Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

him to state the reasons why his arguments do not convince me. He referred to a great number of authorities; but his argument was in substance short and simple. He said that the resolution of the House of Commons was illegal, as the House had no power to alter the law of the land by resolution; and, admitting that the House has power to regulate its own procedure, he contended that in preventing him. from taking his seat, the House went beyond matter of internal regulation and procedure, as they deprived both him and the electors of Northampton of a right recognized by law, which ought to be protected by the law; and so inflicted upon him and them wrongs which would be without a remedy if we failed to apply one. I think that each part of this argument requires a plain, direct answer.

It is certainly true that a resolution of the House of Commons cannot alter the law. If it were ever necessary to do so, this Court would assert this doctrine to the full extent to which it was asserted in Stockdale v. Hansard. The statement that the resolution of the House of Commons was illegal must, I think, be assumed to be true, for the purposes of the present case. The demurrer for those purposes admits it. We decide nothing unless we decide that, even if it is illegal in the sense of being opposed to the Parliamentary Oaths Act, it does not entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. This admission, however, must be regarded as being made for the purposes of argument only. It would, as I have already said, be wrong for us to suggest or assume that the House acted otherwise than in accordance with its own view of the law; and, as we know not what that view is, nor by what arguments it is supported, we can give no opinion upon it. I do not say that the resolution of the House is the judgement of a Court not subject to our revision; but it has much in common with such a judgement. The House of Commons is not a Court of Justice; but the effect of its privilege to regulate its own internal concerns practically invests it with a judicial character when it has to apply to particular cases the provisions of Acts of Parliament. We must presume that it discharges this function properly and with due regard to the laws, in the making of which it has so great a share. If its determination is not in accordance with law, this resembles the case of an error by a judge whose decision is not subject to appeal. There is nothing startling in the recognition of the fact that such an error is possible. If, for instance, a jury in a criminal case give a perverse verdict, the law has provided no remedy. The maxim that there is no wrong without a remedy does not mean, as it is sometimes supposed, that there is a legal remedy for every moral or political wrong. If this were its meaning, it would be manifestly untrue. There is no legal

remedy for the breach of a solemn promise not under seal and made without consideration; nor for many kinds of verbal slander, though each may involve utter ruin; nor for oppressive legislation, though it may reduce men practically to slavery; nor for the worst damage to person and property inflicted by the most unjust and cruel war. The maxim means only that legal wrong and legal remedy are correlative terms; and it would be more intelligibly and correctly stated, if it were reversed, so as to stand, "Where there is no legal remedy there is no legal wrong."

The assertion that the resolution of the House goes beyond matter of procedure, and that it does in effect deprive both Mr. Bradlaugh himself and his constituents of legal rights of great value, is undoubtedly true if the word "procedure" is construed in the sense in which we speak of civil procedure and criminal procedure, by way of opposition to the substantive law which systems of procedure apply to particular cases. No doubt, the right of the burgesses of Northampton to be represented in parliament, and the right of their duly elected representative to sit and vote in parliament and to enjoy the other rights incidental to his position upon the terms provided by law are in the most emphatic sense legal rights of the highest importance, and in the strictest sense of the words. Some of these rights are to be exercised out of Parliament, others within the walls of the House of Commons. Those which are to be exercised out of Parliament are under the protection of this Court, which, as has been shown in many cases, will apply proper remedies if they are in any way invaded, and will in so doing be bound, not by resolutions of either House of Parliament, but by its own judgement as to the law of the land, of which the privileges of Parliament form a part. Others must be exercised, if at all, within the walls of the House of Commons; and it seems to me that, from the nature of the case, such rights must be dependent upon the resolution of the House. In my opinion the House stands with relation to such rights, in precisely the same relation as we the judges of this Court stand in to the laws which regulate the rights of which we are the guardians, and to the judgements which apply them to particular cases; that is to say, they are bound by the most solemn obligations which can bind men to any course of conduct whatever, to guide their conduct by the law as they understand it. If they understand it, or (I apologize for the supposition) wilfully disregard it, they resemble mistaken or unjust judges; but in either case there is in my judgement no appeal from their decision. The law of the land gives no such appeal; no precedent has been or can be produced in which any Court has ever

interfered with the internal affairs of either House of Parliament, though the cases are no doubt numerous in which the Courts have declared the limits of their powers outside of their respective Houses. This is enough to justify the conclusion at which I arrive.

We ought not to try to make new laws, under the pretence of declaring the existing law. But I must add that this is not a case in which I at least feel tempted to do so. It seems to me that, if we were to attempt to erect ourselves into a Court of Appeal from the House of Commons, we should consult neither the public interest, nor the interests of parliament and the constitution, nor our own dignity. We should provoke a conflict between the House of Commons and this Court, which in itself would be a great evil; and even upon the most improbable supposition of their acquiescence in our adverse decision; an appeal would lie from that decision to the Court of Appeal, and thence to the House of Lords, which would thus become the judge in the last result of the powers and privileges of the House of Commons.

For these reasons I am of opinion that there must be judgement for the defendant.

(L.R. 12 Q.B.D. 273 et seq.)

APPENDIX (GENERAL)

I. IMPEACHMENTS

A.

ARTICLES OF TREASON EXHIBITED IN PARLIAMENT AGAINST EDWARD EARL OF CLARENDON.

I. That the earl of Clarendon hath designed a standing army to be raised, and to govern the kingdom thereby; advising the king to dissolve the present parliament; to lay aside all thoughts of parliaments for the future; to govern by military power, and to maintain the same by free quarter and contribution.

II. That he hath, in hearing of many of his majesty's subjects falsely and seditiously said, the king was in his heart a Papist, Popishly affected, or words to that effect.

III. That he hath received great sums of money for passing the Canary Patent, and other illegal patents; and granting several injunctions to stop proceedings at law against them and other illegal Patents formerly granted.

IV. That he hath advised and procured divers of his majesty's subjects to be imprisoned against law, in remote islands, garrisons, and other places thereby to prevent them from the benefit of the law; and to introduce precedents for imprisoning of other of his majesty's subjects in like

manner.

V. That he hath corruptly sold several offices, contrary to law.

VI. That he hath procured his majesty's customs to be farmed at under rates, knowing the same; and great pretended debts to be paid by his majesty, to the payment whereof his majesty was not in strictness bound. And hath received great sums of money for procuring the same.

VII. That he hath received great sums of money from the company of intners, or some of them, or their agents, for enhancing the prices of ine, and for freeing them from the payment of legal penalties which they had incurred.

VIII. That he hath in a short time gained to himself a far greater estate than can be imagined to be lawfully gained in so short a time: And contrary to his oath, hath procured several grants under the great seal from his majesty, to himself and relations, of several of his majesty's lands, hereditaments, and leases, to the dis-profit of his majesty.

« AnteriorContinuar »