ook it, the House had no such common law power, because by the Sixth of
Henry VIII. it was enacted, that the members of that House should attend
the House. Now if the common law jurisdiction existed, this statute
would have been wholly unnecessary.

The Attorney-General, Sir William Follett, replied, that all the members
of the House had consented to the resolutions of the 12th of February,
thereby making them binding upon themselves; and that as Mr. O'Brien
might have objected then, but did not, he was of course bound by them;
and as to the Act of Union, he considered there was no force in the
argument drawn from it, because the third article of that Act had made
one Parliament of the two, enacting "that the said United Kingdom be
represented in one and the same Parliament, to be styled the Parliament
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

Sir Robert Peel, addressing himself to the most practical point of the
discussion, said the question was--"Have we or have we not the power to
require the attendance of members on public committees?" He apprehended
there could be no distinction between service on Committees and service
in the House; and if the Act of Union did not give the power, it was
from a belief that such a power was inherent in Parliament. The great
man, he said, who drew up those Acts of Union for Ireland and Scotland
did not take a statutable sanction, for they all rested on higher
grounds.

Sir Thomas Wilde, in giving his view of the case, made a distinction
with regard to the common law; saying, that if there was no authority
under the common law of the land to compel attendance on committees,
there was under the common law of Parliament; a law not so old as the
common law of the land, but as old as was necessary. Complimenting
O'Connell as a lawyer, he believed, he said, the opinion he had given
was not the result of his legal knowledge, but of a laudable desire to
release his friend from a difficulty. The House, he said, could send the
public to Committees, why not a member? Had they more power over the
public than the members of their own House? The question was not whether
neglecting to attend a Committee was contempt of the House or not; the
question was, whether disobedience to the order of the House did or did
not constitute a contempt of the authority of the house.

The resolution having been put, was carried by 133 to 13.

It was then moved that Mr. W.S. O'Brien be given up to th