« 이전계속 »
Chapter mainly founded upon the understanding that the debates of
the other house are not known, and that the house can take
longing to the same parties in both houses, and speeches
few orders more important than this for the conduct of
The same rule has been applied to restrain the discussion Debate on
i Lord Peterborough's complaint regarding words spoken in the Commons, 1641, 4 L. J. 582; 155 H. D. 3 s. 1121 ; 198 ib. 368.
? See Lords' Debates, 3rd April, 1845 (Lord Ashburton); Commons' Debates, 4th April, 1845 (Lord J. Russell), on the Ashburton Treaty; Commons' Debates (Mr. Ffrench), 21st and 23rd July, 1845 ; and Lords' Debates (Lord Brougham), 22nd and 24th July, 1845, on the Irish Great Western Railway Bill; Lords' Debates, 27th June, 1848 (Earl Grey); and Commons' Debates, 2nd April, 1852 (Mr. Cobden); Lords' and Commons' Debates, 26th Feb. and 1st March, 1858 (Sir R. Bethell and Lord Campbell), on the Conspiracy Bill, 139 H. D. 3 s. 4. 69; and 177
ib. 1557 ; 183 ib. 1098, as examples
3 See discussions, 29th May, 1868,
+228 ib. 1183.
on an amendment to a bill in committee, which referred to Chapter
municated to the Commons, according to a decision to that
corded and printed by authority.
ject out of Parliament; and it is only consistent with
decision of the house is unconstitutional in principle, and
Auence a debate.
I Criminal Law Amendment (Ire land) Bill, 25th April, 1887, 142 C. J. 191.
26th April, 1887, 314 H. D. 3 s. 68.
3 105 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 732.
have been placed upon the table of
61 C. J. 50. 51. 104. 333. 335. 866; 9 ib. 760 ; 11 ib. 581 ; 15 ib. 70; 18 ib. 49. 54. 653 ; 4 Parl. Hist. 1385 ; 7 ib. 51, 511 ; D'Ewes, 41. 244 ; 3rd March, 1881, 259 H, D. 3 s. 168.
Chapter the judgment of Parliament, would be immediately checked
On the 12th November, 1640, it was moved that some course might be taken for preventing the inconvenience of his Majesty being informed of anything that is in agitation in the house before it is determined ; and on the 16th December, 1641, the Lords and Commons tendered to Charles I. a remonstrance to that effect.
Again, on the 17th December, 1783, the Commons resolved
“That it is now necessary to declare, that to report any opinion or pretended opinion of his Majesty, upon any bill or other proceeding depending in either house of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanour, derogatory to the honour of the Crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the constitution of this country.” 2
On the 26th February, 1808, in the debate on Mr. Canning's motion for papers relating to Denmark, Mr. Tierney said, “The right hon. gentleman had forfeited the good opinion of the country, the house, and, as I believe, of his sovereign.” This the Speaker held to be such an introduction of the personal opinion of the sovereign into debate, respecting the conduct of a member of the house, as justified Mr. Tierney's being called to order. On the 19th March, 1812, complaints were made, in the House of Lords, of the use of the Prince Regent's name in debate. The rule, however, must not be construed so as to exclude Expla
nations of a statement of facts, by a minister, in which the Sovereign's the rule. name may be concerned. In the debate on the Foreign Loans Bill, 24th February, 1729, Sir R. Walpole stated that he was “provoked to declare what he knew, what he had the king's leave to declare, and what would effectually silence the debate." Upon which his statement was called for, and he declared that a subscription of 400,0001. was being raised in England for the service of the Emperor. When he sat down,
110. J. 697.
chester's Diary, 139.
+ 22 H, D. 51, et seq.
Mr. Wortley Montagu complained that the minister had in- Chapter troduced the name of the king to “overbear their debates :". but Walpole replied that, as privy councillor, he was sworn to keep the king's counsel secret, and that he had therefore asked his Majesty's permission to state what he knew, which, without his leave, he could not have divulged ; and thus the matter appears to have ended, without any opinion being expressed by the Speaker or by the house."
On the 9th May, 1843, Sir Robert Peel said, “On the part of her Majesty, I am authorized to repeat the declaration made by King William," in a speech from the throne, in reference to the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland. On the 19th, an objection was raised to these expressions: but the Speaker, after noticing the irregularity of adverting to former debates, expressed his own opinion
“That there was nothing inconsistent with the practice of the house in using the name of the sovereign in the manner in which the right hon. baronet had used it. It was quite true that it would be highly out of order to use the name of the sovereign in that house, so as to endeavour to influence its decision, or that of any of its members, upon any question under its consideration : but he apprehended that no expression which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman could be supposed to bear such a construction."
And Lord John Russell explained that “the declaration of the sovereign was made by the right hon. baronet's advice, because any personal act or declaration of the sovereign ought not to be introduced into that place;" to which Sir R. Peel added, “that he had merely confirmed, on the part of her Majesty, by the advice of the government, the declaration made by the former sovereign."2 On the 2nd May, 1876, the premier, Mr. Disraeli, said he had her Majesty's authority to make a statement on her part: but, as the name of the sovereign could not be introduced in debate, it rested with the house whether he should proceed. The Speaker observed that “if the statement related to matters of fact, and was not made to influence the judgment of the house, he was not prepared to say that, with the
Chapter indulgence of the house, her Majesty's name might not be
introduced.” Mr. Disraeli then proceeded to make a state-
(5) It is obviously unbecoming to permit offensive ex- Words
In 1614, Dr. Richard Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, uttered some words which gave offence to the Commons, and they complained of them in a message to the Lords, to which they received an answer that the bishop protested, “upon his salvation, that he had not spoke anything with any evil intention to that house;" and they assured the Commons that, if they had conceived that the lord bishop's words meant to cast any aspersion of sedition upon that house, they would have censured the same with all severity.
Their lordships added that hereafter no member of their house ought to be called in question, when there is no other
1 228 H, D. 3 s. 2037.
? 31st March, 1887, 313 H. D. 3 s. 101 ; 12th Aug. 1887, 319 ib. 303 ; 28th June, 1889, 337 ib. 1104; 23rd June, 1892, 5 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1842; 8 ib. 1780. The Speaker has condemned the use by a member of
improper language directed against the House of Lords, in giving notice of a motion, 290 H. D. 3 s. 691,
39 C. J. 147. 760; 10 ib. 512; 11 ib. 580. Mr. Duffy's case, 5th May, 1853, 108 ib. 461.