CONSIDERATION OF WRIT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. (Hansard, 9 May 1882)

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
I have to submit two Resolutions to the House in reference to the communication made to it on Friday last. I think we may gather from that communication that Mr. Bradlaugh has commenced an action against the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, in consequence of that gentleman having obeyed an Order, and acting under the authority of this House, in removing Mr. Bradlaugh from this House on the 3rd of August last. In determining how to deal with the subject of that communication, I would suggest to the House that we ought to have two principal objects in view. In the first place, I think we should do nothing that should for a moment cause it to be supposed that this House was yielding up in any way its rights to govern its own procedure, and to insist upon the House being the only judge of the way in which its procedure should be carried into effect; and I think, too, that the House will equally desire not to enter into any unnecessary conflict either with any Court which has to administer justice in this country, or with any individual, unless it shall be absolutely necessary to do so in order to support its own authority. I do not propose to submit more than these two objects as being those which should govern our course. When placed in similar circumstances to those now stated, the course of the procedure of this House has latterly been uniform, and I think the House would desire to act strictly in accordance with those precedents. Whilst we deny the authority of any Court to question any action the House may take within its own walls to enforce its 338 procedure, I am sure the House would wish to act with due consideration towards the Courts which have to try every action which is brought before them by one subject against another. It is not inconsistent with the dignity or authority of this House to inform the Courts that have to try such action that this House objects to their dealing with any question involving the authority of this House. But the question now arises, In what manner can that communication be made to the Court having to try such an action as the present without the House yielding up its authority in any respect? It was suggested long ago that the Speaker should communicate, by letter or certificate, to the Court having cognizance of an action arising out of the proceedings of this House, that the Privileges of this House would be involved; but it was pointed out on high authority that so to make such communication would be unsatisfactory and inconvenient, because it would lead to one litigant being left in command of the litigation, and the action involved might be so framed as to give an undue advantage to the litigant so left unopposed. Therefore, Sir, it was, as early as 1810, decided that it was not contrary either to the position or dignity of the House for one of your Predecessors—Mr. Speaker Abbott—to consent to appear and plead in an action brought against him by Sir Francis Burdett, in consequence of the Speaker having issued a Warrant for the arrest of that Gentleman. That precedent was followed in 1839 in the case of Stockdale's action against the printers of this House, Messrs. Hansard; and, the matter having been fully discussed, it was resolved that the proper course was to give permission to the officers of the House to appear and plead to the action. That precedent was also followed in relation to two actions brought by Mr. Howard against Sir William Gossett, the Sergeant-at-Arms, in 1842 and 1843, and again in 1851, when Mr. Lyne brought an action against Lord Charles Russell in consequence of his being arrested. It appears to me that these well-established precedents are fortified both by principle and convenience, and that the officer of the House should, in deference to the Court in which the action is brought, appear in that Court and plead that he 339 has acted under the authority of the House, and that the Court has no power to question that authority. I therefore propose to move two necessary formal Resolutions; but, before doing so, it is necessary that it should be distinctly stated that, by allowing an officer of this House to appear and plead, it is in no way admitted that there is authority in any Court to try the question which, I understand, is principally sought to be raised in this case, and also that the House reserves to itself the right of taking such action against anyone who shall take part in bringing such an action as may be deemed necessary to support its authority. I do not say this as a warning, still less a threat; but it is necessary that this Resolution should be accompanied by an express reservation of the rights of the House, which unquestionably should be the sole judge of its own authority, especially in relation to its own procedure within these walls. I therefore beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what is the 2nd Resolution?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
— That the Attorney General be directed to defend the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms against the said action.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, he did not rise to oppose the Resolution, but merely to say that Mr. Bradlaugh had raised this action not in any desire to bring about a collision between the House and the Courts of Law, but simply because he was obliged to take it by the course the House itself had chosen to take. He might point out that the fact of Mr. Bradlaugh having to appeal to a Court of Law would probably lead to this result—that Mr. Bradlaugh might have a decision against him in the Court of First Instance; and that then he would appeal, and the House of Lords would be called on to decide as to the regularity of the proceedings of the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, he would suggest to the Attorney General 340 —he had made various reservations—that the wisest of all things for him to do would be to use his influence with the Government to induce them to assist him to bring in a Bill removing the disqualifications at present alleged to exist, and thus settle the question once for all.

§ SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD
said, he understood that the hon. and learned Attorney General expressly reserved the right of the House, not only to determine what went on within the walls of the House of Commons itself, but also to take action against those persons who might aid and assist in bringing before a Court of Law the action of officers appointed by the House, such conduct constituting a serious Breach of Privilege. That Privilege had been laid down on three separate occasions, and on one of them—the case of Mr. Stockdale—Mr. Howard, who acted as attorney to that gentleman, was sent to Newgate for bringing an action in Mr. Stockdale's name against an officer of the House. He did not object to this Resolution being carried; but he thought it ought to be understood that if the action was to be proceeded with against what was substantially the House, although in form against the officer, it would be open to the House to vindicate its own dignity, and that, by the adoption of the Motion before them, they did not prejudice that right.