Against a statute. Matters pending cision. XII. ground thereof but public and common fame only.1 In Chapter 8 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 (6) Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law 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 sovereign, 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 &c. 1 2 L. J. 713; see also 4 ib. 582; 2nd Sept. 1886, 308 H. D. 3 s.1108. of allegations of bribery and cor- 312 H. D. 3 s. 1061; 338 ib. XII. 3 Chapter the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, the LordLieutenant of Ireland,1 the Speaker,2 the chairman of ways 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.7 allusions, &c. (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 1137 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1045. 2311 H. D. 3 s. 954; 313 ib. 472; 234 ib. 1558; 238 ib. 1953; 142 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1507. 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. 3276 H. D. 3 s. 934; 287 ib. 1732; 320 ib. 1024. 1031; 322 ib. 463; 12 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1807; 14 ib. 1090; 36 ib. 201; 52 ib. 23; 75 ib. 891; 6 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. 8 3 Burton's Parliamentary Diary, 9125 Parl. Deb. 4 s. 1530; 133 ib. In the Threat of force to resist a XII. turn, of misrepresentation; charging him with falsehood Chapter The rules of the House of Lords upon this point are very 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 law, see p. Deb. 118. 120; Debates, 3rd March, 332. 1864; 173 H. D. 3 s. 1406; and cases of Viscount Palmerston and Mr. Deb. 4 s. 159; "gross calumny," 106 28th Feb. 1890, 341 ib. 1570. 5 12 L. J. 31; Mirror of Parl. 1833, p. 2855. Chapter Offensive words 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.3 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, committee, words dealt with by Parlia ment, see p. 99. or if the offended member decline to express his satisfac- In 1770, words of heat having arisen between Mr. Fox 131 L. J. 448. 16 ib. 378; Earl Rivers, 8th Feb. 1698. 336 ib. 191. 78 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. $8 H. D. 2 s. 1091; Lord Althorp and 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 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 Parliament, 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 misunderstanding, 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 necessary, 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 91 ib. 464. 468; 34 H. D. 3 s. 4 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, |