III. Chapter closely pressed and obliged to answer all the questions relating to his interviews with Mrs. Clarke, and his objects in giving her advice as to her evidence. He appealed to the chairman, whether he was bound to answer questions to prove himself guilty of a breach of privilege. No actual decision was given upon this appeal: but throughout his examination, questions of that character had been addressed to him.1 On the 19th June, 1857, a petition was presented, complaining that Peter Johnson had offered the sum of 50l. to Rothwell, a witness, who had been served with the Speaker's warrant to attend before the Rochdale election committee, to induce him to go abroad for the purpose of avoiding giving evidence before the committee. Newall, the petitioner, and Rothwell, being ordered to attend the house forthwith, were examined; and a select committee was appointed to continue the inquiry, which resulted, however, in no definite conclusion. Out of this case there arose, incidentally, a question how far a person accused of a breach of privilege is bound to answer questions tending to criminate himself, on which considerable differences of opinion were entertained.2 committed When the Speaker is accompanied by the mace, he has Persons power to order persons into custody for disrespect, or other by the Speaker. breaches of privilege committed in his presence, without the previous order of the house. Mr. Speaker Onslow ordered a man into custody who pressed upon him in Westminster Hall; and a case is mentioned by D'Ewes in which a member seized upon an unruly page and brought him to the Speaker, by whom he was committed prisoner to the Serjeant. 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.3 12 H. D. 461. 2 146 H. D. 3 s. 97. In 1857, the Congress of the United States passed a bill making it a misdemeanour to refuse to answer questions put in either House of Legislature. 32 Hatsell, 241, n.; D'Ewes, 629; 9 C. J. 351. 353; see also 1 ib. 157. 210. 972. III. Inquiry In all these classes of offences, both houses will commit, Chapter into alleged breaches of or otherwise punish, in the manner described: but not withprivilege. out due inquiry into the alleged offence. Lords. Commons. The Lords, by standing orders Nos. 82 & 83, have endeavoured to impose restraint upon frivolous complaints of breach of privilege.1 Before the year 1845, it had been customary for the House of Lords, when inquiring into an alleged breach of privilege, to conduct the inquiry with closed door: 2 but, in later cases, strangers have not been ordered to withdraw. In the Commons, under resolutions, 31st January, 1694, and 3rd January, 1701, no person should be taken into custody, upon complaint of breach of privilege, before the Committee matter be first examined by the committee of privileges, of privileges. and reported to the house, though it was also declared, "That the said order is not to extend to any breach of privilege upon the person of any member of this house." 3 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. 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. In 1904 and 1 See also Commons' resolution to the same effect, 11th Feb. 1768, 31 C. J. 602. 2 Lord Hawarden's case, 31 Jan. 1828; 18 H. D. 2 s. 69. The umbrella case, 26th March, 1827, 58 H. D. 35. 3 11 C. J. 219; 13 ib. 648. 4 103 C. J. 139; 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, whether actually practising or not. Chapter Power to order attendance, of member sec P. 94. 1905 the committee was nominated and consisted of seven ings upon plaints. It is the present practice, when a complaint is made, to Proceedorder the person complained of to attend the house; and on comsee p. 64. his appearance at the bar, or, if a member, in his place, he is Attendance examined and dealt with, according as the explanations of in custody, his conduct are satisfactory or otherwise; or as the contrition Refusal of expressed by him for his offence, conciliates the displeasure itnesses of the house. If there be any special circumstances arising mittees to out of a complaint of a breach of privilege, it is usual to questions, appoint a select committee to inquire into them, and the see p. 75. house suspends its judgment until their report has been committees presented; 3 and although any member may bring the matter appointed so reported before the house, it is usual to leave this duty forthwith, sec p. 246. to the charge of the chairman of the committee. An order before com answer Privilege has been made that the incriminated person might appear of news When a complaint is made of a newspaper, the newspaper Complaints itself must be produced, in order that the paragraphs papers. complained of may be read. And a member complaining of the report of his speech in a newspaper, has been stopped by the Speaker, when it appeared that he had no copy of the newspaper on which to found his complaint. Complaint being made on the 23rd February, 1880, of a series of articles in several newspapers, the Speaker said that if he called upon the Clerk to read all those articles he should be 159 C. J. 258; 135 Parl. Deb. 2 112 C. J. 231; 113 ib. 189, &c. 4th April, 1892, 3 Parl. Deb. 4 * 22nd March, 1771, 33 C. J. 279. 113 ib. 189; 150 H. D. 3 s. 1022. 1063. An article complained of (Times, 2nd May, 1887) was, by On the 4th April, 1878, Mr. Words uttered by III. trifling with the house, and that he should therefore take Chapter 5 Proceedings against a member have been occasionally a member. commenced by a question addressed to him upon the subject; and where an apology or retractation is expected, a more formal proceeding may thus be averted. But generally the most convenient course is to make the complaint, and to found a motion upon it. The matter may then be regularly discussed by the house. On the 4th March, 1875, Dr. Kenealy having addressed a question to Mr. Evelyn Ashley, and received an answer, proceeded to give notice to bring the matter forward on the following day. But Mr. Lowe rose to discuss it at once, in moving an adjournment. Upon that question a debate ensued, and, on the withdrawal of the motion, a resolution was agreed to, that the house, having heard the explanations of the two members, should proceed to the orders of the day." Offences in former session. Either house will punish in one session offences that have been committed in another. In 1879, C. E. Grissell, having neglected to attend the house to answer for a breach of privilege (see p. 421), was ordered into the custody of the Serjeant, but evaded the execution of the Speaker's warrant, by going abroad, until two days before the close of the session, when he was committed to Newgate. On the 2nd March, 1880, a petition submitting himself to 1 135 C. J. 57. 2 104 H. D. 3 s. 1056. 3 59 ib. 507; 82 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1070. Mr. Ferrand's case, 99 C. J. 235. 239; complaint (Times) report of committee of privileges, 109 ib. 318; 136 ib. 272; complaint (Times), 148 ib. 66; complaint (Daily Mail), 156 ib. 355. 8 3 Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Lopes, 12th Feb. 1875; 222 H. D. 3 s. 269; Mr. Yorke and Mr. H. Gladstone, 15th March, 1883; 277 ib. 568. 6222 H. D. 3 s. 1185. 721 L. J. 189; 15 C. J. 376. 386; 17 ib. 293; 20 ib. 549; 22 ib. 210; Mr. Murray's case, 26 ib. 303. 8 134 ib. 366. 432. 435. Chapter the house was presented, when he was ordered to be sent custody, he was ordered to stand committed to the Serjeant, 1 It also appears that a breach of privilege committed against one Parliament may be punished by another; and libel against former Parliaments have been punished.2 flicted by and by the In all the cases that have been noticed as breaches of Differences in the privilege, both houses have agreed in their adjudication: but punishin several important particulars there is a difference in their ment inmodes of punishment. The Lords have claimed to be a the Lords court of record, and, as such, not only to imprison, but to Commons. 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 during the last two centuries, have not imposed fines (see p. 93). 3 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 Fines imposed by too numerous to mention have occurred, in which the Lords the Lords. have sentenced parties to pay fines. Many have already been 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.1 ment for a The Lords have power to commit offenders to prison for Commita specified term, even beyond the duration of the session; 5 specified and thus on the 13th August, 1850, being within two days the Lords. 1 135 C. J. 70. 73. 77. * 1 ib. 925; 2 ib. 63; 13 ib. 735; Flower's case, 1779; 8 Durnf. & 4 Resolution, 3rd April, 1624, 3 L. J. 276; 11 ib. 554; 12 ib. 174; 14 ib. 144; 30 ib. 493 (Report of Precedents); 42 ib. 181; 43 ib. 60. 105; 39 ib. 331. 5 43 L. J. 105. term by |