Disobedience of general orders and rules. Publica tion of debates. Lords. Cases. Commons. III. Disobedience to particular orders; 3. Indignities offered to Chapter 1. Disobedience to any of the orders or rules which As examples of general orders, the violation of which will be regarded as breaches of privilege, the following may be sufficient. strangers, see p. 205. The publication of the debates of either house has been repeatedly declared to be a breach of privilege, and especially false and perverted reports of them; and no doubt Presence of can exist that if either house desire to withhold their proceedings from the public, it is within the strictest limits of their jurisdiction to do so, and to punish any violation of their orders; and under the Lords' standing order No. 80 it is a breach of privilege for any person, without the leave of the house, to print, or publish in print, anything relating to its proceedings.1 In 1801, Allan Macleod and John Higginbottom were fined respectively 100l. and 6s. 8d., and were committed to Newgate for six months, for publishing and vending certain paragraphs purporting to be a proceeding of the house, which had been ordered to be expunged from the journal, and the debate thereupon. In the same year, H. Brown and T. Glassington were committed to the custody of the Black Rod, for printing and publishing, in the Morning Herald, paragraphs purporting to be an account of what passed in debate, but which the house declared to be a scandalous misrepresentation.2 On the 13th and the 22nd July, 1641, it was ordered by the Commons, "That no member shall either give a copy, : L. J. 27th Feb. 1698. 2 43 L. J. 60. 105. 115. 225. 230. ΠΙ. Chapter or publish in print anything that he shall speak here, without leave of the house;" and "that all the members of the house are enjoined to deliver out no copy or notes of anything that is brought into the house, or that is propounded or agitated in the house."1 2 debates. Repeated orders also have been made by the house for- Report of bidding the publication of the debates and proceedings of the house, or of any committee thereof, and of comments thereon, or on the conduct of members in the house, by newspapers, newsletters, or otherwise, and directing the punishment of offenders against such rules. These orders. have long since fallen into disuse; though the Speaker has ruled that a member cannot be required to state whether expressions alleged to have been made by him in the house were correctly reported in a newspaper. Debates are daily cited in Parliament from printed reports; galleries are constructed for the accommodation of reporters; committees have been appointed to provide increased facilities for reporting; a place is reserved for a reporter near the table of the House of Lords; and grants are annually voted to further the publication of the debates. When a wilful misrepresentation of the debate arises, or if it may be necessary to enforce the restriction, the house censures or otherwise punishes the offender, whether he be a member of the house or a stranger admitted to its debates. as orders prohibiting the publication of debates are still retained upon the journals, the action of the house, in dealing with the misrepresentation of its debates, is somewhat anomalous. The ground of complaint is the incorrect Newspaper report of a speech: but the motion for the punishment of made bonâ fide. the printer assumes that the publication of the debate at all 1 2 C. J. 209. 220. Publication of Lord Digby's speech. 2 C. J. 501; Orders, 22nd Dec. 1694; 11th Feb. 1695; 18th Jan. 1697; 3rd Jan. 1703; 23rd Jan. 1722; 11 C. J. 193; ib. 439; 12 ib. 48. 661; 13 ib. 767; 14 ib. 270; 20 ib. 99; 21 ib. 238; 29 ib. 207; 45 ib. 508; 75 ib. 57; see also the But Second Report on Sir F. Burdett, 3 17th April, 1837, 92 C. J. 270. 567 C. J. 432; 74 ib. 537; 88 ib. 606. reports III. is a breach of privilege. The principle, however, by which Chapter both houses are governed is now sufficiently acknowledged. So long as the debates are correctly and faithfully reported, the privilege which prohibits their publication is waived: but when they are reported malâ fide, the publishers of Newspaper newspapers are liable to censure. And by the 44 & 45 See also meetings Vict. c. 60, fair and accurate newspaper reports of the speech, p. privileged. proceedings of public meetings, published without malice and for the public benefit, are privileged. reports of Evidence before com draft re ports. 5 freedom of 100. com It is declared to be a breach of privilege for a member, Ste select mittees and or any other person, to publish the evidence taken before a mittees, p. select committee, until it has been reported to the house; 4 416. and the proprietor of a newspaper has been committed by the House of Commons for the publication of a committee's draft report. On the 13th April, 1875, complaint was made of the publication in two newspapers of the proceedings and evidence taken before the select committee on Foreign Loans. The publication was declared a breach of privilege; and the printers were ordered to attend: but as it appeared in debate that the publication had not been unauthorized by the committee, they were directed to report the circumstances under which the documents had been communicated to the newspapers. A special report was accordingly made, and no further proceedings were taken.6 In 1850, a draft report of the committee on Postal Communication with France was published in two newspapers, while it was under consideration. The committee vainly endeavoured to trace the parties from whom the copy had been obtained, but recommended improved regulations 1 See Debate on Mr. Christie's motion, 12th Feb. 1844; 72 H. D. 3 s. 580; Debate, 1st May, 1894; 104 H. D. 3 s. 1054. 2 See Lord Hartington's proposed resolution, 4th May, 1875, 224 H. D. 3 s. 48. Regarding the taking of notes in the side gallery, by an officer of the house, July, 1879, see 248 ib. 47. 163. 228; see also Report of Lords' Committee on the Privilege of Reports, 1857; 149 H. D. 3 s. 947; A newspaper proprietor is not See Resolution 21st April, 1837, 92 C. J. 282. 5 87 ib. 360. G 130 ib. 141. 148; 223 H. D. 3 s. 789. Chapter for the printing, distribution, and custody of such documents.1 III. Sessional orders, In 1901 a statement purporting to represent proposals contained in confidential papers referred to the select committee on the civil list with a report of the proceedings of the committee was published in a newspaper. The committee was unable to ascertain in what manner this had been divulged, but recommended that the Speaker should take steps to prevent such publication in future." obedience 2. Resolutions are agreed to at the beginning of each Interference with, Appendix I. session, which declare that the house will proceed with the and disutmost severity against persons who tamper with witnesses, of, witin respect of evidence to be given to the house, or any com- nesses. Tampering mittee thereof; who endeavour to deter or hinder persons from appearing or giving evidence; and who give false. evidence before the house or any committee thereof. with wit nesses, see p. 86. The house has acted on these resolutions with severity; and the journals abound with cases in which witnesses have been punished by commitment to the Serjeant-at-arms, and to Newgate, for prevaricating or giving false testimony, or suppressing the truth; for refusing to answer questions, or to produce documents in their possession. If a witness be guilty of such misbehaviour before a committee of the whole house, or a select committee, the circumstance is reported to the house, by whom the witness is dealt with.3 There are various other orders and rules connected with parliamentary proceedings; for example, to prevent the forgery of signatures to a petition (see p. 526); for the protection of witnesses (see p. 124); for the protection of the officers of the house (see p. 64); and for other purposes which will appear in different parts of this work. wilful violation of any of these orders or rules, or general 1 Parl Pap. No. 381 (sess. 1850), 2 Parl. Pap. No. 87 (sess. 1901), 321 C. J. 842; 64 ib. 54; 82 ib. A 473; 88 ib. 212. 218; 90 ib. 478.500. Libels upon Parlia ment. Prosecutions by attorneygeneral. Commitment and fines. III. misconduct in reference to the proceedings of Parliament, Chapter 3. Indignities offered to the character or proceedings of 4 For offences, not directly concerning the house, the House of Lords addresses the Crown to direct the attorneygeneral to prosecute, and the practice of the House of Commons is substantially the same. In some cases, it orders the attorney-general to prosecute, of its own authority, and in other cases addresses the Crown to direct such prosecutions. The principle of this distinction, though not invariably observed, appears to have been, that in offences against the house, or connected with elections, the attorney-general has been directed to prosecute: 5 but in offences of a more general character against the public law of the country, addresses have been presented to the Crown." Severe punishments were formerly awarded by the Lords in cases of libel, as fine, imprisonment, and pillory: 7 but in modern times commitment, with or without fine, has been. the ordinary punishment. On the 15th December, 1756, 134 C. J. 800; 22 ib. 146; 4 L. J. 705; 37 ib. 613; 38 ib. 338. 649. Lords Journal, 12th April, 1850 (Mr. Nash); 13th Aug. 1850 (Liverpool Corporation Waterworks). 72 C. J. 245; 77 ib. 432, &c. 334 L. J. 330; 11 C. J. 774; 23 ib. 546; 26 ib. 9. 304; 34 ib. 464; 44 ib. 463; Report Lords' Committee, 18th May, 1716; 20 L. J. 362. 16 L. J. 286; 17 ib. 114; 21 ib. 344; 30 ib. 420; 36 ib. 143; 52 ib. 881. 5 1 Hatsell, 128, n.; 96 C. J. 394. 413; 109 ib. 159; 112 ib. 355. 6 From 1711 to 1852 there were 4 L. J. 615; 5 ib. 241. 244; 20 |