ST. ALBANS ELECTION. (Hansard, 20 February 1852)

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he believed there could be no question raised on this occasion as to what their course should be. The proceeding arose out of the statute of 11 & 12 Vict., cap. 98, sec. 83, which gave the power to the Chairman of Select Committees of that House:— If any witness before such Select Committee give false evidence or prevaricate, or otherwise misbehave in giving or refusing to give evidence, the Chairman of such Select Committee, by their direction, may at any time during the course of their proceedings report the same to the House for the interposition of the authority or censure of the House, as the case requires, and may, by a warrant under his hand, directed to the Serjeant-at-Arms attending the House of Commons, or to his deputy or deputies, commit such person (not being a Peer of the realm or Lord of Parliament) to the custody of the said Serjeant, without bail or mainprize, for any time not exceeding twenty-four hours, if the House be then sitting, and if not, then for a time not exceeding twenty-four hours after the hour to which the House stands adjourned. The House would see, therefore, the case 837 had arisen under that Act, and that the question was whether, according to law, the Chairman of Committee had used such authority as he was justified in using; and he (Lord John Russell) did not think it was a breach of privilege. He would therefore move that the Serjeant-at-Arms be allowed to plead to the action.

§ MR. HUME
thought it very odd that the House of Commons—the first Court in the country—could not exercise the power and authority claimed by every Court in the Kingdom—to enforce its own orders. He could not admit that House was subordinate to any Court; and if this Motion was to lead to the same result as that to which he had, to his regret, consented on a former occasion, when opposing what he thought an undue extension of their powers, he would certainly enter his protest against the proceeding now, as being derogatory to the high character of the House.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he wished to suggest this difficulty to the hon. and learned Attorney General. He (Mr. Roebuck) quite agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that the House possessed the power of protecting itself. If the Committee had been merely a Court under an Act of Parliament, then, no doubt, all this would come naturally under the supervision of a superior Court. But then, the Statute showed that it was only a provisional power which was granted to the Chairman of a Committee to commit a refractory person into custody. What was the meaning of the words "until the House meets?" These words indicated that the Chairman was to act only provisionally, the matter being placed under the supervision and control of the House of Commons. The House could not be separated from the Committee. The Committee communicates to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons decided whether or not the Chairman of the Committee had acted properly. The Chairman had acted properly on this occasion; the House justified the conduct of the Chairman; and now one of these contumacious witnesses brought an action against the officer of the House for doing what he had done not only under the command, but with the approbation of, the House. To his (Mr. Roebuck's) mind, therefore, it appeared that the House was directly involved.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that it appeared to him that both the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roe-buck) and the hon. Member for Montrose 838 (Mr. Hume) were labouring under misapprehension. The hon. Member for Montrose was altogether in error in supposing that this was a question of privilege, or one leading to a contest between the courts of the realm. It arose in this way. The Act of Parliament gave power to the Chairman of an Election Committee to commit witnesses for contempt of Court. The question in this transaction was, whether the Chairman had duly exercised the power invested in him by the Act. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was also in error in assuming that the action brought against the Serjeant-at-Arms was for something done under the order of the House; for, although the Chairman had reported the case to the House, the committal was anterior to that report, and the Act was, therefore, done by the Chairman, and by virtue of the authority invested in him by an Act of Parliament. The Act had, therefore, been done on statutable authority. It had not been done by virtue of the privileges or rights of the House, but by virtue of the statutable privileges invested in a particular individual. Hence, the Serjeant-at-Arms had acted, not by virtue of the authority of the House, but by virtue of an authority vested in an individual Member of the House.

§ SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS
said, it would be very undesirable to revive again the useless debates of Hansard v. Stockdale; they were matters of record, and could be referred to if required. But he would say, that this House was neither the first, nor the second, nor the third. Court of Law; in fact, it was no Court at all. It had no power which was not granted, not by this House alone, but by the whole Legislature. He saw no objection that the Serjeant-at-Arms should plead to the action, but he hoped that this House, which could not of itself make any one law, would not claim to be above all.