ITS JUDICIAL ASPECT.

145

past occasions, when conflicts between the two Houses were far more frequent than at the present day, cannot but own that the House of Lords, sitting like a court of review upon measures originating in the Lower House, has discharged this duty with singular success, maintaining at the same time its independence, and vindicating its responsible position as a branch of the legislature. And here we must bear in mind, that though by modern constitutional usage the House of Lords is precluded from making direct use of the powers which it originally possessed as an independent and distinct branch of the legislature, it must not therefore be assumed that its authority is of little account. "Its ancient rights, though dormant, have never been disallowed; and if there were any necessity, the House of Lords would be freely competent to claim its former privileges, and to assume a more active share in the legislation of the country." At the present moment the most distinguishing characteristic of the Lords is their judicature. They have a judicature in the trial of peers, in claims of peerage, and offices of honour, under references from the Crown; in controverted elections of the sixteen. representative peers of Scotland, and in all questions touching the election of Lords temporal of Ireland ;

K

;

but, most important of all, the House of Lords is the Supreme Court of Judicature in the kingdom, the appeal tribunal in the last resort, but having no original jurisdiction over causes of justice. In cases of impeachments by the Commons, the Lords try and adjudicate the charge preferred. Formerly the House of Lords claimed an original jurisdiction in civil causes, and over crimes without impeachment by the Commons, but those claims are now abandoned. Appeals in ecclesiastical, maritime, or prize causes, and colonial appeals, both at law and in equity, are determined by the Privy Council. To assist the Lords in their deliberations, the judges of the Courts of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, and such Barons of the Exchequer as are of the degree of the Coif, the Master of the Rolls, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, and the Queen's Serjeants, are summoned at the beginning of every Parliament, by writs under the Great Seal, to be "personally present in Parliament with us and with others of our Council, to treat and give advice." In former times the judges, as assistants of the Lords, held a more important place than they now occupy, as they had a voice of suffrage as well as a voice of advice. Their attendance was formerly enforced on all occasions, but they are now summoned by a

BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE.

147

special order when their advice is required. They sit on the woolsacks, and are not to deliver any opinion unless requested.

The House of Lords enjoys various privileges necessary for the support of its authority, and for the proper exercise of the functions intrusted to it by the Constitution. These privileges depend upon the law and custom of Parliament, or have been defined by statute. Every peer, as one of the hereditary counsellors of the Crown, is individually privileged to have an audience of her Majesty. The House of Lords, as a branch of the High Court of Parliament, has its own peculiar law collected out of the rolls of Parliament and other records, and by precedents and continued experience; and hence any matter concerning it ought to be discussed and adjudged in its own chamber, and nowhere else. The Lords, however, cannot create to themselves new privileges not warranted by the known customs and laws of Parliament. The House has power to commit to prison any one guilty of breach of privilege, and as a Court of Record to fine; nor can the causes of commitment be inquired into by courts of law. Thus in 1779 one Flower was committed by the Lords for a libel on the Bishop of Landaff, and though the prisoner applied to the King's Bench to

be admitted to bail, his application was in vain. Again, in 1675, when Lord Shaftsbury was committed by the Lords for contempt, the King's Bench stated that it had no jurisdiction over the cause. According to a standing order of the Lords, it is a breach of privilege to publish in print anything relating to the proceedings of the House without leave of the House. Thus, in 1801, Allan M'Leod was fined £100, and committed to Newgate, for publishing certain paragraphs, purporting to be a proceeding of the House, which had been ordered to be expunged from the Journal, and the debate thereupon; and in the same year two persons connected with the 'Morning Herald' were committed to the custody of the Black Rod for publishing an account of what passed in debate, but which the Lords declared to be a scandalous misrepresentation. However, notwithstanding the order of the Lords, so long as debates are faithfully reported in the newspapers, the privilege which prohibits their publication is waived. But when they are reported malâ fide, the publishers of newspapers are liable to censure. Libels upon the House of Lords have always been resented and punished as breaches of privilege, and fines, imprisonments, and in former times the pillory, have been adjudged for these

FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

149

offences. Prosecutions at law have also been ordered against the parties. Reflections upon members of the House of Lords are also severely punished as insults to the House itself. Without entering too much into details, we may say that disobedience to the rules of the House, indignities offered to the character or proceedings of the House, assaults upon its members, interference with the officers of the House in discharge of their duty, or tampering with witnesses about to give evidence, are the chief breaches of privilege. Should a peer, however, make a frivolous complaint of a breach of privilege, and the House adjudge that there is no ground for such complaint, satisfaction would be ordered by the House to the person complained of.

Another great privilege which the House of Lords possesses, in common with the Lower House, is the freedom of speech. By the Bill of Rights it is declared that "the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament." Should a peer, however, be guilty of using offensive words before the House, he can be called to account and punished by the House itself. Nowadays, members who make intemperate speeches generally satisfy the House