The House of Lords, in addition to the power of commitment, may impose fines. This privilege is not exercised by the commons, although there is a case In D'FIres's ' Journal of Queen Elizabeth,' in which Mr. Ilan, a member who had incurred their displeasure, by publishing a work "very slanderous and derogatory to the general authority, power, and state of the house, and prejudicial to the validity of its proceedings In making and establishing awe," was ordered to "pay a fine to the queen of five hundred marks." The house at the same time assumed • power not found to have been exercised in other cases. It committed Mr. Hall to the Tower, and ordered that lie should remain there for " six months, and until he should made retraction of the book." This punishment was commitment for a time certain without reference to the continuance of the session, and, In the event of a refusal to retract the amounted to perpetual imprisonment. A practice still exists which partakes of the nature of a fine. There are certain fees payable by persons committed to the custody of the serjeantsetearms, and It Is usual on discharging them out of custody to attach the condition of the " payment of the fem." Those fees are occasionally remitted under particular circumstances—In one case, on account of the poverty of the prisoner.
Freedom of Speeek—Freedom of speech is one of the privilege, claimed by the Speaker on behalf of the commons, but It has long mince been confirmed as the right of both houses of parliament by statutes. It was acknowledged by an act In the reign of Henry VIII., by wide)] the proceedings of the stannery court with respect to Richard Strode, • member, who was fined and imprisoned by that court for having proposed a bill to regulate the tinnere In Cornwall, wore de clared illegal, and the repetition of similar encroachments upon the privilege of peril/uncut provided against. The language however was thought ambiguous, and it was by limiting its operation to the case of Strode, that a judgment was obtained in the King's Bench against Sir John Elliot, Denzil Hollis, and Valentine, in the reign of Charles I. A true interpretation of the law was subsequently established by resolutions of both houses of parliament, and by a formal reversal of this judgment by the house of lords. The most solemn recognition of the privilege is contained in the Bill of Rights, which declares " that the freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament" There are however certain legal incidents to this privilege, which it is necessary to notice. The law presumes that everything said in parliament is with the view to the public good and necessary for the conduct of publie business; but should the member publish his speech, he is viewed as an author only, and if it contain libellous matter, lie will not be protected by the privilege of parliament In 1795, an information was filed against Lord Abingdon for libeL Ilia lordship had accused his attorney, in parliament, of improper conduct in his profession. He afterwards published ha speech in several newspapers
at his own expense. His lordship plcided his own cause, and eon tended that he had a right to print what lie had, by the law of para. ment, a right to speak; but Lord Kenyon said, "that a member of parliament had certainly a right to 'nihilist] his speech, but that speech should not be mado a vehicle of slander against any individual ; if it was, it was a libel." In 1813, a much stronger case of the same kind occurred. Mr. Creovey, a member, had made a charge against an individual in the House of Commons, and incorrect reports of his speech having appeared in several newspapers, Mr. Creevey sent a correct report to an editor, requesting him to publish it in his news paper. A jury found Mr. Creovey guilty of libel, and the court of King's Bench refused an application for a new trial ; on which occasion Lord Ellenborough said, " a member of that house has spoken what he thought material and what he was at liberty to speak, in his oharacter as a member of that house. So far he is privileged : but he has not stopped there; but, unauthorised by the house, has chosen to publish an account of that speech in what lie has pleased to call a corrected form, and in that publetation has thrown out reflections injurious to the character of an individuaL" Freedom from Arrest.—The Speaker's petition prays on behalf of the commons," that their persons, their estates, and servants, may be free from arrests and all molestation" These words are not more exten sive than the privilege as formerly enjoyed, and instances in which it has been enforced may be found in nearly every page of the earlier volumes of the Journals. This privilege has however been limited by statutes, the last of which (10 Geo. Ill., c. 50) states in the preamble that the previous laws were insuflIcient to obviate the inconveniences arising from the delay of suits by reason of privilege of parliament, and enacts that "any person may at any time commence and prosecute any action or suit, ea., against any peer or lord of parliament, or against any of the knights, citizens, or burgesses for the time being, or against any of their menial or any other servants, or any other person entitled to the privilege of parliament, and no such action shall be impeached , stayed, or delayed by or under colour or pretence of any privilege of parliament." Obedience to any rule of the courts at Westminster may be enforced by distress infinite, In case any person entitled to the benefit of such rule shall choose to proceed in that way.