at-arms attending on the great seal, who attended the committee, to state the reason why he had not obeyed the Speaker's warrant."

Thus the committee assembled to decide as to the legality of Mr. Wellesley's commitment for contempt of an order of the Chancellor, are met full in the teeth by a contempt on the part of the Chancellor himself of the Speaker's warrant, and a disobedience to the authority of parliament.

The committee were thus placed in a situation which foreboded a most singular commencement to their deliberations; but for all the transgressions of men high in place there is a locus penitentiæ, and the supreme law-lord profits, it seems, of the interval for sober reflection, for we learn that,

"The committee were, in consequence, preparing to report to the house this obstruction to the exercise of its authority, when the Lord Chancellor's sergeant-at-arms, Sir George Seymour, desired admittance, and informed the committee that the Lord Chancellor no longer objected to Mr. Long Wellesley's attendance. They therefore deem any further objection on this subject unnecessary."

We were thus luckily saved from the sight of a conflict much more formidable than between a suitor of the court and its prerogative, that of a battle between the mace and the black rod. Happily, however, as we have seen, this novel exhibition was avoided, and the committee proceed to business; as thus

"Referring to the Lord Chancellor's letter to the Speaker and the evidence, your committee are of opinion that the grounds on which Mr. Long Wellesley is pronounced in contempt, must be taken to be those confessed by him in court, viz., his having removed his infant daughter, then a ward of the Court of Chancery, and having given directions to the person to whom he delivered her, immediately to put her out of the jurisdiction of the court, and declaring his decided resolution, under no circumstances whatever, to let his child be under any other guardianship than his own.

"That this was a criminal contempt of the court, your committee apprehend that no doubt can be entertained."

But here the committee leap into a conclusion which, however correct it may be, has nothing to do with the question before them. The question referred to them is not what constitutes a contempt of the court, but whether the commitment to prison of a member of the House of Commons for such contempt, is or is not a breach of the privileges of the house. This is the point to be settled by reference to the law of parliament as evidenced by the journals of both houses. Now all the authorities produced before the committee go most distinctly to prove that the privilege of parliament extends to all cases of imprisonment, except to cases of treason, felony, or a breach of the peace. It is quite clear then, that unless you can bring the disobedience to an order of the Court of Chancery within one or the other of these three descriptions of offence, a member is entitled to his privilege of freedom from arrest. Every offence coming within either of these three classes is indictable; and a member of parliament may, with respect to them, be dealt with according to law, like any other subject. But a contempt of an order of the Court of Chancery, though punishable by commitment, where the privilege of parliament does not interpose, does not take away that privilege; and a member is therefore entitled to the benefit of it, because that privilege is only annulled where the offence committed is treason, felony, or a breach of the peace, and a disobedience to an order of that court is neither, and it therefore leaves the privilege untouched. The premises are so clear that it is impossible for any one, reasoning honestly and fairly, to avoid admitting the conclusion.

Every one who had not read the report of the committee would infer, as a matter of course, that in coming to the resolution "That Mr. Long Wellesley's claim to be discharged from imprisonment ought not to be admitted," they were induced thus to decide by the weight of authorities which led to such a resolution. It is natural to conceive that instances sufficient were adduced before them, on which the right to commit for contempt had been enforced against persons entitled to privilege of parliament, and acceded to as a valid exercise of the power of the court. With what astonishment then must we read the following extract :

"In consequence of the statement contained in the Lord Chancellor's letter to the Speaker, that the right of the Court of Chancery to commit in such cases as the present is unquestionable, and has been enforced against peers of the realm,' the COMMITTEE

have made every inquiry in their power as to the instances in which such right has been enforced against persons entitled to the privilege of parliament, but without success.”

This is really a most edifying example of parliamentary logic. It beats Hamilton's instruction-book hollow. But on what grounds, it will be asked, do they ultimately proceed to establish their resolution in the face of all this? Why, they proceed as follows:

"Your committee having failed to discover any instance in which a member of either house of parliament has been imprisoned for a contempt, except by the authority of the house to which he belonged, since the early cases above referred to, which are imperfectly reported, have proceeded to consider this case on the grounds of analogy and of intrinsic merits."

Now, in our humble judgment, the sole point referred to the decision of the Committee of Privileges, was to ascertain, by an examination of the journals parliament, and of those usages which constitute the law and custom of parlia ment, whether a member can plead his privilege against a commitment to prison for disobedience to an order of the Court of Chancery? And the report ouat se contain the result of such examination-yes, or no. All beyond this is matter of opinion, resolving itself into a question of policy. A Committee of Privileges are no more competent to decide upon it, in this point of view, than a Vestry Committee, of any other collective body, gifted or not, as it may happen, with a reasoning faculty. The following is their argument from analogy :

"The same principle on which it has been resolved, by the House of Lords, that privilege shall not prevent the courts at law from enforcing obedience to a writ để Habeas Corpus, seems to require, by analogy, that the Lord Chancellor should possess equal powers for the protection of the wards of the crown committed to his care, and should be enabled to exercise the most prompt and effectual means to prevent them from being drawn out of his jurisdiction.

"The committee find the right of courts of law to commit privileged persons for some highly criminal contempt, strongly asserted by different writers, particularly by Blackstone and Hawkins.

"Attachment for criminal contempt has been described as a judgment and execution, the conviction of an offender by a court of competent jurisdiction, and the award of a sentence for his offence.

"Your committee, therefore, conceive that the present case falls within the principle under which persons, committing indictable offences have been considered to be not entitled to privilege."

Now we have here an erroneous application of the term analogy, and cases are made to bear upon each other, which, as far as the existing question is concerned, have no resemblance at all. Besides, in deciding what is the law and usage of parliament, in any particular case, all argument from analogy is out of place. If the point for consideration is-shall such privilege be continued, or shall it be withdrawn?—then, indeed, this mode of reasoning may be properly enough resorted to, with a view either to prove the utility or the mischief of it. But its existence is quite another matter: this is a fact manifestly separate from its consequence. The latter may have relation to other cases, and the analogy may be evidence. The former stands alone, stripped of all relation; and analogy, therefore, can have nothing to do with it. To prove this, we need only remark the flagrant absurdity in which the committee involve themselves. The question arising out of the case submitted to them is-whether a member of parliament, having committed an offence not indictable, is entitled to his privilege! And they come, analogically, to the conclusion that it "falls within the principle under which persons, committing indictable offences, have been considered not to be entitled to privilege!!"

For ourselves, we care nothing for Mr. Long Wellesley; and, individually, we have no concern with the Court of Chancery. But heaven defend us! say we, if this be their mode of reasoning, from ever having our rights, as British subjects, referred to a Committee of Privileges!

SPIRIT OF THE ANNUALS.

TWO SCENES FROM THE CIVIL WAR.*
66
BY THE AUTHOR OF RICHELIEU."

It was late on the night of an early day in spring-perhaps about two hours past midnight-and yet the inhabitants of a small lonely dwelling on the edge of a large piece of common-ground, laying about ten miles from Farringdon House, were all awake and up, and, with anxious eyes, gazing from the small long windows upon the blank darkness that hung over the world. A single candle stood upon a plain oaken table in the midst of the room, by the light of which might be seen, at one of the windows, a small finely-formed female figure, which still preserved all the lines of exquisite beauty, though a certain degree of stiffness, corresponding well with some deep wrinkles on the cheek, and the white hair that was braided from the forehead, spoke the passing of many years under the petrifying power of time since that form had been in its prime, and that beauty which still lingered, had known its first expansion. Leaning over her shoulder was another figure so like the first, but with every grace which time had nipped in it just blown-with the cheek unwithered and the brow unseared -that it seemed a living picture of what the other had been some twenty years before a portrait in a family picturegallery, where human loveliness may see and moralize on all the graces that the eternal reaper has gathered as he flew.

At the second window was a somewhat untidy maid-servant, contrasting strongly, in her slatternly disarray, with the plain neatness which decked the two other figures, whose garb I shall not pause to describe; let it suffice that it was of white, and fashioned in the mode of the time, A.D. 164—, though either poverty, simplicity of taste, or deference to the puritanical mania of the day, had deprived it of every extraneous

ornament.

The night upon which the whole party looked out was dark and sad; for the moon had gone down, and the clouds over head, though not particularly heavy,

were quite sufficiently so to hide every star, and cast a deep gray shadow over the wide extent of undulating moorland which stretched away for many a mile within view in the day-time. A few faint streaks of pale light upon the sky separated the darkness of the heavens from the darkness of the earth, and marked where the prospect ended; and thitherward were turned the eyes of all, watching, with straining and anxious gaze, a particular point on the dim horizon, where, every now and then, bright red flashes, sudden and sharp, but circumscribed and momentary, broke upon the night, followed by a distant report as quick and transitory.

No one spoke while those flashes continued; but the silence itself seemed to show the intense anxiety which was felt, by the tenants of that chamber, in regard to the events of which they obtained so dim and unsatisfactory a view. At the end of five minutes, however, the sudden bursts of light entirely ceased; the reports were no longer heard; and the elder of the two ladies, turning away from the window, said, in a low voice, "It is over: God's will is wrought by this time!"

The younger said nothing; but clasping her fair hands together, raised her eyes towards the dark heavens, while her full sweet lips moved silently, offering up a petition to that never-closed ear which hears the still voice of the heart's thoughts as plainly as the loudest-tongued appeal.

In a moment after, the clattering sound of horses' feet was heard coming quickly down the road. At first it was faint and distant-the dull heavy tramp of several fleet steeds galloping over moist ground; but soon it came nearer and nearer-left the turf of the common -clanged over the firm and stony road

came close to the house-passed itand died away in the distance.

"They are flying!" said the younger lady, "Oh, my mother, they are flying!

* From the Amulet.

VOL. II.