from free access to the court." The lord chief-justice of England, sitting in the other court, summoned the sheriff before him and fined him 500 for the contempt, and 500 more for persisting in addressing the grand jury in court,
after he had been ordered to desist.The difference between pending and decided cases has been frequently recognized by the courts. What would be a fair comment in a decided case may tend to influence the mind of the judge or the jury in a case waiting to be heard, and will accordingly be punished as a contempt. This is distinctly laid down in the case of Tichborne v. Mostyn, where the publisher of a newspaper was held to have com mitted a contempt by printing in his paper extracts from affidavits in a pending suit, with comments upon them. In the case of the Queen v. Castro, it was held that after a true bill has been found, and the indictment removed into the Court of Queen s Bench, and a day fixed for trial, the case is pending ; and it is a contempt of court to address public meetings, alleging that the defendant is not guilty, that there is a conspiracy against the defendant, and that he cannot have a fair trial ; and the court will order the parties to answer for their contempt, and fine or imprison them at discretion. In another case the publica tion of a winding-up petition, containing charges of fraud, before the hearing of the petition was held to be a contempt of court. The courts may, if they choose, prohibit any publication of their proceedings while the litigation is pending. It is now the invariable rule of the English press to refrain from expressing an opinion on matters relating to any pending suit. On the other hand, the dis cussion of decided cases shares in the licence now allowed tC> the expression of opinion on all public affairs in England.
The Scotch and colonial courts exercise the same power of committing for contempt as the English. It has been held in a case arising under the County Court Act, that inferior courts of record have only power over contempts committed in facie curice. The county court judge has no power of proceeding against a person for a contempt com mitted out of court.
The proper punishment of contempt is by fine or im prisonment at the discretion of the court. In a recent case it was held that no person can be punished for contempt, unless the specific offence charged against him is distinctly stated, and an opportunity given him of answering it. When a barrister had been suspended from practice by the supreme court of Nova Scotia for addressing a letter to the chief justice which was a contempt of court, the Privy Council on appeal discharged the order, as substituting a penalty and mode of punishment which was not the appropriate and fitting punishment for the offence. The letter was written by the defendant in his individual capacity of suitor, and had no connection with his profes sional status or character.
Blackstone notices the exceptional character of the punishment provided for this offence. " It cannot have escaped the attention of the reader," he says, " that this method of making the defendant answer upon oath to a criminal charge is not agreeable to the genius of the com mon law in any other instance." There can be no doubt that the discretionary power of judges to punish summarily by fine or imprisonment offences committed against their own dignity is liable to abuse, and careful as English judges are in enforcing it, a trial and conviction in the ordinary manner would probably be more satisfactory. The offence is by no means clearly defined, but it will be generally agreed that it is desirable to prevent and punish insulting expressions and disorderly conduct in courts of justice, as well as any such publications as may really tend to prejudice a pending cause. A judge may safely be intrusted with the power of keeping order in his court, but contempts committed elsewhere should be pro ceeded against like other offences.
A similar power of punishing for contempt is exercised by the two Houses of Parliament. The question was discussed in the case of Burdett v. Abbott, where Lord Ellenborough said, " Can the High Court of Parliament, or either of the two Houses of which it consists, be deemed not to possess intrinsically that authority of punishing summarily for contempts which is acknowledged to belong, and is duly exercised as belonging, to every superior court of law of less dignity doubtless than itself 1 " It was at one time held that the "privilege of committing for contempt is inherent in every deliberative body invested with authority by the constitution ; " and that accordingly it extended to colonial assemblies. This opinion has been overruled by subsequent decisions. Baron Parke, in the case of Kielley v. Carson, says that the power of punish ment for contempt attaches to bodies having judicial functions, arid is an incident of those functions, except only in the case of the House of Commons, whose authority in this respect ^ests upon ancient usage. The Legislative Assembly of Victoria is entitled by enactment to the privileges, immunities, and powers held, and enjoyed, and exercised by the English House of Commons. Where a legislative assembly has the power of committing for contempt, the punishment lasts only till the end of the current session. " Though the party should deserve the severest censure," says Lord Denman, " yet his offence being committed the day before a prorogation, if the House ordered his imprisonment but for a week, every court in Westminster Hall, and every judge in all the courts would be bound to discharge him by habeas corpus." See Privilege.
branch of the House of Conde . Armand de Bourbon, prince of Conti (1629-1666), one of the princes of the blood who took part in the wars of the Fronde, was son of Henry, prince of Conde, and brother of the Great Conde". Originally destined for the church on account of the weakness of his health and the deformity of his person, he received several rich benefices, and studied at the Sorbonne, but did not enter into orders. Wanting in strength of character, he was throughout life the follower of his sister, the duchess of Longueville, whose influence over him was such as to give rise to scandal. He was induced by her to join the old Fronde, and was appointed commander-in-chief of its forces during the siege of Paris (1648); but he contented himself with riding every day at their head through the streets, never failing to leave them as they passed out of the gates. At the end of the contest the whole Conde family came into political agree ment, and Conti shared his brother s imprisonment (1650). After his release his engagement to be married to the profligate Mile, de Chevreuse was broken off by the prince of Conde , who had been won over to the court party by extravagant promises. In Condi s second rebellion Conti was concerned ; but when the former fled to Spain, he made his peace with the court, married Mazarin s niece, and obtained the government of Guienne, together with the command in Catalonia, in which latter capacity he was not distinguished. He followed his sister in her conversion, entering into all her enthusiastic views, and maintaining constant correspondence with her. He wrote Du devoir des grands ct des devoirs des gouverneurs de province ; Lettres sur la grace ; and Traite de la comedie et des spectacles selon la tradition de I Eglise. (See the numerous Memoires of the time and the Lettres de Mme. de Sevigne.) His second son, Fran9ois Louis, prince of
Conti (1661-1709), fought with much distinction in
