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. 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 following words: Rex mandavit Justiciaries suis ad assisas, jurat : &c. capiend. assignat: quod supersedeant Captioni corandem ubi comites barones et alii summonati ad Parl' regis sunt partes quamdiu dictum Parliamentum duraverit. [4 Co. Inst. 24.] Trin. 3 Car. I.] against the authority of such a 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. Lord chief justice De Grey says in Crosby's case, "If a member was arrested before the "12 and 13 W. 3. 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 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. 436, 31 Eliz. 1538-1589, Friday 201.] 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 "shall so require) may direct the warrant of "this House to the Lord Chancellor of Eng"land, for the awarding of such writs of Su"persedeas accordingly." 46 66 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. 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 parliament; 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 a breach of the privileges 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 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 action 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 to 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 necessary 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 Report. (Appendix A.) Report establish this Law of Parliament, upon the ground and evidence of an immemorial usage, as strong and satisfactory as would be held sufficient in a court of law, for the establishment of any legal right. (Appendix A.) Your Committee also beg leave to observe, that the general power of Commitment was solemnly asserted by the House of Commons in 1675, and in their Resolutions of 1701; and was also claimed by the House of Cominons, and admitted by the House of Lords in the most explicit terms, in the conference between the two Houses, in the Case of Ashby and White, in 1704; although other points arising in that case were strongly controverted between the two Houses. (Appendix C.) 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: Ey 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 Murray's Case, 1 Wils. p. 299. 1751. By the Court of Common Pleas in the Case of Brass Crosby. 3 Wils. p. 203. 1771. By the Court of Exchequer in the Case of Oliver. 1771. 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 authority of a single decision to the contrary in any court whatever. (Appendix D.) Your Committee also beg leave to state, that the Judges of the Common Law have considered Libels upon their courts or the proceedings in judicature as contempts and have frequently punished the authors and publishers of them by summary commitment. This appears from various instances stated in the Appendix (E.) which have occurred both in courts of law and equity. The Cases which your Committee have selected as most directly connected with the subject referred to them, are those for Commitments for Libel, an offence which tends to excite popular misapprehension and disaffection, 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 the more dilatory proceedings of the ordinary courts of law; nevertheless upon some occasions the House of Commons have proceeded against persons committing such of fences, by directing prosecutions, or by addressing 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 clearly appear that the House of Commons have treated Libels as contempts; that they have frequently punished the authors and publishers of them by commitment, whether" those authors and publishers were or were not members of the House; and that this power has been exercised at all times, as far back as the Journals afford an opportunity of tracing it. And your Committee cannot forbear observing, that the Precedents subjoined to their Amongst the Judges who have concurred in those decisions, upon the power of parliament and of the courts of law and equity to commit for such contempts, are to be found lawyers the most distinguished for their zealous regard for the liberty of the subject, and the inost upright, able and enlightened men that ever adorned the seat of Justice; and the doctrines laid down by them all coincide with the opinion solemnly delivered by Lord Chief Justice De Grey in Crosby's case, that the power of commitment is inherent in the House of Commons from the very nature of its institution, and that they can commit "generally for all contempts." 3 Wils. p. 198. Under all these circumstances, Your Committee can have no hesitation in submitting their decided opinion, that the power of commitment for a libel upon the House, or upon its members, for or relative to any thing said or done therein, Restoration to the Revolution. 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 preservation 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 Parlia ment. To the Serjeant-i Jour. 925. 164G-PIERS.—Archdeacon of Bath, for abusing the last Parliament.-To the Serjeantii Jour. 63. 1640.-PRESTON.-Scandalous words against this House.-To the Gatehouse-i Jour. 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. 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 com mitted 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 contemptuous 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 repri inand 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 pam phlet 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 Willium. 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 scan. dalized 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 Commit. tee. 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 Serjeant, 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, JOUN 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 Decem ber-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. 1702.-MR. LLOYD.-Aspersing the character of a Member.-By Order, 18th November -xiv Jour. 37. 1702.-DYER.-Misrepresenting the Proceed ings 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, aud the Proceedings of both Houses of Parliament.-By Ad dress, 3d Dec.-xxiiì 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 Meinbers, and tending to prejudice the defence of a person answer ing at the Bar.-By Address, 8th Februaryxliii Jour. 213. 1788.-Authors, Printers and Publishers."Review of the Principal Charges against Warren Hastings," &c.-Highly disrespect ful to His Majesty, and the House; and indecent Observations reflecting on the motives which induced the House to prefer the Impeachment against Warren Hastings.By Address, 15th February-xliii Jour. 232. 1789.-Printer and Publisher-" The World" -Containing matter of scandalous and libellous nature, reflecting on the Proceedings of the House-By Address, 16th June xliv Jour. 463. 1795.-JOHN REEVES.-As author of a pamphlet, entitled, "Thoughts on the Eglish Government;" which was adjudged by the House to be a malicious, scandalous, and seditious libel, containing matter tending to create jealousies and divisions among His Majesty's loyal subjects; to alienate their affections from our present happy form of Government in King, Lords, and Commons, and to subvert the true principles of our free Constitution; and to be a high breach of the Privileges of the House.-By Address, 15th December-li Jour. 119, 235. APPENDIX (C.) CLAIM and RECOGNITION of the PRIVILEGES of PARLIAMENT, and the Power of COMMIT MENT. 11 Rich. 2. Rot. Parl. vol. iii. 244. En ycest parlement, toutz les Seign'rs si bien espiritels come temporels alors presentz clamerent come lour libertee & franchise, q'les grosses matires moevez en cest parlement, & a movers en autres parlementz en temps a venir, tochantz Pieres de la Terre, serroient demesnez, ajuggez, & discus par le cours de parlement, & nemye par la Loy Civile, ne par la commune Ley de la Terre, usez autres plus bas Courtes du Roialme: quell claym, liberte, & franchise le Roy lour benignement alloua & ottroia en plein parle ment. en 32 Hen. 6. Rot. Parl. vol. v. p. 239.Thorp's Case.. The seid Lordes Spirituelx and Temporelx not entendying to empeche or hurt the Libertees and privilegges of theym that were come'n for the commune of this lande to this present parlement, but egally after the cours of lawe to mynystre justice, and to have knowlegge what the fawe will wey in that behalve, opened and declared to the justices the premissez, and axed of them whether the seid Thomas ought to be delivered from prison, by force and vertue of the privelegge of parlement or noo. To the which question the chefe justcez, in the name of all the justicez, after sadde communication and mature deliberation hadde among theem, aunswered and said, that they ought not to aunswere to that question, for it hath not be used afore tyme that the justicez should in eny wyse determine the privilegge of this high court of parlement. 4 Hen. 8. The original Roll in the parliament office.-Stroude's Case. This is the act conc'nyng Richard Stroude for matt's resoned in the p'liament.--The act begins by reciting the petition of Rd. Stroude, and after that recital proceeds thus: And on that be it inacted by the seide autorite, That al suts, accusementis, condempnacons, execucions, fynys, am'ciamentis, punyshements, correccons, grev'ncez, charges, & impositions putt or hadde or her aft' to be put or hadde unto or apon the seide Richard, and to every other of the p'son or p'sons afore specyfyed that nowe be of this p'sent p'liament or that of any p'liament her after shall be for any bylle speyking, reasonying or declarying off any mat' or maters conc'nying the p'liament to be comenced and treated off, be utt❜ly voyde & of none effecte, and on that be hyt inacted by the seid autorite, That if the seid Richard Strode or any of all the seide other p'son or persons her after be vexyd, trobeled or other wyse charged for any causes as is aforesaide, that then he or they & every of them so vexed or troubled off and for the same, have acc'on upon the case agaynste ev'ry such p'son or p'sons so vexying or trobelying any cot'rie to this ordin'ns & p'vision, in the whych acc'on the p'tie greyvd shall be recov' treby'll damages & costis & that no p'teccon, essouie nor wager of lawe yn the seide acc'on in anywise be admytted nor receyvid.-A Ce'st Bill Ley Seinos ss Assent. 1606. Com. Journ. vol. i. p. 349. The Commons tell the Lords "that they doubt not, but the Commons House is a Court, and a Court of Record.” 1620.-Com. Journ. vol. i. p. 545. In a Report of Precedents by sir Edward Coke, it is agreed, "The House of Commons, alone, hath a power of punishment, and that judicial."-Hall's Case 23 Eliz., and Long's Case 5 Eliz. cited. 1675, June 4th.-Com. Journ. vol. ix. p. 354. In the matter of the appellant jurisdiction of the House of Lords, the Commons assert their right" to punish by imprisonment a Commoner that is guilty of violating their privileges, that being according to the known laws and custom of Parliament and the right of their privileges declared by the king's royal predecessors in former Parliaments and by himself in this;" and "that neither the Great Charter, the Petition of Right, nor any other laws, do take away the law and custom of Parliament, or of either House of Parliament.” 1701.-Vol. xiii. p. 767.-Kentish Petition. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, that to assert the House of Commons have no power of commitment, but of their own members, tends to the subversion of the constitution of the House of Commons. Resolved, That it is the opinion of this committee, That to print and publish any books or libels reflecting upon the proceedings of the |