Case of the Sheriff of Middlesex
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 419
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. (sub nom. Stockdale v. Hansard) 3 P. & D. 349; 4 Jur. 70; (sub nom. R. v. Evans), 8 D. P. C. 451. Discussed, Howard v. Gossett, 1845-47, 10 Q. B. 375, 411. Adopted, Fielding v. Thomas, [1896] A. C. 609.
case of the sheriff of middlesex. Monday, January 27th, 1840. To a habeas corpus ad aubjiciendum, &c. it was returned by the Serjeant at arms of the House of Commons that he detained the prisoners on the following warrant, directed to him by the Speaker.-" Martis 21 die Januarii, 1840. Whereas the House of Commons have this day resolved that W. E. and J. W., Sheriff of Middlesex, having been guilty of a contempt and breach of the privileges of this House, be committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms attending this House, these are therefore to require you to take into your custody the bodies of the said W. E. and J. W. and them safely to keep during the pleasure of this House, for which this shall be your sufficient warrant. Given under my hand," &o.-" C. S. Lefevre, Speaker." Held, 1. That the warrant was not bad for omitting to state the grounds on which the parties had been adjudged guilty of contempt. 2. That this Court could not inquire by affidavit into the merits of the commitment, even if the case were within stat. 56 G. 3, c. 100. Although, in affidavits on which the habeas corpus issued, it was sworn that the parties were in fact committed for executing process in obedience to rules of this Court. 3. That the word " having," in the warrant, was a sufficient averment that the parties had been guilty of contempt. 4. That the return sufficiently shewed an authority to issue such warrant on behalf of the House. 5. That the words "this House," in the warrant, were not uncertain, no house being therein mentioned but the House of Commons. 6. That the warrant was not too uncertain in alleging "a contempt and breach of the privileges of this House," and not a contempt of the House. [S. C. (sub nom. Stockdale v. Hansard) 3 P. & D. 349 ; 4 Jur. 70; (sub nom. R. v. Evans), 8 D. P. C. 451. Discussed, Howard v. Gossett, 1845-47, 10 Q. B. 375, 411. Adopted, Fielding v. Thomas, [189G] A. C. 609.] R. V. Richards, on January 23d in this term, moved for a writ of habeas corpus requiring Sir William Gosset Knight, Serjeant at Arms of the House of Commons, or other person having the custody, &c., to bring before this Court the bodies of William Evans Esquire, and John Wheelton Esquire, with the day and cause of their being taken and detained, &c., to undergo, &c. The motion was made on the affidavit of Messrs. Evans and Wheelton, Sheriff of Middlesex, which set out the various proceedings in the cause of Slockdale v. [274] Hansard, detailed in the last case, down to the return of the venditioni expoaas. It then stated that they had declined paying over to the plaintiff the money levied, without an order of this Court, having been served by Messrs. Hansard, the defendants in the above-mentioned cause, with a notice informing the deponents of certain resolutions passed by the House of Commons on May 30th, 1837, and August 1st, 1839 (a)'J, (a)1 Coleridge J. was absent. (b) See the next case. (a)2 The former resolutions were stated in the affidavit as follows. " 1. That the power of publishing such of its reports, votes, and proceedings as it shall deem necessary or conducive to the public interests is an essential incident to the constitutional functions of Parliament, more especially of this House, as the representative portion of it. 2. That, by the law and privilege of Parliament, this House has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges, and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit, or other proceeding, for the purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision before any Court or tribunal elsewhere bhan in Parliament, is a high breach of such privilege, 420 CASE OP THE SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX 11AD.&E.275 and warning them that, if they proceeded in the levy, their conduct would he represented to the House, and they would become amenable to its authority, as expressed in the said resolutions. The affidavit then stated the service upon the deponents of the rule nisi granted by this Court on the first day of the present term, as stated in the preceding case, and the order of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, also stated there : and that they were afterwards served with orders to attend the House of Commons, and bring with them all notices served upon them in respect of this cause, and all writs, rules of [275] Court, orders, or other authorities, &c., in obedience to which they had acted therein. That in obedience to such orders they attended the House and were examined at the Bar touching the execution of the said writs, &c. That on January 21st the House resolved (as appears by the votes and proceedings) that the execution had been levied in contempt of the privileges of the House ; and that the sheriff should be ordered to refund the amount (a): and that William Evans and John Wheelton Esquires, Sheriff of Middlesex, should be then called to the Bar, and the resolutions communicated to them by the Speaker. That the deponents were then called to the Bar, and the resolutions communicated to them by the Speaker, who acquainted them that, if they had any thing to say to the House, the House was ready to hear it; whereupon the deponents withdrew. And it was further resolved (and appears by the votes and proceedings of the House) as follows : "That William Evans Esquire and John Wheelton Esquire, Sheriff of Middlesex, having been guilty of contempt and breach of the privileges of this House, be committed to the custody of the Serjeant at arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly." The deponents then stated, "That they were thereupon taken into custody of the Serjeant at arms, Sir W. Gosset, Knight, for not paying over, as they believe, the said money in obedience of the said order; and they are informed, but of their own knowledge they do not know, that some warrant or other document has been made out by the Speaker of the said House of Commons, or some other person, under which the said serjeant at [276] arms detained deponents in custody : but they further say that they have not, nor hath either of them, read the same or any copy thereof, or heard the same or any part read by any person whatsoever, but a paper purporting to be a warrant was shewn to them these deponents. That they are not detained in the custody of the said serjeant at arms for or by reason of any cause other than for the matters aforesaid. That, throughout the whole of the said proceedings in this cause, they have acted bonS, fide and to the best of their judgment as officers of this Court in the execution of the process of the Court. That they have been committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms of the said House by reason only, as they verily believe, of what they have so done in the discharge of their duty as officers of this Court, and in obedience to Her Majesty's writs, and to the rules and orders of the Court; and that they have been and are thus imprisoned and continued and kept in prison in order,, amongst other things, that they may thereby be induced or compelled to pay back the said money to the said defendants in the said cause, instead of paying it over to the said plaintiff in the said cause, according to the writs, rules, and orders aforesaid. That they have throughout the whole of the said proceedings been earnestly desirous, and still are so, to do their duty in their said office faithfully to Her Majesty and to this Court, and that they are hindered and obstructed and put in peril and danger in so doing, in consequence of the said order to refund the said money to the said defendants, and by reason of their being imprisoned and detained as aforesaid. That they would not have been committed to custody at all if they had complied with the said order to refund the said amount to the said defendants." [277] On Monday, January 27tb, the serjeant at arms brought into Court Messrs. Evans and Wheelton, the sheriff, and made the following return. aud renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to the punishment consequent thereon." The latter resolutions had reference to a report published by Messrs. Hansard under the orders of the House, respecting the Islands of New Zealand, and declared that " to bring or assist in bringing any action against them " (Messrs. Hansard) " for such publication would be a breach of the privilege of this House ; " they also directed Messrs, Hansard not to defend an action with which they were threatened for publishing the report. (a) See these resolutions, p. 256, ante. 11AD.&E.278 CASE OP THE SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX 421 " I, the said Sir William Gosset, Knight, Serjeant at Arms of the House of Commons in the writ hereunto annexed named, do hereby certify and return, in obedience to the said writ, that, before the coming of the said writ to me, to wit on the 21st day of January A.D. 1840,1 did take into my custody, and have thenceforth always hitherto detained in my custody, and still do detain in my custody, the said William Evans Esquire, and John Wheelton Esquire, in the said writ named, under and by virtue of a certain warrant under the hand of the Right Honourable Charles Shaw Lefevre, Speaker of the said House of Commons, which said warrant is as follows. " Martis 21 die Januarii 1840. " Whereas the House of Commons have this day resolved that William Evans, Esquire, and John Wheelton, Esquire, Sheriff of Middlesex, having been guilty of a contempt and breach of the privileges or this House, be committed to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms attending this House : "Thesaare therefore to require you to take into your...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- A-G of Singapore; JB Jeyaretnam
-
Chagnon v. Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, 2018 SCC 39
...2 S.C.R. 504; Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. & E. 1, 112 E.R. 1112; Case of the Sheriff of Middlesex (1840), 11 Ad. & E. 273, 113 E.R. 419; Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884), 12 Q.B.D. 271; Kielley v. Carson (1842), 4 Moo. 63, 13 E.R. 225; Landers v. Woodworth (1878), 2 S.C.R. 158; Ha......
- The Speaker of Dewan Undangan Negeri of Sarawak "Datuk Amar Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar" v Ting Tiong Choon & 3 Ors (and 2 Other Appeals)
-
Hamilton v Fayed and Others
...whereupon the House of Commons ordered him to be committed to the Tower. But the sequel was The Case of the Sheriff of Middlesex (1840) 11 Ad & El 273, in which the court refused to issue habeas corpus on the Sheriff's application. One may compare also Brass Crosby (1771) 3 Wils 188, Gosset......
-
Regulating the Conduct of MPs. The British Experience of Combating Corruption
...Union of Mineworkers (HC Paper (1974±75) 634).21 Notably Stockdale v. Hansard (1839) 9 Ad & E 1; The Case of the Sheri of Middlesex (1840)11 A & E 273; Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271.DAAWWNNOLLIIVVEERR543#Political Studies Association, 1997 Standards of conduct required of British ......