III. In 1680, A. Yarrington and R. Groome were committed for Chapter a libel against a member. In 1689, 1696, and 1704, Christopher Smelt, John Rye, and J. Mellot were committed for libelling members. In 1733, William Noble was committed for asserting that a member received a pension for his voting in Parliament. In 1774, H. S. Woodfall was committed for publishing a letter reflecting on the character of the Speaker. In 1821, the author of a paragraph in the John Bull newspaper, containing a false and scandalous libel on a member, was committed to Newgate.1 On the 1st March, 1824, Mr. Abercromby made a complaint to the house that the lord chancellor in his court had used offensive expressions with reference to what had been said by himself in debate: but on division the matter was not allowed to proceed any further.2 Other cases, too numerous to mention, have occurred, in some of which the parties have been committed or reprimanded. In 1844, a member having made charges at a public meeting against two members of the house, was ordered to attend in his place; and after he had been heard, the house resolved that his imputations were wholly unfounded and calumnious, and did not affect the honour and character of the members concerned.4 A complaint was made 17th February, 1880, of the publication of printed placards throughout the city of 19 C. J. 654. 656; 10 ib. 244; 11 ib. 656; 14 ib. 565; 23 ib. 245; 34 ib. 456; 76 ib. 335. 2 10 H. D. 2 s. 571. See the head of PRIVILEGES in the General Journ. Ind. 1547-1713, and COMPLAINTS in the other Journal Indexes; and the cases of Mr. Aston in 1872; Mr. Plimsoll and Pall Mall Gazette in 1873; Mr. O'Donnell and the Globe in 1878; Sir S. Northcote and Mr. Callan, and Speeches by Mr. John Bright, 138 C. J. 280; 140 ib. 358; see also Mr. Speaker's observations, 15th March, 1883, 277 H. D. 3 s. 570. Charges by the Times against a member of giving to the house a false explanation (3rd May, Mr. Ferrand's case, 24th and III. Chapter Westminster, reflecting upon the conduct of Sir Charles Russell, member for that city, and signed by Mr. Plimsoll, a member. On the 20th February, Mr. Plimsoll, having withdrawn and apologized for the expressions complained of, the house condemned his conduct as a breach of privilege: but, having regard to the withdrawal of the expressions complained of, resolved that no further action was necessary.1 On some occasions the house has also directed prosecuinfluence tions against persons who have published libels reflecting committee, upon members, in the same manner as if the publications. see p. 421. had affected the house collectively." Offer of corrupt ocer a Select committees, see p. 421. Scandalous charges or imputations directed against members of a select committee are equivalent to libellous charges brought against the house itself, while a letter complaining that a member who had been nominated upon a select committee would be unable to act impartially upon it has been adjudged a breach of privilege.1 on mem mittees. In 1832, Messrs. Kidson & Wright, solicitors, were ad- Reflections monished for having addressed to the committee on the bers of Sunderland Dock Bill, a letter reflecting on the conduct of select commembers of the committee, copies of which were circulated in printed handbills.5 On the 1st June, 1874, Mr. France was admonished at the bar, by the Speaker, for addressing a letter to the chairman of the committee on explosive substances, imputing unfair conduct to him and other members of the committee.6 bribes to On the 2nd May, 1695, the house resolved that "the offer Offering of money, or other advantage, to a member of Parliament, members. for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour." 7 And in the spirit of this resolution, the offer of a bribe, Counsel in order to influence a member in any of the proceedings of Chapter of privilege, being an insult not only to the member himself, 2 III. against before a Personal p. 373. So also the acceptance of a bribe by a member has ever, Charges by the law of Parliament, been a grave offence, which has members been visited by the severest punishments. In 1677, Mr. committee, John Ashburnham was expelled for receiving 500l. from the see p. 414. French merchants for business done in the house. In 1694, interest in Sir John Trevor was declared guilty of a high crime and a vote, see misdemeanour, in having, while Speaker of the house, received a gratuity of a thousand guineas from the City of London, after the passing of the Orphans Bill, and was expelled.3 In 1695, Mr. Guy, for taking a bribe of two hundred guineas, was committed to the Tower, and Mr. Hungerford was expelled, for receiving twenty guineas for his service as chairman of the committee on the Orphans Bill.5 Commons' Nor has the law of Parliament been confined to the repression of direct pecuniary corruption. To guard against See also indirect influence, it has further restrained the acceptance resolution, of fees by its members, for professional services connected. with any proceeding or measure in Parliament. A member is accordingly incapable of practising as mittees, &c. counsel before the house, or any committee. By resolution, Parliamen- 26th February, 1830, members of the House of Commons are prohibited from engaging, either by themselves or by a partner, in the management of private bills, before this or tary 1 11 C. J. 274. 275; 14 ib. 474; 17 ib. 493. 494; 19 ib. 542. 29 ib. 24. 11 ib. 274; 5 Parl. Hist. 900910. + 5 ib. 886. 5 11 C. J. 283; 5 Parl. Hist. 911. Reprimand was administered to Mr. Bird for offering to a member one guinea for preparing a petition, 5 Parl. Hist. 910. By resolution 22nd June, 1858, 113 C. J. 247, the Commons declared that it is derogatory to the dignity of the house, "that any of its members should bring forward, promote, or n. 6. Chapter the other house of Parliament, for pecuniary reward.1 Nor tary agents, see p. 709. other proceeding in Parliament. before the By resolution 6th November, 1666, members are prohibited Counsel from acting as counsel on either side, in bills depending in Lords. the House of Lords, before such bill shall come down thence to the House of Commons.2 In the case, however, of the bill then pending against her Majesty Queen Caroline, Mr. Brougham and Mr. Denman, the queen's attorney and solicitor-general, and the king's attorney and solicitorgeneral, and Dr. Lushington, were permitted to plead as counsel at the bar of the House of Lords, but such leave was not to be drawn into a precedent. It was also understood that, if the bill should be received by the Commons, none of those gentlemen would be permitted to vote upon it.1 and com It was formerly the custom to give leave to members to Appeals plead at the bar of the House of Lords on appeals, the last mittee of instance being in 1710, since which time members have been privileges.. accustomed to plead without leave, in all judicial cases before the House of Lords, and before the committee of privileges.5 ference Assaults, or interference with officers of the house, while Interin the execution of their duty, have also been punished as with breaches of privilege." 185 C. J. 107. See complaint 18th April, 1884, of a circular sent by a member to the members of the house soliciting their votes for the third reading of a private bill, for which his son was the solicitor, 139 C. J. 167. 28 ib. 646. 12th July, 1820, 75 C. J. 444; 2 H. D. 2 s. 400. * Leave was given to Mr. Roebuck to plead at the Lords' bar in support of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill; but leave was refused to Mr. C. Buller to plead before the Lords upon the Bolton Waterworks Bill, 18th July, 1842, 97 C. J. 499; 4th May, 1846; 101 ib. 627; 86 H. D. 53 ib. 88; 10 ib. 336; 16 ib. 436; 619 C. J. 366. 370; 20 ib. 185, officers. Legal proceedings against members and others formance of parliamentary duties. III. To commence proceedings in a court of law against any Chapter person for his conduct in obedience to the orders of Parliament, or in conformity with its practice, is a breach of for the per- privilege. According to present usage, however, if such an action be commenced against an officer of the house, the Commons have given leave to the officer to appear in the action, when the law officers of the Crown, either by the order of the house, or upon direction given by a minister of the Crown, undertake the officer's defence; or, if it seems expedient, the Speaker can, at his discretion, place the defence of the officer in the hands of the Government. The courts of law have refused to entertain actions brought against members of Parliament, or against an officer of the house, for acts done in the transaction of parliamentary business. A person forwarded to two members a petition for presentation; and the petitions were returned to the Presenta tion of sender, because they infringed the rules of the house. That petitions, person in consequence brought actions against the members and the clerk who had acted in the matter: but the actions were dismissed on the ground that the causes of complaint were not cognizable by a court of law. In a subsequent action it was held that there is no right in a person desirous of petitioning the house to compel any member to present his petition, and that no action will lie against a member for refusing to do so.3 Tampering with wit. nesses. see p. 531. To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be Sessional order, Apgiven by him before the house, or any committee of the pendix 1. house, is a breach of privilege. On the 9th February, 1809, during the inquiry into the conduct of the Duke of York, Protection Mrs. Clarke read a letter addressed to her which suggested nesses, see that she should leave the country. The writer of the letter P. 125. was taken into custody: during his examination, he was Refusal to This course was pursued in the cases of Burdett v. Abbot (p. 67), Howard v. Gosset (p. 68); of Lines v. Russell (p. 144); of Bradlaugh v. Erskine (p. 144), and Bradlaugh v. Gosset (p. 145). See also the second report from the committee printed papers, cited, p. 144. on 2 Chaffers v. Goldsmid, Westminster County Court, 13th Aug. 1891; Chaffers v. Simeon, Div. Court Queen's Bench; Chaffers v. Gibbs, Lord Mayor's Court, Times reports, 1st April and 20th May, 1892. 3 Chaffers v. Goldsmid, [1894] 1 Q. B. 186. to wit produce documents, see p. 406. |