TUE NATIONAL REGI • i must be incorrigible. Had Masia Louisa known this its time it might havecaused her to break off the . match. I have assumed this article to be from the pen of Mr. Cot.- MAN from seeing it so ,stated in the papers. FrOni the strostg resemblance the four last lines bear to certain passages in the Prologue to 64 Ourselves," I suspected it to be from the pen of Mr. EYRE. This idea, of course, can be no longer entertained, and all that can be said on the subject is, Mr. COLMAN appears indebted to that piece for the best lines In his address. I wonder Mr. Et.i.is . roN could bring himself to speak it be fore a London audience. I know not what the real cause of his doing so might be, and iti common with others can only ascribe it to overgrown vanity. Mr. ELusToN is an actor of more than common powers, and his acting ensures him from me a ready tribute of sincere admiration. The town naturally take sonic inz.. rest in his welfare, but it was not necessary to go into the silly detail of his adventures which is found in the address. The public think highly of him, but he need not take such pains to let us know he thinks highly of himself. " The Honey Moon" was the play with which the Theatre opened, and certainly, as far as good acting could atone for that e;,:oti,m of which I have complained, Mr. Ei.t.is roN made the amende honorable. In every part he gave the greatest possible effect to the speeches of the Dicke, and left the audience nothing to desire. The new performers I have not room to notice at present. Mr. MA 1.i.: NSO N promises to crove a valuable acquisition; and 2str. and Mrs. BAR N Ls seem to merit encouragement. LAW REPORTS. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, k - ::.IDAY, MAY 17. BURDETT V. THE SPEAKER. The further argument on the demurrer in this cause came on to be heard to-day. Mr. ATTORN EY-GEN TA AL, in reply to Mr. HOLROYD, began by stating, that all thr• hemline, deep research, and ingenuity could do, had been done by his Learned Friend Mr. Holroyd; end one very considerable advantage which he derived from the delay which had taken place since that argument, was, that it would enable him to compress into a very small compass indeed, those topics which he had to urge in rely. In his apprehension, the snit( meat of the ouse alone put the whole question out of Court. It was admitted that this was an action of tresspass against the Rigt.t Hon. Charles Ahhot, as Speaker of the House of Commons, for issuing the warrant under which the defendant v► as imprisce.ed ; which warrant he was directed to issue by the House, who had found tie defendant had been guilty of a con tempt in publishing a defamatory libel on the H, use. This was, therefore, an. ection of trespass against an Officer of a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, for obeying the orders of that Court. How it could ever be considert d that such a person was liable to aft action of trespass, he could never conceive. It was a clear principle of law, that an officer obeying the orders of a Court of competent jurisdiction, could never be guilty of a trespass. if it could be doubted, Bushel's case, I Modern, 110, and 184, was an anthority in point. Lord Hale had said there expressly, that no ection would lie against any such Officer; and this was so, whether the judgment of the Court was correct or erroneons. Was it ever heard that any action of tresapass was ever brought against an Officer, even when the party had been charged upon Minas Corpus ? And where a party was so discharge d, was not that in effect reversing the judgne.nt of the Court's committing the party? It was in . tact sayi••g they had done wrung ; and in reversing their judereent, by dismissit , ,the party committed, it was in fact saying that their judgment had been erroneous; hut it did not follow that the Officer who•ac ed in command of this erroneous judgment was liable to an action of tresspass. And he &tied any Lawyer to produce authority to ~hew that where a party was entitled to his discharge I - y Habcas Corpus, that there he was-also enabled to maintain an action of trespass. Decisive toethis, answer was, he -should, perhaps, not satisfy e Court, and stop • short here. But he wouel go into an examination of the d.etttritu,s of hietelrued Friend, and show that they did not. apply to the qn..stion. lie should just shortly advert to thoeu•. proposi. - .ious which he had established, and chew that they da fiut rui/itete against the side Whit-1111e supported. As for those! i)ropositfous which h is Learned kiiond left in air t he also should leave them there._ That the House of Commons has a right to commit for a contempt, is admitted universally ; and it is equally true that they are sole judges of their privileges, and their judg ment cannot be impeached in any other Court. But it may be said, that they may as t cariciously—they may chose to consider matters, indifferent in themselves, as breaches of privelege—they may commit a man for wearing a green coat, or because they do •no tlike his face. In anaverriao this, he had to say, it was not decent' so to argue the question. It was not to be pr. somed, that those to whpm the Constitution ha-1 trusted this power would so abuse it.—Put the case of a Court of Caw :—it the question were, whether a certain party had an estate for lite, or an .estate in fee, and all the facts proved an. estate fel life, the Court might determine against the law, that it was an estate in fee. Nothing could prevent doe Court from so determining, if they were determined to do so against all law ; but it was not to he supposed in this case, any more than in case of the . Heusieof Commons, that they would so abuse the power entrusted into their hands for good and salutary purposes. He stated this, right unquestionably to exist in the House of Commons —eyes there the man breathing, who had even picked up all his know ledge from Newspapers and Coffee houses, who would deny that the House of Commons bad a right to commit fur au iioult upon itself or its proceedings ? The thing was not to be dotilyed, be cause it was denied by some ; since there were those melignant spirits in existence, who would deny the plainest truths, if the denial could produce any serious mischief. The prepositions which he had stated were so clear, that they were universally admito d by all those who had advanced far enough in life to enter themselves as the students of the !aW. If he had to supeort them he would only cite the case of the King versus Almon, where the Judges most distinctly laid them duwn :—lf the power did not exist of punishing immediately for contempt, but the remedy was what, on this occasion, he wOuld call the tardy operation of the law, all the mischiefs would follow, tesulting from a want of po\ver to command respect in Courts, and they and their decrees would fall into neglect and contempt. And if this power existed in the common and ordinary Courts of Judicature, would any one deny that it did not belong to the House of Cenim ens, which wits a Court of paramount dignity ? Was that Court less liable to insult than the Courts of Law, SO that it should be less protected, or nut have the same guard thrown round it ? Had the policy of cur ancestors left them so unprotected ? There was not a text-wi iter, not an historian, not a lawyer, who had not all distinctly h hewn chat they possessed thie power. Lord Coke had stated th& in to be a House ofJudicatere. The Reports and the Journals fureiahed a series of instances where they had exerci , ed this right.—Having thus shewn their right to eXist froth principles, from authority, and practice, what next remained for him to do ? He would examine briefly wha' was established by his Learned Friend, who certainly with great learning and ingenuity, had contrived to give his argu ment •1 most imposing appearance, as if it really affected the subject. He cited a great number of cases to slim that the Courts of Law took cognizance of the privileges of Parliaments True, they did so; he admitted that they did so, and in many cases t hey must of necessity do so. But the propositionswas not general. In some cases they had jurisdiction, but not in Whenever the privilege of Parliament occurred incidentally or collaterally, then..they of necessity took cognizance of it. And here he would cite Benyon's case, which 7.:elbeen relied upon as an authority against him : there it was expressly side, that the ( . 'nurt :mit incidentally only cognizance era the privilege of Par liament. It had also been argued, that the Court granting a 1 la beas Corpus must see the cause of commitment, as the com mitting Ceurt saw. This certainly was not so ; and it was not possible that dictum in Bushel's case could Le supported, In answer to this he would cite Allineham's case, who was COM-. mitted, as appeared . by the return to the Habeas Corpus, by. Chancellor EfiestrereS fur a contempt in not obeying a decree of the Court ef Chancery; and the Court held the ground of de tamer aufalciele, though certainly they did net see all the cir cumstances which were seen by the Court of Chancery when it made tfie order of committal. The Learnt d Gentleman then teed a series of cases Sir Neholas Throckmorton's, the-first vol. State Trials; Brass Crosby's case; Murray's case. Wire Rep. ; the King ts Flower; and read the judgment of the Court in all these cases, in which it was held that the committal by the House of Commons for a contempt, was sufficient ground of detainer aeamst the parties praying to be released. He apple- , herded he had now adverted to so much of his l .earned Friend s argetneres as bore us on the question. What remained was oily as to the nestle of executing the warrant in breaking open the outer door. It was found that the Serjeant proclaimed aloud for what purpose he came. But, said his Learned Friend, thrill hparean outer door, except where the is no instance of breaking King is a party. but the true way of putting- the proposieon lyass wll.•:ther it was the assertion of a public or of a erleatai elght. Though many of the taste iliac the woiels " Where th* L e in is a party," yet in fact it is a question of public ear private