offence."

The short debate that followed the reading of that letter is very
noteworthy. Lord Castlereagh spoke first, and dictated the view to
be taken by all loyal members of the House. "From the nature of the
arrest and the circumstances attending it, I do not think, sir," he
said, "that the House is called upon to interfere. I am not aware, as
the House was not actually sitting, with the mace on the table and the
Speaker in the chair, when the arrest took place, that any breach of
privilege has been committed. It must be quite obvious to every man
that the marshal has not acted wilfully in violation of the privileges
of the House. No blame can attach to him, since he has submitted
himself to the judgment of the House of Commons after having done
that which he considered his duty as a civil officer. Having had Lord
Cochrane in his custody, from which he escaped, the marshal was bound
not to pass over any justifiable means of putting him under arrest
whenever a fair opportunity occurred."

Most of the members thought, with Lord Castlereagh, that this was
a "fair opportunity." Only one, Mr. Tierney--and he very
feebly--ventured to express an opposite opinion. "I consider this,"
he said, "to be the case of a member regularly elected to serve in
Parliament, and coming down to take his seat. Now, sir, the House is
regularly adjourned until ten o'clock in the morning; and I recollect
occasions when the Speaker did take the chair at that hour. Suppose,
then, a member, about to take his seat, came down here at an early
hour, with the proper documents in his hand, and desired to be
instructed in the mode of proceeding, and, while waiting, an officer
entered, arrested him, and took his person away, would not this be a
case to call for the interference of the House?" Mr. Tierney admitted