PRIVILEGE—THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.

HC Deb 19 May 1845 vol 80 cc517-21

The Solicitor General

said: I beg, Sir, to call the attention of the House to a subject which is very materially connected with its privileges—I allude to the decision recently pronounced in Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench in the case of "Howard against Gossett," which was an action brought against the Sergeant-at-Arms for imprisonment, upon the authority of a warrant issued by the Speaker, in pursuance of an Order of the House. It will be in the recollection of the House, that in 1840, in the course of the discussion which took place on certain proceedings instituted by a person named Stockdale against Messrs. Hansard, the printers of the House, it was considered necessary that Mr. Howard, who had been concerned as attorney for Mr. Stockdale in that action, should attend at the Bar of the House for the purpose of being examined. Mr. Howard had notice, and was required to attend; but he did not pay attention to that notice, and in consequence an Order was made by the House that he should be brought to the Bar in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and that the Speaker should issue his warrant accordingly. That warrant was issued, and Mr. Howard was taken into custody, and ultimately committed by an Order of the House to Newgate. In 1840, he brought an action against the Assistant Sergeant and three of the Officers of the House, who had been concerned in the execution of that warrant, for an excess of authority, of which he stated they had been guilty in executing the warrant, by remaining an unreasonable time in his house. My noble Friend Lord Campbell, then Attorney General, intimated to the House that he had received a communication from Mr. Howard, that it was not his intention to impeach the validity of the Speaker's warrant, but that his complaint against the Officers was, that they had been guilty of excess; and the House came to a Resolution that the Officers should be permitted to appear and plead to that action. They appeared and pleaded to the action accordingly. It came on for trial merely on the general issue, and the jury were of opinion that the Officers were guilty of excess, and they found a verdict against them for 100l. That 100l. and costs were paid by the House. In 1843, Mr. Howard commenced the action in question against the Sergeant. A communication was made by the Sergeant to the House of the fact of the action having been brought. My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General moved that the notice given by the Sergeant, with the proceedings, should be printed; and on the following day he proposed to the House that the Sergeant-at-Arms should be at liberty to appear and plead to the action. That proposal of my hon. and learned Friend gave rise to a considerable debate. The debate was adjourned, and ultimately the House came to this Resolution— That Sir William Gossett, the Sergeant-at-Arms of this House, have leave to appear to and defend the action brought against him by Thomas Burton Howard. That was carried by a majority of 64. The House also approved of another Resolution— That William Bellamy, one of the messengers of this House, have leave to appear to and defend the action brought against him by Thomas Burton Howard; and that Her Majesty's Attorney General be directed to defend the said Sir William Gossett and William Bellamy against the said actions. Upon this several pleas were put on record in the action of "Howard against Gossett;' and, stripping those pleas of their technicalities, I will state in general terms to the House, that they justified the imprisonment and the acts complained of in the declaration of Mr. Howard, under the authority of the Speaker's warrant. To those pleas there was a demurrer; and upon that demurrer an argument took place in the Queen's Bench in November last. The Judges appeared to have entertained very considerable doubt upon the subject; for they took time to consider before they delivered their judgment until Thursday last, when they pronounced judgment — the majority of the Judges being of opinion that the pleas constituted no sufficient justification to the complaint in the plaintiff's declaration. Mr. Justice Williams differed from the majority of the Judges. Of course, it will be premature at the present moment to discuss the propriety of that decision, or the important principles involved in it. I think, however, it will be right for me to state, that the Judges, one and all, expressed an opinion that no question of the privileges of this House was involved in their decision, and that it proceeded entirely upon the Sergeant having exceeded the authority which was conferred upon him by the warrant of the Speaker. Of course, it will be absolutely necessary, in consequence of the extreme importance of the subject, before the House proceeds to any determination, that it should have before it the materials for forming its judgment; and I, therefore, should propose that there be laid on the Table of the House copies of the Record in the action of "Howard against Gossett," and of the shorthand writers' notes of the judgment, and also of the arguments. It will be necessary that the House should proceed as speedily as possible to a determination upon this important question. The steps the plaintiff may take I will shortly explain. In consequence of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, he is at liberty to enter up what is called interlocutory judgment. Upon that judgment he may proceed to have his damages assessed before the Sheriff. He must give notice of his intention to issue a Writ of Inquiry for the assessment of those damages; but after eight days from the serving of that notice he may proceed to assess his damages. It is, of course, impossible to say how long it may be before Mr. Howard takes that step, and it is, therefore, important that the House should proceed as speedily as possible to the consideration of the course it will be advisable for it to adopt under the circumstances. After the damages have been assessed, the plaintiff may within a short time sign his final judgment, and, if not intercepted by a Writ of Error impeaching that judgment, he may proceed to execution, and levy the amount of the verdict on the goods of the defendant. Under these circumstances I have considered with the greatest anxiety what would be the most advisable course to pursue. It is necessary to act promptly; but it is also necessary, as I have already stated, to have materials before us to enable us to form a proper judgment. In 1839, when judgment was pronounced in the case of "Stockdale against Hansard," Lord Campbell, then Attorney General, came down to the House, and informed them of the facts, and moved that a Select Committee should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the proceedings, and recommending to the House the course it was advisable to adopt. I think, with very great submission to the House, it would be desirable to follow that precedent, and adopt a similar course. It is very important that we should not take a single step in this matter without most full deliberation. Perhaps, I might add, that discussions of this kind are not so advantageously conducted in this House as by a Committee of the House, and, therefore, following the precedent of 1839, I would propose, in the first place, that there should be laid on the Table of the House copies of the Record in the case of Howard v. Gossett, and also copies of the shorthand writers' notes of the arguments and judgment; and then I would propose, in the terms of the Resolution I have adverted to, that a Select Committee should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the proceedings of "Howard against Gossett," and reporting to the House their opinion and observations upon it. The names of the hon. Members to be nominated on that Committee I shall be prepared to state in the course of the evening.

Viscount Howick

I shall not object to the Motion; but I cannot help saying that, in the present state of our information, I do feel the deepest regret that so soon should be realized the prediction made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, as to what would be the result of the weak and pusillanimous course this House pursued when its privileges were first attacked. It is the realization of what I felt must be the consequence of that course. Thus are we dragged on little by little, and step by step, till we hold all our privileges at the mercy of the Courts of Law. For that I for one am not responsible, nor is my hon. Friend.

Sir R. Inglis

I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon; but when the noble Lord starts forward and accuses this House of pusillanimous neglect of its own rights and privileges, I, being one of those who thought that the House at the last moment, but not till the last moment, had shown a becoming deference to the laws of the country, under which the noble Lord, as an individual, and as a Member of this House, and every other Member, and I hope the House itself collectively, must be contented to live and die, cannot sit in silence, holding the opinions I have for many years entertained. The question is, not whether the Courts of Law, in the present case, have recognised or violated our privileges. I was present in court when the judgment was pronounced, and I certainly collected, both from my hon. and learned Friend, and from those learned persons who represent the law in the Court of Queen's Bench, that their objection was not to the warrant as a warrant, but that it did not specify any purpose or periods for which the party was to be taken into custody. The warrant in that respect was defective. If the doctrine of the noble Lord be correct, let this House seize the Lord Chief Justice of England, let it seize a Peer of the realm, and try the question here; for if the power of this House be good for anything, it must be good for everything. If it be good against Mr. Justice Wightman or Mr. Justice Coleridge, it must be good against the Lord Chief Justice of England; and, therefore, if the noble Lord be willing to drag this House into another discussion, and struggle with the Courts of Law, he will begin by moving that the Lord Chief Justice of England be brought to the Bar of this House. That will show his courage; but it is no courage to bring before this House a Sheriff or any other ministerial officer. I believe, that all the Courts of Law require that all warrants should specify for what cause, and for what period, a party taken under that warrant must be imprisoned. What right then have we, sitting in this room, to claim more than the Queen Herself could claim?

Motion agreed to.