The appellant William Miller was at the times above mentioned, and is now, by virtue of the appointment of the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the general superintendent and inspector for the province of Munster, of the chief and other constables appointed under the provisions of the act of parliament passed in the third year of the reign of his late majesty George 4, intituled "An act for the appointment of constables, to secure the effectual performance of the duties of their office, and for the appointment of magistrates in Ireland in certain cases;" and he was directed to reside in the province of Munster, and to take under his superintendence the police appointed under the said act in the counties of Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Tipperary, and Waterford. The appellant John Malone was and is a chief constable, by virtue of a like appointment under the provisions of the said act. Various rules, orders, and regulations, were made and approved by the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, for the conduct and proceeding of the chief and other constables appointed under the said act, and were promulgated before and in the year 1833; and the conduct of the said chief and other constables has been regulated accordingly. Among these rules is the following:-"The men will on no account interfere in the execution of any writ, decree, or civil order, or in driving for rent, tithe, or taxes, unless called out by a magistrate, or the high or sub-sheriff in person; and they will then only consider it their duty to protect those persons in the execution of their office, excepting in the execution of any process directed to them for levying the amount of any recognisance forfeited to his majesty, his heirs and successors, or of any fines imposed on jurors, witnesses, parties, or persons at any Assizes or commission of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery, or session of the peace, in the county in and for which such constables shall be appointed, pursuant to the act 3 Geo. 4, c. 103, s. 7. Constables are 1838. MILLER V. KNOX. 1838. MILLER v. KNOX. Writ of rebel lion. not to be employed in revenue duty, unless when specially ordered." Circulars were also issued by order of the lord-lieutenant, for the guidance of the police establishment, on or about the 26th October, 14th November, and 7th December, 1835, and communicated to the appellants at those times. Before and on the 23rd December, 1835, the appellant John Malone was stationed at Borrisokane, in the county of Tipperary, and had under his superintendence the barony of Lower Ormond, and was under the command of the appellant William Miller, who was stationed at Cork, upwards of eighty miles distant. On the said 23rd December, Robert Dudley, of Borrisokane, delivered to him at that place a copy of a writ of rebellion, purporting to be issued out of his majesty's court of Exchequer in Ireland, and to be directed to Robert Dudley and three others, dated the 4th of December, in the fourth year of the reign of his majesty, and returnable on Saturday the 9th January then next. This writ of rebellion was in the following terms:"William the Fourth, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, king, defender of the Faith, and so forth-To our well-beloved and faithful Robert Dudley, George Sylvester, John Hackett, William Rennison-Greeting :-Whereas by public proclamation of the sheriff of the King's County, in divers places of the same, by virtue of our writ to the said sheriff directed in our behalf, it was commanded that James Doolan, Loughlin Meara, Michael Nolan, and John Gavan, on the peril of their allegiance by them due to us, that they should personally appear before the Chancellor, Treasurer, and Barons of our Exchequer at the King's courts, Dublin, at a certain day already past: notwithstanding, they have manifestly contemned in that particular to obey our commands: Therefore, jointly we command you, and each of you, that you omit not by reason of any liberty, but enter the same, and wheresoever they shall be found within this our kingdom of Ireland, as rebels and contemners of our laws to attach them, or any of you to attach them, or cause them to be attached, so that you may have their bodies before the said Chancellor, Treasurer, and Barons at the King's courts aforesaid, on Saturday, the 9th day of January next, to answer us of divers transgressions, offences, and contempts by them lately done and committed, and further to do and receive in the premises what our said court of Exchequer shall then and there consider in that particular. We also command all other our officers ministerial, and other liege subjects whatsoever, that, in the execution of the premises, they be aiding and assisting as it behoveth them, on the peril incumbent. In testimony whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent. Witness, the Right Honorable Henry Joy, Chief Baron of our said Exchequer, at the King's courts aforesaid, the 4th day of December, in the sixth year of our reign. "William Smith. "A. R. Blake, C. R." At the same time Robert Dudley delivered to the appellant John Malone a notice in writing, by which the said Robert Dudley required him, pursuant to the tenor of the said writ, to accompany the said Robert Dudley, and be aiding and assisting in the execution thereof; or, in default of his so doing, an application would be made to the court of Exchequer for an attachment against him for his contempt. Upon delivering the said copy and notice, the said Robert Dudley asked the said John Malone to accompany him with the police to the parish of Eglish, to assist him in executing the said writ: to which Malone replied, that he could not go upon the said duty, but would apply to the inspector-general for instructions; and that he could do nothing without an order from the proper authorities; and, observing that the writ named only King's County, inform 1838. MILLER v. KNOX. 1838. MILLER v. KNOX. ed Dudley that he had no connexion with that county. On the third January, 1836, Dudley came to Malone, and acquainted him that he had taken John Gavan, and proposed removing him to Dublin on the following day; and he required Malone to give his aid, and that of some of the police under his command, in escorting him (Dudley) and the prisoner part of the way to Roscrea. Malone declined to do this; but told Dudley, that, if any person should attempt to molest him in the execution of the said writ, in the town of Borrisokane, he (Malone) would prevent him from being ill-treated; but, with respect to the said Gavan, it was impossible for him (Malone) to lend him any assistance in escorting him to Roscrea: and assigned for a reason (as the fact was) that he was under three several recognizances to appear at the sessions at Nenagh, and prosecute at the said sessions five persons for riots and assaults; and also, that he had no opportunity of consulting with the inspector-general as to giving an escort. In refusing his aid in the manner above stated, the appellant Malone acted in conformity to a communication received by him from the appellant Miller, to whom he had transmitted the said copy of the writ and notice, and which communication the appellant Miller made to him in pursuance of instructions from the Irish government to the effect that the chief constable might decline compliance with the said notice. On the 13th January, 1836, both appellants were served with an order of the court of Exchequer, purporting to be dated the 11th of that month, and to be made at the instance of the respondent, upon the affidavit of Robert Dudley, for an attachment against the said Malone for his contempt, in refusing to aid the said Robert Dudley, unless cause should be shewn to the contrary; and that the appellant William Miller should answer the matters of the said affidavit. The appellants accordingly filed affidavits, disclosing the matters above stated, and shewed cause against the said order on the 29th and 30th January, 1836; and the said court, on the 1st February, made the order of that date, as above stated. From this order there was an appeal to the House of Lords. The case was argued on the part of the appellants, by Jackson, Serjeant, and Pemberton; and on the part of the respondents, by The Attorney and Solicitor-General. The opinion of the judges was requested on the following questions: 1838. MILLER บ. KNOX. 1. Have the persons named in such writ, and charged First question. with the execution of it, a right, at their discretion, to re quire the assistance of any of the liege subjects of the crown to aid and assist in the execution of the writ? 2. Have such persons such a right upon reasonable ap- Second question. prehension of resistance to the execution of the writ, no actual resistance having taken place? 3. Have such persons such a right as against persons Third question. appointed and acting as constables in Ireland, under the act 3 Geo. 4, c. 103? 4. Have such persons such a right as against persons so Fourth question. appointed and acting under the 3 Geo. 4, c. 103, there having been a regulation made in the manner pointed out by that act, in the words following?-The men will on no account interfere in the execution of any writ, decree, or civil order, or in driving for rent, tithe, or taxes, unless called out by a magistrate or the high or sub sheriff in person, and they will then only consider it their duty to protect those persons in the execution of their office; excepting in the execution of any process directed to them for levying the amount of any recognizance forfeited to his majesty, his heirs and successors, or of any fines imposed on any jurors, witnesses, parties, or persons at any Assizes or commission of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery, or |