Parliamentary Privilege and the Bill of Rights
| Date | 01 September 1958 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1958.tb00487.x |
| Published date | 01 September 1958 |
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
Volume
21
September
1958
No.
5
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND THE
BILL
OF
RIGHTS
THE
letters in which the London Electricity Bonrd, through their
solicitors, Messrs. Sydney Morse
&
Co., threatened to institute
proceedings
for
libel against the Rt.
Hon.
George R. Strauss, M.P.,
in respect of statements made by
him
in a letter addressed to a
Minister of the Crown, set
off
a
train of events which has posed
some of the most interesting and important constitutional problems
of this century. Among the issues that have arisen have been the
proper interpretation of Article
9
of the Bill of Rights and a group
of almost forgotten eighteenth-century statutes, the implications of
the relationships between M.P.s and members
of
the public and
M.P.s
and Ministers, the
difficulties
caused by the restricted
character of ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the activities
of thc boards administering nationalised industries, and the connec-
tion between privilege of Parliament and privilege in the law
of
defamation.
In
the course of the controversy the House of
Commons twice broke new ground, first by seeking an opinion from
an outside body
on
a
question relating to the extent of
its
own
privileges, and secondly by disagreeing with a report of the Com-
mittee of Privileges. And lurking in the shadows
all
the while lay
the ghosts of Stockdale and the men of Aylesbury.
THE
COURSE
OF
EVENTS
On
February
8,
1957,
Mr. Strauss, a former Minister of Supply,
wrote to the Paymaster-General (representing the Minister
of
Power
in the House of Commons
I),
complaining of the manner in which
the London Electricity Board, one of the area boards constituted
under the Electricity Act,
1947,
invited tenders
for
the purchase
of
their scrap metal. He mentioned that he had an indirect personal
financial interest in the matter inasmuch as his own firm had as
a
1
The Minister
of
Power,
Lord
Mills, was
a
member
of
the
House
of
Lords,
and
the Pnymnster-General wae
given
the duty
of
answering in the
Commone
for matters relating
to
the Minister’s depnrtment.
465
VOL.
21
31
466
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
VOL.
21
subsidiary
a
firm
of non-ferrous metal merchants. He asserted,
inter
ah,
that this subsidiary,
“
together with everyone else in the
industry,” considered
“
the behaviour of the London Electricity
Board a scandal which should be instantly rectified,” and that
“
strong suspicion has been engendered throughout the trade by
the behaviour of the Board.”
’
The Minister replied
to
the effect
that the matter was one of day-to-day administration and, as such,
the responsibility of the BoardYs and that
it
would be brought to
the attention of the Chairman of the Board. There followed corre-
spondence and an interview between the Chairman of the Board and
Mr.
Strauss.
On
March
27, 1957,
the Board’s solicitors wrote
to
Mr.
Strauss informing him that unless he withdrew and apologised
for allegations he had made proceedings for libel would be instituted
against
him
on
behalf of the Board and its purchasing officer. The
Board considered the reply to this letter to be unsatisfactory and
on
April
4
its solicitors wrote to Mr. Strauss’s solicitors notifying
them that a writ would be served the following week.
On
April
8
Mr.
Strauss complained in the House of Commons
that the letters in question were calculated to impede
him
in
the
performance of his parliamentary duties and constituted a breach of
the privileges of the House. The Speaker having ruled that a prima
facie case of breach
of
privilege had been made out, the House
ordered that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.’
On
October
80,
1957,
the Committee of Privileges issued its
report. Its conclusions, adopted by
a
majority, were as follows
’:
(a)
In
writing his letter of February
8
to the Paymaster-
General
“Mr.
Strauss was engaged
in
a ‘proceeding in
Parliament
’
within the meaning of the Bill of Rights of
1688
”
[sic].
“
(b) The London Electricity Board in threatening by the
letters from themselves and their Solicitors to commence pro-
ceedings for libel against Mr. Strauss for statements made by
him in the course of a proceeding in Parliament are threatening
to impeach or question the freedom of
Mr.
Strauss in a Court
or Place outside Parliament, and accordingly the London
Electricity Board and their Solicitors have acted in breach of
the Privilege of Parliament.
“
(c) The opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council should be sought on the question whether the House
would be acting contrary to the Parliamentary Privilege Act,
1770,
if
it
treated the issue of a writ against a Member of
Parliament in respect of a speech or proceeding by him in
Parliament as a breach of its Privileges.
”
2
The relevnnt correspondence
is
published
ns
an
nppendix
to
the Fifth Report
from the Committee of Privileges
for
1956-57
(H.C.
305 of 195647, viii-xvi).
3
For nn
sccount
of
ministerial powers
and
responsibilities in relntion
to
the
nationnlised induatriea, eee Griffith
&
Street,
Principlea
01
Administralioe
Law
(2nd
ed.),
279-294. See
nlso
Erskine
May,
Parliamentary Practice
(16th
ed.),
361.
4
668
H.C.
Deb. 819-822.
6
H.C.
305 of 195657,
para.
19.
To continue reading
Request your trial