Upon the report from the committee of privileges and elections, to whom this petition of J. Topham was referred, the house resolved, That this house doth agree with the committee, that the judge ment given by the court of King's Bench, Easter term, 34 Car. II. regis, upon the plea of John Topbam, at the suit of John Jay, to the jurisdiction of that court; and also the judgements given against the said Mr. Topham, at the suit of Samuel Verdun, &c. are illegal, and a violation of the privileges of parliament, and pernicious to the rights of parliament." Whereupon it was ordered, "That sir Francis Pemberton, sir Thomas Jones, and sir Francis Wythens do attend this house on Wednesday morning next." "In consequence of this order, sir Francis Pemberton and sir Thomas Jones, who had been two of the judges of the court of King's Bench at the time when the judgement was passed, were heard in their defence; and afterwards committed to the sergeant-at-arms, for their breach of the privileges of this house, by giving judgement to overrule the plea to the jurisdiction of the court of King's Bench."

Your committee think it proper to state, That sir Francis Pemberton and sir Thomas Jones, in defending themselves at the bar of this house for their conduct in overruling the plea to their jurisdiction in the actions of Jay v. Topham, &c. defended the judgement they had given, by resting upon the nature of the pleading, and not by denying the jurisdiction or authority of this house; and sir Francis

Pemberton expressly admitted, that, for any thing transacted in this house, no other court had any jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

Your committee in the next place think it expedient to state to the house, that there are various instances in which persons committed by the house of commons have been brought up by habeas corpus before the judges and courts of common law; and in these cases, upon its appearing by the return to the habeas corpus, that they were com mitted under the speaker's warrant, they have been invariably remanded.

3. Having stated these instances of the manner in which the acts and commitments of this house have been brought into judgement in other courts, and the consequences of such proceedings, your com mittee further think it proper, and in some degree connected with this subject, to advert to the course which was adopted for staying pro ceedings in suits brought against members and their servants, while they were protected from such suits during the sitting of parliament.

The roll of parliament, S Edward II. affords the earliest trace which your committee has found upon this subject. It is a writ from the king, confirmatory of the pri vilege of being free from suits in time of parliament, and is in the following words:

"Rex mandavit justiciariis suis ad assisas, jurat. &c. capiend' assignat: quod supersedeant captioni eorundem ubi comites barones et alii summonati ad parl. regis sunt partes quamdiu dictum parliamen tum duraverit.”

There have been various modes of proceeding to enforce this privilege. In Dewes's Journal, p. 436, 31 Eliz. 1588-1589, Friday, 21st of February, your committed find

the

the following entry:-" Upon a motion made by Mr. Harris, that divers members of this house having writs of nisi prius brought against them, to be tried at the assizes in sundry places of this realm, to be holden and kept in the circuits of this present vacation, and that writs of supersedeas might be awarded in those cases in respect of the privilege of this house due and appertaining to the members of the same; it is agreed, that those of this house which shall have occasion to require such benefit of privilege in that behalf, may repair unto Mr. Speaker, to declare unto him the state of their cases, and that he, upon his discretion (if the cases shall so require), may direct the warrant of this house to the lord chancellor of England, for the awarding of such writs of supersedeas accordingly."

But the house used to stay also proceedings by its own authority; sometimes sending the sergeant-atarms to deliver the person arrested out of custody; and sometimes by letter from the speaker to the judges before whom the cause was to be tried. Of this latter mode of proceeding, your committee find many instances previous to the 3d of Charles 1. Your committee find a decision against the authority of such a letter, in the court of King's Bench, which is reported in the margin of Dyer's Reports, p. 60, and in Latch, pp. 48 and 150. And shortly after the refusal by the court of King's Bench to notice this letter from the speaker, the parliament was dissolved. There are, however, many other instances of this course of proceeding after the Restoration; and in the instance of lord Newburgh (23d February, 1669) the house ordered the pro. ceedings to outlawry to be staid during the sessions, and the record of

the exigents to be vacated and taken off the file.

The last instance which your committee find of such letters having been written, occurs in the lord Bulkeley's case in 1691, in which the speaker is directed to write a letter to the prothonotary that he do not make out, and to the sheriff of the county of Pembroke that he do not execute, any writ, whereby the lord Bulkeley's pos sessions may be disturbed, until Mr. Speaker shall have examined and reported the matter to the house, and this house take further order thereon. By 12 and 13 W. III. c. 3, this privilege was cur. tailed; and further by stat. 2 and 3 Ann, c. 18,-11 Geo. II. c. 24, 10 Geo. III. c. 50.

Lord chief justice De Grey says, in Crosby's case, "If a member was arrested before the 12 and 13 W. III. the method in Westminster Hall was to discharge him by writ of privilege, under the great seal, which was in the nature of a supersedeas to the proceeding. The statute of William has now altered this, and there is no necessity to plead the privileges of a member of parliament."-All these acts merely apply to proceedings against members in respect of their debts and ac tions as individuals, and not in respect of their conduct as members of parliament; and therefore they do not in any way abridge the ancient law and privilege of parlia ment, so far as they respect the freedom and conduct of members of parliament as such, or the protection which the house may give to persons acting under its authority.

4. Upon the whole, it appears to your committee, that the bringing these actions against the speaker and the sergeant, for acts done in obedience to the orders of this

house,

house, is a breach of the privilege of this house.

And it appears, that in the several instances of actions commenced in breach of the privileges of this house, the house has proceeded by commitment, not only against the party, but against the solicitor and other persons concerned in bringing such actions; but your committee think it right to observe, that the commitment of such party, solicitor, or other persons, would not necessari. ly stop the proceedings in such action. That as the particular ground of action does not necessarily appear upon the writ or upon the declaration, the court, before which such action is brought, cannot stay the suit, or give judgement against the plaintiff, till it is informed, by due course of legal proceeding, that such action is brought for a thing done by order of the house.

And it therefore appears to your committee, That even though the house should think fit to commit the solicitor or other person concerned in commencing these actions, yet it will still be expedient that the house should give leave to the speaker and the sergeant to appear to the actions, and to plead to the same; for the purpose of bringing under the knowledge of the court the authority under which they acted and if the house should agree with that opinion, your committee submits to the house, whether it would not be proper that directions should be given by this house for defending the speaker and the sergeant against the said actions.

MIDDLESEX PETITION.

To the honourable the commons of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in parlia. ment assembled.

"The petition of the freeholders. of Middlesex, agreed to in full county, this 26th day of April, 1810,

"Showeth, That we have observed with concern that in the cases of Mr. John Gale Jones and sir Francis Burdett, bart. your house assumed and exercised a power unknown to the law and unwarranted by the constitution.

"Your speaker's warrant has been executed by military forcean Englishman's house, his sanctuary, has been violated, and the blood of unoffending citizens has been shed in the streets.

"Against the existence as well as the exercise of this power, we solemnly protest-a protest the more necessary because your votes in its support are entered on your journals-not so the letter of sir Francis Burdett to your speaker, denying you such jurisdiction.

"In the earlier part of this reign, in the case of Mr. Wilkes, the rights of this county and of the nation were repeatedly and grossly violated by the house of commons. At length the law triumphed. After a struggle of nearly twenty years the house abandoned the pretensions they had arrogated, and

expunged' from their journals all their declarations, orders, and reso lutions, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors in this kingdom.'

"You have during your pleasure deprived the citizens of Westminster of their share in the representation, and the public at large of the exertions of a faithful servant, in whose ability, firmness, and integrity, they preeminently confide.

"We view with jealousy and suspicion the shutting up sir Francis Burdett in prison, when the attention of the nation is directed with

anxiety

anxiety to his intended motion for a reform in the representation of the people in your honourable house that house in which the traffic in seats has been avowed in the case of Mr. Perceval and lord Castlereagh, to be as notorious as the sun at noon-day; a practice • at the mention of which, in the emphatic language of your speaker, our ancestors would have startled with indignation."

"We therefore pray you to follow the example of your predeces6 expunge all sors, to declarayour tions, orders, and resolutions on the subject, as tending to the subversion of our liberties,' and to the introduction of a military despot ism, and to recal sir Francis Burdett to the service of the country in parliament, that he may there enforce that plan of reform which last session he so powerfully recommended, and which, in our opinion, is absolutely necessary for the stability and honour of the throne, and the safety and well-being of the people. Signed in the name and in behalf of this meeting, by

"&c. &c. &c."

SMITH, MAYOR.

In a meeting or assembly of the mayor, aldermen, and liverymen, of the several companies of the city of London, in common hall assembled, at the Guildhall of the said city, on Monday the 21st day of May, 1810,

1. Resolved, That the rejection by the house of commons of our late humble address, petition, and remonstrance, appears to us a viola tion of our constitutional and indis

putable right to state our complaints and grievances, and to call for relief and redress.

2. Resolved, That such rejection is an additional proof of the shameful inadequacy of the representation of the people in the commons house of parliament; and more forcibly demonstrates the necessity of a speedy and substantial reform in that honourable house.

3. Resolved, That we have viewed with mixed sentiments of indig nation, concern, and pity, the address of certain persons, styling themselves "An adjourned meet. ing of liverymen, held at the London Tavern, the 4th day of May," inasmuch as the statements contained in that address, imputing to the great body of their fellow. citizens, in common hall legally assembled, motives and designs to

vilify and degrade the legislature," to "alienate the affections of the people from the govern mant," to "produce contempt and distrust of the house of commons," to "introduce anarchy," and to "subvert the constitution," are false assertions, originating with individuals who derive influence and emolument from the heavy burthen of the people.

4. Resolved-That amongst the names of those affixed to that ad

dress, appear the signatures of contractors, commissioners and collectors of taxes, of placemen and placehunters; with a long list of their agents, and clerks of their dependants.

Emissaries of minions.

5. Resolved-That it is undeniable that power, influence, threats, and delusions have been employed, to prevail upon many to concur in the said address.

6. Resolved

6. Resolved-That whilst we disclaim any imputation against the motives of several who, by gross misrepresentations, by arts of the basest kind, or by downright intimidation, have been compelled to lend their signatures to the said address, it is to us a source of high consolation that the address carries within it its own refutation, consisting only of allegations unsubstantiated, and of calumnies, which those who have propagated them must know to be groundless.

7. Resolved, That the said address appears to have for its real object the excitement of civil dissention, the increase of public abuses, and the further and fuller participation in the wages of corruption, by many of those who have signed it, and who, taking advantage of the present unhappy con test between arbitrary privilege and constitutional freedom, have ende voured to confuse and distract the public mind, for the support and continuance in place of a corrupt, weak, and wicked administration.

and redressing grievances; that to traduce such petitioning, as a violation of duty, and to represent it to his majesty as tumultuous and seditious, is to betray the liberty of the subject, and contribute to the design of subverting the ancient legal constitution of the kingdom;" and they appointed a committee "to inquire after all those who had offended against those rights, and accordingly expelled several of its members, and petitioned his majesty to remove others from places of trust."

That on the 29th of October, 1650, the commons voted-" That sir F. Withers, by promoting and presenting to his majesty an address, expressing an abhorrence to petition his majesty for the calling and sitting of parliaments, hath be trayed the undoubted rights of the subjects of England; and that the said sir F. Withers be expelled the house for this high crime."

ment.

That various counter-petitions were presented to his majesty, expressive of their abhorrence of the said petitioning, as tumultuous and seditious, and encroaching on the royal prerogative.

That on the 21st of October, 1680, the parliament met, and its first acts were to expel abhorrers, and to pass a vote, "That it is, and ever hath been, the undoubted sight of the subject to petition the king for the calling of parliaments, 1810.

governor, to represent to him their grievances, and to pray a redress of them; and that the same law gave them also a right to state in their petitions those facts and reasons which caused their grievances, provided those facts were true." And further, "That as there was one part of the constitution which gave the king power to prorogue, so there was another part of the constitution that gave the subject an original right to petition for redress of grievances; and that therefore to punish a man for showing in his ' (L)

petition