Practical Points of General Interest.-New Forms of Writs. that in fact he had been here, and appeared in NEW FORMS OF WRITS. The following are the new forms of writs framed by the Judges, pursuant to the statute 1 and 2 Victoria, cap. 110. They will come into operation the first day of next term. No. I. Writ of Capias ad Satisfaciendum, on a judgment in the Court of Queen's Bench, in an action of assumpsit. 375 ment aforesaid was entered up, and have there then this writ. Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, at Westminster, on the day of -—, in the year of our Lord NOTE. This and all other writs of execution may be made returnable on a day certain in term. No. II. Writ of Capias ad Satisfaciendum, on an order of the Court of Queen's Bench, for payment of money. VICTORIA, by the Grace of God, of the United from the No. III. at an Writ of Capias ad Satisfaciendum, on order of the Court of Queen's Bench, for payment of money and costs. VICTORIA, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith; To the Sheriff of ——, greeting. We command you that you take VICTORIA, 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 after the execution hereof, to satisfy A. B. that you you 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, by 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 Č. 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 susday of in the year of our Lord tained, as well on occasion of the not performtaxed 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 together with interest upon the said sum of £, at the rate of four pounds per centum per annum, from the day of in the year of our Lord --,a on which day the judg a The day on which the judgment was entered up, or if entered up prior to the 1st of October, 1833, say "from the 1st day of October, in the year of our Lord 1838," omitting the с day the words on "which day the judgment aforesaid was entered up." b The day on which the rule was made, or if it were made prior to the 1st of October, 1838, say "from the 1st day of October, in the year of our Lord 1838," omitting the words which day the said rule was made." c The amount of the costs taxed. 66 on 376 of in the year of our Lord have there then this writ. Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, minster, on the day of of our Lord No. IV. , New Forms of Writs. --,d and C. D. if he shall be found in your bailiwick, and him safely keep, so that you may have his at West-body before us at Westminster, immediately in the year after the execution hereof, to satisfy A. B. £, which lately in [insert the style of the Court], by a rule of the said Court, entitled, &c., [as the case may be], were by the said Court ordered to be paid by the said C. D. to the said A. B., and which rule was afterwards on Writ of Capias ad Satisfaciendum, on a judgment in an inferior Court in an action of assumpsit, removed into the Court of Queen's Bench. the this writ. Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, at Westminster, on the day of in the year of our Lord No. VI. 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 £――,8 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 day of --, in pended, whereof the said C. D. is convicted as the year of our Lord -h and have there then appears to us of record, and which judgment was afterwards on the day of --, in the year of our Lord ——, removed into our Court before us at Westminster by virtue of an order of our said Court before us at Westminster, [or of --, 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 attena 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 Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, day of, 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 £-- 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 our Lord ————‚f and have there then this writ. &c. [as the case may be], were by the said --, in the year of Court], by a rule of the said Court, entitled, Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, at West-Court ordered to be paid by the said C. D. to minster, on the the said A. B., and also £, for the costs of our Lord of the said rule, by the said Court also ordered to be paid by the said C. D. to the said A. B., which said rule was afterwards on the ▬▬ day of, in the year of our Lord, removed into our Court before us at Westminster, by an order of our said Court before us at Westminster, [or of, one of the Justices of our said Court before us at Westminster, as the case may be], in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided, and the costs attendant upon the application for the said lastmentioned order, and upon the said removal, were on the day of, in the year of our Lord day of in the year No. V. VICTORIA, by the Grace of God, of the United d The day on which the costs of the rule were taxed, or if that were prior to the 1st of October, 1838, say "from the 1st day of October, in the year of our Lord 1838." e The costs attendant upon the removal of the judgment out of the inferior Court into the Court of Queen's Bench. The day on which the costs of removal were taxed, taxed and allowed by our said Court before us at Westminster, at the sum of g The costs of removing the rule of the inferior Court into the Court of Queen's Bench. h The day on which the costs of removal were taxed. Parliamentary Privilege £, and also to satisfy the said A. B. the said sum of £--, together with interest on the said three sums of £——, and £——, and £——, at the rate of four pounds per centum per annum, from the day of, in the year of our Lord ——, and have there then this writ. Meeting of the Attorneys. 377 of that right the house was bound to respect or at liberty to disregard the interests and feelings of private individuals. These were important questions certainly, upon which they in common with all their fellow-subjects must have their own opinions; but they were not now met to consider them, and he hoped what Witness, Thomas Lord Denman, at West-ever any one might wish to say upon any of minster, the in the year of these points would be reserved for some more our Lord (Signed) DENMAN, day of N. C. TINDAL, J. LITTLEDALE, J. GURNEY, J. WILLIAMS, J. T. COLERIDGE, T. ERSKINE, J. B. BOSANQUET, W. H. MAULE, suitable opportunity, and that the chairman would, if necessary, remind them that such topics were to be avoided at the present moment, as extraneous to the business they had immediately in hand. Eqally irrelevant would it be to enter into discussion as to the character of the individual who had been the occasion of the proceedings in question or of the cause which had given rise to them; and no gentleman, he trusted, would divert the attention of the meeting from its most important purpose by indulging in any remarks either condemna PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.-MEET- tory or exculpatory of Mr. Howard or the suit ING OF THE ATTORNEYS. A MEETING of attorneys and solicitors was held on Tuesday at the Freemasons' Hall, Great Queen-Street, to consider whether any and what steps should be taken in consequence of the proceedings adopted against Mr. Howard, by order of the House of Commons, in reference to the case of Stockdale v. Hansard. The meeting was attended by upwards of five hundred members of the profession. in which he had been retained. Equally misplaced would be any expression of feeling on subjects of party politics. He hoped they would find no admission there. With respect to Mr. Howard, it was enough for them on the present occasion to know that the cause was one which the law allowed, and that he was professionally justified, if not obliged, to undertake it. It was not for the merits of the particular case they contended, but for the principle it involved; and, if the case was not on its own merits entitled to any favour, they should contend for it on that account the more earnestly, lest the disfavour with which they regarded it should tempt them to establish a precedent against their own principles. This brought him to the real point for consideration-namely, whether according to the En Mr. Shadwell, on being called to the chair, briefly stated the object of the meeting. The resolutions which would be proposed he took on himself to say were so reasonable that in all probability they would not call for much, if any, discussion; but in case any difference of opinion should exist, he hoped, and he was sure it was the desire of every gentleman pre-glish constitution there existed rightfully in sent, that all who wished to speak would be heard patiently. Mr. Frere.—Although he was not one of those respectable gentlemen who had originated the meeting, and knew nothing of the intention to call it until the requisition had received all, or nearly all, the signatures which appeared on the printed paper-although for particular reasons he then declined to join in the requisition, knowing of many objections that might be urged against the holding of any public meeting on such an occasion, yet after a meeting had been so generally called for, he must say he not only entirely approved of it, but considered that the profession and the public at large were indebted to those who had taken the trouble to convene them. The question on which they were invited to express their sentiments was not whether the House of Commons ought or ought not to have the privilege of publishing to all the world whatever that house might in its wisdom think expedient to publish for the good of the nation, nor whether in the exercise The costs of removing the rule from the inferior Court into the Court of Queen's Bench. The day on which the costs of removing the rule from the inferior Court were taxcd. the House of Commons a power to stop the course of law, to reverse its solemn adjudications, and to deter its ministers by pains and penalties from seeking legal redress for declared admitted grievances. They maintained there was no such right, that a right to supersede the law was a right to make the law-a right which in this country could not be claimed by the House of Commons alone as a privilege any more than it could be claimed by the Crown alone as its prerogative; and that, strenuously and successfully as such a claim had been resisted when advanced under the name of Royal prerogative, it should be more strenuously resisted now that it was put forward in the shape of Parliamentary privilege, inasmuch as prerogative was capable of being resisted by the all-powerful and constitutional force of Parliament, whereas against a House of Commons determined to make encroachments on our liberties there was no adequate constitutional defence. It was needless to enlarge further upon this topic in an age like the present, which had the advantage of reading in the past history of their own country, and of witnessing in France in their own times, how utterly powerless all institutions became for resisting the aggressions of a rampant 378 Parliamentary Privilege: Meeting of the Attorneys. House of Commons in cases where they had | Stockdale, he threw them overboard; it was quite sufficient for him to know that the rights and privileges of the public were endangered by the proceedings of the House of Commons. But the Commous were not content with sending the attorney to prison, even his clerks were consigned to gaol, and they had imprisoned a child for obeying the lawful commands of his master and father. If the commons had wished to try the question in a bold and manly manner, they would at once have seized the bull by the horns: they would have attacked the counsel and the judges. Mr. Baker P. Smith supported the amendment. He said that the meeting was convened for the purpose of considering what measure it was desirable for them to adopt, in consequence of the proceedings taken against Mr. Howard, and from that subject the meeting could not lawfully depart, no matter what resolution migl.t be proposed. He thought that Mr. Howard had been very unfairly accomplished, although temporarily only, the subjugation of the Crown, the corruption of the army, the disorganization and spoliation of the church, and silencing of the law, so that there remained for the people nothing but the right of petitioning their oppressors—a right which became a mere mockery when employed as a means of resistance to arbitrary power, vested in a set of men whose maxin it was to tyrannize in the name of liberty, and ruin their country upon the pretext of public good. Should such a destiny await them they had only to pray that the night might be a short one, whatever might be the nature of the returning dawn. They were in God's hands, but they were, nevertheless, bound each in his station to do their utmost to avert the calamities which threatened them; and it became them peculiarly, as belonging to the profession of the law, and of that branch of it which had been selected for the commencement of such aggressions by the unlawful im-treated, for he was first of all made the basis prisonment of one of its members, to stand of the necting, 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 alarm. 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 Commons. 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 was supposed that a privilege claimed by that honourable house might be called in question." Mr. Teesdale seconded the resolution. Mr. Pike contended that no case had been made out for their interference, and moved an amendment to the effect that this meeting does not, under the circumstances, feel called on to take any steps whatever in consequence of the proceedings adopted by the House of Commous against Mr. Howard with reference to the case of Stockdale and Hansard." Mr. Guy seconded the amendment. Mr. Anderton was glad that the profession had come forward not only to defend their own rights, but the rights and privileges of their clients. The question for the consideration of that meeting was, whether attorneys and counsel were to be deterred from doing their duty -whether individuals who felt themselves aggrieved were to be prevented from obtaining that redress which they could only get by the aid of their solicitors and counsel. All he could say was, that if any man feeling himself aggrieved applied to him for assistance, he would tender it, in spite of any resolution of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. He only acknowledged the laws of his country; them he would obey so long as the judges told him he was right in the course he was pursuing, without fear or dread from any quarter. He regretted that the profession generally had not deliberated on it at an earlier opportunity; for he knew that the attorneys in the country were only waiting for an example from the London attorneys in order to follow it. With respect to Howard and Mr. Vizard wished to state the grounds which prevented him from concurring in the proposed resolution. He had heard it stated that the House of Commons had not the power to commit. ("No, No.") Such a statement had certainly been made, and it had been re-echoed round that room. Now, the Court of Queen's Bench had itself admitted in the return to the habeas corpus that the House of Commons did possess this power of committal, which was now disputed. It was not his intention to enter into the case of Mr. Howard, though he thought it might very fairly be introduced; still he thought it of so little importance, compared with other considerations, that he should pass it by altogether. There was no man in that assembly who valued more highly than he did the constitution and system of laws under which they lived, or entertained more sincere respect for the great authorities by whom those laws were administered. He believed that nothing had so much tended hitherto to carry this country through difficulties, and nothing would so much help to do so in future, as the confidence reposed by the great body of the people in the administration of the law. He, therefore, viewed with the deepest regret, the conflict which had arisen between the House of Commons and the Court of Queen's Bench. He could not, however, conceal from himself that the real question was whether the House had the privilege for which they contended, and whether they had the right to enforce it by the means to which they had resorted. He should not proceed to debate the whole question of the right of the House of Commons, 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 blushed to own that they had been bound to him ask, who signed that report besides the hold that those parties were practically remeeminent individual he had just named? Who diless. The bar had 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 atmerely the Solicitor General, or the Attorney tornies 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 by Sir W. Follett, Sir F. Lord Howick counselled increased rigour, and Pollock, 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 vain J. Graham, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Goulburn. 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. Commons possessed this privilege, and the power to enforce it by committal. He rejoiced, however, that a course had at last been adopted, the best calculated to settle the question; and that there was a prospect that the contest between the two tribunals would be terminated by some legislative enactment: but, believing that the House of Commons possessed that privilege and the power of enforcing it by committal, he could not support the proposed resolution; and should the amendment which had been moved not be carried, he was inclined to move that the meeting be adjourned. It had been said that attorneys were bound by their oaths to obey the directions of their clients; but they were only bound to obey just and legal directions; and the Court of Chancery would not admit it as a justification, if an attorney who had proceeded in spite of an injunction, pleaded that he had done so in obedience to the directions of his client. Mr. Beaumont said he should imitate the conduct of the last speaker in abstaining from any discussion on the power of the House of Commons to maintain their privileges; but the question was, had they a right to set up whatever they chose as privilege, and to declare by an ea post facto law what should have been the law at a past period? If the Commons possessed this power, and if they had the right to exercise the functions of the legislature and the judicature conjointly, what, let him ask, had become of the institution of trial by jury which Lord Chatham hath described as the strength and beauty of the constitution? What had now become of the Habeas Corpus Act? It was all but a dead letter. It had been said that the commonest courts had the power to commit for contempt, but he believed that the steward of a court leet would not have acted in the manner the House of Commons had acted. That officer would, doubtless, have the honour and manliness to set forth on his warrant the cause of the committal, and would feel himself degraded by resorting to conceal ment for the purpose of evading the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act, of cheating the judges of their rightful jurisdiction, and abridging the liberty of the subject. What truth was there now in the maxim that the law of England knew no wrong without a remedy? The judges had decided that Stockdale and Mr. Shaw said, that having been alluded to as the attorney in the case of Polack, he must declare that he never shrunk from his duty. It did not suit his client to proceed and to be sent to Newgate for contempt, and consequently he (Mr. Shaw) was compelled to desist. However, as far as he was himself concerned, he acknowledged no expounders of the law but the courts of law. He supported the resolution. Mr. Watt, the Queen's proctor in Ireland, also spoke in favour of the resolution. He said, there was but one feeling of indignation among the Irish practitioners against the arbitrary proceedings of the House of Commnns. The amendment proposed by Mr. Pike was then put, and only half a dozen hands held up in its favour. The rest of the meeting supported the original resolution, which was carried amid loud cheers. Mr. Adlington moved the second resolution: "That it is the undoubted right of all her Majesty's subjects who consider themselves aggrieved by the act of any person whomsoever to seek for redress in her Majesty's Courts; that the law has pointed out the proper remedy for an erroneous judgment of the courts, and the constitution has vested in the legislature the power of altering that law. But that the constitution does not recognize in any person or body in the state the right to control the administration of the law in her Majesty's Courts." The resolution was seconded by Mr. Kinderly. Mr. Vizard said, that some appeals having been made to their feelings on the subject of the habeas corpus and the trial by jury, it was necessary to bear in mind that neither one nor other had anything to do with the present question, which was, whether the House of Commons had the power to commit for offence. The resolution was carried, after some further observations, by an overwhelming majority, the dissentients not numbering more than six. Mr.Wm. Lowe moved the third resolution"That all suitors in Her Majesty's Courts are entitled to the assistance of their attorney to conduct their cases, and that it is essential to the enjoyment of that right that the attorney should be protected in the lawful discharge of his professional duty; and that this meeting, |
