DISCIPLINARY POWER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. 



201 



be immediately taken down in writing that 

 the presiding officer may be better enabled to 

 judge. Instances have recently occurred. 



RULES FOR BETTER ORDER. For the better 

 order of the House of Commons, members are 

 required to remain in their places during de- 

 bate, to enter and go out with decorum, not 

 to cross the House in an improper manner, nor 

 to read books, journals, or letters, nor to break 

 silence, nor hiss or make interruptions. In the 

 House of Representatives of Congress a simi- 

 lar rule requires that, " while the Speaker is 

 putting a question or addressing the House, no 

 member shall walk out of or across the hall, 

 nor, when a member is speaking, pass between 

 him and the Chair ; and during the session of 

 the House no member shall wear his hat, or 

 remain by the Clerk's desk during the call of 

 the roll or the counting of ballots, or smoke 

 upon the floor of the House ; and the Sergeant- 

 at-Arms is charged with the strict enforcement 

 of this rule." Nevertheless, these rules of the 

 House of Commons are not absolute. It is ad- 

 mitted that the reading of books and journals 

 is not interdicted, when the object is to pass 

 the time agreeably. It is also permitted to 

 speak in a low voice or whisper, and the Speak- 

 er will not interfere upon repeated cries of 

 " order," unless the noise of conversations dis- 

 turbs the debate. So also with regard to hisses, 

 exclamations, or other interruptions, the rule is 

 very often violated. It is not rare to perceive 

 great disorders, which can scarcely be repressed, 

 during the tumult of five or six hundred mem- 

 bers waiting with impatience a division of the 

 House. One instance is reported, that a mem- 

 ber " crowed like a cock." Nor is the pro- 

 hibition against interruptions more absolute. 

 These consist in words which can be uttered 

 during debate that do not constitute an infrac- 

 tion of parliamentary rule, yet, by their fre- 

 quency, and the noise which they occasion, 

 they are very often a cause of disorder. The 

 cries of "Question! question!" "Hear! hear!" 

 have by long tolerance received a sanction in 

 the two Houses of Parliament. The last ex- 

 pression, uttered at the end of a phrase, does 

 not, properly speaking, constitute an interrup- 

 tion. It signifies generally approbation, and 

 is addressed to the orator as a compliment or 

 an encouragement. But such is not always its 

 character or signification ; according to the in- 

 tention of its author, or the intonation of his 

 voice, it can express either disapprobation, de- 

 rision, or contempt. If it is spoken in the midst 

 of a phrase, or with a shout, it will, more than 

 any other interruption, offend and trouble the 

 orator. At a session on August 6, 1878, Mr. 

 O' Gorman, a member from Water ford, cried, 

 " Hear ! hear ! " twenty times, during the 

 speech of Colonel Stanley. He was ordered 

 to leave the House, and not allowed to resume 

 his place on the 7th, but on the prayer of his 

 friend Mr. Sullivan. He asked pardon of the 

 House and of the member speaking, and fur- 

 ther proceedings were dropped. 



DISCIPLINE FOR VIOLATIONS OF ORDER. The 

 disciplinary power of the House of Commons 

 over its members for violations of order is very 

 extensive. The lords are equal in rights, and 

 the president has not been made the judge or 

 guardian of order. But numerous precedents 

 show that both Houses of Parliament have the 

 right to condemn and to imprison for contempt 

 or disobedience of orders, and for breach of 

 privilege. Nor can the prisoner obtain liberty 

 by an appeal to the courts, which have been 

 obliged in such cases to declare that they had 

 no jurisdiction. But while the Upper House 

 has unlimited power, the Lower House can de- 

 tain a prisoner only until the adjournment of 

 Parliament. He is, however, subject to costs, 

 which are sometimes very heavy. Most fre- 

 quently the prisoner is released after a short 

 time, either upon his expression of regrets, or 

 upon the request of a colleague. The arrest 

 has often been made to calm the excitement of 

 angry debaters, or to prevent provocations or 

 violence which, it is apprehended, may ensue. 

 On December 10, 1766, words of dangerous 

 freedom having been exchanged between the 

 Duke of Richmond and Lord Chatham, the 

 House of Lords exacted from them a promise, 

 upon their honor, that nothing further should 

 come of their resentment. In 1780 the same 

 House, having learned that Count Pomfret had 

 sent a challenge to the Duke of Grafton, for a 

 cause entirely foreign from parliamentary de- 

 bates, declared the Count guilty of high con- 

 tempt toward itself, and imprisoned him in the 

 Tower of London. So, in the House of Com- 

 mons, if a member refuses to withdraw his 

 insulting words, or .the one offended declines 

 to accept the offered excuse, in order to pre- 

 vent other consequences from the quarrel, both 

 are delivered to the custody of the Sergeant- 

 at-Arms, and do not recover their liberty until 

 they have given to the House an assurance not 

 to resort to any act that would cause regret. 

 In 1780 a dispute arose between Mr. Fox 

 and Mr. Wedderburn, and the former having 

 threatened to leave the House, the Speaker 

 ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to close all the 

 doors, so that neither of them could go out un- 

 til they had passed the sponge over their diffi- 

 culty. A similar occurrence took place in 

 1836. Sir Frederick Trench and Mr. Rigby 

 Wason being committed to the custody of the 

 Sergeant-at-Arms, were not allowed their lib- 

 erty until they had given the assurance that 

 their quarrel was ended. The last case of the 

 imprisonment of a member of the House of 

 Commons occurred in 1852. It soon became 

 known, however, that the member, condemned 

 for lack of respect and for acts contrary to 

 order, was insane, and he was placed in an 

 asylum. There remains the case of absen- 

 tees on a call of the House, who are unable 

 to give a justifiable excuse. This occurs at 

 every session, and is regarded as an act of 

 contempt or disobedience, for it is the con- 

 stitutional duty of each member of Parlia- 



