member seized upon an unruly page and brought him to the Speaker, by whom he was committed prisoner to the serjeant.1 In 1675, Sir Edward Seymour, the Speaker, seized Mr. Serjeant Pemberton, and delivered him into the custody of a messenger: but in that case Pemberton had already been in custody, and had escaped from the serjeant-at-arms.2 In all these classes of offences, both houses will commit, or Inquiry into otherwise punish, in the manner described: but not without breaches of alleged due inquiry into the alleged offence. privilege. By a Standing Order of the Lords of 11th January 1699, Lords. it is ordered, "That in case of complaint by any lord of this house of a breach of privilege, wherein any person shall be taken into custody for the future; if the house, upon examination of the matter complained of, shall judge the same to be no breach of privilege, the lord who made the complaint shall pay the fees and expenses of the person so taken into custody; and that no person shall be taken into custody upon complaint of a breach of privilege, but upon oath made at the bar of this house."3 This order was explained, on the 3rd June 1720, "to be understood only of breaches of privilege committed in Great Britain: but that oath made by affidavit, in writing, of a breach of privilege committed in Ireland, may be sufficient ground to take into custody the person thereby proved to have been guilty of such breach of privilege, though no oath be made thereof at the bar of this house." Before the year 1845, it had been customary for the House of Lords, when inquiring into any alleged breach of privilege, to conduct such inquiries with closed doors: but, in later cases, strangers have not been ordered to withdraw. In the Commons it was resolved, 31st January 1694, "That no person shall be taken into custody, upon complaint of any breach of privilege of this house, before the matter be first examined:" but it was at the same time resolved and declared, "That the said order is not to extend to any breach of privilege upon the person of any member of this house." 1 D'Ewes, 629. 29 Com. J. 351. 353. See also 1 Ib. 157. 210. 972. 8 Lords' S. O. No. 81. Ib. No. 82. 5 Lord Hawarden's case, 31 Jan. 1828; 59 Hans. Deb. 69. The umbrella case, 26 March 1827; 58 Hans. Deb. 35. 611 Com. J. 219. Commons. Committee of privileges. Proceedings upon complaints. Again, on the 3rd January 1701, it was resolved, "That no person be taken into custody of the serjeant-at-arms, upon any complaint of a breach of privilege, until the matter of such complaint shall have been examined by the committee of privileges, and reported to the house, and that the same be a Standing Order of the house." It is no longer the practice to refer such matters to the Committee of Privileges, although that committee is still nominally appointed. Its appointment, at the commencement of each session, was discontinued in 1833, together with that of the ancient grand committees: but has since been revived, pro formâ. It has not been customary, however, to nominate the committee: but in 1847, a complaint having been made of the interference of a peer in the West Gloucester election, the order for the appointment of the Committee of Privileges was read, and the committee was nominated, consisting of nine members, and of all knights of the shire, gentlemen of the long robe, and merchants in the house.2 In 1857, a committee, constituted in a similar manner, was appointed to consider the oaths of members, and consisted of twenty-five members, nominated by the house, and all gentlemen of the long robe.3 It is the present practice, when a complaint is made, to order the person complained of to attend the house; and on his appearance at the bar, he is examined and dealt with, according as the explanations of his conduct are satisfactory or otherwise; or as the contrition expressed by him for his offence, conciliates the displeasure of the house. If there be any special circumstances arising out of a complaint of a breach of privilege, it is usual to appoint a select committee to inquire into them, and the house suspends its judgment until their report has been presented.5 1 13 Com. J. 648. 2 103 Ib. 139. 3 112 Ib. 369. This term is understood to comprise all members who, at the time, would be qualified to practise as counsel, according to the rules and usage of the profession, 5 Rochdale Election Case, 19th June 1857. 112 Com. J. 232. 146 Hans. Deb. 3rd Ser. 97, &c. When a complaint is made of a newspaper, the newspaper Complaints of must be produced, in order that the paragraphs complained newspapers. of may be read. And a member complaining of the report of his speech in a newspaper, has been stopped by the Speaker, where it appeared that he had no copy of the newspaper on which to found his complaint. The member who makes the complaint must also be prepared with the names of the printer or publisher;3 and it is irregular to make such a complaint, unless the member intends to follow it up with a motion.1 complaints. In order to discourage frivolous complaints, a Standing Frivolous Order, similar to that of the Lords, was agreed to, on the 11th February 1768: "That in case of any complaint of a breach of privilege hereafter to be made by any member of this house, if the house shall adjudge that there is no ground for such complaint, the house will order satisfaction to the person complained of, for his costs and expenses incurred by reason of such complaint."5 In some cases proceedings against a member have been commenced by a question addressed to him upon the subject;6 and where an apology or retractation is expected, a more formal proceeding may thus be averted. But generally the The matter may then be more regular and convenient course is to make a complaint, 1113 Com. J. 189. 150 Hans. Deb. 3rd Ser. 1022. 1063. 2 On the 4th April, 1878, Mr. Parnell, having complained of three newspapers, brought up certain extracts pasted upon paper,.and upon the clerk calling Mr. Speaker's attention to the irregularity, further proceedings were at once arrested. 239 Hans. Deb. 532-536. 3 Debate 1st May 1849 (Mr. J. 4 59 Hans. Deb. 3rd Ser. 507, 17th 6 Mr. O'Connell's case, 1848. Mr. Offences in a former session. Differences in the punish and by the Commons. Upon that question a debate ensued, and, on the withdrawal of the motion, the house resolved to proceed to the orders of the day, and thus arrested further proceedings.1 Either house will punish in one session offences that have been committed in another. On the 4th and 14th April 1707, it was resolved by the Commons, nem. con., "That when any person ordered to be taken into the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, shall either abscond from justice, or having been in custody, shall refuse to pay the just fees, that in either of those cases the order for commitment shall be renewed at the beginning of the next session of Parliament, and that this be declared to be a Standing Order of the house." 193 In 1751, Mr. Murray, who had been imprisoned in Newgate until the close of the session, for a libel, was, on the next meeting of Parliament, again ordered to be committed: but he had absconded, in the meantime, to escape a second imprisonment.1 It also appears, that a breach of privilege committed against one Parliament may be punished by another; and libels against former parliaments have often been punished. In the debate on the privilege of Sir R. Howard, in 1625, Mr. Selden said, "It is clear that breach of privilege in one Parliament may be punished in another succeeding." In all the cases that have been noticed as breaches of ment inflicted privilege, both houses have agreed in their adjudication: by the Lords but in several important particulars, there is a difference in their modes of punishment. The Lords claim to be a court of record, and, as such, not only to imprison, but to impose fines. They also imprison for a fixed time, and order security to be given for good conduct; and their customary form of commitment is by attachment. The Commons, on the other hand, commit for no specified period, and of late years, have not imposed fines. 1 222 Hans. Deb. 3rd Ser. 1185. 2 21 Lords' J. 189. 17 Com. J. 293; 20 Ib. 549; 22 Ib. 210. 3 15 Ib. 376. 386. 4 26 Ib. 303. 51 Ib. 925; 2 Ib. 63; 13 Ib. 735. 61 Hatsell, 184. 7 Lords' Minutes, 22nd July and 13th Aug. 1850. There can be no question that the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, is a court of record: but, according to Lord Kenyon, "when exercising a legislative capacity, it is not a court of record." However this may be, instances too numerous to mention have occurred, in which the Lords have sentenced parties to pay fines. Many have already been Fines imposed by the Lords. noticed in the present chapter, as well as cases in which they have ordered security to be given for good conduct, even during the whole life of the parties.3 The following is a Standing Order of the Lords, of the 3rd April 1624: "Whereas this high court of the Upper House of Parliament do often find cause in their judicature to impose fines, amongst other punishments, upon offenders, for the good example of justice, and to deter others from like offences; it is ordered and declared, that at the least once before the end of every session, the committees for the orders of the house and privileges of the lords of Parliament, do acquaint the lords with all the fines that have been laid that session, that thereupon their lordships may use that power which they justly have, to take off or mitigate such fines, either wholly or in part, according to the measure of penitence or ability in the offenders, or suffer all to stand, as in equity their lordships shall think fit."4 The Lords have power to commit offenders to prison for a specified term, even beyond the duration of the session; and thus on the 13th August 1850, being within two days of the prorogation, certain prisoners were committed for a fortnight. If no time were mentioned, and the commitment were general, it has been said that the prisoners could not be discharged on habeas corpus even after a prorogation: but in the case of Lord Shaftesbury, a doubt was expressed by one of the judges whether the imprisonment, which was for an uncertain time, would be concluded by the session; and another said, that if the session had been de 1 Flower's case, 1779. 8 Durnf. & East, 314. 23 Lords' J. 276; 11 Ib. 554; 12 Ib. 174; 14 Ib. 144; 30 Ib. 493 (Report of Precedents); 42 Ib. 181; 43 Ib. 60. 105. 3 11 Ib. 554; 39 Ib. 331. 4 Lords' S. O. No. 98. "Lords' Minutes, 13 August 1850. p. 147. Commitment for a specified term. |