Against a statute.

cision.

XII.

ground thereof but public and common fame only.1 In Chapter
1701, a complaint was made, by the Commons, of expressions
used by Lord Haversham, at a free conference, and numerous
communications ensued, which were terminated by a proro-
gation. On the 14th December, 1641, and on the 20th May,
1642, exception being taken to words used by Lord Pierpoint,
and by Lord Herbert of Cherbury, they were commanded
to withdraw, and were committed to the custody of the
gentleman usher. On the 14th March, 1770, exception was
taken to a statement in debate by the Earl of Chatham,
"that the late lord chancellor was dismissed for giving his
vote in this house;" and the house resolved "that nothing
had appeared to this house to justify his assertion.” 4

Disrespectful or abusive mention of a statute would seem
to be partly open to the same objections as improper
language applied to the Parliament itself; for it imputes
discredit to the legislature which passed it, and has a
tendency to bring the law into contempt; though the
necessity of the repeal of a law justifies, as an argument for
that course, its condemnation in debate. A statement that
the enactment of a law may justify an appeal to force is
not within the cognizance of the chair.5

Matters (6) Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law
pending
judicial de- should not be brought forward in debate. This rule was
observed by Sir R. Peel and Lord J. Russell, both by the
wording of the speech from the throne, and by their procedure
in the house, regarding Mr. O'Connell's case (see n. 4, p.
278), and has been maintained by rulings from the chair."
(7) Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive
motion, drawn in proper terms (see p. 277), reflections must
not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the sovereign,
the heir to the throne, and members of the royal family,"

Reflections

on the

sovereign,

&c.

12 L. J. 713; see also 4 ib. 582;
1 C. J. 496. 499, &c.; 3 Hatsell, 73.
2 13 C. J. 629. 634. 637. 639.
3 4 L. J. 475; 5 ib. 77.
4 32 ib. 476.

5 2nd Sept. 1886, 308 H. D. 3 s.1108.
See also the Speaker's remarks
in ruling out of order the discussion

of allegations of bribery and cor-
ruption at an election before the
expiration of the period during
which an election petition could be
lodged, 64 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 868.

7312 H. D. 3 s. 1061; 338 ib.
1338; 33 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 896; 93 ib.
1362; 97 ib. 1164; 99 ib. 471.

Chapter the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, the Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland,1 the Speaker,2 the chairman of ways

XII.

4

and means, members of either house of Parliament, and
judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom,5
including persons holding the position of a judge such as a
judge in a Court of Bankruptcy and of a county court."
Nor may opprobrious reflections be cast in debate on
sovereigns and rulers over countries in amity with his
Majesty."

allusions,

(8) In order to guard against all appearance of person- Personal ality in debate, it was formerly the rule, in both houses, that no member should refer to another by name. In the upper house, however, a lord is now alluded to by name, but in the Commons, each member must be distinguished by the office he holds, by the place he represents, or by other designations, as "the noble lord the secretary for foreign affairs," "the honourable" or "right honourable gentleman the member for York," or "the honourable and learned member who has just sat down." The use of Against temperate and decorous language is never more desirable members. than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate. The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged; misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his

1 137 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1045.

2 311 H. D. 3 s. 954; 313 ib. 472; 234 ib. 1558; 238 ib. 1953; 142 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1507.

3 302 H. D. 3 s. 1710; 95 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 235.

Lord Chancellor, 56 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 859; 75 ib. 890; 156 ib. 597. See Speaker's ruling, that the explicit statement of the prime minister must be accepted, 8th June, 1883, 280 H. D. 3 s. 116. Discussion of the conduct of a peer as chairman of a joint committee on a bill has been ruled out of order in committee on the recommitted bill, 111 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 19. 27. 707.

5 276 H. D. 3 s. 934; 287 ib. 1732; 320 ib. 1024. 1031; 322 ib. 463; 12 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1807; 14 ib. 1090;

8

9

36 ib. 201; 52 ib. 23; 75 ib. 891;
96 ib. 306; 132 ib. 683. 696.

The Speaker has also ruled out
of order language disrespectful to
persons administering justice, such
as resident magistrates in Ireland,
103 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 462.

714th Feb. 1878, 237 H. D. 3 s. 1639; 6th March, 1878, 238 ib. 799; 22nd Feb. 1897, 46 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 892.

8 3 Burton's Parliamentary Diary, 140. 141, 8th Feb. 1658. Mr. Berkeley was called to order, 20th March, 1860, for referring to members by name, as having spoken, in former sessions, against the ballot, 157 H. D. 3 s. 939.

748.

125 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1530; 133 ib.

turn, of misrepresentation; charging him with falsehood Chapter
XII.
or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any
kind;—all these are unparliamentary,1 and call for prompt
interference. The same right to claim courteous treat-
ment in debate is due alike between both houses of Parlia-
ment; and abusive language, and imputations of falsehood,
uttered by members of the House of Commons against
members of the House of Lords have been met by the
immediate intervention of the chair to compel the with-
drawal of the offensive words, or, in default, by the
punishment of suspension.1

The rules of the House of Lords upon this point are very distinctly laid down in standing order No. 28, which directs "that all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborne in the house; and that if any offence be given of that kind, the house "will sharply censure the offender." 5

1 A charge that a member has obstructed the business of the house, or that a speech is an abuse of the rules of the house is not out of order, 308 H. D. 3 s. 1170; 125 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 945.

2 For examples of unparliamentary expressions, see 28th Nov. 1770 (Mr. Charles Fox), 2 Cavendish Deb. 118. 120; Debates, 3rd March, 1864; 173 H. D. 3 s. 1406; and cases of Viscount Palmerston and Mr. Layard, 27th April, 1855, and of Mr. Gathorne Hardy and Mr. Layard, 7th July, 1864 (vote of confidence) as to the words, "calumnious charges," 137 ib. 1895; 176 ib. 1003; also 186 ib. 173. 422. 441. 884; 187 ib. 953; 188 ib. 1895. "Dodge" ruled to be an unparliamentary expression, 193 ib. 1297; so also "factious opposition," ib. 1741; and "jockeyed," 198 ib. 521; and accusing a member of having "deliberately raised a false issue," 205 ib. 1743; and having " passed a somewhat impertinent censure," 206 ib. 1685; "hypocritical lovers of liberty," 237 ib. 1639; "rude remarks," 320 ib. 763; "falsehood," 96 ib. 1206; 314 ib. 258; 92 Parl.

Deb. 4 s. 159; "gross calumny," 106
ib. 1257; "impudence," 92 ib. 968;
"ruffianism," 99 ib. 1065; "wind-
bag," 139 ib. 654; 'hypocrites,
pharisees," 102 ib. 1002; alleging
that a member's statements were
"cowardly," 146 ib. 1490; "not
consonant with personal honour,"
143 ib. 1542; "a malignant slander,"
105 ib. 579; 66 scurrilous," 150 ib.
274; or that a member's action
amounted to 66
a dirty trick," 132
ib. 507; was "criminal," 105 ib.
1072; "disgraceful," 143 ib. 827;
"a type of scandal," 69 ib. 546; or
that the figures supplied by a
minister were "gerrymandered,"
147 ib. 242. But not "calumnious,"
201 H. D. 3 s. 1455; "humbug,"
138 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 870; see also 211
H. D. 3 s. 852; 212 ib. 222. 1653;
213 ib. 750; 219 ib. 589; 223 ib.
1015. Mr. Plimsoll's case,
"villains," 22nd July, 1875; 225
ib. 1826; 226 ib. 178; "imperti-
nence," 230 ib. 863; also 320 ib. 763.
3 298 ib. 101; 299 ib. 1792; 302 ib.
230; 308 ib. 937; 313 ib. 303.

28th Feb. 1890, 341 ib. 1570.
12 L. J. 31; Mirror of Parl.
1833, p. 2855.

Chapter
XII.

Offensive words

committee,

words dealt with by Parlia

heat.

On the 10th December, 1766, notice was taken of some Words of words that had passed between the Duke of Richmond and the Earl of Chatham; upon which they were required by the house to declare, upon their honour, "that they would not pursue any further resentment.” 1

The Lords also, to prevent quarrels in debate between Lords. their members,2 have ordered, by standing order No. 29, that a lord who conceives himself to have received an affront or injury from another member within the precincts of the house, shall appeal to the Lords in Parliament for his reparation; or shall, if he declines the justice of the house, undergo their severe censure.

Sometimes the Lords have extended this principle to the prevention of quarrels which have arisen out of the house. On the 6th November, 1780, the Lords being informed that the Earl of Pomfret had sent a challenge to the Duke of Grafton, upon a matter unconnected with the debates or proceedings of Parliament, declared the earl "guilty of a high contempt of this house," and committed him to the Tower.8

The House of Commons will insist upon all offensive Commons. uttered in words being withdrawn, and upon an ample apology being see p. 386, made, which shall satisfy both the house and the member Offensive to whom offence has been given. If the apology be refused, or if the offended member decline to express his satisfaction, the house takes immediate measures for preventing the quarrel from being pursued further, by committing both the members to the custody of the Serjeant; whence they are not released until they have submitted themselves to the house, and given assurance that they will not engage in hostile proceedings.5

ment, see p. 99.

In 1770, words of heat having arisen between Mr. Fox

131 L. J. 448.

216 ib. 378; Earl Rivers, 8th Feb. 1698.

3 36 ib. 191.

478 C. J. 224; 96 ib. 401; 103 ib. 442. 443; 107 ib. 143. Sir R. Peel and the O'Donoghue, 1862, 117 ib.

64; 165 H. D. 3 s. 617; 167 ib. 854.
Sir R. Peel and Mr. Maguire, 11th
May, 1866, 183 ib. 801.

$8 H. D. 2 s. 1091; Lord Althorp
and Mr. Sheil, 5th Feb. 1834, 89 C.
J. 9. 11; 91 ib. 484. 485; 92 ib. 270;
93 ib. 657. 660.

XII.

and Mr. Wedderburn, the former rose to leave the house, Chapter upon which the Speaker ordered the Serjeant to close all the doors, so that neither Mr. Fox nor Mr. Wedderburn should go out till they had promised the house that no further notice should be taken of what had happened.1 If words of heat arise in a committee of the whole house, they are reported by the chairman, and the house interposes its authority to restrain any hostile proceedings.2 Challenges The Commons will also interfere to prevent quarrels quarrels. between members, arising from personal misunderstanding

and

in a select committee, as in the case of Sir Frederick
Trench and Mr. Rigby Wason, on the 10th June, 1836.
One of those gentlemen, on refusing to assure the house
that he would not accept a challenge sent from abroad, was
placed in custody; and the other, by whom the challenge
was expected to be sent, was also ordered to be taken;
nor were either of them released until they had given the
house satisfactory assurances of their quarrel being at
an end.3

The sending a challenge by one member to another, in
consequence of words spoken by him in his place in Parlia-
ment, is a breach of privilege, and will be dealt with
accordingly, unless a full and ample apology be offered to
the house. But it does not appear that the Speaker or
the house would interfere to prevent a quarrel from being
proceeded with, where it had arisen from a private mis-
understanding, and not from words spoken in debate, or
in any proceedings of the house or of a committee. In
such cases, if any interference should be deemed neces-
sary, information would probably be given to the police.
But in 1701, Mr. Mason, a member, having sent a

1 MS. Officers and Usages of the
House of Commons, 1805, p. 138.
2 106 C. J. 313.

391 ib. 464. 468; 34 H. D. 3 s.
410. 486.

+ Case of Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Somers, 16th June, 1845, 100 C. J. 589; 81 H. D. 3 s. 601. Notice taken of a challenge sent to a member,

on remarks made outside the house,
which touched proceedings in the
house, 31st May, 1883, 138 C. J. 232.
In 1798, the Speaker did not inter-
fere to prevent the duel between Mr.
Pitt and Mr. Tierney: but went to
Putney, where it was fought, 1 Lord
Sidmouth's Life, 204. 206.