having consented to an adjournment, and the Treasury having paid the money, it would be a very improper and inconsistent proceeding to punish the officers, who, under the authority of a court of law, had levied the execution. It would be more consistent with their dignity to commit the Treasury who had paid the money; and it was that which he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the next time he approached this contest. They must not deal with subordinates. Would the hon. Member commit the parties who really infringed on their privileges—the

upon it, that the House, when it did again enter on the contest, would not feel that it was properly vindicating its privileges by dealing with subordinate officers only. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the Resolutions entered into by that House in 1837. He remeinbered them well. They were moved by Lord Campbell, then Attorney General, and they resolved that any party who brought an action against an officer of the House was guilty of a breach of privilege. There was no man more determined to support their privileges than Lord Campbell; but he came to the conclusion which the Committee did in the case of Burdett and Abbott, that, notwithstanding all those loud declarations as to the support of their privileges, yet, after an action was in

nessed, confirmed him in the conclusion, that it was most important that their resolution to support their own privileges should be almost an unanimous one, and having entered on that course, they should resolve steadily to persevere. Now, he confessed he had not that, confidence in the resolution and consistency of the House of Commons-of that popular assembly-which would induce him lightly to advise them to commence this course, and to be himself responsible for all the consequences. And it was because he believed there was another course which they could pursue, without the abandon-Judges who presided? He might depend ment of their privileges, or depriving themselves of their authority, that he was a party to that Report, and was prepared to support it. It was perfectly open to them within the last three weeks to come to the resolution of vindicating their own privileges-it was open to them to hold the doctrine that they had consented to defend the Serjeant-at-Arms because they wished the Court of Queen's Bench to be aware that he had acted by their authority. And he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, with the opinions which he now entertained, voted for an adjournment of that debate over the day on which the Serjeant-at-Arms was called upon to pay the damages which had been assessed against him. If they merely pleaded their order, the Court of Queen's Bench must be aware that the Serjeant-stituted, there was no alternative but to at-Arms acted by their authority, and was it not competent for them to say, 'the Court of Queen's Bench having refused to recognise our authority, we will now refuse to pay the damages?" He gave dis-advise the House to enter upon that continct notice to the House, that if they permitted that debate to be adjourned, that in the interval the jury would assess the damages, which would have to be paid, and then was the time when they ought to have given notice to the subordinate authorities of the court of law, that if they proceeded to levy the damages, they would be guilty of a breach of privilege. When they wished the debate to be adjourned, he was determined that they should not be ignorant of the probable consequences. The money had now been paid, and he presumed they would not permit the parties who had levied the execution to be dealt with as having committed a breach of privilege. The hon. Member for Montrose thought it was open to them to take that course; but he (Sir Robert Peel) thought that the House of Commons

follow the same course as the Committee recommended, and plead to the action. And, therefore, actuated by the same motives as that noble Lord, he never would

test, until he foresaw that there was so deep a conviction of their privileges being endangered, that it was probable there would be nearly an unanimous opinion in favour of their being upheld. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they ought to lead and influence public opinion; but they could not do so, if they found a powerful minority denying their privileges, and aiding the courts of law in their assault upon them. These were practical matters, and it was not sufficient for him, with a majority of eight or ten, to undertake such questions. The House and the country must be persuaded that the time had come when every other measure was exhaus'ed, and that only would be the period when they could hope with success to vindicate their privileges. But there must be no sympathy expressed with those

functions. He claimed for the House the right to commit both for contempt, and where there was no allegation of contempt; and he thought he could prove by the decisions of the highest judicial authorities, that the House of Commons did possess the power so to commit, independently of the power of committing for contempt. When it was said if the House had such a power there was an end of Magna Charta, that very allegation was made to the Judges in former periods, and scouted, as no reason for interfering with the power of the House of Commons. In the King v. Patey, Mr. Justice Gould said—

who violated their privileges; there must I 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. It appeared to afford to him ground for hope that an application to other Judges would lead to a reversal of the opinions of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench. The only way to question their judgment was to go before a Court of Error with merely the same plea with which they went before the Court of Queen's Bench, which, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, was no recognition of their jurisdiction. It was merely a statement of a fact: "This was done by our authority, and we deny the competency of a court of law to deal with it." When 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 essential 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

"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 Mr. Justice Powis

by an inferior court?

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 Ler Parliamenti."

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 thinking 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 A distinct admission that the law of Par-judicial decision of the Court of Queen's liament was a distinct branch of the law, Bench, if he merely saw there the authoand not merged in the Common and Sta-rity of the court opposed to that of the tute law. Throughout this discussion, too House, he should have a less confident hope there was an universal admission that that it would be reversed by the deliberate Parliament was the only judge of its own decision of a Court of Error, than when it privileges. But he came to later times, was supported, as that judgment must be and to the opinion of a Judge of higher admitted to be, by reasons inconsistent eminence than even those he had quoted, with each other, and at variance with the who had no leaning towards the House of highest judicial authorities of former, and Commons, and who did honour to the very even of recent times. After having given court whose judgment they now disputed. 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 apCourts 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 merely 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."

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 informality; for he says—

"We cannot inquire into the force of the commitment, even supposing it to be open to the objection of informality."

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 unfa-

making any undue concessions. The hon. dis-vourable. He did not feel they were thus and learned Gentleman said, the Parliament of 1841 met with the full possession of its privileges, and we have not been able to maintain them. He could not see the Parliament of 1841 was more faulty than its predecessors. In Burdett and 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 Again, here was the opinion of another day did not do so without mature consiJudge, not so high as a legal authority, deration of all the difficulties of any other but held in universal estimation he course. He (Sir R. Peel) consented with meant Mr. Justice Blackstone. That the utmost reluctance to that first step. Judge saidIn Howard v. Gossett, it was thought "We can't inquire into the particular damages. The hon. and learned Gentle necessary to plead on account of excess of 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."

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

Christie, W. D.
Christopher, R. A.
Clayton, R. R.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Cockburn, rt.hn.Sir G.
Clive, hon. R. H.
Corry, right hon. H.
Cripps, W.
Damer, hon. Col.
Denison, E. B.
Douglas, Sir C. E.
Drummond, H. H.
Duncombe, hon. A.
Dundas, D.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Escott, B.
Fitzroy, hon. H.
Flower, Sir J.
Fremantle,rt.hn.Sir T.
Fuller, A. E.
Gaskell, J. Milnes
Gladstone, Capt.
Gordon, hon. Capt.
Godson, R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Graham, rt, hn. Sir J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Hamilton, W. J.
Herbert, rt. hon, S.
Hope, G. W.
Howard, hon. C.W.G.
Hughes, W. B.
Ingestre, Visct.
James, Sir W. C.
Jermyn, Earl

Blackstone, W. S.
Blake, M. J.
Bowes, J.
Bowring, Dr.
Brotherton, J.
Builer, C.
Busfeild, W.
Cavendish, hn. G. H.
Collett, J.
Clements, Visct.
Colvile, C. R.
Dashwood, G. H.
Deedes, W.
Dickinson, F. H.
Duncan, G.
Dundas, Adm.
East, J. B.
Easthope, Sir G.

Ebrington, Visct.

Evans, W.
Forster, M.
Gibson, T. M.
Hawes, B.
Henley, J. W.
Hill, Lord M.

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

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 Lon-letters which he had mentioned had been don, 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 letter 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 some further observations, the letter was signed "John Hignett." This letter was addressed, as he had stated, to Mr. Whitehead the Solicitor to the South Eastern Company. This letter involved not only 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.

Mr. Hawes said, that not ten minutes ago he had spoken to the gallant Member for Chippenhamn, on the subject, who informed him that he had no objection to the course which he (Mr. Hawes) proposed to take.

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