Sitting of 2 May 1817

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—THE REV. THOMAS THIRLWALL.
Mr. Bennetsaid, it was with great concern that he felt it to be his duty, as chairman of the committee appointed to inquire into the state of the police of the metropolis, to bring under the consideration of the House a Breach of Privilege contained in a book recently published, and which had been sent to the committee by the author purporting to be "A Vindication of the Magistrates acting in and for the Tower Division, from the Charges contained in a printed work, intituled, 'The Report of the Committee on the State of the Police of the Metropolis; together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons.' By Thomas Thirlwall, M. A. Rector of Bowel's Gifford, Essex, and magistrate for the counties of Middlesex and Essex." Without making any comment on the general tone of the work, which was by no means respectful towards the committee, he would only observe, that several passages were so extremely offensive to the feelings of the committee and so hostile to the privileges of the House, that it was thought fit to summon Mr. Thirlwall before them, to require some explanation of his conduct. When Mr. Thirlwall appeared before the committee, he avowed himself to be the
108
author of the work in question.—But before he proceeded to state what had taken place on that occasion, he would request the clerk to read from the book the passages which were the subject of complaint.
The Clerk accordingly (after repeating the title of the work) read as follows:—
"I have inquired into the constitution of these committees of the House of Commons, and the mode of their proceedings, and I have no doubt others will be surprised as well as myself at the description. My impression was, that a committee is composed of a number of members who personally attend, that the evidence of every witness, and the whole entire evidence of each witness, are entered in the minutes, literatim et verbatim, and printed for the use of the House.
"My information, however, has taught me that my impression is most erroneous, and that this was not the mode at least pursued in the examination of witnesses, upon the charges against the magistrates of the Tower division. During the examination of several of the witnesses, the chairman only was present. Mr. Calvert is the only member I could learn who did assist him occasionally, particularly when the House of Hanbury was in question. This hon. member very much wished Mr. Fox, of Shadwell, to give his evidence, but the private explanation of that gentleman induced him not to insist upon it.
"A considerable part of the evidence given in was not entered on the Minutes, and a very material part that was offered was not accepted. I have not the smallest knowledge of the chairman, other than by his occasional speeches as an opposition member, by the name of captain Ben net, from which I infer, he has not dedicated much of his time to the profession of the law, and directed his studies to the nature of legal evidence.
"It is pretty well known my loyalty to my king and attachment to the constitution; and I had almost said enthusiastic admiration of its forms. I have contributed my part in the worst of times to its safety. I hope, therefore, that my observations will not be tortured into any intentional disrespect to the committee. I acknowledge its authority, and bow to its decisions. But when I make this declaration, it does not follow that I am bound against my conscience to admit either candour or impartiality in the proceedings, or that if the body of magistrates are to be

109
tried, I should not prefer Mr. Beaumont bringing his charges before my lord Ellenborough, rather than before a committee of the House of Commons, with even captain Bennet in the chair. I am not partial to the committees in the time of Cromwell, nor to the committees in France in the time of the Revolution. I do not wish to be tried by committees. I protest against a trial by committees, inquisitions, or star-chambers."
Mr. Bennetproceeded to state, that when Mr. Thirlwall appeared before the committee, some explanation was required from him of the passages which had been read by the clerk. He would pass over that part of the explanation which related to himself personally, and confine himself to that which regarded the last paragraph which had been read by the clerk beginning with "It is well known my loyalty to my king, and attachment to the constitution," and ending with "I protest against a trial by committees, inquisitions, or star-chambers." The committee observed to Mr. Thirlwall that this passage contained an innuendo strongly pointed against them, and proceeded to ask for explanation on the subject.—The hon. member proceeded to read the interrogations and replies, which were as follow:
"You are one of the Middlesex magistrates?—I am.
"Is this book, which the chairman holds in his hand, purporting to be, 'A 'Vindication of the Magistrates,' &c, your publication I—I am the author of the Vindication.
"The next sentence in the book the chairman wishes to pass over as concerning himself; the last is this, 'It is pretty 'well known, my loyalty to my king, and 'attachment to the constitution, and I had 'almost said enthusiastic admiration of 'its forms. I have contributed my part 'in the worst of times to its safety; I hope, therefore, that my observations will 'not be tortured into any intentional disrespect to the committee; I acknowledge 'its authority, and bow to its decisions. 'But when I make this declaration, it 'does not follow that I am bound against 'my conscience to admit either candour 'or impartiality in the proceedings, or 'that if the body of magistrates are to be 'tried, I should not prefer Mr. Beaumont 'bringing his charges before my lord 'Ellenborough, rather than before a committee of the House of Commons, with 'even captain Bennet in the chair. I am
110
'not partial to the committees in the time 'of Cromwell, nor to the committees in 'France in the time of the Revolution. 'I do not wish to be tried by committees; 'I protest against a trial by committees, 'inquisitions, or star-chambers.' The committee, considering that latter innuendo as being most clearly pointed against their proceedings, require from you an explanation of those observations: the first question they ask you is, before they require from you an explanation as to the latter innuendo; What grounds have you for accusing the committee of either want of candour or impartiality?—I deny that I have.
"You wish that answer to stand as it does?—I do.
"How, then, do you explain those words, 'But when I make this declaration,' meaning the declaration of respect towards the committee, 'it does not 'follow that I am bound, against my conconscience, to admit either candour or 'impartiality in their proceedings?'—I beg it to be understood, in its plain and literal sense, that I am not bound. I have not refused the credit of candour or impartiality; I have merely stated that I, as an Englishman, and with the rights and privileges of an Englishman, and with all the lights and advantages which an education has given me, conceive, that as a general topic it is open to discussion like that of every other institution; the comparative merits of a committee of the House of Commons, and that of a trial by peers; and I have no hesitation in stating that I prefer the one to the other. I meant nothing disrespectful to the committee.
"The committee wish to ask of you, as a clergyman and a magistrate, when you wrote that sentence, whether you did not mean to insinuate that the committee was neither candid nor impartial?—I beg to object to any questions tending to criminate myself.
"The last question that the committee wish to propose, is, as to the innuendo in the conclusion of the sentence. Having stated your preference to a trial by jury, over what you are pleased to term a trial by a committee, you add, 'I am not partial to the 'committees in the time of Cromwell, nor 'to the committees in France in the time 'of the Revolution; I do not wish to be 'tried by committees; I protest against a 'trial by committees, inquisitions, or starchambers.' What do you mean by that innuendo?—I mean what it states.

111
"You mean then to assimilate, what you are pleased to term a trial by a committee of the House of Commons, with proceedings in committees in the time of Cromwell, to committees in France at the time of the Revolution, to inquisitions, and star-chambers?—No; no such thing; I had no idea of the kind.
"What do you mean then by this last paragraph i—I mean it to fill up a period.
"The committee think it right to inform you, that this is likely to come before the House of Commons; and they wish seriously to ask you, whether you stand by the answer you have last given?—I do.
"Have you any thing else to add upon this subject?—No, I have not."
The committee endeavoured in this examination to induce the reverend gentleman to make such an explanation and apology as might render it unnecessary to submit the matter to the consideration of the House, but in vain. He must say also, that Mr. Thirlwall's manner and tone on the occasion were the very opposite of what might have been expected. That morning, however, he had tendered to the committee an explanation of the obnoxious passages, and of some of the replies in his examination. With respect to the insinuation, that the committee had neither candour nor impartiality, to the question on which he had answered that he objected to any question tending to criminate himself, he now expressed his contrition for the passage. With respect to his answer to the question relative to inquisitions or star-chambers, that he meant to fill up a period, he now corrected it, by stating, that it was a rhetorical figure of speech, and that he had no intention of instituting a comparison between the committee and the inquisition or the star-chamber. He added, that perceiving the publication had given offence to the committee, he had directed his publisher to stop the sale of it. Taking, however, the whole nature and circumstances of the transaction into their consideration, the committee deemed them to be of such importance as to require that they should be laid before the House. He wished to be entirely guided by the House with respect to the farther proceedings which it might be advisable to adopt on the subject, his only anxiety being that the privileges of parliament should not be compromised on the occasion. The first step, however, would be to require the attendance of Mr. Thirlwall in the House. As the reverend
112
gentleman lived at some distance from town, and as he had his clerical duty to perform on Sunday, it might, perhaps, be inconvenient to him to attend on Monday. He would therefore move, "That the reverend Thomas Thirlwall do attend this House on Wednesday next."
Sir Oswald Moseleyseconded the motion, and desired, as a member of the committee, to confirm the statement of the hon. chairman. As he was not on the committee when the book was published, he could not be supposed to be actuated by any personal feeling, when he described the publication as a gross libel; and if any thing could exceed the impropriety of it, it was the tone and manner that accompanied the explanation.
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that the House would have ample opportunities of considering whether the work was a breach of privilege or not. He was totally unacquainted with the parties in the case; but he could not refrain from noticing the peculiarity of the proceedings in the committee. They were unusual, and he believed, without precedent. The committee had entered into the consideration of a breach of privilege. Now, he always thought that it was the duty of a committee of that House, or of an individual member of it, under such circumstances, to make an immediate complaint of the breach of privilege to the House, and to the House alone. He always understood that a committee of that House could never go beyond its instructions. The committee in question was instituted to inquire into the police of the metropolis, and not into the nature of any breach of privilege. Instead of complaining to the House of the breach of privilege committed with respect to them, they called a witness before them, and entered into an investigation of the breach of privilege themselves. They put questions to this witness, not tending to promote the inquiry which they had been appointed to pursue, but to draw from him a confession or a denial of his guilt. He apprehended that committees of that House were not entrusted with inquisitorial powers of that nature. To him it appeared that it would be extremely dangerous, indeed, if committees, instead of coming at once to the House, should enter on such investigations. He was not aware of any instance on record of such a proceeding. If it was contrary to the practice of parliament, it behoved the House

113
to pause before they agreed to the motion. He wished also to ask, with what view the hon. gentleman had read the explanation which had been given by the witness of the obnoxious passages in the work? Did he intend to lay it on the table of the House or not? If he did, it came in the shape of evidence heard by a set of gentlemen in a committee, which had no right to enter into any such examination. He hoped that some hon. member, more experienced in the usages of parliament, would favour the House with his opinion on this, to say the least of it, doubtful point.
The Speakersaid, he apprehended that the present was the time at which the House should pronounce, whether the passage in the work adverted to, was or was not a breach of privilege. If not, the author ought not to be called on to attend at the bar. From what had fallen from the hon. chairman of the committee, he did not collect that the committee had inquired into the actual guilt, in that respect of the author of the work. All that the committee had done, which was not unreasonable was, to ascertain before they complained to the House, whether the party advisedly persisted in the expressions that he had used, or whether he was disposed by explanation to do away that which, if unexplained, might be considered by the House a breach of privilege. As matters stood, therefore, it was for the House to determine, aye or no, whether there was a prima facie breach of privilege in the reflections which had been cast on the committee. If the House determined in the affirmative on that proposition, they would order the attendance of the party at the bar; if in the negative, they would proceed no further in the business.
Mr. Calvertobserved, that he had very regularly attended his duty as a member of the police committee, and that it gave him great satisfaction to witness the attention and ability of the hon. chairman. It was not a fact that the chairman sometimes examined witnesses alone. The committee was in general very fully attended.
Mr. Wrottesleywished to ask if it would be improper to defer the motion before them until the alleged libel should be laid on the table, and printed for the consideration of the House?
The Speakerapprehended that a complaint of breach of privilege must in all
114
cases be disposed of at once. Those who were conversant with parliamentary usages, knew that any publication (generally speaking) reflecting on the proceedings of the House, or of any of its committees, was a high breach of privilege. The only question for the House to determine was, whether or not the extract which had been read contained such a reflection.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas of opinion, that the motion of the hon. chairman ought to be acceded to by the House. When the reverend gentleman should attend, it would be for the House to take into consideration any circumstances of extenuation which he might, submit to them. In his opinion, all that the committee had done, was, not to extort from the party any improper declaration, but merely to afford him the opportunity of making such an explanation as might induce them to forbear their complaint to the House.
Mr. Wynncontended, that on the very face of the transaction the House had no discretion to exercise. With respect to any apology that might have been made by the individual in question, the House could take no cognizance of it, for it was not officially before them. It could not consider the explanation of the party either as an extenuation, or as an aggravation of his conduct, unless that part of the evidence were reported to them by the committee. There was but one course to pursue, namely to agree to the motion.
Mr. Shaw Lefevrebore testimony to the temperate, impartial, and judicious manner in which the proceedings of the committee had been conducted by the hon. chairman of it.
Mr. Broderickcontended, that the committee, in the course which they pursued with respect to the subject in question, had not exceeded their authority.
The Speakersuggested to the hon. chairman of the committee, that after the present motion should be disposed of, it would be his duty to move, that there be laid before the House so much of the minutes of evidence as related to the explanation given in the committee. The House being in possession of that explanation, and hearing any thing further that the party might have to state at the bar, would then be enabled to come to an ulterior decision on the subject. At present the only question before them related to the attendance of the party.

115
The motion for the attendance of Mr. Thirlwall was then agreed to. It was then ordered, that there be laid before the House a copy of so much of the minutes taken before the committee as related to the matter complained of.

IRISH GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS BILL.
Mr. Coopersaid, that as there had not been any favourable opportunity of discussing the bill hitherto, owing to the absence of the Irish members, he had intended entering into the measure somewhat at large, previous to moving for the Speaker's leaving, the chair to go into a committee of the whole House upon the bill. In that committee it had been his intention to move, that they should fill up the blanks, and adopt such amendments as might have been suggested; to have proposed the reporting the bill in order to its being re-printed, with the further view of its being re-committed and discussed, when the measure would have been fairly, and fully before the House. However, in consequence of suggestions which had been made to him, by persons of whose judgment he had a higher opinion than of his own, he was now disposed to take another course. Before he mentioned what that course was, he would shortly advert (in consequence of a petition just presented against the bill from the county of Cork) to the situation of that county. Twenty-three gentlemen, or it might be twelve, in the midst of all the bustle and business of an assize, without any previous examination to guide them, take upon themselves to levy money, to an indefinite amount, for various purposes, the items of which were almost innumerable; he conscientiously thought that, with a view of doing justice, they might just as well put the presentments and applications into a hat, and draw out such number as they thought proper. As to the amount of the levies, to show their enormous increase, he stated that he held a document in his hand which showed, that in the four years from 1807 to 1810 inclusive, the levies amounted to something under 48,000 l. per annum: whereas, in the four succeeding years, the average per annum was 70,500 l., being an increase of 22,500 l. per annum; he also adverted to the enormous sums presented for stationary, and other matters; but besides all this, this great county (he might call it the Yorkshire of Ireland) was subject to an abominable inequality of assessment, county charges
116
being levied by plough lands, and plough land varying from nearly 2,000 to 100 acres, and the same sum being levied on each; and yet this was the county in which so many enormous abuses existed, which petitioned against any alteration of the existing laws! As to the bill, it was suggested to him, that it would be better to withdraw it in order to its being divided, and to embody the new provisions suggested, so as not at present to repeal the existing laws: whatever he might think of it, to this proposition he was disposed to assent but he did not, nor would not; pledge himself to act upon it; on the contrary, he thought at present he saw insurmountable difficulties.
Mr. Abercrombiefelt so deep an interest in the labours of the committee in question, of which he had been a member, that he could not behold a cessation of their labours in this manner without considerable pain. He could readily imagine that there must be a great difficulty in bringing in a bill, the object of which was no less than the repeal of the whole mass of the Irish grand jury laws. So far as related to the repeal of the particular and prominent parts of the laws in question, and then substituting others in their place, he could have no objection. This subject was really one of greater importance than could at first sight be supposed; those who only knew the state of the grand jury laws in England could form no opinion of their operation in Ireland.—In the latter country they were severe and oppressive; they affected the comforts, nay the morals of the people, and all who had at heart the interest of the inhabitants of that unfortunate country, must wish to see the present system altered without delay. He therefore heard with regret that the hon. member, whose labours in this work were so constant and exemplary, should feel himself in a situation of abandoning the matter at the present moment. It would be a great public calamity, indeed, if an impression went abroad, that after a committee had sat on the subject for nearly two sessions, they should find themselves without the means of suggesting some practical remedy for an admitted evil of this extensive nature. He did, however, hope and trust that the matter would not be permitted to rest here, that the principles of the report of the committee would be acted upon, and that the united parliament would give a pledge to the people of Ireland of their determination to pro-

117
ceed at once to remedy a notorious abuse in the existing laws of the country. He should repeat his entreaty, that they would now give such a pledge to the country.
Mr. Prittieregretted that the bill was given up by the hon. gentleman. He feared that if it were withdrawn, the House would never see so perfect a one again.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that he never listened to any proposition with more pain than he did to that just made by the hon. member, because he was sure that much good could be made out of the bill: it might be rendered very useful to Ireland, where they all admitted the evil was sore and pressing, and such as imperatively demanded a remedy. If the hon. member thus abandoned the bill, he could not foresee that any other member was likely to take it up with the same spirit and effect. The hon. member had laboured sedulously and honestly: he stood quite clear of any imputation of having a private object, or a job in view; his intention was evidently to relieve the people of Ireland from the oppression under which they groaned, by the abominable corruption that was practised under the grand jury laws in that country. The hon. member must indeed feel mortified, after producing as perfect a bill as the nature of the case would at first admit of, to be thus compelled to abandon it. He hoped, however, that something would be done to get rid of this tissue of peculation and oppression.
Mr. Peeladmitted, that a deep evil would indeed arise if the abandonment of the present measure were to imply a want of intention to remedy the evils complained of—evils, that he was ready to declare had existence, and ought to be remedied. He cordially concurred in the wish that his hon. friend would give a pledge to the House of bringing the subject again before parliament in the course of the present session. On the whole, however, he could not regret the abandonment of the bill which had been introduced, for he much questioned the policy of repealing the fabric of the laws, until a sure and effective substitute was first provided in their place. It was most impolitic to commence the reform by abrogating the existing system. It would, in his opinion, be a far better course to point out the distinct evils where they stood in the frame of the laws, and at once apply specific and distinct remedies for them. It had been on a former occasion said, that the blanks
118
of the bill ought to be filled up; where was the necessity for taking that course, if the general opinion was against the expediency of a general repeal? The most convenient and most effective course was that pursued by his hon. friend, who could in a fresh bill embody the practical points of the present one, and apply them to the specific evils, the existence of which was admitted by all. He hoped his hon. friend would now pledge himself to pursue this course during the present session.
Mr. Courtenayfelt that there was an absolute necessity to make a general and complete alteration in these Jaws, nor could he see any difficulty in pursuing the course which his hon. friend was now about to abandon. It was quite clear that a more minute examination of the presentment accounts was necessary, and that a string of clauses should be provided for that purpose. This of itself would be a great alteration in the present system, and when the subject came fully before them in one general shape, they could better say what parts should be suffered to remain, and what should be abrogated. This would be a better course than to take the thing in parts, and perhaps bring the ameliorating laws in direct collision with each other.
Mr. Leslie Fosteragreed that the Irish grand jury laws required substantial reformation, and was glad to see that the only prevailing difference of opinion was, as to the mode of effecting the object. In this view he thought the abandonment of the measure salutary, as it would enable the hon. member to bring in a more practical and specific measure during the present session. He would briefly call the attention of the House to what had been already done on this subject. The whole of the Irish grand jury laws had been early last 3'ear referred to a select committee, who embodied in their resolutions upon them six or eight distinct propositions. The hon. gentleman to whom the preparation of the bill was consigned, unfortunately embraced a wider scope of action than he was strictly authorized to do by the committee. His bill might be divided into three parts; 1st, the introduction of the new matter to be adopted; 2dly, the mode of re-enacting the new laws, and the explanatory qualifications that were to accompany them; and 3dly, the fresh unauthorized matter which he himself introduced. These laws were

119
passed in the 36th of the king; they were extremely complex and voluminous, having more than 100 sections, and a still greater number of regulations. The terms of these sections and regulations, were not followed by the hon. gentleman; he extended them, and, in fact, had introduced a sort of framing that would give rise to endless questions among judges and jurors.
Sir John Newportsaid, that if the withdrawal of the bill implied the abandonment of a desire to seek a remedy, then, indeed would the people of Ireland have to endure the infliction of the greatest possible evil; for unless the present system were rooted out with a strong hand, and every idea of temporising banished, the system of grand juries must fall to the ground; and so it ought, if it only lived to inflict oppression. The evil in this case fell on the poor peasantry, who were the occupiers of the land; the proprietors felt very little of the evil; in this respect they materially differed from the landed proprietors in this country, whose leases were given for so short a duration of time. He doubted much whether any thing short of a total repeal would answer. Were the Case that of a new set of laws, in which all the parts acted together, there would be little difficulty in the case; but here there was a great deal which could not be separated or got at by any thing short of a total repeal. He was, however, so desirous of getting the House with unanimity to bring forward some measure to remedy this evil, that he would forego his own opinion, and be contented if the following leading points were attended to in the new regulations; first, a special care that the public purse was fairly and honestly made out; secondly, that it was fairly accounted for in the expenditure; and thirdly, that the money was vested in hands perfectly secure. The want of the last was bitterly felt in Ireland. Since the discussion of last summer no less than three treasurers had become bankrupts, and new levies were made on the unfortunate peasantry to repair the deficiencies thus occasioned, because government had not provided sufficient guards for the public purse. So long as these treasurers Were likely to have the use of the public money their creditors never touched them but the moment it was suspected that parliament would interfere in the matter, then their creditors became clamorous, and in the end made them bankrupts.
120
The levies were made on the public soon after the cess, and then the treasurers made what use they pleased of the money until the ensuing assizes; every sort of jobbing and trafficking was then carried on, to the ultimate injury of the community.
Mr. Vesey Fitzgeraldapproved of Mr. Cooper's course. A new proposition would, he trusted, soon be made, which would disentangle the consideration from the mass of matter in which it would be mixed if the present course were still farther pursued. All concurred in the necessity of an essential reform; many, however, differed, not only as to the points of reformation, but also as to the remedy proposed. He hoped his hon. friend would still keep the subject alive, and introduce it in such a manner as would be most likely to effect the object which all had in view. It could not be in better hands.
Sir F. Floodsaid, that as the present bill was about to be abandoned, it would be unnecessary for him to enter into the merits or demerits of a folio volume of such complex and multifarious matter. He had instructions from the grand jury of his county to watch the bill, and he had done so. They thought that the bill would not effect its professed object; at the same time they admitted, that the laws ought to be amended; they were ready, and so was he, to go hand in hand for that purpose There was one thing in the new bill, against which he would protest; he meant, the creation of 13 or 14 new offices. When the people far and near called for retrenchment, this would be a serious consideration in a country already too much oppressed. The bill went four times beyond the instructions of the committee.
Mr. Cooperassured the worthy baronet, that there were only two offices created by the bill—the one a surveyor, and the other a chief constable. He thanked the House for the manner in which his exertions in this business had been mentioned; he would return to the subject most certainly, but he could not at the moment pledge himself to a specific course of proceeding.
The committal of the bill was then put off for six months.

LORD SIDMOUTH'S CIRCULAR LETTER.
The Lord Chancellorstated the result of his inquiries respecting the cases of Spence and Hogg, mentioned in the opinion of the law officers referred to in Lord Sidmouth's Circular Letter. With respect to the case of Spence, it appeared, that on the 13th of April, 1801, an information upon oath was sworn before Mr. Ford, then at Bow-street, by a person of the name of Searle, that he had printed for Thomas Spence a work intituled "The Restorer of Society to its Natural State," and for that work Mr. Ford held Spence to bail, to appear in the court of King's-bench on the first day of the ensuing term. On the fir.-t day of the term, the then attorney-general filed an information against Spence, who was called on his recognizance, and appeared. He was subsequently tried and convicted. With regard to the case of Hogg, it appeared that an information was sworn before the then lord mayor, by a person who had purchased at Hogg's shop the trials for adultery. The lord mayor held Alexander Hogg to bail, to appear in the court of King's-bench on the first day of the ensuing term, and the recognizance was drawn up by the then attorney-general. On the first day of the ensuing term, the late Mr. Perceval, having in the mean time become attorney-general, that gentleman filed an information against Hogg, who was called upon his recognizance, and appeared. Subsequently, upon Hogg's delivering up all the books charged against, the prosecution was dropped. There was no opinion given with respect to these cases in any other way than by the proceedings he had stated.
Earl Greyexpressed his acknowledgments for the candid statement of the noble and learned lord, but observed, that

107
it did not appear that in either of the cases the point had been disputed, or that there had been any question raised as to the legality of the proceeding. There was only the opinions of attorney-generals, but no decision of any court of law that could be recognized as an authority. He still considered, therefore, the Circular of the noble viscount as unconstitutional, in attempting to interfere with the administration of justice, and he feared it would lead to a practice productive of the greatest mischief to individuals. In this view, after taking considerable pains to inform himself upon the subject, and having been able to find no competent authority to sanction such a measure, he felt it his duty to bring it under the consideration of the House, and on Monday se'nnight he should move for the case referred to the law officers of the Crown, upon which their opinion had been given, and which was of great importance, with a view to form a proper estimate of that opinion.