The Express.
London, England, 1868-02-22 00:00:00

HIGH RAMS AT LONDON BRIDOL

rim DiiLienalaiTlii.3la;::::::AitirTWOW, YS. Os.
to-llomow—llcentom 4b 18m.. _..Afternoon, 21i. Sim

NOTICES Of BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, and De ATIle, are received
until 12 o'clock toe insertion watt evening. I rice, 3e. Ud.

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEB. 22.

PRIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT.

PARLIAMENT is willing to invoke the strong arm
of the law as administered by the Court of Queen's
Bench for the suppression of bribery at elections.
The Judges are opposed to a proposal which the
House of Commons is ready to sanction. The
Government approves of a compromise to which it
is unlikely that the House will assent. The
SOLICITOR-GENERAL said at Helston that ho
thought nothing of the objections which were
made by the CHIEF JUSTICE and to which
Mr. DISRAELI has attached undue weight.
Now that the provisions of the bill have
been published they appear to be even more
inadequate and absurd than when they
were sketched by Mr. DISRAELI. It is doubtful if
he be aware of the gravity of the change it is pro-
, posed to make in the practice of the House. The
alacrity with which the most prominent members
have shown to welcome such a change is startling
to those versed in constitutional history. The full
importance of this will be appreciated when it is
borne in mind what is meant by privilege of
Parliament.

At the beginning of every Parliament it is the
custom for the newly-elected SPEAKER of the
House of Commons to claim at the bar of the
House of Lords the assent of the Crown to the
maintenance of the privileges of the Commons.
It would be as extraordinary were this claim re-
jected, as it would be were the Bovaamom to
revive the now obsolete right of veto. There is
no danger that the Commons will again be sub-
jected to undue pressure on the part of the
Crown. The power of the puree is more than a
match for prerogative. About two centuries
ago the case was otherwise. The Sovsaziow
was then in continual antagonism with Par-
liament. The former upheld his fancied pre-
rogatives ; the members of the latter as-
serted their immemorial privileges. James the
FIRST, that pedant among Kings and King
among fools, peevishly told the House of Commons
that its privileges were the off-shoots of the royal
grace and favour. This silly speech was met with a
protest in the journals of the House, to the effect
" that the liberties, franchises, privileges, and
" jurisdictions of Parliament are the ancient and un-
" doubted birth-right and inheritance of the subjects
"of England." His liLuzarr regarded this spirited
and well-founded declaration as a personal insult.
He sent for the Journals, and deigned with his
own royal hand to erase from them the obnoxious
words. He did not succeed, however, in thereby
extinguishing privileges, the validity whereof he
had denied. Nor was his ill-fated son more into-
cesaful, although he was certainly more daring in
his attacks upon the independence of Parliament.
Parliament has not only out-lived the dynasty
which strove to annihilate it, but has also decreed
the conditions in virtue of which another dynasty
occupies the throne.

Notwithstanding the victory of Parliament in its
protracted and envenomed contests with royal pre-
tensions, parliamentary privilege has not been en-
joyed without various struggles of an equally severe
although far less dangerous kind. The two Houses
have been arrayed against each other. The Lords
have attempted to dictate to the Commons, and the
Commons have defied the Lords to do their worst.
Both haveessayed to limit the rights of the people.
When the press was yet in its infancy, Parliament
more than once endeavoured to strangle it. The
baiting of an unhappy printer was the pastime into
which both Houses entered with strange zest. To
report debates was denounced as a breach of the
Constitution. To question the infallibility of a
blundering statesman was considered to be one de-
gree lees blameworthy than high treason. The
combat appeared to be unequal, yet, the
weaker side in appearance proved the stronger in
reality. So thorough has been the transformation
that we should not be surprised if strong language
and equally lawless proceedings were to be em-
ployed towards the press now were it to rofuse to
report the debates of either House, as wore em-
ployed at a time when the right to make• such
report, was denied, and the practical aasertion of
the right was rigorously punished.
The last great effort for the maintenance of
parliamentary privilege bad direct reference to the
publication of the proceedings of the Lower House.
This was the famous case of Stockdale r. Hansard,
and unlike previous struggles was a contest between
the House of Commons and the Court& of Law.
Lord Chief Justice Dtvmer then asserted a juris-