12th February 1688. "The House disagree " with the Lords in their amendment of leaving " out the eighth Article. But in respect of the "liberty given by the Lords in explaining that "matter; resolved, That the words do stand "in this manner; By prosecutions in the "Court of King's-bench for matters and "causes cognizable only in parliament, and by "divers other arbitrary and illegal courses.' By which Amendment, your Committee ob'serves, that the House adapted the Article more correctly to the case they had in view; for the Information was filed in king Charles 'the Second's time; but the prosecution was 'carried on, and judgment obtained, in the 'second year of king James,' That the meaning of the House should be * made more evident to the Lords, the House ordered, "That sir William Williams be "added to the managers of the Conference;" and sir William Williams the same day re'ports the Conference with the Lords; and, "That their lordships had adopted the Article "in the words as amended by the Commons." And corresponding to this Article of Grievance, is the assertion of the Right of the Sub'ject in the ninth Article of the Declaratory part of the Bill of Rights; viz. "That the "freedom and debates or proceedings in par"liament, ought not to be impeached or ques"tioned in any court or place out of parlia"ment." To which may be added, the latter part of 'the sixth Resolution of the Exceptions to be made in the Bill of Indemnity, Journal, vol. x. p. 146, wherein, after reciting the surrender ✦ of Charters, and the violating the rights and freedoms of elections, &c. it proceeds in these words: “And the questioning the proceed❝ings of parliament, out of parliament, by "Declarations, Informations or otherwise, are "crimes for which some persons may be justly "excepted out of the Bill of Indemnity." 64 On the 11th of June 1689, the House ordered, "That the Records of the Court of King's-bench, relating to the proceedings "against William Williams, esq. now sir Wil"liam Williams, knight and baronet, late "Speaker of this House, be brought into this House, by the Custos Brevium of the said Court, on Thursday morning next." [x Com. Jour. p. 177.] 46 48 On the 12th of July, "The Record was "read; and the House thereupon resolved, "That the Judgment given in the Court of "King's-bench, in Easter term 2 Jac. 24, against William Williams, esq. Speaker of "the House of Commons in the parliament "held at Westminster 25th October 32 Car. ❝ed, for matter done by Order of the House of "Commons, and as Speaker thereof, is an ille"gal judgment, and against the freedom of "parliament. "Resolved, That a bill be brought in to reverse the said Judgment." [Ibid. p. 215.] * This Bill was twice read, but went no fur'ther in that session :'-A similar Bill was in -VOL. VIII. the following session ordered to be brought in ; and a third Bill passed the Commons in 1695, and was sent up to the House of Lords, but did not proceed there to a second reading. It appears further, that on the 4th June 1689, "A Petition of John Topham, esq. was read; "setting forth, That he, being a Serjeant at "Arms, and attending the House in the years "1679 and 1680, when several orders were "made, and directed to the petitioner, for the "taking into his custody the several persons of "sir Charles Neal, &c. &c. and others, for "several misdemeanors by them committed in "breach of the privilege of the House; and "after that the Commons were dissolved, the "said persons being resolved to ruin the peti“tioner, did, in Hilary term, the 33d or 34th "of king Charles, sue the petitioner in the King's-bench in several actions of trespass, "battery and false imprisonment, for taking "and detaining them as aforesaid: to which "actions the petitioner pleaded to the juris"diction of the Court, the said several orders; "but such his plea was over-ruled; the then "judges ruling the petitioner to plead in chief, " and thereupon he pleaded the orders in bar to "the actions: notwithstanding which plea and "orders, the then judges gave judgment "against him, &c." [x Com. Journ. p. 164.] 66 "Upon the Report from the Committee of "Privileges and Elections, to whom this peti-' "tion of J. Topham was referred, the House "Resolved, That this House doth agree with "the Committee, That the Judgment given by "the Court of King's-bench, Easter term "34 Car. 2, Regis, upon the plea of John Top"ham, at the suit of John Jay, to the juris"diction of that Court; and also the judg"ments given against the said Mr. Topham, at "the suit of Samuel Verdon, &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 Fran"cis Wythens, do attend this House on "Wednesday morning next." [x. Com. Jourp. 209. "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 judgment "was passed, were heard in their defence; "and afterwards committed to the Serjeant at "Arms, for their breach of the privileges of "this House, by giving judgment to over-rule "the plea to the jurisdiction of the Court of "King's-bench. [x. Com. Jour, p. 227.] 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 over-ruling the plea to their jurisdiction in the actions of Jay v. Topham, &c. defended the Judgment 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 C thing transacted in this House, no other Court | Trin. 3 Car. I.] against the authority of such a had any jurisdiction to hear and determine it. [State Trials.] 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 committed 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 judgment in other courts, and the consequences of such proceedings; your Committee further think it proper, and in some degree connected with this subject, to advert to the course which was adopted for staying proceedings in suits brought against members and their servants, while they were protected from such suits during the sitting of parliament. letter, in the court of King's bench, which is reported in the marg. 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 (23 February 1669) the House ordered the proceedings to outlawry to be staid during the sessions, and the record of the exigents to be vacated and taken off the file. [ix. Com. Jour. p. 126]. 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 possessions may be disturbed, until Mr. Speaker shall have examined and reported the matter to the House, and this House take further order thereon. [x. Com. Jour. p. 537.] By the 12 and 13 W. 3. c. 3. this Privilege was curtailed; and further by Stat. 2 and 3 Ann, c. 18.-11 Geo. 2. c. 24.-10 Geo. 3. c. 50. 201.] The Roll of Parliament 8 Ed. 2, affords the earliest trace which your Committee has found upon this subject. It is a writ from the king confirmatory of the privilege of being free from suits in time of parliament, and is in the follow- Lord chief justice De Grey says in Crosby's ing words: Rex mandavit Justiciaries suis ad case, "If a member was arrested before the assisas, jurat: &c. capiend. assignat: quod" 12 and 13 W. 3. the method in Westminster supersedeant Captioni corandem ubi comites "hall was to discharge him by writ of privilege barones et alii summonati ad Parl' regis sunt "under the great seal, which was in the nature partes quamdiu dictum Parliamentum dura-" of a Supersedeas to the proceeding. The verit.' [4 Co. Inst. 24.] "statute of William has now altered this, and There have been various modes of proceed-" there is no necessity to plead the privilege of ing to enforce this privilege. In Dewes's" a member of parliament." [3 Wils. Rep. Journal, pa. 456, 31 Eliz. 1588-1589, Friday 21st of February, your Committee find 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 pri"vilege of this House due and appertaining to "the members of the same; it is agreed, that "those of this House which shall have occa"sion 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 And it appears, that in the several instances "shall so require) may direct the warrant of of actions commenced in breach of the privi"this House to the Lord Chancellor of Eng-leges of this House, the House has proceeded "land, for the awarding of such writs of Su"persedeas accordingly." But the House used to stay also proceedings by its own authority; sometimes by sending the Serjeant at arms 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 3rd of Charles I. Your Committee find a decision [Hodges v. Moor, par All these acts merely apply to proceedings against Members in respect of their debts and actions as individuals, and not in respect of their conduct as members of liament; and therefore they do not in any way abridge the ancient law and privilege of parliament 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 Serjeant, for acts done in obedience to the orders of this House, is breach of the privileges of this House. 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 necessarily 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 ac tion is brought cannot stay the suit or give judgment 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 the Speaker, and the Serjeant, to appear to the said 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 Serjeant, against the said actions. SECOND REPORT. YOUR Committee, resuming the consideration of the principal matters reserved in their former Report, do not think it necessary to state all the various Precedents which are to be found of the exercise of the power of Commitment by the House of Commons for breaches of Privilege and Contempt in general, conceiving that to be a power too clear to be called in question, and proved, if proof were Becessary by the same Precedents, which they have collected with a view to the point to which they have more immediately directed their attention, and which Precedents are subjoined to their Repo:t. (Appendix A.) Report establish this Law of Parliament, upon Your Committee also beg leave to observe, Your Committee further state, that it has been recognized by legal authority, and by the most solemn decisions of the courts of law on various occasions, whenever any question upon it has been brought before them: By eleven of the Judges-in the Case of the Aylesbury men. 2 Lord Raym. p. 1105. 3 Wils. p. 205. By the Court of King's-Bench-in Mur- By the Court of Common Pleas in the in judicature as contempts and have frequently And that this power of commitment by either House of Parliament, was further recognized by the court of King's Bench in the Case of Benjamin Flower, 8 Term Reports, p. 323, who had been committed by the House of Lords. And your committee have not found The Cases which your Committee have se- the authority of a single decision to the conlected as most directly connected with the sub-trary in any court whatever. (Appendix D.) ject referred to them, are those for Commit- Your Committee also beg leave to state, that ments for Libel, an offence which tends to the Judges of the Common Law have considerexcite popular misapprehension and disaffec-ed Libels upon their courts or the proceedings tion, endangers the freedom of the debates and procedings in parliament, and requires the most prompt interposition and restraint. The effect of immediate punishment and example is required to prevent the evils necessarily arising from this offence, which evil it is obvious would be much less effectually guarded against by Amongst the Judges who have concurred in the more dilatory proceedings of the ordinary those decisions, upon the power of parliament courts of law; nevertheless upon some occa- and of the courts of law and equity to commit sions the House of Commons have pro- for such contempts, are to be found lawyers ceeded against persons committing such of the most distinguished for their zealous refences, by directing prosecutions, or by ad-gard for the liberty of the subject, and the dressing his majesty to direct them, as appears by the Precedents collected in Appendix (B.) From the series of precedents which your Committee find on your Journals, it will most dearly appear that the House of Commons have treated Libels as contempts; that they are frequently punished the authors and pub Tabers of them by commitment, whether These authors and publishers were or were not embers of the House; and that this power has been exercised at all times, as far back as the Journals afford an opportunity of tracing And your Committee cannot forbear observing, that the Precedents subjoined to their most upright, able and enlightened men that Under all these circumstances, Your Com- is essential to the Freedom of Debate, to the In- | II.-Precedents of the like nature, from the dependence of Parliament, to the security of the Liberty of the Subject, and to the general pre servation of the State. This power is in truth part of the fundamental Law of Parliament; the Law of Parliament is the Law of the Land; part of the Lex Terræ, mentioned in Magna Charta, where it is declared, that, "no Freeman shall be taken or "imprisoned but by lawful judgment of his "Peers, or by the Law of the Land;" and it is as much within the meaning of these words, "the Law of the Land," as the universally acknowledge power of Commitment for contempt by the Courts of Justice in Westminsterhall, which courts have inherent in them the summary power of punishing such contempts by commitment of the offenders, without the intervention of a Jury. Your Committee therefore are of opinion, That this power is founded on the clearest principles of expediency and right, proved by immemorial usage, recognized and sanctioned by the highest legal authorities, and analogous to the power exercised without dispute by courts of Justice; that it grew up with our constitution; that it is established and confirmed as clearly and incontrovertibly as any part of the Law of the Land, and is one of the most important safeguards of the Rights and Liberties of the People. APPENDIX. APPENDIX (A.) PRECEDENTS of COMMITMENTS for Words and Publications, Speeches, &c. reflecting on the Proceedings of the House. I. From the beginning of the Journals, to the Commonwealth. 1559.-TROWER.-For contumelious words against the House.-To the Serjeant-i Jour. 59. 1580.-HALL, a Member.-For publishing a book against the authority of the House.To the Tower, also fined and expelledi Jour. 122, 124, 125, 126, 132. 1625.-MONTAGUE.-For a great contempt against the House for publishing a book traducing persons for petitioning the House. -To the Serjeant-i Jour. 805, 806. 1628.-LEWES.-For words spoken against the last Parliament.-To the Serjeant-i Jour. 922. 1628.-ALEYN.-For a libel on last Parliament. To the Serjeant-i Jour. 925. 1640.-PIERS.-Archdeacon of Bath, for abusing the last Parliament.-To the Serjeantii Jour. 63. 1640.-PRESTON.-Scandalous words against this House. To the Gatehouse-iiour. 71. N. B.-The King did not leave London till the 10th of January 1641. In the year preceding there are very many cases of strangers committed for contemptuous words spoken against the Parliament. Restoration to the Revolution. 1660.-LENTHALL, a Member.-For words in the House against the preceding ParliamentTo the Serjeant-viii Jour. 24. -DRAKE. For a pamphlet reflecting on the Parliament; and impeached.-To the Serjeant viii Jour. 183. 185, 186. -CRANFORD. Ditto, Ditto, viii Jour. 193. 1661.-GREGORY and WITHERS.-For pamphlets reflecting on the justice of the House. To the Tower-viii Jour. 368.-They were prisoners in Newgate, and were committed to the Tower, and ordered into close custody. 1662-GREEN. Ditto, To the Serjeant—Ibid. 446. 1670-WOODWARD.-For a breach of Privilege against a Member, and speaking contemp tuous words against this House.-To the Serjeant-ix Jour. 147. 1675.-HOWARD.-For a scandalous paper, and a breach of the Privilege of the House. -To the Tower-ix Jour. 364. 1680.-Sir ROBERT CANN, a Member.-For words in the House, reflecting on a Member, brought to the bar, and received a repriinand from the Speaker:-And for words spoken out of the House-committed and expelled. To the Tower-ix Jour. 642. 1680.-YARINGTON and GROOME.-For a pamphlet against a Member.-To the Serjeant -ix Jour. 654, 656. 1685.-COOKE, a Member.-For words in the House. To the Tower-ix Jour. 760. III.-Precedents, &c. from the Revolution to the end of King William. 1689.-CHRISTOPHER SMELT.-Spreading a false and scandalous report of sir Peter Rich, a Member. To the Serjeant, 29th July-x Jour. 244. 1690.-W. BRIGGS.-Contemptuous words and behaviour, and scandalous reflections upon the House and upon Sir Jonathan Jennings, a Member thereof.-To the Serjeant, 18th Dec.-x Jour 512. 1691.-RICHARD BALDWIN.-Printer of a pamphlet entitled, "Mercurius Reformatus," reflecting on the proceedings of the House. -To the Serjeant, 9th and 21st Nov.1693.-WILLIAM SOADER.-Affirming and rex Jour. 548, 558. porting that Sir Francis Massam, a Member, was a pensioner.-To the Serjeant, 9th Mar.-xi Jour. 123. 1695.-Sir GEORGE MEGGOT.-Having scandalized the House, in declaring that without being duly chosen he had friends enough in the House to bring him into the House.To the Serjeant, 27th Dec.-xi Jour. 371. 1696.-JOHN MANLEY.-A Member, for words in the House.-To the Tower, 9th Nov. xi Jour. 581. 1696.-FRANCIS DUNCOMBE. Having declared before two witnesses that he had distri buted money to several Members of the House, and afterwards denied it before a Committee of the House.-To the Serjeant, 5th Jan.-xi Jour. 651. 1696-JOHN RYE.-Having caused a libel, reflecting on a Member of the House, to be printed and delivered at the door. To the Serjeant, 11th Jan.-xi Jour. 656. 1699.-JOHN HAYNES.-For being the occasion of a letter being written, reflecting upon the honour of the House, and of a Committee. To the Serjeant, 24th Jan.—xiii Jour. 141. 1701.-THOMAS COLEPEPER.-Reflections upon the last House of Commons.-To Newgate, Feb. 7.-xiii Jour. 735.—And Attorney General ordered to prosecute him for his said crimes. IV.-Precedents of the like nature, from 1701 to 1809. 1703.-JOHN TUTCHIN, JOHN HOW, BENJAMIN BRAGG.-AS Author, Printer, and Publisher of a printed paper, entitled, "The Observator," reflecting upon the Proceedings of the House. To the Serjeant, 3d Jan.-xiv Jour. 270. 1704.-JAMES MELLOT.-False and scandalous reflections upon two Members. To the Serjeant, 9th Mar.-xiv Jour. 565. -EDWARD THEOBALDS.-Scandalous reflections upon a Member.-To the Serjeant, 2d Mar.-xiv Jour. 557. 1712-SAMUEL BUCKLEY.-As Printer of a pretended Memorial printed in the "Daily Courant," reflecting upon the Resolutions of the House. To the Serjcant, 11th Apr.xvii Jour. 182. 1715.-E. BERRINGTON, J. MORPHEN.—AS Printer and Publisher of a pamphlet, entitled, "The Evening Post," reflecting on His Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament.To the Serjeant, 1st July-xviii Jour. 195. 1729.-RICHARD CORBET.-Reflecting upon the Proceedings and the authority of a Committee. To the Serjeant, 31st Mar.-xxi Jour. 307. 1733.--WILLIAM NOBLE.--Asserting that a Member received a pension for his voting in Parliament. To the Serjeant, 19th Feb.xxii Jour. 245. 1740.-WILLIAM COOLEY, JOHN MERES, JOHN HUGHES. AS Author, Printer, and Publisher of papers reflecting upon His Majesty's Government, and the Proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. Cooley to Newgate, 2d Dec.; Meres and Hughes, To the Serjeant, 3d December-xxiii Jour. 545, 546, 547. 1746.-SAMUEL JOHNS.--Author of a printed paper containing impudent reflections on the Proceedings of the House.-To the Serjeant, 13th May-xxv Jour. 154. 1768.-DENNIS SHADE.-Sticking up a paper to inflame the minds of the people against the House. To the Serjeant, 9th of December-xxxii Jour. 97. 1768-JOSEPH THORNTON.-Giving directions for sticking up the above-mentioned paper. -To Newgate, 10th Dec. 1771.-HENRY BALDWIN, THOMAS WRIGHT. -Printing the Debates, and misrepresenting the Speeches of Members.-To the Serjeant, 14th March-xxxiii Jour. 258, 259. 1774.-H. S. WOODFALL.-For publishing a Letter highly reflecting on the character of the Speaker. To the Serjeant, 14th Febru ary-xxxiv. Jour. 456. 1805.-PETER STUART.-For printing in his Paper libellous reflections on the character and conduct of the House.-To the Serjeant, 26th April-lx Jour. 217. APPENDIX (B.) CASES since 1697, of PROSECUTIONS at LAW against Persons for LIBELS, &c. upon the House of Commons or any of its Members; and whether by Order or Address. 1699.-EDWARD STEPHEN.-Libel on the House, and on an individual Member.-By Order, 27th February-xiii Jour. 230. 1701.-THOMAS COLEPEPER.-A Letter to the Freeholders and Freemen of England, aspersing the House.-By Order, 7th February -xiii Jour. 735. 1702.-MR. LLOYD.-Aspersing the character of a Member.-By Order, 18th November -xiv Jour. 37. 1702.-DYER.-Misrepresenting the Proceedings of the House.-By Order, 26th February-xiv Jour. 207, 208. 1740.-JOHN MERES." The Daily Post."Highly and injuriously reflecting upon an act of Government, and the Proceedings of both Houses of Parliament.-By Address, 3d Dec.-xxiii Jour. 546. 1750-Author, Printer and Publisher.-Publishing paper, entitled, "Constitutional Que. ries," grossly reflecting on the House.-By Address, 22d Jan.-xxvi Jour. 9. 1751.-Authors, Printers and Publishers.-The case of the Honourable Alexander Murray. -Aspersing the Proceedings of the House, and tending to create misapprehensions of the same in the minds of the people.-By Address, 20th Nov.-xxvi Jour. 304. 1774.-Author, Printers and Publishers.-Publishing paper called the "South Briton,' reflecting on the House.-By Order, 16th February-xxxiv Jour. 464. 1788.-Authors, Printers and Publishers."The Morning Herald, The Gazetteer, and New Daily Advertiser."-Grossly reflecting on the House and the Members, and tending to prejudice the defence of a person answering at the Bar.-By Address, 8th February→→ xliii Jour. 213. 1788. Authors, Printers and Publishers."Review of the Principal Charges against Warren Hastings," &c.-Highly disrespectful to His Majesty, and the House; and indecent Observations reflecting on the motives which induced the House to prefer the |