Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

day of

in the year

[ocr errors]

Practical Points of General Interest.-Now Forms of Irils.

375 tbat in fact he had been here, and appeared in ment aforesaid was entered up, and have there public from the 27th of April to the 17th of then this writ. May, irhen he was arrested. Mr. Harvey (the Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, at Westplaintif) has had the opportunity of examining minster, on the day of —-, in the year into the tra h of these statements of the de- of our Lord fendant, and has not been able to contradict Note.-This and all other writs of execu

them, nor does he swear to any preparations tion may be made returnable on a day AL

which are now inakirg on behalf of the defen- certain in term.
dant for leaving the country. If, therefore, I
made the order prayed for, I should be pro-

No. II.
ceeding at once only on a suspicion excited by Writ of Capias ad Satisfaciendum, on an
previous conduct, against the direct oath of the order of the Court of Queen's Bench, for
party: this I think would be unreasonable. It payment of money.
inay often happen, and in this case it may so Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United
bappen, that the means of securing the delit Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen,
may be list by a refusal to order the arrest; Defender of the Faith ;-To the Sheriff of
the judge may wait for evidence of a design to -, greeting. We command you that you
? ave the country, till it is too late to prevent take C. D. if he shall be found in your baili-
its ar complishunent; but still he must deal wick, and him safely keep, so that you may
with the act as he finds it worded. Its general have his body before us at Westminster, imme-
intent is to abolish arrests on mesne process. diately after the execution hereof, to satisfy
The cases provided for by the 3d and 7th sec- A. B. L-~, which lately in our Court before
tions are but exceptions, and be must see the us at Westminster, hy a rule of our said Court,
case fairly brought within them. I cannot say entitled, &c., [as the case may be), were by the
the eridence satisties me of Mr. O'Meara's said Court ordered to be paid by the said Ć. D.
(the defendant's) present intention to leave to the said A. B., and further to satisfy the suid
the country, and therefore, on these affidavits, A. B. interest upon the said sum of L- at
should refuse to inake the order at chainbers. the rate of four pounds per centum per annum
Harrey v. OʻJleura, 7 Dowl. 725.

from the

-, in the year of our Lord -- on which day the said rule was

made, and have there then this writ. NEW FORMS OF WRITS.

Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, at Westminster, on the day of

of our Lord
The following are the new forms of writs
framed by the Judges, pursuant to the statute

No. III.
I and ? Victoria, cap. 110. They will come Writ of Capias ad Satisfacien'lıım, on an
into operation the first day of next term.

order of the Court of Queen's Bench, for

payınent of money and costs. No. I.

Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Writ of Capias ad Satisfaciendum, on a judy- Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen,

ment in the Court of Queen's Bench, in Defender of the Faith; To the Sheriff of an action of assumpsit.

greeting: We command you that you take Vietoria, by the Grace of God, of the United C. D. if he shall be found in

your bailiwick, Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, and him safely keep, so that you may have his Defender of the Faith ;-To the Sheriff of body before us at Westminster, immediately

--, greeting. We command you that you after the execution hereof, to satisfy A. B. take C. D. if he shall be found in your baili- £--, which lately in our Court before us at wick and him safely keep, so that you may have Westminster, hy a rule of our said Court, enhis body before us at Westminster, immediately titled, &c. [as the case may be], were by the after the execution hereof, to satisfy A. B. said Court ordered to be paid by the said C. D. £-- which the said A. B. lately in our Court to the said A. B., together with the costs of the before us at Westminster, recovered against the said rule, which said costs were afterwards on said C. D. for his damages which he had sus- the

day of

in the year of our Lord tained, as well on occasion of the not perforin

taxed and allowed by our said Court, at ing certain promises and undertakings then the sum of £--, and further to satisfy the lately made by the said C. D. to the said A. B., said C. D., the said sum of £-~, together as for his costs and charges by him about his with interest upon the said two several sums of suit in that behalf expended; whereof the said £-- and £- at the rate of four pounds C. D. is convicted, as appears to us of record, per centum per annum, from the said day together with interest upon the said sum of £-, at the rate of four pounds per centum the words or " which day the judgment aforeper annum, from the

day of in the said was entered up.” year of our Lord -, a on which day the judg

b The day on which the rule was inade, or if

it were made prior to the 1st of October, 1838, a The day on which the judgment was en

• from the 1st day of October, in the year tered up, or if entered up prior to the 1st of of our Lord 1838,” omitting the words October, 1933, say from the 1st day of Octo- which day the said rule was madle." ber, in the year of our Lord 1839, omitting c The amount of the costs taxcd.

say

on

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

a

[ocr errors]

day of

day of

in the year

[or of

of in the year of our Lord ,d and, C. D. if he shall be found in your bailiwick, have there then this writ.

and him safely keep, so that you may have his Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, at West- body before us at Westminster, immediately minster, on the

day of

-, in the year after the execution hereof, to satisfy A. B. of our Lord

£-, which lately in [insert the style of the No. IV.

Court], by a rule of the said Court, entitled, Writ of Capius ad Satisfaciendum, on

&c., (as the case may be], were by the said judgment in an inferior Court in an action Court ordered to be paid by the said C. D. to of assumpsit, removed into the Court of the said A. B., and which rule was afterwards on Queen's Bench.

the

day of --, in the year of our Lord VICTORIA, by the Grace of God, of the United --, removed into our Court before us at WestKingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, minster by an order of our said Court before us Defender of the Faith; To the Sheriff of at Westminster, (or of --, one of the Justices greeting. We command you that you take of our said Court before us at Westminster, as C. D. if he shall be found in your bailiwick, the case may be], in pursuance of the statute and him safely keep, so that you may have his in such case made and provided, and the costs body before us at Westminster, immediately attendant upon the application for the said after the execution hereof, to satisfy A. B. last-mentioned order, and upon the said re£--, which the said A. B. lately in [insert moval, were on the day of — in the the style of the Court), by the judgment of the year of our Lord

taxed and allowed by said Court recovered against the said C. D. for our said Court before us at Westminster, at the his damages which he had sustained as well on sum of £—-, and also to satisfy the said A. B. occasion of the not performing certain promises the said sum of £--, together with interest and undertakings then lately made by the said on the said two several sums of £—, and C. D. to the said A. B., as for his costs and £- at the rate of four pounds per centum charges by him about his suit in that behalf ex- per annum, from the said

in pended, whereof the said C. D. is convicted as the year of our Lord --, and have there then appears to us of record, and which judgment this writ. was afterwards on the day of --, in the Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, at Westyear of our Lord -, removed into our Court minster, on the before us at Westminster by virtue of an order of our Lord of our said Court before us at Westminster,

No. VI. one of the Justices of our said Court, before us at Westminster, as the case

Writ of Capias ad Satisfaciendum, on an

order of an inferior Court, for payment of may be], in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided, and the costs atten

a sum of money and costs, removed into

the Court of Queen’s Bench. dant upon the application for the said order, Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United and upon the said removal were on the day of

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, in the year of our Lord

Defender of the Faith ; To the Sheriff of taxed and allowed by our said Court before us at Westminster, at the sum of £--, and C. D. if he shall be found in your bailiwick,

greeting. We command you that you take further to satisfy the said A. B. the said sum and him safely keep, so that you may have his of £-_e together with interest upon the said body before us at Westminster immediately two several sums of £-- and £-, at the after the execution hereof, to satisfy A. B. rate of four pounds per centum per annum, £---, which lately in [insert the style of the from the said

day of

- in the year of Court], by a rule of the said Court, entitled, our Lord

f and have there then this writ. &c. (as the case may be), were by the said Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, at West- Court ordered to be paid by the said C. D. to minster, on the

day of

-, in the year the said A. B., and also £-, for the costs of our Lord No. V.

of the said rule, by the said Court also ordered

to be paid by the said C. D. to the said A. B., Writ of Capias ad Satisfaciendum, on an which said rule was afterwards on the day

order of an inferior Court for payment of of - in the year of our Lord removed money, removed into the Court of Queen's into our Court before us at Westminster, by an Bench.

order of our said Court before us at WestVictoria, by the Grace of God, of the United minster, (or of —-, one of the Justices of our Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, said Court before us at Westminster, as the Defender of the Faith; To the Sheriff of - case may be], in pursuance of the statute in greeting. We command you that you take such case made and provided, and the costs at

tendant upon the application for the said lastd The day on which the costs of the rule mentioned order, and upon the said removal, were taxed, or if that were prior to the 1st of were on the

day of

in the year of October, 183S, say “ from the 1st day of Oc- our Lord taxed and allowed by our said tober, in the year of our Lord 1838."

Court before us at Westminster, at the sum of e The costs attendant upon the removal of the judgment out of the inferior Court into the & The costs of removing the rule of the Court of Queen's Bench.

inferior Court into the Court of Queen's Bench. | The day on which the costs of removal h The day on which the costs of removal were taxed,

were taxed.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

CC

Parliamentary Privilege : Meeting of the Attorneys.

377 £-, and also to satisfy the said A. B. the of that right the house was bound to respect or said sum of £--, i together with interest on at liberty to disregard the interests and feelthe said three sums of £- and £ andings of private individuals. These were im. £--, at the rate of four pounds per centum portant questions certainly, upon which they per annum, from the

day of --, in the in common with all their fellow-subjects must year of our Lord J and have there then have their own opinions; but they were not this writ.

now met to consider them, and he hoped whatWitness, Thomas Lord Denman, at West-ever any one inight wish to say upon any of minster, the day of in the year of these points would be reserved for some more our Lord

suitable opportunity, and that the chairman (Signed)

would, if necessary, remind then that such DENMAN, J. GURNEY,

topics were to be avoided at the present moN. C. TINDAL, J. WILLIAMS,

ment, as extraneous to the business they had ABINGER, J. T. COLERIDGE,

immediately in hand. Eqally irrelevant would J. LITTLEDALE, T. COLTMAN,

it be to enter into discussion as to the character J. PARKE, T. ERSKINE,

of the individual who had been the occasion J. B. BOSANQUET, W. H. MAULE,

of the proceedings in question or of the cause E. H. ALDERSON, R. M. Rolfe.

which had given rise to them; and no gentleJ. PATTESON,

man, he trusted, would divert the attention of the meeting from its most important purpose

by indulging in any remarks either condemnaPARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.-MEET- tory or exculpatory of Mr. Howard or the suit ING OF THE ATTORNEYS. in which he had been retained. Equally mis

placed would be any expression of feeling on A MEETING of attorneys and solicitors was held subjects of party politics. He hoped they on Tuesday at the Freemasons' Hall, Great would find no admission there. With respect Queen-Street, to consider whether any and to Mr. Howard, it was enough for them on what steps should be taken in consequence of the present occasion to know that the cause the proceedings adopted against Mr. Howard, was one which the law allowed, and that he by order of the House of Commons, in refer- was professionally justified, if not obliged, to ence to the case of Stockdale v. Hansard. undertake it. It was not for the merits of the

The meeting was attended by upwards of particular case they contended, but for the five hundred members of the profession. principle it involved; and, if the case was not

Mr. Shadwell, on being called to the chair, on its own merits entitled to any favour, they briefly stated the object of the meeting. The should contend for it on that account the more resolutions which would be proposed he took earnestly, lest the disfavour with which they on bimself to say were so reasonable that in all regarded it should tempt thein to establish a probability they would not call for much, if precedent against their own principles. This any, discussion; hut in case any difference of brought him to the real point for consideraopinion should exist, he hoped, and he was tion--namely, whether according to the Ensure it was the desire of every gentleman pre- glish constitution there existed rightfully in sent, that all who wished to speak would be the House of Commons a power to stop the heard patiently

course of law, lo reverse its solemn adjudicaAjr. Frere.-Although he was not one of tions, and to deter its ministers by pains and those respectable gentlemen who had origi- penalties from seeking legal redress for denated the meeting, and knew nothing of the clared admitted grievances. They maintained intention to call it until the requisition had re- there was no such right, that a right to superceived all, or nearly all, the signatures which sede the law was a right to make the law—a appeared on the printed paper-although for right which in this country could not be claimed particular reasons he then declined to join in by the House of Commons alone as a privilege the requisition, knowing of many objections any more than it could be claimed by the that inight be urged against the holding of any Crown alone as its prerogative; and that, strepublic ineeting on such an occasion, yet after nuously and successfully as such a clain had a ineeting bad been so generally called for, he been resisted when advanced under the name must say he not only entirely approved of it, but of Royal prerogative, it should be more streconsidered that the profession and the public at nuously resisted now that it was put forward Jarge were indebted to those who had taken the in the shape of Parliamentary privilege, inastrouble to convene them. The question on which inuch as prerogative was capable of being rethey were invited to express iheir sentiments sisted by the all-powerful and constitutional was not whether the House of Commons ought force of Parliament, whereas against a House or ought not to have the privilege of publishing of Commons determined to make encroachito all the world whatever that house might in ments on our liberties there was no adequate its wisdom think expedient to publish for the constitutional defence. It was needless to engood of the nation, nor whether in the exercise large further upon this topic in an age like the

present, which had the advantage of reading i The costs of removing the rule from the in the past history of their own country, and inferior Court into the Court of Queen’s Bench. of witnessing in France in their own timnes,

i The day on which the costs of removing how utterly powerless all institutions becaine the rule from the inferior Court were taxcd. for resisting the aggressions of a rampant

378

Parliamentary Privilege : Meeting of the Allorneys. House of Commons in cases where they had | Stockdale, he threw them overboard, it was accomplished, although temporarily only, the quite sufficient for him to know that the rights subjugation of the Crown, the corruption of and privileges of the pnblic were endangered the army, the disorganization and spoliation by the proceedings of the House of Commons. of the church, and silencing of the law, so But the Commons were not content with sendthat there remained for the people nothing but ing the attorney to prison, even his clerks the right of petitioning their oppressors--a were consigned to gaol, and they had iinright which became a mere mockery, when prisoned a child for obeying the lawful comemployed as a ineans of resistance to arbitrary inands of his master and father. If the compower, vested in a set of men whose maxiin mons bad wished to try the question in a buld it was to tyrannize in the name of liberty, and and manly manner, they would at once hare ruin their country upon the pretext of public seized the bull by the horns: they would bare good. Should such a destiny await them attacked the counsel and the judges, they had only to pray that the night inight be Mr. Buker P. Smith supported ihe amend. a short one, whatever might be the nature of ment. He said that the ineeting was convened the returning dawn. They were in-God's for the purpose of considering what measure hands, but they were, nevertbeless, bound each it was desirable for them to adopt, in consein his station to do their utmost to avert the quence of the proceedings taken against Mr. calamities which threatened them; and it be- Huward, and from that subject the meeting came them peculiarly, as belonging to the pro- could not lawfully depart, no matter what fession of the law, and of that branch of it resolution migl.t be proposed. He thought which liad been selected for the commence that Mr. Howard had been very unfairly ment of such aggressions by the unlawful im- treated, for he was first of all made the basis prisonment of one of its meinbers, to stand of the inecting, and then, according to the forward and raise their voices in vindication of suggestion of the last speaker, he was to be the majesty and independence of the law, the thrown overboard. He dissented from the great bulwark of the national liberties. He resolution, because, for himself, he should say, begged leave to move the following resolution : he felt no 'aların. The question really under "That the members of this profession have discussion was the privilege of the House of observed with much alarm the proceedings of Cominons. Now, the meeting was not com the House of Commons in imprisoning an at-petent to discuss that question; and for this torney to the Court of Queen's Bench for reason he supported the amendment. having acted as attorney of a party in which it Mr. Vizurd wished to state the grounds which was supposed that a privilege claimed by that prevented bin from concurring in the prohonourable house inight be called in question.” posed resolution. He had heard it stated that

Mr. Teesilale seconded the resolution. the House of Commons had not the power to

Mr. Pike contended that no case had been coinmit. (“No, No.”) Such a statement had made out for their interference, and moved an certainly been inade, and it hari been re-echoed amendment to the effect that “ this speeting round that room. Now, the Court of Qrieen's does not, under the circumstances, feel called Bench had itself admitted in the return to the on to take any steps whatever in consequence habeas corpus that the House of Commons did of the proceedings adopted by the House of possess this power of committal, which was dow Commons against Mr. 'Howard with reference disputed. It was not his intention to enter to the case of Stockdale and Hansard.” into the case of Mr. Howard, though he Mr. Guy seconded the amendment,

thought it might very fairly be introduced ; Nr. Anderton was glad that the profession still he thought it of so little importance, com. had coine forward not only to defend their own pared with or her considerationis, that he should rights, but the rights and privileges of their pass it by altogether. There was no man in clients. The question for the consideration of ibat assembly who valued more highly than lie that mceting was, whether attorneys and coun- did the constitution and system of laws uoder sel were to be deterred froun doing their duty which they lived, or entertained more sincere -wheiher individuals who felt themselves respect for the great authorities by whom those aggrieved were to be prevented from obtaining laws were administered. He believed that that redress which they could only get by the nothing had so much tended hitherto to carry aid of their solicitors and counsel. Al be this country through difficulties, and nothing could say was, that if any man feeling himself would so much help to do so in future, as the aggrieved applied to hiin for assistance, he confidence reposed' by the great body of the would tender it, in spite of any resolution of people in the adwinistration of the law. He, the House of Cominons or of the House of therefore, viewed ivith the deepest regret, the Lords. He only acknowledged the laws of his conflict which had arisen between the House country; them he would obey so long as the of Commons and the Court of Queen's Bench. judges told hiin he was right in the course he He could not, however, conceal from himself was pursuing, without fear or dread from any that the real question was whether the House quarter. He regretter that the profession had the privilege for which they contended, generally had not deliberated on it at an earlier and wheiher they had the right to enforce opportunity; for he knew that the attorneys it by the means to which they had resorted. in the country were only waiting for an He should not proceed to debate the whole example from the London attorneys in order question of the right of the House of Comlo follow it. With respect to Howard and ions, for it would be waste of time in him to

Parliamentary Privilege : Meeting of the Attorneys

379

repeat the arguments urged in its favour in Howard had sustained a wrong, and yet he the report drawn up by Sir T. Wilde. But let Wushed to own that they had been bound to him ask, who signed that report besides the hold that those parties were practically reineeminent individual he had just named ? Who diless. The bar bad protested against this announced to the people that the House of doctrine, but it was with indignation and shame Commons possessed this privilege? Was it he confessed that the public apathy of the at. merely the Solicitor General, or the Attorney tornics and solicitors seemed to have pointed General, Lord J. Russell, or members con- them out as men who might be trampled on. nected with the present cabinet ? No; the What would the House of Commons do next? privilege was claimed !y Sir W. Follett, Sir F. Lord Howick counselled increased rigour, and Pullock, Sir R Peel, and all those other dis- no less a person than Sir T. Wilde, who had tinguished conservative statesmen to whom he been a solicitor himself, had talked of adjourn. suspected the greater part of the present as- ment instead of prorogation, and hinted at sembly looked up as their political guides-Sir perpetual imprisonment. Was this a yain J. Grahain, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Goulburo. threat? It would prove so, if they were only Under these circumstances, he thought it un- true to themselves, and exhibited neither weaknecessary for him to prove that the House of ness nor irresolution. Cominons possessed this privilege, and the Mr. Shaw said, that having been alluded to power to enforce it by coinmittal. He rejoiced, as the attorney in the case of Polack, he must however, that a course had at last been adopted, declare that he never shruuk from his duty. the best calculated to settle the question; and It did not suit his client to proceed and to be that there was a prospect that the contest sent to Newgate for contempt, and consebetween the two tribunals would be terininated quently he (Mr. Shaw) was compelled to by some legislative enactment: but, believing desist. However, as far as he was hinself that the House of Commons possessed that concerned, he acknowledged no expounders of privilege and the power of enforcing it by the law but the courts of law. He supported committal, he could not support the proposed the resolution. resolution; and should the amendment which Mr. Watt, the Queen's proctor in Ireland, hal been moved not be carried, he was inclined also spoke in favour of the resolution. He lo irove that the meeting be adjourned. It said, there was but one feeling' of indignation had been said that attorneys were bound by among the Irish practitioners against the arbitheir oaths to obey the directions of their crary proceedings of the House of Coinmnny. clients; but they were only bound to obey just The amendment proposed by Mr. Pike was and legal directions; and the Court of Chan- then put, and only half a dozen hands held up cery would not admit it as a justification, if an in its favour. The rest of the meeting supattorney who had proceeded in spite of an ported the original resolution, which was carinjunction, pleaded' that he had done so in ried ainid loud cheers. obedience to the directions of his client.

Mr. Adlinglon moved the second resolution : Mr. Beaumont said he should imitate the "That it is the undoubted right of all her conduct of the last speaker in abstaining from Majesty's subjects who consider themselves any discussion on the power of the House of aggrieved by the act of any person whomso. Colomons to maintain their privileges; but ever to seek for redress in her Majesty's the question was, had they a right to set up Courts ; that the law has pointed out the prowhatever they chose as privilege, and to de- per remedy for an erroneous judgment of the clare by an ex post facto law what should have courts, and the constitution has vested in the been the law at a past period ? If the Cominons legislature the power of altering that law. possessed this power, and if they had the right | But that the constitution does not recognize io exercise the functions of the legislature and in any person or body in the state the right to the judicature conjointly, what, let him ask, control the administration of the law in her had become of the institution of trial by jury Majesty's Courts.” which Lord Chatham bath described as the The resolution was seconded by Mr. Kinderly. strength and beauty of the constitution ? Mr. Vizard said, that some appeals having What had now becoine of the Habeas Corpus been inade to their feelings on the subject.of Act? It was all but a dead letter. It had been the hubeus corpus and the trial by jury, it was said that the commonest courts had the power necessary to bear in inind that neither one nor to commit for contempt, but he believed that other had anything to do with the present the steward of a court leet would not have question, which was, whether the House of acted in the manner the House of Commons Commons had the power to commit for had acted. That officer would, doubtless, have offence. the honour and manliness to set forth on his The resolution was carried, after some fur. warrant the cause of the committal, and would ther observations, by an overwhelming majority, feel himself degraded by resorting to conceal the dissentients not numbering more than six. ment for the purpose of evading the provisions Mr.Wm. Lowe moved the third resolution

of the Habeas Corpus Act, of cheating the “That all suitors in Her Majesty's Courts are : judges of their rightful jurisdiction, and entitled to the assistance of their attorney to abridging the libcrty of the subject. What conduct their cases, and that it is essential to truth was there now in the maxim that the law the enjoyment of that right that the attorney of England knew no wrong without a remedy? should be protected in the lawful discharge of The judges had decided that Stockdale and his professional duty; and that this meeting,

« EelmineJätka »