mittal is an order in execution specifying the nature of
the detention to be suffered, or the penalty to be paid. The process of
attachment merely brings the accused into court; he is then required to
answer on oath interrogatories administered to him, so that the court
may be better informed of the circumstances of the contempt. If he can
clear himself on oath he is discharged; if he confesses the court will
punish him by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion. But in
very many cases on proper apology and submission, and undertaking not to
repeat the contempt, and payment of costs, the court allows the
proceedings to drop without proceeding to fine or imprison.

From time to time proposals have been made to deprive the superior
courts of the power to deal summarily with contempts not committed _in
facie curiae_, and to require proceedings on other charges for contempt
to go before a jury. This distinction has already been made in some
British colonies, e.g. British Guiana, by an ordinance of 1900 (No. 31).
Recent decisions in England have so fully defined the limits of the
offence and declared the practice of the courts that it would probably
only result in undue licence of the press if the power now carefully and
judicially exercised of dealing summarily with journalistic interference
with the ordinary course of justice were taken away and the delay
involved in submitting the case to a jury were made inevitable. The
courts now only act in clear cases, and in cases of doubt can always
send the question to a jury. The experience of other countries makes it
undesirable to part with the summary remedy so long as it is in the
hands of a trusted judicature.

_Scotland._--In Scotland the courts of session and justiciary have,
at common law, and exercise the power of punishing contempt committed
during a judicial proceeding by censure, fine or imprisonment
_proprio motu_ without formal proceedings or a summary complaint. The
nature of the offence is there in substance the same as in England
(see Petrie, 1889: 7 Rettie Justiciary 3; Smith, 1892: 20 Rettie
Justiciary 52).

_Ireland._--In Ireland the law of contempt is on the same lines as in
England, but conflicts have arisen between the bench and popular
opinion, due to political and religious differences, which have led
to proposals for making juries and not judges arbiters in cases of
contempt.

_British Dominions beyond S