WESTMINSTER PALACE

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 128, 1 June 1936, Page 3

WESTMINSTER PALACE

POWERS OF EXCLUSION An important judgment concerning the powers of the Lord Great Chamberlain to exclude strangers from the Palace of Westminster (the Houses, of Parliament) was delivered by Mr. Fry at Bow Street Police Court recently, says "The Times." - Henry John Cole,' a guide, was fined 20s and ordered to pay £1 Is costs for obstructing Police-constable VOysey in the execution of his duty at New Palace Yard on January 29 last. He gave notice of appeal. ' .Mr..Fry, giving judgment, said : he found that Police Constable Voysey was ordered by his inspector,to exclude Cole from entering New Palace Yard, but he could not accept the suggestion of the prosecution that , the mere giving of the inspector's; order was conclusive proof of the constable's authority so to act. In the particular circumstances of the case the inquiry should be carried a step further tack. "I find," the Magistrate went on, "that Inspector Sutherland received an order in writing from Lord Esme GbrdonLennox, secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, dated November 6, 1935, to exclude the defendant: . Cole, contends that this officer of State had no authority to give such an order, and that consequently Police Conkable Voysey was not acting in the execution of his duty. He also says that whatever the powers of the Lord Great Chamberlain may be, they do not empower him to prevent the defendant from entering by way of Palace Yard to Westminster Hall, which building, and not the House of'.Lords, he declares to have been his destination." HEREDITARY JURISDICTION*. Proceeding, Mr. Fry said that he accepted the evidence of, Lord'. Esme Gordon-Lennox concerning the powers exercised by the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Lord Great Chamberlain was an hereditary officer, holding an hereditary freehold office of State. The grant of the office by Henry I . .to Aubrey de Vere, -father of the first Earl of Oxford, in 1133, was printed in Madox's "Baroniai Anglica," 1727. which he (Mr. Fry) had consulted. 'As to the contention that his authority, to give the order in question was incomplete, it was true that on the appointment of each new Serjeant-at-Arms the Lord Great Chamberlain issued warrants for the custody of such parts, of the Palace of Westminster as were occupied by the Heiuse of Commons. Although no such warrants were issued to the House of Lords, they also exercised an inherent right to make regulations for the use of that part of the Palace they occupied. It appeared also that all repairs and structural work were carried out by the Office of Works, though a request or instructions as regards the House of Lords was issued by the Lord Great Chamberlain. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the powers of the House of Lords, the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the Office' of Works, the Lord Great Chamberlain remained the nominal head of all authority. He exercised .a general authority at all times, and when the Houses were not sitting a complete one. He (Mr. Fry) accepted the conclusion of Mr. Raphael, counsel for the prosecution, which he quoted from the finding of the Joint Select Committer of the Houses of Lords and Commons, and also Halsbury's "Laws of England" (Vol. 21, page 631), that when the Houses were not sitting the Lord Great Chamberlain had an absolulfe authority over all, the buildings an® issued orders for the admission i/ On the day of the alleged offence fag Houses were not sitting, and he founw that the constable 'was obstructed while executing orders lawfully given. The obstruction itself was not serious, but . given deliberately by the defendant, apparently with the object,of disputing the authority of the accredited custodians of the buildings to exclude him. ;