The Government of England (Vol. I)Lowell, A. Lawrence (Abbott Lawrence)
History
The Government of England (Vol. I)
Lowell, A. Lawrence (Abbott Lawrence)
Great Britain -- Politics and government
Formerly there were a number of other qualifications and
disqualifications that have now been swept away, such as the requirement
of ownership of land, and of residence in the constituency,[242:2] and
the provision for oaths and declarations intended mainly to exclude
Roman Catholics. It is curious that after the disabilities of the Roman
Catholics were removed in 1829 the oath continued to be an impediment to
the admission of Jews and atheists, although it had never been aimed at
them. In each case the law was changed, but only after the matter had
been brought somewhat violently to the attention of the House. The last
religious impediment was taken away in 1888 at the conclusion of the
unseemly wrangle with Mr. Bradlaugh.
[Sidenote: Resignation.]
A disqualification not only prevents a person from sitting in the House,
but is also the only way in which he can voluntarily get out of it. A
man cannot resign his seat, and hence the regular method of
accomplishing the same result is the acceptance of a disqualifying
office. Two or three sinecures are retained for that purpose, the best
known being the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, a position which
the member desiring to leave Parliament applies for, accepts, and
immediately gives up. The place is, in fact, not an office, but an exit.
It may be added that the House has power, for reasons satisfactory to
itself, to declare a seat vacant, and to expel a member.
[Sidenote: Privileges of the House.]
[Sidenote: Freedom from Arrest.]
It is unnecessary to say much here about the privileges of the House of
Commons. Most of them are matters of historical rather than present
political significance. At the opening of each new Parliament, the
Speaker, after being confirmed by the Crown, demands the ancient and
undoubted rights and privileges of the Commons, the most important of
which are freedom from arrest and liberty of speech. The freedom from
arrest, which is enjoyed by members during the session and forty days
before and after it, does not protect a member from the consequences of
any indictable offence, or of contempt of court; nor in civil actions
does it now prevent any process against him except arrest.
[Sidenote: Liberty of Speech.]
Freedom of speech was not acquired without a long struggle; but since
the Bill of Rights of 1689 it has been a settled principle 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."
A man cannot, therefore, be prosecuted criminally, or made civilly
responsible, for anything he has said in the House; although the House
itself may punish what it deems an abuse of the forms of debate.
[Sidenote: Publication of Debates.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account