were any other course open to them by which they could set aside that judgment, which he believed to be inconsistent with reason, and he would add, with all deference to the learned Judges who had given it, inconsistent with the admissions of other courts of law; he for one was prepared-not denying the embarrassment attending the course which the Committee recommended to desist from every other measure to which he could have resort without compromising the authority of that House, before he would appeal to that last and extreme measure which must be necessary for the vindication of their privileges, but the necessity of which, he trusted, might still be averted by the course which he now recommended to be taken. resource Christie, W. D. Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Barkly, H. Baring, rt, hon. F. T. Boyd, J. Carew, W. H. P. Hawes, B. Hill, Lord M. Roebuck, J. A. Resolution agreed to. KENTISH RAILWAYS-THE BOARD OF ORDNANCE.] Mr. Hawes said, that he rose without delay on the subject. Since he had been in the House, he had spoken on the subject to the hon, and gallant Member for Huntingdon, and the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham. Under the circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to present the petition to the House without delay, for allegations of this kind should not be put forth without at once meeting a proper answer and explanation; and he had no doubt but that a satisfactory explanation could be given of the conduct of the public officers alluded to. The letters which he had mentioned had been laid before the Railway Committee on Bills, Group A, and that Committee had determined, as they involved charges against public officers, that they could not try the matter; and, therefore, it declined to receive the letters. In consequence of this, the parties had placed the petition in his hands. He should make no comment on the matter, and add nothing whatever to the statements in the Committee, other than observing that the charge was at present wholly ex-parte, and doubtless the persons alluded to, could give a satisfactory answer. As he had said before, he held the original letters in his hand. He should then only ask the House to consent to print the petition with the Votes, and he should to-morrow move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the statements contained in it. He should therefore at once move that the petition be printed; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would, as it was a Government night, allow him to move for the appointment of the Committee at the commencement of Public Business. He should have stated that the petition was signed on behalf of the South Eastern Railway Committee, and had its seal affixed to it. to present a petition which had been put into his hands since nine o'clock: if it had not involved some serious charges against certain public officers, he should not have presented it to the House at that hour. It was from the South Eastern Railway Company, and stated that they had prepared a Bill to pass through Woolwich Common, as an extension of a portion of its line, which had been thrown out by the Standing Order Committee, but which was now before the Committee on Railway Eils under Group A, as a project for a railway. The opposing line was the London, Chatham, and North Kent Railway. When the former company proposed to carry their line across Woolwich Common, it was met with an entire objection from the Board of Ordnance. The nature of that objection was stated in a letter which was introduced in the petition. The petitioners then went on to state that they had reason to believe that influence had been used in favour of the Chatham and North Kent line, by the Solicitor to the Board of Ordnance; and in proof of this they had that morning laid before the Committee on Railways, Group A, a letter which had been received from the Solicitor to the Board of Ordnance, directed to the Secretary to the South Eastern Railway Company. On reading the copy of this letter in the petition, he had declined to present it to the House until the original let ter had been put in his hands. He now held it in hand, and it purported to be signed by Mr. Hignett, the Solicitor to the Board of Ordnance, and it was to the effect that the tickets for the meeting of the Company at the London Tavern for the following Thursday had been received. It then went on to request that certain shares should be assigned to Captain Boldero, a member of the Board of Ordnance, and that they should be addressed to him at the office, and marked "private." It then stated that the writer had spoken to Mr. Bonham, another member of the Board, on the subject, who had made some difficulty as to taking shares; but it added, send them to him or not as he pleased. After Mr. Hawes said, that not ten minutes some further observations, the letter was ago he had spoken to the gallant Member signed "John Hignett." This letter was for Chippenham, on the subject, who inaddressed, as he had stated, to Mr. White-formed him that he had no objection to the head the Solicitor to the South Eastern course which he (Mr. Hawes) proposed to Company. This letter involved not only take. a charge against the writer of it, but also involved charges derogatory to certain public authorities; and that therefore he thought that some steps should be taken Mr. Speaker observed, that when the conduct of a Member of that House was impugned, it was the rule to ask the hon. Member whether he objected to the printing the petition until an opportunity had been afforded him of explanation. Colonel Peel stated, that his hon. and gallant Friend had no objection to the course proposed to be taken. It happened, however, that the decision respecting car 2. Sir Henry Pottinger's Annuity. decott, a prisoner in the gaol of Castle Rushen, in the Isle of Man, complaining of being imprisoned without a hearing, and praying for relief. The Lord Chancellor said, that he had caused inquiry to be made into this case, and when he had done so, he found that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had also instituted a similar investigation. He understood that the petitioner had been kept in gaol for debt, and not for the cause alleged, an assault upon his wife. The result of the inquiries both of himself and his right hon. Friend had been, that the proceedings in the case had been in perfect consonance with the law, good or bad, of the Isle of Man. If the law were bad, it might be amended, which could 3a and passed :-Infeftments (Scotland); Heritable Se-only be done by the House of Keys, the curities (Scotland). Private.—\". Belfast Improvement; Great Western Rail way, Ireland (Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone); Great North of England, Clarence and Hartlepool Junction Railway; Newry and Enniskillen Railway; Richmond (Surrey) Railway; Liverpool and Manchester Railway; Birmingham and Gloucester Extension Railway (Stoke Branch); North Union and Ribble Navigation Branch 2. Lyme Regis Improvement, Market, and Waterworks; Totnes Markets and Waterworks; Blackburn and Preston Railway; Trent Valley Railway; Whitehaven and Furness Railway; Eastern Union (Bury St. Edmund's) Railway; Marquess of Donegal's Estate. Railway; North Woolwich Raiiway; Dundalk and Enniskillen Railway; Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Reported.-Wolverhampton Waterworks; Exeter and Crediton Railway; Sheffield and Rotherham Railway; Yoker Road; Ellison's Estate; Manchester Improvement; Gildart's (or Sherwen's) Estate. Ayr Railway (Cumnock Branch). 3 and passed :-White's Charity Estate; York and North Midland Railway (Harrogate Branch); Glasgow Bridges; Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland; Shaw's Waterworks; Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway; Crediton Small Debts. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Duke of Richmond, from Magistrates and others of Dingwall, suggesting Alterations in Banking (Scotland) Bill.-From Poor Law Guardians of Kilrush, in favour of the Tenants Compensation (Ireland) Bill.-From John Final Cook, High Constable of Isleworth, for the Insertion of Clause giving Compensation to them for meritorious services, in the High Constables Bill.-From Attorneys of the Courts at Westminster, for the Substitution of Declarations in lieu of Oaths. By the Marquess of Normanby, from Legislative Council of New South Wales, for Alteration of Law relating to the Disposal of Land.-By the Duke of Richinond, and Lord Brougham, from Merchants and others of Liverpool and Manchester, for the adoption of Measures to Enforce the Free Navigation of the River La Plata. By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from Minister and others of Free Church of Garvald, and from a great Legislative Assembly of the island. Lord Campbell thought that what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, showed this to be a case for their Lordships' interference; for there could be no doubt that the Imperial Legislature had the power to pass a law for the government of the island. If the proceedings had been contrary to law, the course for redress would have been an appeal to the proper legal authorities; but if it were the law in the Isle of Man that an individual could be imprisoned for seven or eight months without a hearing, the sooner it was altered the better. Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table. RIVER LA PLATA.] The Duke of Richmond presented a petition from Bankers, Merchants, and Traders, of Liverpool, praying for the adoption of measures to enforce the free navigation of said river. Lord Brougham also presented a petition to the same effect from Bankers, Merchants, and Traders of Manchester. The Earl of Aberdeen said, he should be most happy to contribute, by any means in his power, to open the navigation of the Plata, or any other river, in any part number of other places, for the Better Observance of, and against the Running of Railway Trains on, the Sab- of the world, to facilitate and extend the bath. By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from Minister commerce of this country. But it was not and others of the Scotch Church, Saint Peter's Square, so easy a maiter as the petitioners supposed Manchester, for Preventing the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on the Sabbath.-From Worksop, against the In- to open that which lawful authorities had crease of Grant to Maynooth College.-From Rector and declared should be closed. The petitioners had spoken of a Treaty with this country, by which they alleged they were entitled to the ISLE OF MAN.] Lord Brougham pre-navigation of the River La Plata. Now, sented a petition from John Waters Col- Buenos Ayres was the only organ of the others of Parish of Little Bowden, and from several other persons in favour of the Charitable Trusts Bill. |