The Commons: justice and of a jury, try and adjudicate upon the charge Chapter preferred. II. and charges upon the P. 545. The most important power vested in any branch of the Parliament their right legislature, is the right of imposing taxes upon the people, of voting and of voting money for the exigencies of the public service. people, see supplies. The exercise of this right by the Commons is practically a law for the annual meeting of Parliament for redress of grievances; and it may also be said to give to the Commons the chief authority in the state. In all countries the public purse is one of the main instruments of political power: but with the complicated relations of finance and public credit in England, the power of giving or withholding the supplies at pleasure, is one of absolute supremacy. Right of determining elections. Case of Ashby and verted Another important power peculiar to the Commons is that Controof determining all matters touching the election of their own. elections, members. This right had been regularly claimed and exer- see p. 654. cised since the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and probably in earlier times, although such matters had been ordinarily determined in chancery. Their exclusive right to determine the legality of returns and the conduct of returning officers in making them, was fully recognized in the case of Barnardiston v. Soame, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber in 1674, by the House of Lords in 1689,1 and also by the courts, in the cases of Onslow in 1680, and of Prideaux v. Morris in 1702. Their jurisdiction in determining the right of election was further acknowledged by Statute 7 Will. III. c. 7: but in regard to the rights of electors, a 131. memorable contest arose between the Lords and Commons in 1704. Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, brought an action at common law against William White and others, the returning officers of that borough, for having refused to permit him to give his vote at an election. A verdict was obtained by him: but it was moved in the Court of Queen's Bench, in arrest of judgment, "that this action did not lie;" and in opposition to the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Holt, judgment was entered for the defendant, but was afterwards 16 Howell, St. Tr. 1092. 1119. 502; 1 Lutw. 82; 7 Mod. 13. tion of the courts of law, see p. II. see r. 86. Chapter reversed by the House of Lords upon a writ of error. Upon this the Commons declared that "the determination of the right of election of members to serve in Parliament is the proper business of the House of Commons; that they cannot judge of the right of election without determining the right of the electors; and if electors were at liberty to prosecute suits touching their right of giving voices, in other courts, there might be different voices in other courts, which would make confusion, and be dishonourable to the House of Commons; and that the action was therefore a breach of Privilege, privilege." In addition to the ordinary exercise of their jurisdiction, the Commons relied upon the Act 7 Will. III. c. 7, by which it had been declared that "the last determination of the House of Commons concerning the right of elections is to be pursued." On the other hand, it was objected, in the report of a Lords' Committee, 27th March, 1704, that "there is a great difference between the right of the electors and the right of the elected: the one is a temporary right to a place in Parliament, pro hâc vice; the other is a freehold, to which a man has a right by common law." Encouraged by the decision of the House of Lords, five Case of the Aylesbury other burgesses of Aylesbury, familiarly known as 'the men. Aylesbury men," commenced actions against the constables of their borough, and were committed to Newgate, by the House of Commons, for a contempt of their jurisdiction. The contest that hence arose was closed by the prorogation of Parliament, which put an end to the contest, and to the imprisonment of the Aylesbury men and their counsel. The plaintiffs, no longer impeded by the interposition of privilege, and supported by the judgment of the House of Lords, obtained verdicts and execution against the returning officers. The question which was agitated at that time has never Later cases. since brought the Commons into conflict with the courts of law. Complaints, however, have been made to the house, of proceedings in courts of law, having reference to elections; 1 Rye case, 17th Nov. 1704; 14 C. J. 425; Penryn case, 22nd Feb. 1710; 16 ib. 514 (no further pro- II. and in 1767, certain electors of the county of Pembroke, Chapter having brought actions of trespass on the case against the high sheriff for refusing their votes, were ordered to attend the house: but having discontinued their actions, no further proceedings were taken against them.1 In 1857, a complaint was made, by petition, that certain voters had brought actions against the returning officer of the borough of Sligo for refusing their votes at the last election: but the committee to whom the matter was referred reported that there were no circumstances affecting the privileges of the house.2 In 1784, Mr. Fox obtained a verdict, with damages, against the high bailiff of Westminster, for vexatiously withholding his return when he had a majority of votes; and this proceeding, being clearly free from any question of privilege, did not call for the interposition of Parliament. The 3 Commons continued to exercise (what was not denied to Adminis tration of them by the House of Lords) the sole right of determining the election whether electors had the right to vote, while inquiring into law, 654. the conflicting claims of candidates for seats in Parliament; until, in 1868, the house delegated its judicature in controverted elections to the courts of law, but retaining its jurisdiction over cases not otherwise provided for by statute. Although all writs are issued out of chancery, every Issue of order of the Vacancy after a general election is supplied by the authority. 631. House of of the Commons. During the sitting of the house, vacancies are supplied by warrants issued by the Speaker, by order of the house; and during a recess, after a prorogation or adjournment, the Speaker issues warrants in certain cases (see p. 636). New writs issued by Commons. Expulsion of members ability. But notwithstanding their extensive jurisdiction in regard does not to elections, the Commons have no control over the eligicreate dis- bility of candidates, except in the administration of the laws which define their qualifications. No power exercised by the Commons is more undoubted than that of expelling a member from the house, as a punishment for grave 131 C. J. 211. 279. 293; see also cases of the Mayor of Hastings, Easter Term, 1786, and the Mayor of Abingdon, 1847; Price v. Fletcher, 4 C. P. Rep. 2 146 H. D. 3 s. 1557; 112 C. J. 310. 314. 340. 33 Hughes' Hist. 245. writs, see Chapter offences; yet expulsion, though it vacates the seat of a create any disability to serve again in Parliament. John 2 To expulsion, in former times, was added occasionally Disabilities formerly disability of sitting in Parliament or of serving the state. inflicted by On the 27th May, 1641, Mr. Taylor, a member, was expelled, the Comand adjudged to be for ever incapable of being a member 1 32 C. J. 229. * See particularly the speech of Mr. Wedderburn, 1 Cavendish Deb. 352. See also 2 May, Const. Hist. 3 38 C. J. 977; 137 ib. 62. mons. Suspension of mem bers. Grounds of expulsion. II. of the house. During the Long Parliament, incapacity Chapter The suspension of members from the service of the house 115 under S. O. adjudge." And by the standing order of the 28th Suspension February, 1880, suspension was adopted for the punish- No. 18, see ment of offences such as disregard to the authority of the P. 340. chair, or obstruction; and has since been imposed in numerous cases. Expulsion is generally reserved for offences which render members unfit for a seat in Parliament, and which, if not so punished, would bring discredit upon Parliament. Members have been expelled, as being in open rebellion; " 1 2 C. J. 158; also Mr. Benson, ib. 301; and Mr. Trelawny, ib. 473. 28 ib. 60; 17 ib. 128. ¿ 2 ib. 128. + 3 ib. 302; also the cases of Mr. Frye, 6. ib. 123; Mr. Love, 8 ib. 6 289; Sir G. Carteret, 9 ib. 120; Sir 132 ib. 375. Mr. Foster and Mr. Carnegy, 1715, 18 ib. 336. 467, |
