COMMONS’ SERGEANT-ATARMS

Evening Star, Issue 22144, 26 September 1935, Page 13

COMMONS’ SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

PICTURESQUE DUTIES Sir Colin Keppel, the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons whose retirement is announced, will he vacating an office that has' remained substantially unchanged since the fourteenth century (writes Dingle Foot, M.P., in the London ‘ Daily ’). ■ Ever since the Knights and Burgresses first withdrew to the Chapter House of Westminster Abbey, there to deliberate in secret among themselves, the House of Cmnmons has been atended by the Serjeant-at-Arms. ■> For isix centuries he has played a picturesque and indispensable part. He is the custodian of the Mace, without which the Commons cannot sit; he maintains order in the House ancV its precincts; he apprehends offenders against its dignity and privileges; he :acts as gaoler of those whom the House decides to incarcerate; and he hands over to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod all commoners who are about to be impeached. For all that, ho is not, strictly speaking. a servant of the House of Commons. Ho is an officer of the Crown, lent to the Commons for the duration of the parliamentary session, and at any time he may be summoned to attend the person of the Sovereign. When Edward VII. opened Parliament in 1901 he required the services of the Serjeant-at-Arms as Groom_ of the Robes, while the Deputy-Serjeant discharged the duty of accompanying Mr Sneaker to the Bar of the House of Peers.

Nowadays the Sergeant receives _ a fixed salary commensurate with the dignity of his position. _ But in former times his sources of income were various and irregular. Thus in 1640 it was ordered that any member failing to take his place on coming into the House, or remaining out of it to the disturbance of the House, should pay 12 pence, to be divided between the Serjeant and the noor, and that anyone who spoke so loud, when anv Bill or other matter was reading, as to disturb the House, should nay tbe like forfeiture. In addition, there were other emoluments whieh nnpear to have carried from time to time. Thus the ‘ Journals ’ for the year 1700 contain the following scale of Serjeant’s fees:— For taking a Knight into Custody ... , ... £5 0-0 For a Gentleman 3 6 8 For every day in Custody ... 1 0 0 For bringing anv Criminal to the Bar I .! 0 6 8 For Riding charges, for every mile ... ... ... 0 0 6 COMPULSION ON M.P.s. The income derived from these sources must at one time have been considerable. For throughout the seventeenth and-, eighteenth, centuries the House of Commons sternly enforced noon its members that statutory duty of attendance. Calls of the House were frequently taken (the last was in 1836), and those who failed to answer to their names and could afterwards furnish no satisfactory excuse were committed to the custody' of the Serjeant, who generally handed them over to the Lieutenant of the Tower. Moreover, it was a common occurrence of offenders guilty of breach of privilege or a contempt to be brought to the Bar, there to be reprimanded by Mr Speaker or committed to imprisonment. All such proceedings, as wo have seen, were a source of profit to the Serjeant-at-Arms, The post, however, was no sinecure, as one unfortunate holder discovered to his cost. This was Sir James Norfolke. who, in 1675, wns_ dismissed by the Crown upon a petition from the House of Commons. The reason for his downfall is fully set out by the entry in the Journals for June 2, 1675. “ The House then called upon Sir James Norfolke, the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, to give an account of Mr Serjeant Pemberton, Sir John Churchill. Mr Serjeant Peck, and Mr Charles Porter who wore yesterday committed to his custody for their Breach of tho Privilege of this House: who thereupon informed the House, that he was, by force, interrupted in the execution of the Order, and they escaped from his custody. “And the matter being debated; and the blouse altogether unsatisfied with the account given, and the excuse by him made, for not executing the order of this House, resolved, etc., that Sir. James Norfolke . . . be sent prisoner to the Tower.”

Another Serjeant-at-Arms was appointed in his place. Sir James Norfolke “ did withdraw himself, without leave of the House; and not being found though inquiry and search was made for him,” it was ordered that he should be brought to the Bar of the House, • The matter did not end there, tor the four transgressors, being lawyers, were then engaged in an appeal before the Upper House, and the Lords sent an indignant message on being thus deprived of their advocates. “It is,” they declared, “an unexampled usurpation and Breach of Privilege against the House of Peers, that their Orders and Judgments should be disputed and endeavoured to be controlled. or the execution thereof obstructed by the Lower House of Parliament, who are no Court, nor have any authority to administer an oath, or give any Judgment.” Such proceeding, they )vent on to declare, were “ against Magna Carta, ’ “ a transcendent invasion on the Right and Liberty of the subject,” and tended to tho “ subversion of the Government of this Kingdom, and to the introducing of Arbitrariness and Disorder.” To all of which the Commons returned a satirical reply. They presumed that their Lordships knew that neither the Great Charter, the Petition of Right, nor any other laws took away the Law and Custom of Parliament. But before, a Conference of the two Houses could be assembled to discuss the matter, the King-decided to put an end to the session, ARREST OF BURDETT.

That the Serjeant possesses extensive powers in carrying out the orders of the House was established beyond doubt in the famous case of Burdett v. Abbott. Sir Francis Burdett, the patrician Radical leader of the early nineteenth century, had been declared guilty of a breach of privilege and was ordered to be committed to the Tower. Burdett refused to surrender except to force. A mob of his Westminster constituents surrounded his house, determined to prevent his apprehension. Eventually after four days the Serjeant enlisted the aid of the military and with their assistance broke in through the window. “Sir,” said Burdett, “do you demand me in the name of the King? In that case I am prepared to obey.” ■ “ No, sir,” replied the Serjeant. “ I demand you in the name and by the authority of the Commons of England.” *

The authority of the Commons prevailed. Sir Francis was conveyed to the Tower,.’ where he remained for five weeks, until the prorogation automatically put an end to Ins confinement. He then brought actions against the Speaker and Serjeant-at-Arms for false imprisonment but in neither case with success. The courts had no difficulty in deciding that the Serieaut_ might break open doors and take with him such an array of soldiers as might be necessary. .

The Commons rarely arrest or imprison in modern times. The last occasion was in 1880, when Charles Bradlaugh spent 24 hours in the Clock Tower for defying the ruling of the Speaker that he could not take his seat without taking the Oath. The powers of the Commons, however, remain as extensive as ever, and future Serjeant-at-Arms may still be called upon to apprehend and hold in custody such miscreants as may incur the displeasure of the House.