Whether be a court of record. 2 III. of the prorogation, certain prisoners were committed for a Chapter Whether the House of Commons be, in law, a court of Commons record, it would be difficult to determine; for this claim, once firmly maintained, has latterly been virtually abandoned, although never distinctly renounced. In Fitzherbert's case, in 1592, the house resolved, "That this house being a court of record, would take no notice of any matter of fact at all in the said case, but only of matter of record;" and the record of Fitzherbert's execution was accordingly sent to the house by the lord keeper. The apology of the Commons, 1604, contains these words: "We avouch also that our house is a court of record, and ever so esteemed." On the other hand, in Jones v. Randall, Lord Mansfield said the House of Commons was not a court of record; yet acting as a court of record, the Commons formerly imposed fines and imprisoned offenders for a time certain.5 Fines imposed by the Com mons. In Floyde's case, in 1621, the Commons clearly exceeded their jurisdiction. That person had spoken offensive words concerning the daughter of James I. and her husband, the elector palatine. In this he may have been guilty of a libel, but certainly of no breach of parliamentary privilege. Yet the Commons took cognizance of the offence, and sentenced Floyde to pay a fine of 1000l., to stand twice in the pillory, Chapter and to ride backwards on a horse, with the horse's tail in his hand. Upon this judgment being given, first the king III. and then the Lords interfered, because the offence was The last case of a fine by the Commons occurred in 1666, 4 modes of ment. The modern practice of the Commons is to commit per- Present sons to the custody of the Serjeant-at-arms, to Newgate, or punishto the Tower, during the pleasure of the house; and to keep offenders there until they present petitions praying for their release, and expressing contrition for their offences; or until, upon motion made in the house, it is resolved that they shall be discharged. It is then usual for the parties to be brought to the bar, by the Serjeant with his mace, and, after a reprimand from the Speaker, to be discharged on payment of their fees (see p. 94). But occasionally their attendance at the bar, and the reprimand, have 1 C. J. 609; 1 Hans. Parl. Hist. 1250. 21 C. J. 619; 3 L. J. 134; "Proceedings and Debates of the Commons," 1620, 1621 (Oxford); and 1 Hans. Parl. Hist. 1259; see also the treatment of Nayler by the Protectorate Parliament, 7 C. J. 465; Palgrave's Oliver Cromwell, 187. 3 8 C. J. 690. It has been customary to order such petitions to be printed and con- 595 C. J. 291. 337; 97 ib. 224. On the 9th May, 1604, it was "delivered for a rule, that no delinquent is to be brought in, but by the Serjeant with his mace," 1 ib. 204; 82 ib. 399; 87 ib. 365; 97 ib. 240; 106 ib. 289. Reprimand and admonition. Payment of fees. Imprisonment by the Com III. been dispensed with. A member, if in custody of the Chapter 3 It is not customary to order a person to be reprimanded unless he be in custody, though there are some examples of a different practice; and orders have been made that the person incriminated do attend to receive a reprimand.1 When the offence has not been so grave as to cause the commitment of the offender, he is generally directed to be "admonished;" the Serjeant, bearing the mace, standing by whilst the admonition is pronounced.5 The Speaker's Sex forma! motions, reprimand or admonition is always ordered to be entered p. 215; entry of in the journals. Where the offence has been slight, or the Speaker's apology is accepted as satisfactory, even an admonition words in journal, see has been dispensed with; and the house has resolved to p. 191, n. 3. proceed no further in the matter (such resolution being communicated to the person concerned, by the Speaker); or that the person be excused or discharged from further attendance.7 Payment of fees was formerly remitted, by order, under special circumstances: but, according to present usage, no order for the payment of fees is made, unless called for by the nature of the offence.9 6 No period of imprisonment is named by the Commons, and the prisoners committed by them, if not sooner dismons con- charged by the house, are immediately released from their cluded by proroga- confinement on a prorogation, whether they have paid the fees or not. If they were held longer in custody, they tion. 1 75 C. J. 467; 103 ib. 263; 113 ib. 35 Parl. Hist. 910; 82 C. J. 395. • Bidmead's case, 20th June, 1887, 142 C. J. 306. 87 ib. 294; 88. ib. 218; 97 ib. 143; 147 ib. 166. Case of Mr. Hope, 17th July, 1822, 77 ib. 432; 7 H. D. 2 s. 1668. 7 Case of Mr. Menzies, 17th July, 1822; case of Mr. Reed, 27th Feb. 1863, 118 C. J. 106. 8 58 ib. 221; 74 ib. 192; 80 ib. 470; 83 ib. 199; 85 ib. 465; 90 ib. 532; 106 ib. 147; 107 ib. 301; 108 ib. 595, &c. See last three cases, 113 ib. 208; 114 ib. 342; 134 ib. 385. Chapter would be discharged by the courts, upon a writ of habeas corpus.1 III. It was formerly the practice to make prisoners receive Prisoners kneeling at the judgment of the house, kneeling at the bar in both the bar. houses, however, this practice has long since been discontinued. The discontinuance of this practice arose from the refusal of Mr. Murray to kneel, when brought up to the bar of the House of Commons, on the 4th February, 1750. For this refusal he was declared "guilty of a high and most dangerous contempt of the authority and privilege of this house;" was committed close prisoner to Newgate, and not allowed the use of pen, ink, and paper.3 It appears that there had previously been only one other instance of such a refusal to kneel.1 1 Lord Denman's judgment in Stockdale v. Hansard, Proceedings printed by the Commons, 1839, (283), p. 142. But this law never extended to an adjournment, even when it was in the nature of a prorogation; see 10 C. J. 537. 2 Resolution 16th March, 1772, 33 ib. 594. 3 14 Hans. Parl. Hist. 894; 1 Walpole's Memoirs of George II. 15. Report of Precedents, 26 C. J. 48. There had, however, been similar cases before the Lords, 3 Parl. Hist. 844. 880. of freedom of speech. PRIVILEGE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Contents, see Intro Necessity FREEDOM of speech is a privilege essential to every free duction." Confirmed by law of Parliament. Haxey's case. This important privilege has been recognized and confirmed as part of the law of the land. According to Elsynge, the "Commons did oftentimes, under Edward III., discuss and debate amongst themselves many things concerning the king's prerogative, and agreed upon petitions for laws to be made directly against his prerogative, as may appear by divers of the said petitions; yet they were never interrupted in their consultations, nor received check for the same, as may appear also by the answers to the said petitions." 2 In the 20th Richard II., however, a case occurred in which this ancient privilege was first violated, and afterwards signally confirmed. Haxey, a member of the Commons, having displeased the king, by offering a bill for reducing the excessive charge of the royal household, was condemned in Parliament as a traitor. But on the accession of Henry IV., Haxey exhibited a petition to the king in Parliament to reverse that judgment, as being "against the law and custom which had been before in Parliament; and the judgment was reversed and annulled accordingly by the king, with the advice and assent of all the lords spiritual 2 Elsynge, 177. 1 12 L. J. 166. |