determined that, in case of future actions, Messrs. Hansard should not plead at all, and that the parties should suffer for their contempt of the resolutions and authority of the house. Another action was brought by the same person, and for the same publication. Messrs. Hansard did not plead, the judgment went against them by default, and the damages were assessed by a jury in the Sheriff's Court at 6007. The sheriffs of Middlesex levied for that amount, but having been served with copies of the resolutions of the house, they were anxious to delay paying the money to Stockdale as long as possible, in order to avoid its threatened displeasure. At the opening of the session of Parliament in 1840 the money was still in their hands. The House of Commons at once entered on the consideration of these proceedings, which had been carried on in spite of its resolutions, and in the first place committed Stockdale to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms. The sheriffs were desired to refund the money, and, on their refusal, were also committed. Mr. Howard, the solicitor of Mr. Stockdale, was suffered to escape with a reprimand. The sheriffs retained possession of the money until an attachment was issued from the Queen's Bench,' when they paid it over to Stockdale. Stockdale, while in prison, commenced a fourth action by the same solicitor, and with him was committed to Newgate for the offence; and Messrs. Hansard were again ordered not to plead. Once more judgment was entered up against them, and a writ of inquiry of damages issued. Mr. France, the under-sheriff, upon whom the execution of this writ devolved, having been served with the resolutions of the commons, expressed by petition his anxiety to pay obedience to them, and sought the protection of the house. He then obtained leave to show cause before the Court of Queen's Bench, on the fourth day of Easter term, why the writ of inquiry should not be executed. 111 Adolphus & Ellis, 253. papers. Meanwhile the imprisonment of the plaintiff and his attorney did not prevent the prosecution of further actions. Mr. Howard's son, and his clerk, Mr. Pearce, having been concerned in conducting such actions, were committed for the contempt; and Messrs. Hansard, as before, were inPublication of structed not to plead. At length, as there appeared to be no probability of these vexatious actions being discontinued, a bill was introduced into the commons, by which proceedings, criminal or civil, against persons for publication of papers printed by order of either house of Parliament, are to be stayed by the courts, upon delivery of a certificate and affidavit that such publication is by order of either house of Parliament. This bill was agreed to by the lords, and received the royal assent. It has removed one ground for disputing the authority of Parliament, but has left the general question of privilege and jurisdiction in the same uncertain state as before. Howard v. Gosset and others. In executing the speaker's warrant for taking Mr. Howard into custody, the officers employed by the serjeantat-arms for that purpose had remained some time in his house during his absence, for which he brought an action of trespass against them. As it was possible that they might have exceeded their authority, and as the right of the house to commit was not directly brought into question, the defendants were, in this case, permitted to appear and defend the action; although a clause for staying further proceedings in the action was contained in the bill which was pending, at that time, in the House of Lords, where it was afterwards omitted. 2 This action, after some delay, proceeded to trial. On the 15th June 1842, the serjeant-at-arms informed the house that he had received a subpoena to attend the trial on the part of the defendants; and leave was given to him to attend and give evidence. At the same time the clerk of the journals who had received a subpoena, had leave to 13 & 4 Vict. c. 9. 2 95 Com. J. 236. Hans. Deb. 31 Mar. 1840. attend and give evidence, and to produce the Journal of the house. The cause was tried before Lord Denman, in the sittings after Michaelmas term, 1842, when Parliament was not sitting, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff, with 1007. damages. This verdict, however, did not proceed upon any question of the jurisdiction of the house; but simply on the ground that the officers had exceeded their authority, by remaining in the plaintiff's house, after they were aware of his absence from home. The attorney-general, who appeared in their defence, admitted that they were not justified in their conduct; and the case can scarcely be cited as one of privilege. But other actions have since been commenced by Mr. Howard against Sir William Gosset and W. Bellamy, a messenger of the house, for taking him into custody, and conveying him to Newgate, in obedience to orders of the house and the speaker's warrants.3 The house has given them leave to appear and defend the actions, and has directed the attorney-general to defend its officers; but the actions have not yet come on for trial. lege. The present position of privilege is, in the highest Present position of prividegree, unsatisfactory. Assertions of privilege are made. in Parliament and denied in the courts; the officers who execute the orders of Parliament are liable to vexatious actions, and if verdicts are obtained against them, the damages and costs are paid by the Treasury. The parties who bring such actions, instead of being prevented from proceeding with them by some legal process acknowledged by the courts, can only be coerced by an unpopular exercise of privilege, which does not stay the actions. If Parliament were to act strictly upon its own declarations, it would be forced to commit not only the parties, but their counsel and their attornies, the judges, and the sheriffs; and so great would be the injustice of punishing the public 211 Adolphus & Ellis, 273. 197 Com. J. 378. 3 98 Com. J. 59. officers of justice for administering the law according to their consciences and oaths, that Parliament would shrink from so violent an exertion of privilege. And again, the intermediate course adopted in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, of coercing the sheriff for executing the judgment of the court, and allowing the judges who gave the obnoxious judgment to pass without censure, is inconsistent in principle, and betrays hesitation on the part of the house-distrust of its own authority, or fear of public opinion. A remedy has already been applied to actions connected with the printing of parliamentary papers; and a well-considered statute, founded upon the same principle, is the only mode by which collisions between Parliament and the courts of law can be prevented for the future. The proper time for proposing such a measure is when no contest is pending; and when its provisions may be calmly examined, without reference to a particular privilege, or a particular judgment of the courts. It is not expected or desired that Parliament should surrender any privilege that is essential to its dignity, and to the proper exercise of its authority; but the privileges of both houses should be secured by a legislative definition; and a mode of enforcing them should be adopted which would be binding upon the courts. BOOK II. PRACTICE AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT. CHAPTER VII. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. MEETING OF A NEW PARLIA MENT. ELECTION AND ROYAL APPROBATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. PLACES OF PEERS AND ATTENDANCE remarks. THE proceedings of Parliament are regulated chiefly by Introductory ancient usage, or by the settled practice of modern times, apart from distinct orders and rules: but usage has frequently been declared and explained by both houses, and new rules have been established by positive orders and resolutions. Ancient usage, when not otherwise declared, is Ancient usage. collected from the Journals, from history and early treatises, and from the continued experience of practised members. Modern practice is often undefined in any Modern pracwritten form; it is not recorded in the Journals; it is not to be traced in the published debates; nor is it known in any certain manner but by personal experience, and by the daily practice of Parliament in the conduct of its various descriptions of business. Numerous orders and resolutions for regulating the tice. |