I'AKI.IAMKXT, IMPERIAL. 



PARLIAMENT, IMPERIAL. 



by CMMta*. aad iu dOermhurlnn declared to be " final nd 

 v* in aU MUequcot election*, and to til intent* and purpoee. 



with the right of DM common* to adiudkU upon all 

 to eleettoM, be iiMOtiaiMil their power pv.r the 

 in w " 



kVilkr. wa* expelled, in 1704, for being 

 UM author ol a eeditious libel In the next |iiUment (February 3, 

 17V> be wee again rzpelled lor another libel ; a new writ wa* ordered 

 far UM eooBty ol Middlesex, which he repreeentod, and he was re- 

 elected without a *u* ; upon which it was reeclved. on the 17th of 

 February. that havuw been in thi* nedon of parliament expelled 

 this houe*. he was and U incapable ol being elected a member to serve 

 in thi present iwUament" The election wa* declared void, but Mr. 

 Wilke* wa* again elected, and U* election wa* once more declared void, 

 and another writ ienied. A new expedient wa* now tried. Mr. I.ut- 

 trWI. thn a member, accepted the Chiltern Hundred*, and stood 

 agaiiMl Mr. WUkes at the election, and, being defeated, petitioned the 

 house against the return of hi* opponent. The house resolved that 

 although a majority of the elector* had voted for Mr. Wilkea, Mr. 

 LaUreU ought to nave been returned, and they amended the return 

 accordingly. Against thi* proceeding the elector* of Middlesex pro- 

 eented a petition, without effect, a* the house declared that Mr. Luttrell 

 we* duly elected. The whole of these proceeding* were severely con- 

 damned, and on the 3rd of May, 1788, the resolution of the 17th of 

 February. 17fl, was ordered to be expunged from the journals as 

 " subversive of the right* of the whole body of elector* of this king- 

 dom." A resolution similar to that expunged had lvn passed in the 

 ease of the unfortunate Hall, in 1580, as part of the many punishments 

 inflicted upon him, which we shall have occasion to mention. 



OatJu. The power of administering oaths exercised by the lords is 

 not claimed by the House of Common*. They formerly endeavoured 

 to attain the end cuppueed to be secured by the administration of an 

 oath, by reeorting to the authority of justices of the peace who hap- 

 pened to be member* of their own body ; but all such expedient* 

 have long since been abandoned, and witnesses guilty of falsehood are 

 punished by the house for s breach of privilege, not being amenable 

 to the laws regarding perjury. Election committees have power by 

 rtatuto to administer oaths, and witnesses giving false evidence are 

 guilty of perjury. 



3. Pririlrgt*. Both houses of parliament possess various rights 

 and privilege* for the maintenance of their collective authority, and 

 for the protection, convenience, and dignity of individual members. 

 At the commencement of each parliament, the Speaker, on behalf of 

 the common*, ha* " laid claim to them of the king since the reign of 

 Henry VIII., but they appear to have been always enjoyed with equal 

 certainty before that time. Some of them have been subsequently 

 confirmed, modified, and even abolished by acts of parliament, but the 

 petition of the Speaker remains unchanged, and prays for some which 

 have been disallowed by law since the original form was adopted. 



Vommitmrt and Fitt.~the power of commitment for contempt 

 ha* always been exercised by both houses. It has been repeatedly 

 brought under the cognisance of the court*, and allowed without 

 question. Mr. Wynn, in his ' Argument,' states that there are up- 

 wards of one thousand cans of commitment by the House of Commons 

 to be found in their Journals since 1547. Breaches of privilege com- 

 mitted in one session may be punished by commitment in another, as 

 in the well-known can of Murray, in 1761-2, who was imprisoned in 

 Newgate for a libel until the end of the session, and on the next meet- 

 ing of parliament was again ordered to be committed ; but he had 

 absconded in the meanwhile. Contempts of a former parliament may 

 also be punished. The lords may commit for a definite period beyond 

 the duration of the session of parliament ; but a commitment by the 

 commons holds good only until the close of the session. 



The Houn of Lord*, in addition to the power of commitment, may 

 impose fines. Thi* privilege is not exercised by the commons, although 

 there i* a case in D'Kwes's ' Journal of Queen Elizabeth,' in which Mr. 

 Hall, a member who had incurred their displeasure, by publishing a 

 work " very slanderous and derogatory to the general authority, power, 

 and state of the houn, and prejudicial to the validity of its proceedings 

 in making and establishing laws," was ordered to " pay a fine to the 

 queen ol five hundred marks." The house at the same time assumed 

 a power not found to have been exercised in other cases. It committed 

 Mr. Hall to the Tower, and ordered that he should remain there for 

 " six months, and until he should made retraction of the book." This 

 punishment was commitment for a time certain without reference to 

 the continuance of the *e**ion, and, in the event of a refusal to retract 

 the book, amounted to perpetual imprisonment. A practice till exists 

 which partake* of the nature of a fine. There are certain fees payable 

 by person* committed to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms, and it is 

 usual on discharging them out of custody to attach the condition of 

 th" payment of the fees," Then fee* are occasionally remitted under 

 pyeMler circumstance* in on* case, on account of the poverty of the 

 prisoner. 



/Vejrfost o/ OptteM. Freedom of peech i* one of the privileges 

 d by UM Speaker on behalf of the common*, but it ha* long 

 been confirmed a* the right of both houses of parliament by 

 It was acknowledged by an act in the reign of Henry VIII., 

 by which the proceedings of the stannary court with respect to Hichard 



Strode, a member, who was fined and imprisoned by that court for 

 having proposed a bill to regulate the tinner* in Cornwall, were de- 

 clared Illegal, and the repetition of similar encroachment* upon thu 

 privilege of parliament provided against. The language however was 

 thought ambiguous, and it was by limiting its operation to the case ol 

 Strode, that a judgment wa* obtained in the King'* Bench against Sir 

 John Klli..t. I>,-n/.il Hollis, and Valentine, in the reign of Charles I. 

 A true interpretation of the law was subsequently established by 

 resolutions of both house* of parliament, and by a formal reversal of 

 thin judgment by the house of lords. The most solemn recognition of 

 the privilege Is contained in the Bill of Righto, which declares " that 

 the freedom of speech and debate* and proceedings in parliament 

 ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of 

 juirliament." 



There are however certain legal incident* to this privilege, which it 

 is necessary to notice. The law presume* that everything said in 

 parliament i* with the view to the public good and necessary for the 

 conduct of public business ; but should the member publish his speech, 

 he is viewed as an author only, and if it contain libellous matter, he 

 will not be protected by the privilege of parliament. In 1795, an 

 information was filed against Lord Abingdon for libel. His lordship 

 had accused his attorney, in parliament, of improper condnrt, in his 

 profession. He afterwards published his speech in several newspapers 



at his own expense. His lordship pleaded his own cause, and < 



tended that he had a right to print what he had, by the law of parlia- 

 ment, a right to speak ; but Lord Kenyon said, " that a member of 

 parliament had certainly a right to publish his speech, but that speech 

 should not be made a vehicle of slander against any individual ; if it 

 was, it was a libel." In 1813, a much stronger case of the same kind 

 occurred. Mr. Creevey, a member, had made a charge against an 

 individual in the House of Commons, and incorrect report* of his 

 speech having appeared in several newspapers, Mr. Creevey sent a 

 correct report to an editor, requesting him to publish it in his news- 

 paper. A jury found Mr. Creevey guilty of libel, and the court of 

 King's Bench refused an application for a new trial ; on which occasion 

 Lord Ellenborough said. " a member of that house has spoken what he 

 thought material and, what he was at liberty to speak, in his character 

 as a member of that house. So far he is privileged : but he has not 

 stopped there ; but, unauthorised by the house, has chosen to publish 

 an account of that speech in what he has pleased to call a corrected 

 form, and in that publication has thrown out reflections injurious to 

 the character of an individual." 



Freedom from ArreA. The Speaker's petition prays on behalf of the 

 commons, " that their persons, their entitles, and lermntt, may be free 

 from arrests and all molestations." These words are not more < 

 sive than the privilege as formerly enjoyed, and instances in which it 

 has been enforced may be found in nearly every page of the earlier 

 volume* of the Journals. This privilege has however been limited by 

 statutes, the last of which (10 Qeo. III., o. 60) states in the preamble 

 that the previous laws were insufficient to obviate the inconveniences 

 arising from the delay of suit* by reason of privilege of parliament, and 

 enacts that " any person may at any time commence and prosecute any 

 action or suit, ic., against any peer or lord of parliament, or against 

 any of the knights, citizens, or burgesses for the time being, or against 

 any of their menial or any other servants, or any other person entitled 

 to the privilege of parliament, and no such action shall be impeached , 

 stayed, or delayed by or under colour or pretence of any privilege of 

 parliament." Obedience to any rule of the courts at Westminster 

 may be enforced by distress infinite, in case any person entitled to the 

 benefit of such rule shall choose to proceed in that way. 



The persons of members are still free from arrest or imprisonment 

 in civil actions, but their property U as liable to the legal claims of all 

 other persons as that of any private individual Their servants do not 

 enjoy any privilege or immunity whatever. 



The privilege of freedom from arrest has always been subject to the 

 exception of cases of " treason, felony, and surety of the peace ; " and 

 though in other criminal charges each house may, if it see fit, prevent 

 the abstraction of a member from his parliamentary duties, the case of 

 Lord Cochrane, in 1815, will show how little protection the House of 

 Commons extends to its members iu such cases. Lord Cochrane, 

 having been indicted and convicted for a conspiracy, was committed to 

 the King's Bench prison. He afterwards escaped, and was arrested by 

 the marshal while sitting on the privy counsellor's bench in the House 

 of Commons, on the right hand of the chair, at which time there was 

 no member present, prayers not having been read. The committee of 

 privileges declared that by this proceeding of the marshal of the King's 

 Bench " the privileges of parliament did not appear to have been 

 violated so as to call for the interposition of the house." 



Court* of justice have committed privileged person* for contempt, 

 and parliament ha* refused to protect them. By a standing or. I 

 the House of Lords, 8th June, 1767, it was declared " that no peer or 

 lord of parliament hath privilege of peerage or of parliament against 

 being compelled by process of the courts of Westminster-hall to pay 

 obedience to a writ of habeas corpus directed to him ; " and in the case 

 of Karl Ferrers, it was decided that an attachment may be granted if a 

 peer refuses obedience to the writ of habeas corpus. There have been 

 two more recent oases, that of Mr. Long Wellesley in 1881, and that of 

 Mr. i.rchmere Charlton in 1837, in which members committed by tho 



