Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at|http: //books .google .com/I

C OBBETT'S

COMP LETE COLLECTION

or

State Trials.

VOL. vin.

f

i- :/

I •

COBBETT'S

C O M P L E T? E e^ L L E C T I O N

• - ••••- •• *

A K . * K ^ V

• • • • » - « '

• ••«•• • •• •

• . • •

• • •

OF

State Trials

AND

PROCEEDINGS FOR HIGH TREASON AND OTHER

CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

FROM THB

L\RLIEST PERIOD TO THE PRESENT TIME.

VOL. VIII.

COMPRISING THE PERIOD

FBOM THE THIRTY-SECOND YEAR OF THE REIGN OF KIXG CHARLES THE SECOND, A. D. I68O, TO THE THIRTY-FOURTH YEAR OF THE SAID REIGN,

A. D. 1682.

LONDON:

PB11CTED BY T. C. HANSARD^ rSTERBOROUGH-COURT, Fl.fiET-STRBET.

piLUHBD BT Ro BAOSHAW, BRYIIOB8-STRBET9 eOVBNT-OARDEN ; AND SOLD I IT J. BUDD, PALIcMALL; J. FAULDER, NEW-BOND-STREET; SHERWOOD, iBULT AMD JONE89 FATBR-N08TER-E0W ; BLACK, PARRY AND KINGSBURY,

UDENUALL-STRBBT; bell and BRADFUTE, EDINBURGH; AND J. ARCHER,

rBLlN.

1810.

• ■ •

. ' • •

HI"! '

1 .'^H.Sf >f;

«i.i

I •

V .

.•riif» •

TABLE OF CONTENTS

T*

VOLUME Vllt

STATE TRIALS IN THE REIGN OF KING CHARLES THE SECOND.

* *

Pagt Proceed! NOS tgainst Kicharb Tsompson* Clerk, for a High Misde- mcanor agaiott ihe Prifikge of Paiikment, a. d. 1680 ;N.]»..^ L

tf75. Caae of Jamei SmiiE^ for treasonable Opinioiis and DecJarations, a» ».

IMO [N.] i « 12»

W*^. Case of Jotm Nivin, Ctt»tiiti of the SIlip t^eftulie of Loildoti, for LMftiug-

makiag against James Duke of Albany and York^ a. d. 1680 [N.},.. 4i0

175. Proceedings in PariiaiMnt agaim S^waaft ttsTttotiR, esq. a Mettber of the Honse of Commons and Treasurer of the Navy* upon an Impeach- oMnt of High Crimes^ Misdemeanors^ and OfTences, a, o. I(y60 187

Mtii. Proceedings againu Lord Chief Justice Scaooos before the Priry Covn- cil ; and against the said Lord Chief Justice and other Judges in Par- Gament, a. d. 16M • •• ,,.. it%

177. PhKeediags ia P^Uameni against Edwabd FiT»iABais» upon an Im-

poM iiwf la for High Treason, a. d. Ii08i «..«...oti.« SSI

Proceedings agninit Edwabo FitsSAmaia in ihe King^s-Bcncfa, opwi hie Arraignment and Plea to an IndictmtBt for High IVmson, A.B.10SI1 •••••• Ml

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Page A Naekatitb, being a true Relatioii of what Discoarse passed be- tween Br. Hawkins and Ebward FinHARRis, esq. late Prisoner in the Tower ; with the Manner of taking his Confession [N.] 500

Truth Vindicated : or a Detection of the Aspersions and Scandals cast upon Sir Itobert Clayton and Sir Gearg^ Treby, Justices : and Sliiigsby Bethell and Henry Cornish^ esqrs. Sheriffs of * the City of London^ in a Paper published in the name of Dr. Francis Hawkins, Minister of the Tower» intituled ' The Confession of « Edward Fitaharris/esq.' fcc [N.] 411

Remarks on Fitsharris's Trial, by Sir John Hawles, Solicitor Ge- neral to King William the Third 426

S7S. The Trial of Dr. Olitsr Plunket, Titular Primate of Ireland, at the

I^ng's-Bench, for High Treason, a.d. 1681 ; 447

in9. The Trial of Sir Miles Stapleton^ bart. at York Assizes, for High Trea- son, A«D. 1081 ....'. • 508

iBO. The Trial of George Birssr, isit Derby Assfaes, for High Tireason, being

a Romish Priesty a.o. 1681, •f«* • 526

981. The Trial of Stefhen Coixippx, at Pzfoni«.for High Treason, a. d.

1681 550

Remarks on Colledob's Trial, by Sir John Hawlbs, S61icit6r- General in the Reign of King William the Third 723

2ifi, The Trial of Slingsby Bethel, esq. at the Bridge-House in Southwark, for an Assault and Battery on Robert Mason, at the Election of Mem- bers of Parliament for the Porongh of Southwark, A. o. 1681 747

9B3. Proceedings at the Old Bailey, upon a Bill of Indictment for High Trea- son, against Anthony Earl of Shaftesbury, a. d. 1681 .>• 759

Remarks on the Earl of Shaftesbury's Grand Jury. By Sir John Hawlbs, Solicitor General in the Reign of William HI 835

284. The Trial of the Earl of Argylb, in Scotland, for Treason, a. d. i68 1 84S

255. Proceedings before the King in Council, against Arthur Earl of Ancle- SEY, Lord Privy Seal, upon account of a Book reflecting on the Con- duct of James Dake of Ormond, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a. d.

1682 [N.] , 990

2^0. Proceedings against Tbmpbrancb Lloyd, Mary Trbmblbs, and Susanna

BawARDs, for WitcfacnA; a.d: 1682 |,N.] ..••...;•.... 1018

% ■ • ♦

«-.

TABUB OF C0NTEN1&

3B7. Proceeding! between the Kino and the Citt or Loin>oii« on en Informa- tion in nature of a Quo Warramto, in the King's Bench, a. n. 1681 — 168S 1039

M. The IVial of Nathaniel Thompson^ William Pain, and John Farwbll, at the Guildhall of London, for writing, printing, and publishing Letters, importing that Sir Edmundbury Godfrey murdered himself; as also for sereral Falsities relating to the said Matter printed in seve- ral Papers, called ** The Loyal Protestant Intelligence,'' a. d. 1682 ••• I3M

COBBETTS

, •. IV'

COBBETT'S

COMPLETE COLLECTION

OF

State Trials.

272. Proceedings against Richard Thompson,* Clerk, for a High Misdemeanor against the Privilege of Parliament : 32 Charles 11. a. d. 1680.

HoisE or CoMMom, November 9, 1680.

Ordered, That RkhardThompson,tclei^ he irot Ibr ia custody of the serfeaot at anns MfeD^Bg this UouWy to answer at the bar of Ab Hooise, for his high Misdemeanor against ik hivQege of this Honse.t

* * I appoint Frsncts Smith, and Bemamin

* &nw, to print this Report and Resomtion,

* pnacd by me, according to the Order of the

* msK ot' Commons : Aad that no other per-

* «ft presome to print the same, December 24, ' too. W. WiLUAMs, Spttker.*

tOUoiixon calls this Thompson a " noisy, halEfl!. ienorant priest," and adds, ** I talce ikanv lILerty wiUi him because I Imew him." binean that the king soon after these pro- (Mm^s^ made him dean of Bristol.

1 1 ha«e not foand In the Journals any ear- Ker fDtn' concerning this matter of Richard Thmpsun, nor does it appear so distinctly as ■i^k be vrisbcd in what resjiects his ** high •rtnneanur" was " against the privilege of Ac HoQiie.'*

h if obs^nrable that Mr. Justice Blackstone, ■, ipcaking of Privilege of Pariiament, seems to SKdK term in its more confined sense, of an ■Boarty or exemption from such direct inter- i^faoQM and niokirtations, as obstruct the ezer- Ms ol' iha functions ot* nariiament, and from I Ai labUny to hare their medom of speech and tasa aoiil prrKMsedings in parliament impeach- ^jlw^iKsbdoed in any coutt or ulace out of par- He docH inuped say, tnat to assault by I member of either House or his me- raut is a hicj^ contempt of pariiament, Mtti-nr punished with the utmost severity : [MviUi this exception, he seems to contem- afl tlieir pririWgcs,and especially when he b d'lhetr indefiniteness, (bee the note to tlie ttl>ihiriey aod Fag^g* anfff, toI. 6, p. 1 If 1.)

VttL VIII,

December 8.

A Petition of Richard Thompson, clerk, in custody of the setjeant at arms, havinff been read, it vras ordered, That the consi&ntion thereof, as also of the matter oi* the complaint

as possessed by them almost exdusivdy for the purpose of protection from attacks of preroga- tire. And of such privileges it may he tndy said, in the words of the i^monstrance and Pe- tition presented to Charies the First by both Houses on Dec. 17th, 1641, (Sec 1 Clarendo:i's Hist of the Rebellion, S28. 8vo ed. 2 Cobb. Pari. Hist 978.) that <' they are the Urth-right and inheritance not only of the two Houses of parliament but of the >vho1e kin^om, wherein erery one of the king's subjects is intcrei^ed ;** but it is by no means clear that this mrvy witli equal truth be said of an uncontmll^^l discre- tionary power in each House of parliament to imprison for whatever such House of ^liament shall adjudge to be a contempt towards itself: more particulariy if a like uncoiuroUed discre- tionary power in courts is to be supported bj analogy to this.

Upon the whole matter it may, perhaps, ba safely said that whatever be the extent ot par- liamentary privileges, every patriotic member of parliament will concur in the sentiment ex- pressed by the learned and upright sir Robert Atkyns in the Case of lord Clarendon. (SkmwiA^ 6 of this ColU.H:tion, p. 355). " Though privi' lege is much spoken of, I snail never faS fond of any privilege which shall intrench upon my li- berty as a subject :" and that every wise House of Commons, knowing that confidence and af- fection between them and the body of the peo- ple is the great foundation of their dignity and importance in the state, will be very abstemious in the oxercise of any power by ^* hich tliat oon- fidenc*e and aficctioii is liable to be diminished or impaired.

B

3] STATE TRIALS, 32 Charles II. l680.

for \vhicli he stooil coniinilteil, shoulil hv rofi-ired ^ to a coiuniitlf-c to examine tiu' niattcT tlion'ot', antl to nport the same, vith their o|)iiiUMiii therein, to ihe House.

Vtctnihtr 2S.

Coloml Birch reports (Vom thi^ rommitlee to whom the e\amiiKition oi'ih<' eoinpluint o^iiist i Hielianl Thompson, elerk, was reierred, Tliat the eoiiiiiiitt("<.' havin;;^ taken ihe same into iheir ; ronsiikration, had directed hiin to make a sjie- ! ciai Report thereof to the H(»iise: \«hirh he read in hiN plaee, and ahen^ards deKvercd the ! samo in at the elerk*s table. '

Onlered, That the said Ke(K)rt be read at the table to-morrow moniiu!;.

December 24.

The Report fi(»m the Comniittee of the Com- mons in Parliament, appointed to consider the Petition «»f Itichanl Thomitson, atul to evamine the matter of the Complaint ag;aiiist him.

Tn the iirst pluer, the committee read inito the said Tlioinp.si;n, the heads of the comolaints against him ; which (for the most part) he de- nying, desired to have hi^i accnsei*s brought tdce to face: wheitnipoii the committee pro- ceeded totlie examination of witnesses, to prove the said complaint.

The first ^Vitness examined, saith, Tliat there being a gix'ut noise aiui rumour, that Mr. Tliompsonnacf preparctl a Kernion to be preach- ed on the .30th of January, 1679, the said witness went to tiie saiil sermon, antl did hear Mr. Thompson publicly declare, that the Pres- Nyteriaus weru suc:h persfins, as the very devil bhiflheil :it them ; and that tlie rillaiii Hamp- den gi*nd;^l, and maile it more scruple of c(Mi- 9ci«)nre, to vfive twenty shillings to the king, for supplying his neressities by Ship-money and Loan, whit h was his right by law, than to raise rebeliivn u'^aiiist him. Aitd that the Presb^'te- riansure \for>-e (aiwl fur more iutohruble) than €i'iher pdesls or Jesuits.

The second saitli, That hearing a fcveai talk and noise spriad nf a sermon to be preachiHl by Mr. Thomp.^in, on the ."Oth of January, 1670 ; be was niiml<*d io hiartlu^ same, and aeeoiding- ly did ; atMhich he urit some notes: amongst which, he siiith, that iMr. Thompson openly preached, that the dcy il blushed at the i*reAhy- terians ; and that thg villain Hampden grudge«l more to give the king tw4Mity shillings, which was his just thie by la\t (Ship-moiuy and I^an), tlian to i;^si^ CL'lK!lii(in against hiin ; and tiiat u Presbytenan brother, </w<« /«/«, was as gK.-jit a traitor by the statute, as any priec»t or Jesuit wlwil-socCer, That he lunir<l,*that Mr. Thomp- son said, t!iut ho luiped the Pria>byterians would

In sir Edwin Sandys's Case, Mr. Chanct'llor of the Dutchy wisely observed, * It is an easier ' matter to raise an* inflammation by tlie spe- * cious title of privib^'S than to allay it ogam.' See Proceedings ami Debates of tlie House of ConuuoDs ia 1620, and 1621, vol. S, p. 259.

.'^Proceedings against R.ThompsOH'^ [

be pulletl out of their houses, and the gaols filh >vitn them : and wishuil their house's burnt.

The third snith, lliat he was citetl to tl BishfipN (.'ouil, to riHvife the Stu'inment la Easter ; but being out of ti>un at that time, d ntceive it at a place caHe<l Purl in ^\'ilt5hirc and that a month ai^er he came htmie, wi again cited to the said Court, and lie did accon iiigly appear, ai:d told the Court, that he hopi his absence and biisini>ss might Ite accepted fi a lawful excuse ; upon \\hich Mr. Tliompsi innnediatcly said, that they would pi-oceed exconmiunicate hhn. Ujpon which, this ii formant produced his certificate, of which tl Chancellor approveil, and said it was lawfi Hei-eupon Mr. Thom^ison said, that his recei' ing the fekicrament from any otlier ministc than tbe mini.ster of the parish wherein 1 dweUed, w\\% damnation to his soul ; and th he would maintain this doctrine.

The ibiutli saith, That being at Brisl fair he heard a great talk and noise of Hatire -sermon pi-epared, and designcil to 1

{ireached by Mr. Thompson against the Pre i^ierians, on the SOth of January, 1679 ; ai tfiat very many resnrtetl to hear bim : in wkii sennou the said Mr. Thom|Nion declared ai said, that there \«'a.s a great talk of a pk>t : b (says he) a Pi\!sbvterian is tlie man ; and iv ther added, that tfie villain Hampden scrupli to give the king 20j(. upon Ship-money ai Loan, which was due by law, l»ut did not scai pie to raise rebellion against him.

The fifth saith. That Mr. Thompson, ia sermon preached tlie SOth of January, 167 did say, Uiat the presbyteriaus did seem to M vie Mariana, and that Cah in was the flnl Ihi preai>hed the king- killing doctrine ; and A afU'r he had quoted Calvin oiten, said, if this I true then, a Presbyterian bnrthcr, qua taliiy as great a traitor as any ]n*iest or Jesuit : ai that then he condemned all the in'occedings [Hirliament.

The sixth saith, Tliat he the said Mr. ThoiH son, had utteivil many scandalous wordu co corning the act tor burning in woollen ; aflSif ing, that the? makers of that law ^u-re a c«i pany of old foi»ls and fanatics, aiul tliat 1 w<iuld bring a school-btty should make a beM ad than that, and construe it \%h«'n he hud doi

The seventh saith. That Mr. Thom|i8on il SfTiuon by him preaelu^l (while petitions i sitting oi' this |iarliament weit^ on ttiot) spca ing of a second rebellion by the ^H.*otc:fa, w! ha<l frametl a formidable aimy, and oaiue far as Durham, to deliver a petition foraoolj and that they seemed ratlu'r to command fh petition their sovertign to grant ; and compi mg that i>etition with the then petition on fo greatly invciglied against it, and scoffed nm at it.

The eighth saith, That Mr. Thompson (wli the [lotition was on fi>ot tor the sitting if tl parliament) used at the funeml sermon of I Mr. Wharton these words {pointing at the A said), that he was no schismatical petitiaM rebel, aadtUit by his iogtigatioin tne gen

STATE tHIALS, 32 Crahles II. leso.^Prhilege of Parliammt. [G

Bristol made a pesentment of their on against petitioning for the sitting of uneat; that^e said Mr. Thompson him, that he was governor to Mr. vhcn he was beyond sea ; and said, had been vety often (and above one times) at mass in the great chiirch at d usually gave half a crown to get a bear a certain I>octor of that church, fie was like to be brought over to that and that when he went beyond sea, yvw but that he miffht be of that re- ore bis return. That ht is very ceu- ind frequently casts evil aspersions reral di^-ines at Bristol (»f great note, ?hctwind, Mr. Standfost, Mr. Cros- . Palmer, and others, saying, that 'eot to their lectures were the brats of

nth saith. That Mr. Thompson in his r inveighed bitterly against subscrib- >ns for sitting of this parliament, say- it was the seed of rebellion, and like one ; and that the devil set them on id the devil would pay them their aying', that before he would set his iich petitions, he would cut it off, yea bem off.

nth saith, Tliat about two years since, he chancel of 8t. Thomases church in "here queen Elizabeth's effigies is, Mr. n pointing his finger to it, said, that he worst of women, and a most lewd noos woman ; upon which this in- replied, he never neard any speak ill thereupon Mr. Thompson said, she ctter than a church-rubber, and that legun it, and that site fmished it. eventh, Howe, saith, That in the year waitcil on the mayor to church, and Thompson, who was there, railed at a^ing, he did more hurt in robbing the Dfis, than he did good by the refor- That afler dinner, Mr. Thompson this informant, and claps his hands on Iders, saying. Halt, boy, had queen I been living, you needed not to have rd- bearer of Bristol, llie said Howe 0 why ? He rpp]ie<l, She loved such a oe (so wfrll) as he was ; and he would a very fit for her ihiidgery at IVliite-

rdfth saith. That he heard a great a sermon tf> br; preached by Mr. • oothe SOth of Jaliuary, 1679, to d put of tlie same tune ; and that he ni 9X the same sermon, in which Mr. ft aaid, tliere was a gn>ut noise of a hi, but, sa^r-s he, here is nothing in it ■Ajterian Plivt ; for here they art? ■t to petition for the sitting of the |nir- ^* ihft end of it will lie to bring the io the block, as they have done his

audi laith, That in January last, if then was a petition going about ( cCthis perhwnent^'whcn Mr.

Thompson, in Retlcliff church, in his sermon said, it ^'as a seditious and rebellious petition, and rather than he woidd sign it, his hand should be cut of{l

The fourteenth saith. The 8tli day of April, he ^iug to pay Mr. Thompson his dues, speucing i^onceniing the meetcrs in private ; Blr. Thomjison said, he would haul them out, and fill the gaols ^vith them, and hoped to seu their houses a fire about their ears m a shoit time ; and tliis he, the said I'hompson, dou- bled again and again.

Tlie fifteenth saith, Tliat about December, 1679, Mr. Tliompson came to visit his mother, being sick; and discoursing of religion, Tliompson said, if he were as welt satisfied of other thin^, as he was of justification, auricu- lar confession, penance, extreme unction, and chiism in Itaptism, he would not have been so loB^ separated from the Cutholic Church. And further affirmed, that the Church of Rome was tlie true Catholic Church. Ha further endeavoured to prove extreme unction, and auricular confession, as well as he could, ont of the Epistles. Further, he hath heard him say, the king was a person of a mean and soft tenii>er, and could be led easily to any thing, but yet a Solomon in vices ; but tliat the duke of \ ork was a prince of a brave spirit, would be faithful to his friends, and that it was our own faults tliat he was a Roman catholic, in that we forcetl him to fly into France, where he embi*aeed that religion. About the same time, he the said Thompson said the church would be militant ; but greatly commended the decency of solcumizing the mass in Fiance ; and that it was |)erformed with much more reverence and devotion than any other religion doth use. He further hoard him say, in a Sct- mon, about the time of petitioning, he would rather cut off his hand than sign it, and had many bad expinssions of it ; that it was the seeil of rebellion, and like forty and Ibrty-one. And further, the said Mr. Thompson, at one Sandfoi-d^s shop-diKir in Bristol, spoaking of Bedloc, said, that he wfis not to be believed, bcf^ause Bedloe had said he, meaning Mr. ThomjMon, was at St. Omer's, whom Mr. Thompson said he was not ; and that Bedloe was of a bad life, and in many Plots, and not to be credited in any thhig he said. And tliat in another discourse he ctmunended the Rom- ish clergy tor tlieir singk* hfe, and is him- self so ; and did at the same time vilify and rail at the English clert^y for mairying ; say- ing, it was bctler for u ch'rgynian to he gelt ihan to many ; and that tlie Calvinists in France were l^clierous fellows, and could scarce l)e two years a priest without a m lie. About the time, an<l af\er the election of sir Jolm Knight to this pavlianient, Mr. Tliompson said, he was not ht'to he iK-lioved, and as bad as any fanatic. He fultlH^r said in the pulpit at Mt. Thomases, that after excommunication by the bishop, witliout absolution from th6 spiritual court, such a one was surely damned; and he would pawn las soul for tin' trutli of it. '

7] STATE TRIALS* 32 Charles il. iGso.^Proceedingi^gahut R. Thompson-^ |

Evidence ended ; Mr. Tliompsonf afler tlie evid^ce given by every particular person, face to face, ^'us asked to crery one, if he had any micstioas to ask before tliey called another P Who answered, he should w»t say any thing' at |»iCM*iit. When tlie \%itiit»s.ses before-mention- <'(.! wei-c all exainini^, IVIr. Tliom|j5on being de- si reil to nuike his deteuce, and tleclare wnellier Iv.: were t^iilty of the niattem laid to his cliarge, did for tiie greatest {>art confess words spoken to that cftect ; and in other thiiics endeavoured to tnni the words with more favour towards himself; hut tlie witnesses being of great cre- 4lit, and many more being ready to have made good the same tilings, the Committee Icxdicfl upon the business to be of a high nature ; and therefore ordered the matter to be reported fipet-ially, leaving it to the wisdom of the

very justly odious as he was to the majority < his sulgects — ^without a House of Commons \ carry on his government during the four la 3'earsof hislile.

In his ' Declaration to all his loving subject touching the causes and reascins tlmt niov< him to dissolve the two last imrlianicnts* (whic Declaration, his majesU' in council, on the 81 of April, 1681, ordered to be printed and pul lished, and read in all churches and cliapc throughout the kingdom, and which, as it a] pears, was drawn up by lord chief justii ^iortlk) he specially mentions in the catalogi of the vicrious measures of the House of Con moiLs, < arbitrary' orders for taking our sul jects into custody, for matters that had no n lation to Privileges of Parliament.*

The mention of this matter by two of tl

House. contemporaneous historians, Roger Coke ai

A A L.^^ • • • Ai TT Ai ^^ Jtoger S'orth, is curious and iierhaps instrai

A debate arising m the House thereupon ; .-.J^, ' * '^

tive

Resolvetl, neni. eon.. That Richard Thomp-

majesty

f^'4!*^^!-.J"iT"T ^•"''^7.' "Jj Tr^!J searching into the discovery of the "Popi

popish pi ,ncii.les, decrying the Pop sh PK p,^^ J^ exasperated agaiiit the Tories,*^fi

1«: IT"^ *'T'.'*'"k Tl\ '^n JT? ?™' ridicijing the Popish PlS^ and for abho;ri«

nni^-iT'"'';-^""^^'^^^^^^ ptitionincr the king to le^ the parliament m

perty of the subject, and the rights and pmi- 1^ ^^^^ ^^ prosecute and secure the natic

fo^^tloii promoted Pope^v, by asserting :LSn;^r S^c^V o^t^^^^^^^^

Oiilered, Tliat a Committee l>e appointed to ters, and of the Coiniiious of this parliame

pre[)are tlie said lin|>eachiiient. Anil it is re- against the Tories, should be taken for preo

ferred to sir Win. Jones, and others : And the dents by any parliament in time to come.

Maid Committee is imfiowered to receive further *Ml1ien parliaments met annually, or i

informations a^^ainst ihe said Richanl Tliomp- lea-s-t fi-eqiioiitly, I think cnm])laint (^annot I

sou: And to send for persons, papei's, and recortls. found against any man for Rre<ich tif PrivileiTi

r r .-co« hut when there *were lonijiiitenals of parUi

January 5, 1681, ^ ^ i *i ^ i

^ ' ments, from whence the consequence resolve

A Petition of Richard Thompson, clerk, in into lonr^ sittings of parliaments, which begs

custody of the Srrjeiiut at Arms attending tliis in the n'igii of Henry B, then the inconvenieni

Uousf*, was r(*ad. of privilege first began ; nor do I finil any Im

Ordore<l, That the said Serjeant at Arms be fore the latter end of Henry 8, nor does 31!

imp<iwerf^d to reeeivf suiiicient security for the Petit, in his Preceilents [of ftxemptions] froi

forthcoming of the said Richard Hionipson, to arrests, and other privileges of parliament

answer to tlie Impeachment of this House men, cite an} iK'fore Uie GUh of Henry 8, i

against him. case of 'Mr. George Ferrers, bui^j^ess Vor tl

The Parliament was soon aHmvanls Jis- l°„'i'l,f "yrL"*'';"*"*! "'^^i*"'".i'^'!

■olve.1, an.l I havo not foun.l in the Journals ^^ """ '*"* *"'«'" *"' ""=''* "«»r".V. «l«t I

„^„ 1 I ^ ,- ••*. .^ «iiii«ia takes up near seven naffes to recite the pre

T^Tomn^n' P"^''"*;^* "«.-»"»' »''" ceding^ of th« <;onZn8 «,K.n it ; and L

*^ * the king lieing advertised there(»f, called tl

Chancellor, the Judges, the S|M«ak(M- of tl

■ Commons, and the gravest |»erKons of tlieu

wherein he commended the wisdom of tl Commons rn maintaining their privili'Sfi^, ai

It should be noticed, tliat at the time when that the privileges of parliament extend to tl

this Case occurred, the House of Commons servants of the Commons from arrests, as vn

praetiseil commitments, as for Breach of Pri- as to the iiersoiis of the Commons. It is woi

vilegc, with a frcqui^ncy and extent which seem thy observation with what solniety and justM

to have excited much disgiist and discHnileiit ; the Commons proceeded herein : tlie^- orilen

and it is not improbable that the prevalence of tiieir seneant forthwith to repair to t^e Conipt

those feelings thus excited greatly contributed in Bread-street, wherein Mr. Ferrers was con

to enable king Charlea the 8Mond — odious, and mitled, with his maoei to demand Ins deliver]

STATK TRIALS, 32 Charles II. 16S0.— PWui/fjre of Parliament. [lo

nh'.o'i tilt* scriear:t iliil lo the officers of the i pear before tlicin, to an-^wer for themselves ('•>:.. ;•:• r. uho not%%iihstan(liii^ refused to do I itefbrc tlie House passed any eensure ii|mu II, .:r. 1 U'ai and hurl some of the serjeaiii's ihenf. 3. That in none of those ceiismvs tlicv i«r;iir>.. aad hiuke liis mace; and dunn^* the enj«>imd lh'? '.!« !iiH)i!ei\t to pay their fees to

b?sM{. ihi- sheriifs of Lonilon eatiic in, Mho r*M:itrii:uK-e<l the otricers of the (Jfiinpter, and iri"»if**l to deliver 3Ir. Ferrers, and <;ave tlie KTJj^nt proud lanf;ua<re, and c^iitemp^uoiiNly irjrtltti his mesNa^^e : 1 lerciijion the Commons nKLinandt-l the <^rieani to ve<;i!ive the sheritrs U Uinduii to deliviT 31 r. Fe.rers hy shewing iImu hn ma4*e, which >vn.s his wnrrant fiir so dfitsg. W ber«*upoti the sheriiis de1ivei*ed him ictiTiitD'^ly ; but then the :»oi;i;-ant havini^f fur- iW (vuiniaoil from the (.'onniions, chars|^?ri (fieshmlii t(i ap|iear iH;rs<»naU3' on the r.iorrovv ir turfit of the cioek, hei«i*e the Speaker, in tlie BeiiMrr House, to briiiij: thither the Clerks «l tiK Omifter, and such other of their otiieers

tlii'ir :i(T|": lit, f<»r the si'rjeant is tin* Ling's; oiii.rr; i-u-: i»;. tiu* ^tith \\ eM. l,nootiieer of th< ki{»«f\ «^;.i'li tuke air, fte or nnanl for diiinij liis ( 'l.'i' .", hut what l:e n eeives from the kinjf, urM.n p**r'li> of ren',ierii:i;' douMe to the plai.'iti.I, ai'.iil!.' ;':.iih«'r puniNlud at t!u' will of thckip.^'". /i.il ^'.r Edv.ard Coke in his first fnst. III). 3. set. V'M, til. Kxtoitioiu-rs, says, this wasUi;*a!:1ii'iU eor.nnon law, and llie yn*' nnllios rdiK.j'. hy thj statutes ; and that, thoucrh some Minutes siiur*' hti>e alioncnl the ki'.iir's oflieers in soniii eases to lake ft'es for exeeutii-ji^ their <»H'*e ..':;, y-t none otiivr can be taken but what sueh statutes allow ; and that all olfieers of tli<' kiiijf, who take li'es olhr-rwise, arey^uilty

t» ^ere |iarti€» in the fray, and to take into t>f j)erjiiry. I would know by what law the ri>ii«iy one White, who had wiltinjrjy prf>- I ('ommons^ sevjennt take>;his fet.'S, uiid how the OTk^i Uw said aiTC'St in contempt of the privi- Couunons <'an abi>olve huu from pcijury lur

k^oi parliament.

'* Next <la\' the two sheriffs, with one of the drfis and \Vbite, apiiearefl in the Commons Uiiue ; where the Si>€alie»' cliaq;inc«; them vitii tbi:ir CfHitempt and mi«lcnneauor, they »«7e cuiiipeUcd to make hnmediate answer, vtbiNit beinsT ailmitted to council [qu. to have oiJAsel] ; and in conclusion the sheriflv and Hiuie werecoiuraittedto the Tower, and the Ml (nhich was the ocoaKion of the fray) to a ffact i-aUed Little £ase, and the officer which ^ the arrestf called Taylor, with four other Mficcn, to Newgate, wherc^ they remained limn the 23lli to the 3 1st 31aix*h, and then were Lriiteretl at the bumble suit of the mayor and t!<sr ocijer friends.

- Tbe nevt breach of privile«fe reported by

Km. k eight ycuirs after, >iz. tlie 4th af Ed-

nnl6. by oneWithrin^on, who made an as-

ftuit upon tb«; pc-rson of t>ne Bnuidlin^, liur-

psiof Nc%vc:i.st'c ; hut the parliament dra\\in^

tiFvsjkii aa eniK the Commons sent W ithrinti^.

t'-bMth<^ pri^y council, but the comicil would

L'4 zne^dU' in it, and sent the bill of Mr. Brand-

luif '« ci'inphiint back a|^in to the Commons

Mt^.rdin£; to the antieni custom of tliC House ;

vliereupon the bjl was sent to the Lords from

ikt Commrcns, %% ben Withrinffton eonfess^l he

k^faa the fray upon Dr. Brandlint^, upon w liieh

Imt Has comrnitted to tlie Tower. This was in

ibe >c£r 1660.

^**Mr. Petit finds net another breach of privi- ligetiU the 14th i»f Elizabeth which was done hf oat Arthur Hall, for siyidrv lewd 6|)eechcs ■a well in the Commons House, as abroad ; was warned by the serfeant to appear be- tbe bar of the Conmious to answer tor the , Slid uf^n his knees, u|)on the humble or lus Mly, he was remitted w ith a

Ccsbortatiofi given him by the Hpeaker. I obserre them three particuUu^: 1. of these breaches ofprivileii^ of Ib finmer times. 2. Tbejustii*e of in their proceedintjfs of breach of >, lo cite the puraou or pcrs««Ds to ap-

takin<jf such tlH.s.

** Whereas in tliis pnrliat;u»nt rarely a iliiy |)as.sed wherein men U|)on bare sii^i^estioos, and absent, were not jn:'i^*d, and e\ccii»i'i:i ordered for hiufli and niitorious breach^ of th:* Conmtons' privile|ift!S, vet. most of these not foreknown, and ofdercnl to Ik» taken into cu.-^- tody, tlioujrli in Northundierland and York- shire : and rarely 1 think any of them were dis4^har(^efl without payings their fees ; nay, they oiitnni nil that was ever iluMii^ht of before : for on the 14th of December, havinjj^ \oted one 3Ir. Herbert Ilerrino- to be tak^n into custody, and Herrin*;:^ altscomliniv-, the Housf> resohed,

* That if he did not render himself by a ccr-

* tain day they would proci^'d n;^alnst lum

* bv bill in parliament for endeavouring; by

* his absconding' to avoid tlu; justice of the

* House.'

** It was «traTic:e methong^ht that the r<mi- mons shoubl be so zealous aii-ainst any aroi- Irary |K>wer in the kin*^, and l.iko such a lati- tude to theiUbelves, which puts n:e in mind of a story I have heard of an old usurer, who had a nepncw who had i^ot a lici-nce to preach, ami the uncle havinsf ui-vit ilone an^ thinjj for his nephew, lieresol\Hl i^ W. re\i-n;je«l npon his uncle hi a si-rnion which he Wiudd priMch be- fiii-e his uncic in the parish wheif^ he li^t^l : he made a most invective sermon a<^ait;>t usur}' and usurers ; but alter ihi* scrmtm was 4lone, the uncle thanks his nephe*.) (or his jvond sermon, and •ra\e hiiu two '.iOx. picc«'s : the nephew was confouciU'd at tbi.^:, and lH'«;i^etl his itncle\ [Kirdon for v«Iiaih>'lnd done, for he thoii;;ht he had !;iwi! him ;;fical oifence : * \o,' said the uncli , ' Nrplii-w, tro <»n and preach

* other folds oat of the conceit of usury, and I ^ shall have the bi.1l(Y o|i|Mirtunity <;t'puttins^

* out my money.' " 'iti'oke's Detection, p. 'S.'io.

" Afterwaiils he" [KenntU") " comes to the pfrcat work of morlltyii'^i" thr^e AMiorrers, and there he is full as copi«»us and honest ; ft»r he tells only of nine or ten, in a naked li.st of gen-

1 1 ] STATE TRTALS, 52 Charlks II. l6^0.'^Proee§dingi agmnti jR. Thompion

tlCTien, sent for by the scrjeant at arms, and committed by the llonae of Ckimmons, without any distinction of caRen or chtmmstanccM, but only for detesting and abkorrinc uctiiioiiing for the sitting of the parliament. That is his tunc upon all occasions. And here he is forced to cnrad in by the by, that it was a breach of the privilec^ of parliament; which vote did indeed come forth at last, otherwise this committinsf folks had gone with less colour. But, withal, that the proceeding raised a great cHunour in the country ; for it had not been usual to send for gfentlemen in custody for what thry did upon ^prand juries, and in way of duty, as well in giv'iug testimony of their loyalty to the king, as in resisting a tumuhuous trade of lioud gathering in the country, to the yery great dis- turbance of the neighbourhood and tlie public peace, only because they hapnened to be mis- midcrstood in the House or Commons. It certainly was prejudicial to the authority of &e House of Commons, and added to the dispo- sition in the kingtlom of relying upon the king's good government ; and many said. Shall uiey take away the liberties of the king's ])eo- ple^ whp are entrusted to defend tliem against all arbitrary powers whatsoever ? And it gave occasion to toe king to justify the dissolving, saying, as in his declaration, — * That they re-

* tumcfl arbitrary orders for taking our subjects

* into custody for matters that hafl no relation ' to privileges of jmrliamcnt. — Strange illegal

* rotes ! — declaring divers persons to be ene-

* mics to the king and kingdom, without any

* order or process of law, any hearing of thcv

* offence, or any proof so much as offered

* against them.'

«* Tlie effect of tUe«?c harsh proceedings ap- peared in the case of one iMr.StavcKor Stowel,* a gentleman of a good family in Devonshire. He was foreman of a grand jury at Exeter, and

• Commons Journal, ** Sabbati, 4to die Oe- Cembris, 1680, p. m. The House being in- formed that 3Ir. William StawcU, in custody of the Seijeant at Arms attending this House is sick, and not able to appear before this House, Ordered, That Mr. Stawell have a month's time given him for such his appearance." It sccnis probable that this entry relates to the person mentioned h^ North. Mr. Hnme, indeed, 8 Hist. 131. Ed. of ]80r. tells us, that '< the vigour and courage of one Stowel, of Exeter, an AbhoiTer, put an end to the practice" [of ar- bitarj' and capricious connnitntents]. *• He re- fused to obey the Serjeant at anns, stood upon his defence, and said, that he knew of no law bv which they pretended tu c'i»inmit him. The llouse finding it eouaily dangerous to proceed or to recede, got off by an evasion ; thev insert- ed in their votes that Stowel was inJisposefl, and that a month time was allowed iiim for the recovery of liis healtli." He quotes no authority ; so that he *' stood upon his defence," mnd ** got dear off by an evasion," (no very dignified historical phraseology'), may perhaps ht Mcre inrmtiTe decoration.

presented to the judge of assize the gran<

Address to his majesty in the tenor of an

rence. Upon naming him in the H(

Commons, for the leader of this Abhorre

was ordered to be taken into custody

Serjeant at arms. And the Serjeant sen

his deputy to bring the gentleman up ;

would not submit to the arrest, the

might take his course. For which he a]

that he knew no law for the taking av

liberty on account of wliat he did as a

jni-y man, in a court of justice, swoni,

some such effect; whereupon the ofli<

turned without his prey. Hiis was a <

cold water, and took down tlie ferment

whole business. And the matter was I

op, some saving that he was indisposed,

that he could not be found ; an<l so ii

was fartlier done agaiast him. And ni

men of any sort were sent for into c

upon this account ; for the wisest of tl

tion b^nr^an to perceive there had bet

many sent for already. I remember w(

the name of this Mr.* Stowell was famoi

cried uu in and about London, ami a

England, and celebrated in healths of <

as of a geneml afler victory, or rather a i

assertor of the people's liberty. 1 never

the like in the case of a private person,

that of Dr. Sacheverel ; the latter run L

but the difference was only in * majus et n

It was impossible a faction (without

should rage and tyrannise, as the par

about the beginning of this parliamen'

not lose the hold they had of the people,

tliey had led into a tolerable opinion of

There was scarce a day past, but tlie^

gratified with hearing some |>enon wa

lor in custody fur abhorring. Sir C

Treby said, they (meaning the House of

noons) kept an hawk, (which was tliei

jeant at anns) and they must every du;

vide flesh for their hawk. 1 can better *

this fen* truth, because it was spoke to ir

The Serjeant's name was Topham, an

much work he had upon his hands, r

time, * ad terrorem populi Regis,' hail

it proverhial, on all discourse of perert

commitments, to say ' take him Topi

which, for ought I know to the con

may, from that authentic original, coi

a proverb at this day. Whatever the

mitinetits were, the dread was almost

versal; for after the vote, that tnul

petitioning should be punislje<l as a 11

of Privilege, who could say his liliertji

his own? For, bein"* named in the 1

for an Abhorrer, <take him Topham.'

the consequence of this proceedin*/, as 1

hinted it, may be a lesson ti» all [>owci

whatsoever foot they are erected, that

take care to perform their dnty acronii

the intent of their institntion, thereby m

themselves useful, and not a terror to the

pie under them ; for if, instead of that, <

privite mards, Aey grow uitemperate,

gnlar, ana injurioas, they wiO lose groum

i 3) STATE TRIALS, 32 Charles II. iGSO.-^Privilvge ef Parliament. [U

u Im^h be humbled, if not wholly lost." North ';» Examen, p. 560.

S>, too, Burnet, 1 Own Times, 484, fol. ed. of 1724 :

" Hie House did likewise send their serjeant la Bio> parts of Enghind, to briim^ up ahlior- rm u ilelinquents : ufion whicli the right that ihiy had to imprison any besides their own maJbtvi came to be nuieh questioned, since tii^i ct'uki not receive an information upon oitL. iMir |>roceeil against sucfi' as refusctl to Kf^ia behire th«Mii. " In many places, those for vkMOiihe}' sent tiieir serjeant refusetl to come up It was found that such practice's were ptRHirird on no law, and wcTe no elder than fata Elizahetli's time. While the Hmise' of ranaK'Ob usi^i that power gently it was sub- miOMl to in res|ie€<t to it ; hut now it grew to he 10 much extended, tliat many resolved not tuMibraitto it." [Query, as to what Burnet ■i<>of the Ht«i»e"of Commons not proceeding •CUKt Mich as rei'used to appear before tliem, •it tlk: Proceedings in the Case of Jiiv and Ttfibau. A. D. 1689, infra,"] 8ec, too, Kalph, ill»,J17.

Mach anention has been lately (1 write in uv BioDth of June 1810) directed to the topic «f caaminneffii hy the House of Commons, ia coBiequeiicc of the publication of a Letter, h**n '' Sir Francis lUirdett to his Constituents iiM>inictlie power of the House of Commons In iai|>rMm iLe people al' Engkind." And in iMibon M the copious discussion of the sub- jfcct in {larlianient, it has been ventilated from tlirpcsft with m^K'b erudition. Mr. WilliTuns ^}vi hns piiltlished a learned '* ArGfumeiit u|>on thk|aRidictiiHi<it* the House of Commons to riiMmir a% caNen of Breach f»f Privih^ge," and ajwveriul writer, (Mr.Efans) uruler the sigiia- tmt ut * Piihliffda* hiu niiblished *^ Six liCtters 6aia« lilierty of tlie Sunjecf and the Prinleges i*f ttir HfMine of C'ooimons." So lik«*wise have been ^li<4ied, ** TIm* Spcf*ch of Mr. Ponsoubv fin tbt- question relative to tlie Privileges of the Houpttr •A' ir<inMiionM as connected with the o4' Sir Fnuieis Bunlett and (iaie ;" '^Sper'ch<tf U'iliiant4(him,'t>sq. Sec.;" ** 4 i'^MiciHe Aecmmt of the Origin of i\w two Hoi!i«n of PaHiameut, with an impartial State- ■tfM 'f the FVtvileges of the Iloiisf* of Com- umitMk. aiid of the lilierty of tlu- Suhjei't, by fcflward Cln-i««tiuo, cm). Vc.*' ; ** The Imw and ot Par!ianiiri«t in eases of Pri« ilegi'S and V*'. hy Fram-is Ludlow Ifiilt, es4|. ;'- **A %*indi«*ation of llie Privileges of the Houso rf CovMnfjnfs >ec. by Henry Miuluf^k, jun. ** The QneMtion cimsidercd : 11ns* the of Commoii«i a riglit of counnittnl to He. by K. A. Bunialiy, eM). ;'' and an mis ^'^.Sh«*rt Examination into tlic power Hoi!ae t4' Commons to cnnnmit, in a Let- Hr FraiMfLH Burdett, bait.** Tlie House « also liaa, by Votes of 1 ith and 93d 1810, caused to be ptiuted the following fits:

These Ri-jwrts are as follows :

REPOirLS from the Skllct CoMMrrxEE ap- pointed to consiiler of the 1^'ocecdinga had, and to bf.> hiul, witli reference to the several P»|iei-s signed ** Fiuncis Bur- df.1t;" the Contents of which relate to his being apprehended, and committed to tlie Tower of lymdon. Together with an AiTENoix. [As amended on Recommit- ment.]

FIRST REPORT.

It appears to your Committee, afler referring to the Onler of the House of the 5tli day of April last, for the cfuumitment of sir Francis BunleU to the Tower ; the Warrants of the Speaker t«r that purpfise ; the Ix^tter of sir trancis Burdett to the Sjieaker, dated the 17th day of April List ; the Report and Examination of the Serjeant at Arms, touching his proceed- ings in the execution of such warrants ; the notices to the Speaker referred to your Com- mittCH* ; tlie demand made upon the Serjeant at Arms of a copy of tlie warrant under which he arrested sir Francis Bunlett; tlie writ served upon the SiTJcaut, and the summons serve<l u|Kin the SjM'ukcr, and the notice of De- claration filed against the Serjeant ; which said notices, demand, writ luul summons, are all at tlio suit or on behalf of tlie saiil sir Francis Bur- dett, and all bear the name of the same solicitor, John Ellis ; That the said procccniiugs liavo liecn brought against the S|ieaker, and the Ser- jeant, on accfmnt of what was done hy them respectively in ol>fdieni'e to the Onler of tho House ; and for the purpose of bringing into ouesti'fTi, liefoix' a court of hw, the legality of the proceetlings of the House in ordering' tlio conimitiiu-ut of >ir Francis Burdett, and of the conduct «»f tlic Speaker, and the Seijeant, in (»lietlience til that Order.

1. ^ our (.'ommittee, not in consequence of anvflouht upon the question so intcnikHl to be raised, but inr the purfMise of collecting into one vii'W such Preccilents of the jiroceeilings ol'the House upon cases of Breach of Privilege as might afluril light upon this inqxirtant sub- j»i t, ha\ (• in the lirst place examincfl the Jour- nals, with relation to the practice of the House in commitnient 4»f persiins, whether meniliei'S or others, lor Bivaclii:s of Privilegi*, hy <dfeii- si\t' v.urds ur writint;^ dentg;it<>ry io the honour j and churactiT of the House, or of any of its iiiiiubt.'is; und tlii'V have found nuuierous in- stances, in the history oi' Parliament, so far as the Journals extend, of the frt*«|uciit, unifoim, and uuinterriqitcil practice of the House of Coninioiis to commit to diflerent custiHlies, pers<iiis whom tliev have iidjudged guilty of a Breach of their Prn iK-gcs li\ s<i oHending.

The slafciiiem oi' tli<s«* *PriT.<Hleiits, which CKtid)lish llif I^iw of Parliament upon this point by the usai^c oi Parliament: the utilitv of such law, and the necessity uliich cvists for its con* tiimance, iu order to maintain the ihgnity and

I

1

15] STATE TRIALS, 32 Chahles II. l660.^Prceef dings againit /?. ThompsoH— [

indeitcndencc of the Hoii>c of Commons ; its Aiialotry to i\w. acknowliMltrcMl powers of courts «>f justice, aiid the reros^ition of such ri^it in \iinoas instances, bv Ic^l aiitlioritieri, by judi- cial decisions, anil Ihy tiic other branch of the Icpslaturc ; as well as the invariable assertion and maintenance of it by the House of Com- mons, are topics which nia^' he reserved lor a f\irthcr Reiiort. And althoujo^li there are some instances in which the House has thougfht proper to direct prosecutions for such ofTcnocs, yet the Connuittee confidently state that the more fre<picnt practice of tlie House, at all times, has l)cen to vindicate its own Privileges by its own authority.

2. Tlie subject which appears to your Com- mittee to pross most urpnently for an immediate report, is, The state of the law and the prac- tice of the House in cases either of criminal prosecution or civil action a^nst any of its members, for any thing spokni or done in the House of Commons ; or for any proceeding against anv of its officers or other persons act- ing under its authority.

The princii»a1 instances to be found under this head arose out of those proceedings, which, in the time of Charles the Ist, Charles the 2nd, and James the 2nd, were instituted by the of- ficers of the crown, in derogation of tlie Rights and Privileges of the Commons of England. Tlioso proceedincfs wei-e resisted, and resented by the House of Commons; were condemned by the whole legislature, as utterly and di- rciilv contrary to the known laws and statutes and IVeedom of this i^alm ; and led directly to the Declaration of the Bill of Rights, " TImt the freedom of speech, and debates or proceed- ings in Parliament, ought not to be impeach- ed or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;" and your Committee have no hesitation in stating, that this article in the Hill

of Rights extends as clearly to Actions or Tii^

dictments brougflit, or prosecutions by indivi- duals, as to Informations or other prf)rep<linGfs

directly instituted by the authority of the

cro^vn. The Law of Parliament on tliis subject, so

far as relates to words spoken in Parliament,

was legislatively <lecl:ired in a statute to be

found in the Parliament R^dl of the 4th of II. ,

8 : By that act, the ricfhts and privilc^ros of I

free speech in Parliament an» e«itablished, and j

a special action is ^iven in favour of the pnrty >

Injured by any action brought ajjainst him for '

words spoV'-'n' in ParliainfTit. And. from tliis ,

statute, it appears that Pailiainent at that time, j

whi'h tlu' case occurrrd which smncd to shew

the eYiurdit^ncv of lo^rislativf provi>in!i to nriyo

fuller foi-ci' ;>n<t protrr-tion to its ]»ri\ ilrn^es, made

it the subject of su'.*h provision.

In the .5(h of Charles 1, an Infonn^tion w:ls

filed aifaiuNt sir J. lilliot, IVn/el Hollcfi, esfj.

and Benjamin Valentine, for thfir speeches and

conduct in the House of Commons ; Judgment

was given uirainst them in the King's- Bench,

thev wen» sentenced to imprisonutent, and

t fined : hi the Parliament which met in

3

1610, the House of Commons, after a Repc made of the state of the cases of Mr. Holl and the rest of the imprisoned meraibera, in tl 3ni of C*harles, came to several Resolution by which they resolved, That these prucc^ini w ere against the law and privik»gp of Parlii luent ; and condemned tlie authors and acto in them as persons guilty of a breach of ti privilege of Pariiament. [ii. Com. Jour. Jul 6 and 8, 1641. State Trials, vol. 3, p. 310, this Collection.].

In tlie reign oif Charles 2, these procce<lin( were again taken into consideration ; and tl House of Commons came to sevc^ral Resoh tions. On the 12th of November, 1667, the resolved. That the act of Parliament in the 41 year of the reign of Henrj- 8, above refem to, is a declaratory law of the ancient and ru cessary riffhti and privik>ges of I^rliamen On the 23rd of November, 1667, they resolve That the JiHlgment above referred to again sir J. Elliot, D. Holies, and B. Vakiitine, e

3uires, in the King's-Bench, was an iUpg udgment ; and on the 7th of l>eccmbcr, 166; they desired the concurrence of the I.iord Tlic Lords on the I2th of December agiec with llic Commons in these Votes.

Your Committee next refer to the case < sir William Winiams ; the detail of which the proceed to unert from the Report of a fonin

Coimnittee of this House. [27 Mar. 1771. ii Com. Rep. p. il.]

« The Case of su- William Williams, again!

* wlmm after the dissolution of the Parlianiei ' hekl at Oxford, an Information was hrougl

* by the Attorney General, in the King'i

* Bench, in Trin. Term 36 Car. 2, for a niii ' demeanor, for liaving printed the Infomiatio

* against Thomas Dangerfield, which he ho

* onlered to lie printed when he was 8|>eiik0

* by Order of the House. Judgment passe

* against him on tliis Information, in the 2ii

* >ear of king James the 2nd. This procee<l

* nig the Convention Parliament deemed t

* great a mievance, and so high an infringi » nient of tlic rights of Pariiament, that it ai

* jwars to your Committee to be the principn < if not the sole object of the first ]mrt of tli

* eighth head of the means use<l by king Jani<

* t> sub^ cj I the laws and lil)ertif>s of this king

* d.ini, as set forth in the DtH-lai-atinn of tl

* tv>o lloiises ; which will ap|K^ar i^idont froi

* the account gi\en in the Journal, Htli of Fei

* 108K, of the rornsiiig of that Declanition, tl

* L-i^liiii head of whi*h was at first concein ' i!i th'.'s.' woids ; viz. "By causing It ** foniiaiions to |je brought aucl pniwviitcd I ** t.'jc Court of Kinir's- Bench, for untters ai »• ri.u>:«s founiza!.!;' only in Parliament, and li ** diMTS other :irbifnny ami ille«r;il rtmrsi-s,"

nth Febniary 165J». '* To this Article tl " Lonls (lisngif 4m1 ; and gave tor n n^imMi Hi " caiLse they do not fuHv a'.jiri'luuid w Imt ** meant by it, nor what instancc-H then* ha^ " l)ceii of It; which theretore they itcMre ma >< Ik; explained, it the Hoube Khali think, tit ' '* insist funht;r on it."

STATE TRI AL9, 32 Charles II. 1 £80 Privilege of Parliament. [ 1 8

I Febnary 1688. " The House disagrce the Lords ia their amendment of leaving Jie r^hth Article. But in respect of the hf giren by tlie liords in explaining that tr ; resolved. That the words do stand his manner; By prosecutions in the t of Kinsf^s-bench for matters and a cof^nizable only in pai-Uament, and bv ; oihir arbitrary and i1l^;al courses. ' hii'h Anieiidmeut, your Committee ob- s that the House adapted the Article rorredly to the case tliey bad in view ; e luliMrniatiun was filed hi king Charles KQnd\ lime ; but the prosecution was d Ml, and judgment obtained, in the il virur of king James.' iltbe meaning of tlie House sliould be ofeoni k^y idem to the I^rds, the House d, <*Thai sir William WUliams be I lo the managers of the Conference ;" r IVilUaiD W lUianis tlie same day rc- the Conterence with the Lonls ; and, thtv lordships had adopted the Article :iror(l:4 as amended by the Commons." iim:spondin^ to this Article of Griev- ts tlie arisertion of the Ri^ht of the Sub- 1 ihe niuth Article of the Declaratory f the BUI of Kighta ; viz. *' lliat the nn and debates or proceedings in par- flt, ou^ht not to be impeachfS or ques- J in any court or place out of parlia-

which may be added, the latter part of oh Resolution of the Exceptions to be in the Bill of Indemnity, Journal, vol. x. J, wherein, after reciting the surrender arters, and the violating the rights and IBM of elections, ^cc. it proceeds in these b: ** And the questioning the proceed-

i>f parliament, out of parliament, by hntioas, Informations or othcnvisc, are w for wliich some persons nia}^ lie justly sled out of tlie Bill of Indemnity." ne tith of June 1689, the House or- ** That the Records of tlie Court of f t-bench, relathig to the proceedings ist William Williams, esq. now sir Wil-

Williams, knight and baronet, late ker of this House, be brought into this V, by the Custos Brevium of the said t, ooThuraday morning next." [x Com.

I. irr.]

the 13th of July, <« The Record was ; and the House thereupon resolved, 1 the Judgment given in the Court oi' ^s-bench, in E&nIit term 2 Jac. 2(1, ■I Williflira Williamsji eso. Speaker of isose cf Commons in tne {larlinnieiit tt Westminster 25th October dC? (^^ar. br HMtter done by Order of tin; House of ami as Speaker thereof, is in ilU'- it, and aguiiLst the frtvdiiiii of

I, That a hill be broui^ht in to rc-

Hud Judgment." [Ibid. p. '215.]

was twice read, but weiit no f ur-

•esVion :'^ A similar Bill was hi

• Vllf.

the following session ordered to 1)6 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 app«irs further, tliat on the nh June 1689, ^*- A Pctiiion of John Tophani, esq. was read ; *< setting forth. That he, being a Serjeant at *' Arms, and attending the House in the years " 1679 and 1600, when several onlers were ** maile, anti directed to the jietitioner, for the *' takin«^ into his custody the several persons of ^' sir Charles Ncal, 9cc. &c. and others, for '* several misdemeanors by them committed in " breach of tlie piivilqje of the House ; and ^' aller that the Commons were dissolved, thtt " said persons being resolved to ruin the peti- '* tioner, did, in IlUary term, the S3d or 34tli " of king Charles, sue the petitioner in the '* KingVbench in several actions of trespass, *' battery and fak«e imprisonment, for taxing ^* and detaining them \xa aforesaid : to which ** actions the petitioner pleaded to the juris- ** diction of the Court, the said several orders ; '* but such his plea \f as over-ruled ; the then *' judges ruling the petitioner to plead in cliief, ^^ and thereupon he pleaded the orders in bar to ** the actions : notnithstandiug \«hich pica and ** orders, the tlien judges gave judgment *< against him, &c." fx Com. Jouru. p. 164.]

" U|ion the Report from the Committee oc " Privileges and Elections, to whom this peti-' " tion of J. Topham was referred, the House *' Resolved, That this House doth agree with <* the Committee, Tliat the Judgment given by " the Court of King's -bench, Easter term ** 34 Car. 2, Re^s, upon the plea of JohnTop- ** ham, at the suit of John Jay, to tlie juris- ** diction of that Court ; and also tlie judg* " ments given against the said Mr. Topham, al '* tlie suit of Samuel Verdon, &c. are illegal, ** and a violation of the privilqr^ 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. Jour* p. 209.

" In consequence of this order, sir Francis *' Pemberton and sir Tliomas Jones, who liad " been two of the judges of the Court of ** King's-bench at the time \ihen the judgment " was passed, were? heard in their dcleiu'e ; ** and afterwards committeil to the Scrieuut at ** Anns, for their breach «;fthc priviu;gi»s of " this Ilousi?, hy «Tuinjyjn,l;^in(.'iit to over- rule " the pica t-) tliv jiirisUii'tifm t>f the Court of " King's IxMich.*' [\. Coin. Jour. p. 227.]

Your Coiiiniitlco ttunk it proper to state,^ Tliat sir Francis Pemberton i.nd sir Thomas Jones, in defending thfuisehes at the biir of this Mouse for their conduct in over-rnlintr tha p!(;a to thoir jurisdiction in the actions of Jay r. Topham, Vc. dirfcndcd the Judgment they had givtM), l)v resting upon the iiaturt* of the p1u<tdtiig, and ndl b\ lienying thir juri^diftiun or nnthority of tliis M(»u«»i' ; ami sir Francis Poiiibcrtan expre^ly admitted, that for any

C

1!)] STATE TRIALS, 32 Charles II. \6%tS.^Proefeding9again$t R.Tkampaim: [!

thing transacted in this House, no other Court halt any jurisdiction to hear and determine it. [Htate 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 nave been brouj^ht up by Habeas Corpus before the jufU|;es and courts of common law ; and in these cases, upon its appearing by the return to the Habeas Cforpns that they were committed under the Speaker's warrant, they have been invariably remanded.

3.^ Having statetl these instances of the manner in which the Ads and Commitments of this House have been brought into judgment in «ther courts, and the consequences of such proceedings ; your Committee further think it pm|>er, and in some degree connected with tliis subject, to advert to the course which was adopted for stnying 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 coufiniiatory of the privilege of being free from ■nits in time of pariiameut, and is in the follow- ing words : * Rex mandavit Justiciaries suis ad

* assisas, iurat : Vc. capiend. assignat : quod *- supersedeant Cajitioni corandem ubi comites

* barones et alii summonati ad Pari' rp<;is sunt

* partes quamdiu dictum Parliamentum dura- « verit.' [4 Co. Inst. 24.]

There have been various modes of procecil- ing to^enforre this privilege. Tn lX^w(«*s Journal, pa. 436,31 Eliz. 1.^88—1589, Friday SI St of February, your Conmiittre find the following entry : *''lTpon 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 " ai«-arded in those cases in res{>ect 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 reouire such benefit of privilege in ** that behalf, may repair unto Mr. Speaker, " to declare unto him the state of their cases, <* and that he, uyon his discretion (if the cases •• shall so i-equire) may direct the warrant of ** this House to the Lord Chancellor of Eng- ^ land, for the awarding of such writs of Su- " persedeas accordingly."

But the House used' to stay also proceedings -by its own authority ; sntiictimes oy standing tfi<> Si'rjeunt at arms to deliver the person ar- rested out of custody ; and sometimes by letter trom tlie S|Mniker to the Ju<lges before whom the cn»ise was to be tried. Of this latter mode of proceeding, your Committee find many in- ■taiices previous to tlie "Srd of Charies I. Yonr Committee find a decision [Hodges v. Moor.

a

Trin. S Car. I.] against the authority of and letter, in the court of King's bench, which reported in the maig. of Dyer's reports, p. t and in I^tch, pp. 48 and 160. And snoit afW the refusal by the Court of King's ben to notice this letter from the Speaker, the paiH meut was dissolved. There are, howevi many other instances of this course of prooec iiig after the Restoration ; and in the mstan oflord Newburgli (23 February 1 669) the Hon ordered the proceedings to outlawry to be sta during the sessions, and the record of the a gents to be vacated and taken off the file, [i Com. Jour. p. 1^6].

The last instance which your Committee 11 of such letters having beai written, occurs the lord Bulkeley's case in 1691, in which t Speaker is directed to write a letter to the prodi notary that he do not make out, anu to t sheriff of the county of Pembroke that he not execute any writ, whereby the lord Bull ley's possessions may be disturbed, until B Speaker shall have examined and reported 1 matter to the House, and this House li further order thereon, [x. Com. Jour. p. 53' By the 19 and 13 W. S. c. 3. this Privilege ¥ curtailed ; and further by Stat. 2 and 3 Ann, 18.-11 Geo. 2. c. 24.— 10 Geo. 3. c. 50.

liord chief justice l>e Grey says in Crosb case, " If a member was arrested before 1 <« l?and 13 W. 3. the method in Westmina " hall was to dischaive him by writ of privik ** under the great setu, which was in thenati '* of a Supersedeas to the proceeding. 1 '* statute of William has now altered uiis, a ** there is no necessity to plead tlie privilege '* a member of parhament." £3 nib. H 201.1

AU these acts merely apply to procei ings against Members in respect of tl debts and actions as individuals, and i in res|>ect of their conduct as nufmbers of pi liament ; and tlierefore they do not in any h abridge the ancient law and privilege of p liament so far as they respect the freedom i conduct of members of paniament as such, the protection which the House may give penious actinir under its authority.

4 . — I^n the whde, it appears to your Co mittee, Tliat the bringing tnese actions ngad the Speaker, and the Serjeant, for acts dune obedience to the orders of this House, ii breach of the privileges of this House.

And it appears, that in the several instan of actions commenced in breach of the pri legos of tliis Flouse, the House luis procee by commitment, not only against the l>arty, against the soUcitor and other persons conven in briiigiug such actions ; but your Commit I think it right to observe, that tne commitrn I of Kuch (larty, solicitor, or other persons, wo I not necessarily stop the proceedings in a action.

Tliat as the particular ground of action d not necessarily appear upon the writ or u] the deolaration, the court orfbre which sudi tion is brought cannot stay the suit or |

STATE TRIALS, 32 Charles II. Iffsa— PWvtfrg'^ of Pitrliamtnt. [CS

againit the pb^ntifT, till it is iuforiutrd ow of legal proo6«diiiff that such ac- ogfat for a thing done by order of the

liaefime appears to your Committee, thoi^i^ the House should think fit to a sohcitor or other person nuncemed Bcinff these actions; yet it uill still at t£al the House shoidd give leave aker, and the Seijeant, to appMur to tkiiiis and to plead to the same ; ti)r i of bnnging under the knowledj^e of the authority under which they if the House should agree with Uiat or CcHnmittee submits to the House, would not be proper tlrnt directions pven by this Honse, fur defending r, and tne Serjeant, against the said

SECOND REPORT.

resuming the considera- primcipal niaitera reserred in tlieir lort, do not thiidi it necessary to le vaiious Pkrecedents which are to ' the exercise of the power oi' Com- »y the House of Comuiohs for ; Privilege and Contempt in gene- 'mg that to be a power too clear to- i qurstioo, and proved, if proof were >y Ibe same Preci-dcnts, which they ted with a view to the point to y have more immediately directed doo, and which Precedents are sub- icir R^oit. (Appendix A.) ies which your Committee nave se- KMt directly conneoled with the sub- si to them, are those for Connnit- Libel, an offence which tends to «lar misapprehension and disaffec- tters the m«edom of tlie debates lugs in parliament, and requires the i|it interposition and restraint. The nmcdiate uunisliment and example is I prevent tne ev'ds necessarily arising imnoe, which evil it is obvious would efls effectually guarded against by lilatoty proceeding's of the ordinary aw ; nevertheless upon some occa-

1 loose of Commons have pro- vinst persons committing such of- ' directing prosecutioiis, ur by ad- is Buyesty to direct them, as aiJjRars secdents collected in Apitendix (U.) le series <d precedents which your e And on your Journals, it will munt paar that the Hnuse of Cfimuions id Lfteh as contempts ; that they cHllj ponished tlie authors and pub

Aem by coininitmcut, wlietiier in and publishers were or were ni^t if Ike House ; and tliat inis jiower ■■ciKd at all times, sa far liack as fe aflbrd an op|H>rtunuy of tracing 1^ Committee cannot Ibi bear ob- it f^ VmoedniB^ subjoined to their

Report establish this Law of Parliament, upon the ground and evidence of an immemorisl usaffe, as strong and satisfactory as would be held sufficient in a court of law, tor the estab- lishment of any legal right. (Appendix A.)

Your Committee also bejg leave to observa, that the general power ot Commitment was solemn^ asserted by the House of Common^ in 1676, and in their Resolutions of 1701 ; and was also claimed by the House of Commona, and admitted by the House of Lords in the most exdUcit lenns, in the conference between the two Houses, in the Case of Ashby and White, in 1704 ; althougli other points aiising in that case were strongly controverted between the two Houses. (Appemlix C.)

Your Committee further state, that it hat been recognized by legal authority, and by the most solemn decisions of the courts of law on various occasions, whenever any question u|K»i it has been brought before them :

By eleven of Sie 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- ray'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— m tlie Case of Oliver. 1771.

And that this power of romniitment by either House of Paniament, was further rec<^- . iiized by the court of King's Bench in the Case of 'Benjamin Flower, 8 Term Ucnorts, p. 323, who had been committed by tlic 11 ou^ of Lords. And your committee have not found the authority of a single decision to the con- trary in any court whate%'er. (Appendix D.)

I our Connnittee also beg leave to state, that die Judges of the Common Law have consider- ed Libels upon th<^ courts or the proct^edings in juf iicature as contempts and lia>e frequenUy

Eunislied the authors and publishers of them y summary commitment. This appears from various instances stated in tlie Appeiidix (£.) which liave occurred both in courts of law and equity.

Amongst the Judges who have concurred in those decijiions, u|M)n the power of |»arliaineut and of the courts of law and e^iuity to commit for such contempts, are to be luand lawyers the most distLugtiislied for their zi'alous re- gard for thelibeny of tlie subject, and the most upright, able and enlighteueil mi-u that ever ailomed the seal of justice ; and the doctrines hiid down by theui all coincide uith the ii|»iiftiou solemnly delivered by L«rd Chief Juhtlce De (in>y in < rusby's ume, that the }iower of couiimtment is ^* inlK-rfUt in the ** llousi' of Commons from the vi-r^ natcn^of ^* its iustitutiun, and tlwt tliey i-uii e ititiiiit «( geueially for ali coiiteni|»ts." 3 W iU. |>. i^Q. Uufler all these circumstances, Your lom- mittoe can liave no hetdtatioii in subinittiutf ilieir ilecidH opinion, that the |Hiwer of (xiiuiiiiuiient for a liljel upon the House, or uimiu its membcrH, tor or ndative to any thing said or done thecciut

is] STATE TRIALS^ 32 Charles U. leso.'^Proeeedimgt ^gatnii IL Titowpw

if eflsential to the Freedom ofDebate, to the In- dependence of Parliament, to the gecurity of the liberty of the Subject, and to .the general pre- servatuNi of the $^te.

. This power iis in truth part of the fundamental Law f»f Parliament ; the Law of Parliament is .the Law of tiie LAnd ; part of the Lex Terree, mentioned in Magna dharta, where it is de- clared, 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 uniyersally ac- knowledge power of Commitment for con- tempt by the Courts of Justice in Westminster- hall, wluch courts have inherent in them the summary power of punishing such contempts by 6ommitmcnt of the offenders, without tne intervention of a Jury.

Your Committee therefore are of opinion. That tliis power is founded on the clearest prin- dples of expediency and right, proved by im- memorial usage, rectiffdized and sanctioned by the highest legal aumorities; and analogous to the power exercised without dispute by courts or Justice ; that it fin^ew up with our constitution ; that it is established ana confirmed 'as clearly and incontroVertibly as any part of the Law of the Land, and is one of the most hnportant safeguards of the Rights and' Liber- ties of the People.

APPENDIX.

Appendix (A.)

Paecedents of Coif MiTMENTS for Wofds and Publications, Speeches, &c. reflecting on the Proceedings of the House.

I. — From the beginning of ihe Joumalif to the

CommonweaUh.

1559. — ^TaowER. — For contumelious words against the Jlouse. — ^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 expelled^ — i Jour. 193, 194, 125, 126, 1S2.

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. ^2.

3(638. — Aleyn. — For a libel on last Parlia- ment.— To the Serjeant — i Jour. 925.

1640. — Piers. — Archdeacon of Bath^ for abus- ing tbe last Parliament.- To the Serjeant— ii Jour. 63.

1640. — Prestok. — Scandnlous words against this H:>use.— To the Gatehouse— ii^or. 71.

N. B.— Tbe King did not leave London till tbe 10th of January 1641. In tlie year pre* ceding iliere are very many cases ofstranEers cofjimitted for conremptuoof words spci«en against the Parliamentt

II. — Preeedentt of the like nature, fr Restoration to the Revolutioiu

1660. — Lentuall, a Member. — For w< the House againtt tlie preceding Parliai To the Serjeant — viii Jour. 84.

— Drake. — For a pamphlet reflectii the Parliament ; and impeached. — ^' Serjeant^viii Juur. 183. 185, 186.

— Crakford. DittOy Ditto, viii Joui

1661.— Gregory and Withers. — Foj phlets reflecting on tbe justice of the —To the Tower— viii Jour. 368.- were prisoners in Newgate, and wer mitted to the Tower, and ordered inl custody.

1662— Greek. Ditto, To the Serjeant 446.

1670 — Woodward.— For a breach of P against a Member, and speaking co tuous words against this House. — Serjeant — ix Jour. 147.

1675. — Howard. — For a scimdalous and a breach of the Privilege of the — To the Tower— ix Jour. 864.

1680.— Sir RoREAT Cann, a Membei words in the House, reflecting on a Bfl brouEbt to the bar, and received a mand from the Speaker: — And for spoken out of the Houie — commiib expelled. — To the Tower — ix Jour. 6^

1680. — Yarington and Groob^. — For phlet again&t a Member.— To the S — ix Jour. 654, 656.

1685. — CooKE, a Member.— For wordt House. — ^To the Tower^ — ix Jour. 760

ni. — Precedents f SfC. from the Revolw the end of King Wdliam.

1689. — Christopher Smelt. — Spreac false and scandalous report of sir Pete a Member.— To the Serjeant, 29th J Jour. 844.

1690.— W. Briggs. — Contemptuous wo behaviour, and scandalous reflection the House and upon Sir Jonathan Jei a Member thereof.— To tbe Serjean Dec. — X Jour 512.

1691. — Richard Baldwin. — Printer pamphlet entitled, '* Mercurius Reforo reflecting on the proceedings of the '. — To the Serjeant, 9th and 2l8t ] X Jour. 548, 558.

1693. — William Soader. — Affirming i porting that Sir Francis Massam, a M was a pensioner. — ^Tu the Serjean Mar.— xi Jour. 123.

1695. — Sir George Meggot.— Havin| dalixed the House, in declaring that i being duly chosen be had friends enc the House to bring him into the He To the Serjeant, 27ih Dec. — xi Joui.

1696. — JoHH Marlrt. — A Member, foi in the House.— To tlie Tower, 9rl: xi Jour. 581.

1690.— Francis DuKCOnkE. — Haring • ed before two wiiucs>c» that he had

f5] STATE TRIALS, 32 Chablss IL l6S0.— Privilege of P€rliamm^. [2£

kned Bonej to several Members of the Boose^ and afterwards denied it before a ONDiDittec of the Hoose.— To the Serjeaoty 5th Jan.-*ai Jour. 651.

16M.— Joair Rte. — Haying caused a libel, fdkcting OD a Member of the House, to be snaied and delivered at tbe door.— -To the S^eulv 11th Jan. — xi Jour. 656.

lfi|J--JoBV Hath E9.^For being the occasion «f a letter being written, r«ectiog upon dK booour of tbe House, and of a Commit* iKj— To the Serjeant, S4tk Jan. — xiii Jour. Ul.

im.— TiaMAS CoLEPEPB a.— Reflections up- • chf last House of Commons. — ^To New- lili; Feb. 7. — miii Jour. 735.— And Attorney Gcami ordered to prosecute him for his

Vff^Pneedentg of the like nature, from 1701

to 1809.

inip-Jtfaji TuTcniN, Joun How, Benjamin Btoifl. -As Author, Printer, and Publisher tf ■ minted paper, entitled, *' Tbe Observa- iBi;* reflecting uoon the Proceedings of the Hmk.— To tlie Serjeant, 3d Jan. — «iv Jour.

no.

0M.— JamesMellot. — False and scandalous flflections upon two Members.— To the Ser- jtsat, (Kb Mar.— xir Jour. 565. -HEawAaD Theobalds. — Scandalous reflec- boas apon a Member. — ^To the Serjeant, td Mar. — aiT Jour. 557. ms^— Samusl Bc7Cklet. — As Printer of a Mended MemohiJ printed in the *' Daily Coafant," reflecting upon the Resolutions (»f lbs House.— To the Serjeant, llth Apr.— EviiJoar. 189. t715.— £. BcaaiNGTON, J. Morphen.— As Pinivmd Publisher of a pamphlet, entitled, *7bi Evening Post,** reflecting on His Ma- JM and the two Houses of Parliament. — To the Serjeant, 1st July — xviii Jour. 195. f7f9.r-RjcBAaD Corbet. — Reflecting upon the Proceeding and tlie authority of a Com- ■ince.— To the Serjeant, 31st Mar. — xxi Jam*. 307. 173S. — William Noble. — Asserting that a Member received a pension for his voting in Pkriiaincnt.— To the Serjeant, 19th Feb.— tail Joor. 945. 174a — William Coolet, John Meres, John flccBES. — As Author, Printer, and Publisher •f papers reflecting upon His Majesty's Gevemment, and the Proceediugs of both of Parliament. Cooley to Newgate, Dec. ; Meres and Hashes, To the Ser- Sd Deoember^-xxiii Jour. 545, 546,

• •if.

lMfel Johns.- -Author of a printed containing impudent reflections on I P^ncet dings of the House. — ^To the Ser- M, IStb Mav— REV Jour. 154. ^Dsxvjs SBADE.-^ticking up a pnper iiflame tbe minds of the people against I Hoase.-'To tbe Serjcmot, 9tb of Decem- p— nsix Joor. 9r.

1768— Joseph Juornton. — Giving directions for sticking up the above-mentioned paper. — To Newgate, 10th Dec.

1771.— Henry Baldwin, Thomas Wright. —Printing the Debates, and misrepresent- ing the Speeches of Members. — ^To the Ser- jeant, 14th March— xxxiii Jour. 258, 359.

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 uf the House. — ^To the Serjeant, ^Gth April— Ix Jour. 917.

Appendix (B.)

Cases since 1697, of Prosecutions at Law aeainst Persons for Libels, &c. upon the House of Commons or any of its Members; and whether by Order ur Address.

1699. — Edward Stephen. — Libel on the House, and on an individual Member.— By Order, S7th February — xiii Jour. S30. 1701. — ^I'uoMAS CoLEPXPER. — A Letter to the Freeholders and Freemen of England, as« persingthe House. — By Order, 7th February — xiii Jour. 735. 1702. — Mr. Lloyd. — Aspersing the character of a Meml)er. — ^By Older, 18tb November — xiv Jour. 37.

1709. — Dyer. — Misrepresenting the Proceed- ings of the House.— By Order, 26th Febru- ary— xiv Jour. 807, 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 Ad^ dress, 3d Dec. — xxiii Jour. 546.

1750 — Author, Printer and Publisher. — Pub- lishing paper, entitled, " Constitutional Que* ries,'' grossly reflecting on the House. — By Address, 2Sd 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 Pnblishers.— Pub- lishing paper called the ** South Briton/' reflecting on the House. — By Order, 16tb February — xxxiv Jour. 461.

1788. — Authors, Printers and Publisbers.— *' The Morning Herald, Tiie Gazetteer, and New Daily Advertiser.'' — Grossly reflecting on the House and the Members, and tending to prejudice the defence of a person answer- ing 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 disrespect- ful to His Majesty, and the House ; and indecent Observations reflecting on the mo- tives which indoced the House to prelar the

/

^ vr ATETtlAl.^ i/l(MJkMi.iA XL ;i^

M^ ;t/1iWm. :5»i ••-.r ■•••'» — uii .'-wr ifli. JI'W — r'-'\tfr %ii«t *ir,: r:Ar— * Tut "* •-rit''

K>S V, «n-;-;*— . a* 'rut t^t>:;ciA t' ^ir r*«

1V4 teceatc^^^ j-.i/. ::>, ^:>

Ci^ni md Ret '/cynryM </ dK PKn^c^.u r?* pAftUAiCbiT. af^ tfat Power of C'.vxn-

11 R>h. t. Rcc Fwl. vol n. S4t

£a jTCArt foij^iment, twrz Im Sjisn'rs s*

bitn eapntelft ry^ntt tcxoprir^ ai*iri pr»«ntz m%Tb:«: ^x- rvccymd. — A C'«*jk Bdi Lrr

Sv/««% « «iitr.» f«ri«m«iitz « lu»i(« a .^,u-. ••>-'3 -Com. Juoni. roi. i. p. Sft9.

totiMfiU PWrei <Ji! b Terr*-, a^rroMfit tie- The CoB.ziin» tefi t^ LaHn «• tta tW

OManez, w^\mpfnz^ ^ dnciM uf !#• f»an 4e par- doiAciiM. bin tbe ComsMDi Hook ka C^Hl

knttflt, 4c ti0sm\'^. (AT U L//V Crvi]«, wt par and a Court of Record.'*

antral pLia ban cfcKirte. du R^Sme: qa*U l^^—Cam. Joum. roL 1. p. 545.

daym, iitifrti:, ie fraochiM: le K/iv lour be- . '■> ^.'^'^^ *^ PreccdcBto br sr £d«^i AiffMsneot afloua ^ ottrviia «n yCtin parle- Coke, d b amed, - The Hour of Caa» tamL : mooa, alone, hath a power 01' pnaialiaKil;

«o u^ ^ »^ n^-i . and that judicial "—HaU'.taae 43 li»uu,«ii

39 Htn. 6. If«t. Pkri. rol. r. p. «39.— Lonr*! CaK 5 EHz cit«i

Thorp's Ca«r. 1^-^ 1 ^-e ;» ««. craa.

The Hariri I^ordea Hpiritu«4z and Teroporelx ^^"' •'****^ 4th.-Coni. Jouni. toL ix. p. 854 not eiit»Yii1yin(p u» emu^^hp or hurt the LiWr- i ^ ^« matter of the appellant juriadictiQn 4 U-tm and yrtir'i\t^(^*rH of thf\-ni that were c«>me'n ' ^^ House of Lords, the CoianHNw aasot thdi for the rrommiine of thin fande to tf 'n present ' "^^^ ^* to punish b^' •— pT-^nnrnT n 1 nmninti parierii#^it, but «i(aily nfUrr the imin of (awe tf> ! ^^ >s I^T^y <^' tudatuig ibeir phvil^cs, tfag myiiv<itnr jiMtiff, snd to harf^ knowlef(i|;e what , 'm^ui^ aoconling' to the known hws and ciutofl th«! lawc; wilt wi-y in tliat liclwkf, ofiened and '• ^ i^iriiainent and the right of their pnvilega flef:lan;d tothcjuHtiri'H the jinrriiifMez, and axed ' ^'^cl'uvd ^y <^e kiug« m%al preiectaiaiinji of Uieni whHlHT till: wrid Thtnnas oii^t to be [ fcMmer Pkriiamenu and by huuself ui tUi;'* delivemi fnuii yrvtim^ by force and vertue of *^. ." ^^ neither the Great Charter, tiM thir pn¥v\t'^* of iMirii'nMiit or nofi. To the , ^^^^ of Kight, nor any other laws, do tab whirh r|iif-Htiori thi; rliff« yt^^n, in the nam^ ' ^^y ^^ ^^ and custom of Parliament, or ti nf all till* juHtiff/, aftfT maddi* oominufiicatioii ^^^ ilomr oi Parliauient."

and maturi- d.^lt«.n.ti.n, hadibr ani.nijr theein, 1701.-V0I. »ii. p. 7C7.-Kentidi F^stitMo. auimwin-d and Hiiid» that thfy miifht n<it to . f •*" »«mw. * «■•••«.

aiiniiW4<n; to tliat ipii-Hf inn, fur it hath not be Kawdved, Thai it is the opinion of tlyi iiMfl afon* lyiuc iliat tin- just irvx slioubl in euy | coiuuiittfe, thai to assert the House of Con* w^wdi'ii'nnini* thi*|irivilrtf;^M>fthiNlrighe<iiirt nMfB** ha>e no power of commitmeut, hut a( or |iarli*iiiriit. tlieir own meniben, tends to the suliveniioii d

^ II... a Tu - • -•. I i« ji • ^1 •• the constitutiouofthc House of Comniuns.

4 Hra. 8. }^'^riKitw^ lUAl in Uie pariia- k«ioIto.I, That it is the opinion of itt mi^it ofllre. -Htroude»s Case. coiumitlee. That In print and puSLih any boofti

or libeb redecting upon Ike procMdiuga ol Ih

i« Ilia aoi c«iiie*nytig Kiokard fitroude

f9] STATE TRIALS, 32 Charles II. iGSO.^FrMlege of Partkimeni. [39

** barons of the Exchequer, are assistant? totha- " Lords to inibmi tlieni of the ctnnmoii law, " and thereunto are called severally by virit : ' *' neither doth it belong- to theni (as^hath been " said) to ^udse of any law, custom, or pri- " vilecfe of paflianient : An<i to say the truth, ** the laws, customs, liberties, and 'privilegies of *< parliament, arc better to be learned out of tiie ** rolls of parliament, and other records, and by ** precedents and continued experience, than '* can be expressed by any one man's pen/'

Htaie of ComnMm, or any member thereof, fersr rdatinfr to his serrioe therein, is a hiffh fiMoB ol' the ri^ts and privileges of the H«K flf Commooii.

Ashby and White.

Cflnftreneps between the two Houses.

1W Oommoiis at the second conference with dtt Lwdi ne amert their Resolution of 1701 :

** For it b the ancient and undoubted rif^ht of ** dtt Hsmeof Commons to commit for breach * tfpiii^ve ; and the instances of their commit- ** B^ fVMNK (not membern of the House) for **MMh of pririlege, and that to any her **B|pH^'s prisons, are ancient, so many, and **■ v« Blown to yom lordships, that the think it needless to produce them." . vol. xyii. p. 709.

Ijords Joum. vol. ^i^P- 714.

Ik Lords in answer say, — " The Lonls

'^Mffcr disputed the Commons power of com-

*^ ittsi^ for breach of privilege, as well per-

an; not of tlie House of Commons

who an.%" iSec.

Appendix (D.)

KKOttmoN of the Law and Privilc^ of IWianieni, and of tlie Power of the HoiKe of Commons to commit for Con- ttvpt^ by Leind Authorities, and by the lu^..: — f^f i^Qoxt% of Justice.

Coke, 4 Inst. fo. 15.

Lord Coke observes, upon the chum of the hn6i^ ID 11 of Rich. 9. sanctioned by the ks^ (as naled in the first paragraph of Appen- da C.) oftler the head of ' Lex et Consuetudo "^ "imrsii;' as followeth — ^*And as every :sf justice hath kws and customs tor its lioQ, some by the oommon law, some by ** ihe cifil bw and common law, some by po- "caiar bws and customs, &c^ so the*hi}j>;U of Parliament ^suis proprijs le^ibus et subsistit— 'It is lex et oonsue-

I

hriianenti, that all weip^ty nuitters ^ m any Parfiament, moved concerning the •IVus of the realm, or CommooN in Pnr- * iimmt assembled, ouf^it to he determined, "adpi^ipd, and diseussed by the «oune of ** ftrfiMncnt, and not by civO law, nor yet by ** the oommon laws of this realm used in infe- " liar eourta ; whieh was so declared to be— "artidom legem et consuetudinem Parha- ** mmti— oonosniing the Peers of this realm, ** by tkr VtJBgt «m1 all the Lords sphritual and ** iHipiral : And the like, pari ratione^ is for " ftt Commons for any thiufr moved or done '■^ House of Commons.*'

Coke, 4 Inst. fo. 50.

And OB another occasion, in treatii^ of the GHStoms, libertiea and privilei(es of the nn 9i FaHiiunait, whidi he saith, «« hath Jjbmmuch deaired, and are the very heart- '^MagBoT tlie oommonweahh :" Lord Coke ■yi^-^All the jnstioes of England and

26 Car. S.— 1674.— State Trials, Soame's

Case.

Lord Chief Justice North said, — *< I can see '* no other way to avoid consequences deroga- ** tory to the honour of tlie parliament, but to *< reject the action ; and all others that shall '^ relate either to the (irooeedinffs or privilege' *' of parliament, as our pretfecessors have " done."

^' For if we should admit general remedies in <^ matters relating to the parliament, we must *' set bounds how far they Shall go, which is a " dangerous province ; for if we eft, privilege ** of parliament will be invaded, which we ought '* not in any way to endamage*."

1675.— State Tria1s,^Earl of Shaftesbury's

Case.*

In the caso of the earl of Shaftesbury, who was committed liy the Housi; of L(Mrds, ** for high contempts committed against the '* House," on being brought up to the King's- liench on the return of an Habeas Corpus, the court unanini«)UHly determined against en- tertaining tlie case; wlien Raiasford, Chiefs Justice, said, '^ This court has no iurisdiction *' of the cause, and therefore tlie form of the '* retum is not considerable. We onglit not to *' extend our jurisdiction beyond its limits, and *' the actions of our ancestors wiii not warrant *' such an attempt.

'^ Hie iM)usequenee would be very mischiev- '* ous, if this court should deliver a member of *♦ the House of Peers and ("oramons who an? ** committed, for tlierehy the business of par ** liament may be retarJed ; for it may be thp ** commitment was for evil behaviour,* or inde ** cent reflections on other membo^ to the dis< " turbanre of the affairs of parliament.

" The commitment in this case is not for safe *' custody ; but he is in execution of the judg- *< meat given by the Lonls for contempt ; and ** tlierefore, if he should lie bailed, he would " be delivered out of execution ; for a contempt ^^ infuciecuridB there is no otlier judgment or ** pxivntion.

" Tliis court has no jurisdiction, and tlicre- ** fore he ought to be reniandeil. I deliver no *' opinioii whether it would be otherv^ise in case " of a prerogative."

1751, Feb. 7th.— 1 Wilson, p. 200.-«Marray's

Case.

Wlien he was brought up to the King's- * See vol. 6, p. 1270 of this Collectioo.

"- recsn of Qts

^ To t^ I aisfvpr. tbax a kis hMa detpr-

vTccfrfTJoc -^-u r;r

- CHC

^ A

!n %y 3c Hii)«k» CorcGfw tee cvort .-v-

bun : jkCii 30 r::?e bx; b«ea ci^

- cnnrx la tis jnmrriar : tai« i.r^iT'. •l^uuhm

-baiL- I>£nniiwiL. Jusnof. — ■- TLs •.■*j«;-:': fc» &?

•- *h« Hiii«ntf T'lrvm*. inc V&yv*^ wine the

- ci''rxautxni?s£ wts : War iii-w 3 aprenr* w ^t?

- «f C*iiiiiiii]ai« : «tut ■.;»*?•«*• »irT^*.!ie;£i» •/£' ■*!-

- W«! \.rL=ntiC Hlif|£i! «IC z : i>»r 1 XUrSC 0-4u LS.S

- cwixr: nfcmr ib the Hoosp or C'Ms Ji<}i» ^rt.i

- <noapii!;33£ruiBictii^m. I £TT«mTi*h»«,r:i:«;ri

- «> iriiiiieiiiT. thwaiBit 1 think :t a cieiu cube. "* shI rafBRS BO tune Ar cmskfriraQon. "

»•' m part otf the Iw nf ihe hod : in^i there «» wmU be aa cad olf aA bw. if die H rase ot «« ConDBnos iwJJ aoC eommit lw a confieoipc. ■* AD cimrti «f reeonl ievoi the Eq««st: cuy •* CA^qi* fiir a cvntempc ; iml lori H'liL '* thon^ he JUKend with the odier jmJ^««. y*si "ks Huuse anchc cumiwc turicua-

«t A

SI] STATE TRULS. S«Chul£s1I. UiO.-^PfwcudmgwtgsuuilLTUMtft&m: [n

hT a Hdhefti C«cpK. aad the com * Lotd Navw. «ho ns CRUBined 10 the Temr !>> ^Hcharse him. Mr. bir ondEr'ti^T tbcf Hook, nader the Spcaiia^ L - It affean cpM the "*" [ibek» C'crrKS. thai Mr. T tf aic::2«!c«i u> New^e Vr the cf C<«=i=33f». ^jr aa hf^ im dan- ar^imL a^i. bj ccesnciK «C tbe pcirui^npf •:< i^u tive Oxrt. he

s»BCv iB»Geii«Gaz taebar. The LcHCtBClfJi

the «piBA «c' ibe Cost. '- p.iwcr.Ttr. «t CI -* D :be HtiOHe ^ C-

*- o(' ;he Sav 'f the uad.

~ Kr ot e»!«Ouce. die v " Dk&yiics.

- j^rcVeii. thai *' ^ ivaumpci.. Jl2

t!aeC:«rt

H<Qse.

•■" Tkf Stu. "f' Janaes X. capL 15.

" po>re» Ufci: ii>*yjiftTi? paver b» •• ;iiese wvfti* ~ •■ .%tft or aay

" 1-^ be I^fnrazw br cvawue m " di^t«il awe inj'vitrsiivt which

- oaakff «>r pc«?oirv to Qe " M aJN^cesLii :' «> tSais r. si dmhc ctwr ihfll ihi -' bfz^:«&tcsre have r^xv^Tuzcii :aa» ftpmu ef Af *- H*Mse oc ComiSi'ci. I2 the case ef dM -* Vvi^fsbarT ram. the o?<uBwi ^frnined, Lni

- i'Wt' Jisitxe H«ilc -var^Mii. anrf iSie H«aMd

* Ldrb arfciwwMsr^'. cue the H«Mr d -* C4KM3MK had pMwvr v»

- tRB^ ttr bnnch gr *- ieuiu» coey jB}£tt h«i«^ pi •* aay cn.Tie. H b«*ii the Hi '• 1:*;-*^:*; isy iIiiD«|C •»» ■")e a

- :».r:'Ti.t:i>ii. loit a»"ir i.i)aLaiit!ueiis i •• ;;i»:cce la «.Y^**jz:i>n :- vni »> O -* 'ijichurisr? 'IT inid A Dvrson thu is m " t»Mi 3v die iiir?:rM«fnt -k* law icher Coart.'

Vn: !itf cjnotuiieiL 2a juii^mein a thw

■' I ani lertmi;)! sics.'M that df bird Hal

-* Sfiwefar' w*:i-^ :.j jiiv>^ <ieteniiJiutd x. the lisn •- >Liy»?»- w'cii i:i-.;; Sitsi reiaannVtl. la tb

• cise •» Mr M'ir-iy, !*e jvivv^ o««U bo oJaofr::iii:£ ue uimaniipc hv a aai

- wae Knew! so ri-.'wvf. '^^ seneence 'it a ^go-

- per 'K^san ; iJ :*bf iiitj^n i;;i?«ed. that b ~ must be r«ii:aai(K*i. be^noiw be ■■ Bur?!*! *)¥ A CoiiTt larju; 0

n

ffi u u

It

a the fiee of the Hook. JL» lur the * htsxxx

DO nutxe <Mf it.

ailio

138. 177 U

Cpqhow

eA|. the

hetaaAer in this CoQecciin.

tfaac aiitice if the

vtJaaBfm tfani Cotlecnim. h.

t

I

Vent. If. WIS 1 C«iiuiuirsieiit -ji jou thervpife -<: was le^.-ewam it diat scue the <vitift:a«.*v. ver lur^ Cuiiftieti in HoiHfu Curuiai Caae% u 3. ir;sS« a this Col- leetwu.

53} STATE TRIALS 39 Charles II. iGSC-^Privikge of Purliamad. {Sl

" UBce of tlie acts of the Houses of Parlia- " BcnCy hecause they belong ud aU*td ejcaNiCn. ** I hive the most perfect satisfaction in my ** ova mind in thai determination. Sir Mar- «* lia Wfwhl, who feh a generous and distin- ** ggyieawarmth for the liberty of the sub- *<ject; Mr. Justice Dcnison, who was so free ** fitm conaedJons and ambitiou of etery kind ; * ad Ur. Jostioe Foster, who may be truly ■* cdkd the Alagna Charta of liberty, of per- 'MMai weO as fortune; all these revered '■■ifBi concurred in this point. lamthere- •* ma dsttiy and with full satislaction of opi- thit the Lord Mayor must be rc-

u

OobH Just — *' I entirely concur in opinion "wik my Lord Chief Justice, that this Court " Ml no oognizance of contempt or breach of " privilege ot' the House of Commons ; they ** m the only judges of their own privileges ; " ad diat they may be properly called ju&es, "ifpamia 4 Inst. 47, where my lord Coke ** mjgg an alien cannot be elected of the par- ** fioMBL because such a person can hold nu "ifaee Off judicature. Much stress has been ■^ludi^oo aa objection, that the Warrant of u tko fioMlrMi is not conformable to the order

■'flf the Hoinae; and yet no such thing ap- *iHn 19011 the return, as has been pretended. "ihe Older says, that the Lord Mayor sliall

* be tslDOi into the custody of the scrjeant or

* \uM deputy ; it does not say, by the serjeaut ^ ff his depnty . This Court cannot know the

* utaae and pofwer of the proce^ings of the ' Hoose of Cfommons : it is founded on a dif-

* ftrnt law ; the ' lex et consuetudo parlia- ' * iBcati,* is known to uarliaroent men only. »TicivyHniard'aCase, Dier, 59, 60. When ** wnai of priTilege come incidentally betbru ^ the Govt, It is obm^ to determine them, to " pRffCBt a Allure injustice. It is ixwi this " esnrC did, in Uie instance alluded to by the ' eooBsel at the bar, [Wilkes's Case, 9 WiU.

* 151.] determine upon the privilege of parlia- ''aaitin the case of a Liljel ; but then that 'privilege was promulged and known; it

exirtea in recoru and law books, and was al- lowed hy parliament itself. But even in that eue, we now know that we were mistaken ; for the House of Commons have simie deter- ■ined, that urivilt^ does not extend to mat- tm of libel. Tte cases produced respect- iag Ae lligh Commission Cuurt, &c. are ■ot to the present purpose, because those ' aoarli had not a legal authority, llie reso- ' klioB of the House of Commons is an adju- ' Aniion, and every court must judge of its " nrn oontempts." Bbcksloiie, Justice. — " I concur in opinion,

* Att we caimot discharge the Lord Mayor. ' He present case is of great importance, bc- « «n.^ the-liberty of the subject is materially

Tm Hoose of Commons is a e court, and they are judges of their *«WB prinlegcs and contempts, more espe-

* cidly with respect to their own members. — ■ Here is a mmber couuoitted in cxevation

vou VIXI,

(( i» u

(C (C C( (C

u

by the judgment of his own house. AH courts, by which I mean to include the two Houses of parliament and the courts of West- minster-Hall, can have no control in matters of contempt. * The sole adjudication of con* tempts, and the punishment thereof, in any mmmer, belongs exclusively, and without intedering, to each respective court. In- finite contusion and disorder woidd t>ilow, if courts could by writ of Habeas Corpus exa- mine and determine the contempts ot other8.t

* Here is a laxity of expression which might not have been ex'pected from the learned au« thor of tlie * Commentaries.* llie meaning seems to be, tiiat the two Houses of Par- liament and the courts of Westminster- hall, are not subject to control in matters of con- tempt, but that other courts arc subject to control ill such matters. 8ee Clarke's case, Tremaiiie's Pleas of the Crown, 442. 2 Le- vinz. 200. 1 Vent. 302. 327. 3 Keb. 704. 799. an. Dr. Bentlcv's case 8 Motl. U8* Fortescue 202. 2 Lord Ra}iii. 133 1. Strange 567. 2 Kydon Corporations 70. In Murray's case Mr. Justice Foster says, that, '^ all courts of Record, even the lowest," [as the Court of Piepoudre we may suppose] ** have p<nvcr to imprison lor contempts.^' And as tu contempts * in facie curiar,' which obstruct the proceciliiigs of the court, it seems that they nmst of neces- sity liave power to remove ihe cb^^truction ; to abate the nuisance, and so is Moor 247. * Si *■ uu dit al Judge, Magistrate, uu auter officer ' jNiroles que lu}' disable delaire son office ou ' fiiitautor contempt, il |ientluy imprison." So too Dean's case, Cnike, KHz. Gl\9. '* A man may be imprisoned for a contempt done in court but not for a contempt out of court."

So, too, is Sparkes, and otiiers, r Martin, 1 Vent. 1. " The Court of Admiralty may punish one tliat resists the pn)ccss of their court, and may fine and im|)risou for a con- tempt to their court acted in the face of it."

So, too. sir George Newman says, (Proceed* ings and Debates of the House of Commons in 1621, p. 109.) ** The Judges have oft-times cause to commit for contempt in the Court."

If there he any principles of law whereby tha sufficiency of a commitment for contempt may be judged ot* in the case of one court, it is not very apparent why the same principles sboidd not be applied to the judging of the suf- ficiency of commitments for contempts by any other court. That courts of Westmin- sU^r-hall will take conusance of each others commitments for contempts, see the aign* ment of Chief Justice Vaughan in Bushdl'a case in this Collection, vol. (>, p. 999, and the cases of Astwick, Apslcy, and Mihon, cited in that Case, pp. i()04, 1022.

t Loi*d Mansfield, in the case of Hassells and another against Simpson (9.H Doiigl. Rep. in note 2d edit.), 8|)eaking of 3Ir. Justice Black- stone, warned nis hearers ngainst impUcit re- liance on great names. It would ha^e been more sat^mctory if Mr. Justice BlacJuitonc

D

is] STATE TRIALS, 32 Charles II. \6SO.^Proceeding8agahisi R.1%ompson: [:

'* Thw power to commit results from the first '•« principles of justice ; for if they have power ** to decide, they ought to hare power to pu-

'Bad specified some particulars of the * infinite

* contusion arM disorder* which, he hiys it down * woitWft)Hoif, if courts could hy writ of *" Habeas Corpus examine and determine the

* contelmpts of others;' and had also mven some proof thai this * infinite confusion and dis- order must follow, to«;ther i«ith some account of the way in which it would follow. For there appears not to he any absurdity in sup- posing that the examinability of conimitnionts for contempts, might tend to render those who 'should order such commitments more circum- gpect and cautions in the exercise of that power tnan othervi'ise they might be ; that it would 'tend to render their respective courses of pro- ceedings les3 capricious, more consistent, and more uniform, tlian they othcr\rise might be ; that in consequence or those tendencies it might probably by desp'ecs produce an iiitcUi- gmle detinite practical code, respecting con- tempts and the punishments for toeiii ; that if . these consequences should ensue, < confusion and disorder' would be prcrentcd rather than pro- . moted ; and that, it from the operation of com- ' petitions for pre-eminence, or erroneous no- 1 tions of dignity, or of any other cause, ' con- '

* funon and disorder' should in fact arise, such ' ' confusion and disorder' probably would not ! be Infinite, but might be speedily, easily and I completely suppressed by a legislative cfcfmi- tion of at least the limits of contempts, and of the punishments applicable to them. Predic- tions of * confusion, disonler,* and other mischief to ensue from intcrmption of tlie exercise of irregular powers, have not always been verified. Wlwn tlie powers of issuing general warrants and warrants for seizure or papers, which had been sanctionctl by numerous precedents, were ouestioned (See the cases in this CfilliKMion of Leach v. Money, and others, a. d. 1765, and of £ntick V. Carrlnston, and others, in the same yea#), many such predictions were made, but since the exercise of those |K)wcrs has Ihh'U an- nulled, 1 have nut met with any complaint (except indeed one wliirh occurs in sir J(»hu Hawkins's life of Dr. Johnson, but which is tix) frivolous to deseiTC noticv ; it relates to the detention of artizaos who attempt to mii^ifntte) that this annulment has pnxliK'cd a single bad conse- quence. In like manner while the j'.ul^es claimed the rf 1:^1 it of droiding two (pK>stiuus of fiict (f«)r such thc*>' are), viz. tlnisc of ' inten- tion' and of * tcnilmcy* in criminal prostra- tions for HIkjIs, wliicli claim was buppDitod by liie pn'cedi-nts ut' Clarke's case, before l<*rd liaymond, <»f Frani'klJTi's casi? licfurc the same judlfu (in tliis Collecliou, a. o. 17151.) and of

' numerous other cases, it t^ns renenteiHy siHtcd

' liymagistrates of tranNoei:dant talents, learning,

' experience and authority (such, tor instances,

av lord MansfWld, lord llimloWt'lord Kenyon,

and Mr. Justice BulIer,).that'frtiiui(cdLHonler

iu>d ronfusiun wouM mf^/ifjvau3B had the

** nish. No other court shall scan the jud " ment of a superior court, or the princi) ^* 0cat of justice. As I said before, it woi

richt to determine in such prosecutions a omer matters, than the mere tact of publicati< and the application of tlic inuucRdoes. T declaratory statute 3^ Geo. .S, c. CO, has fu] eslabliiSheu the right of juries in such cases

* give a general verdict of Guilty or Not Guil

* upon the whole matter put to issue on the i

* dictment or inibnnation.' This statute ori|

nated in the House of Commons, where 1

motion for the UU was. made by l^Ir. Fox ■

seconded by Mr. Krskine. Most undoubtei

the success of the bill is in a very high degi

to be attributed to the inflexible constancy i

unremitted zeal, with which the latter of th

two ffreat men had exerteil the \'ast powers

his eloquence in maintenance of those rights

juries, which the statute asserts. And a m

striking illustration it is of the fallibtlitvof tv

predictions, as that of Mr. Justice BladuUme

Crosby's case, that whereas, previously to i

passing- of the act of 3'i Geo. 3, c. 60, disagn

ments and altercations between the court and 1

counsel, and the jury, took place in a great pi

portion of the trials which w ere had on cm

nal prosecutions for UUpIj ; and notwithstai

ing It had been declared as we have seen

magistrates of the CTeatest learning, that I

establishment of sucn a system would prodi

infinite confusion and disorder ; nevertheless

it is, that since the indisputable (*stablishiBi

of this system, no confusion whatever has <

curred, the functions of judges and juries hi

been eicecuted M'ithin their respective limi

without any competition for jurisdiction ; to

advancement of justice, and to the dimity

its ailministration. The change which I

been operated by the statute rannot be m

perspicuously stat<?d, nor can its benefw

effects be more hnppilv illustratetl than in

following passage, whicti I extract from a n

on the * subject of the trial of the dean of

* .4saph' in the * SpcechcH of the honoun

* Thomas Krskine' (now loni Erskine), &c. ^ l,p. 332.

" The venoraWe ami learned Chief Jus

Elord Mansfield] nndoul)t(>dly cstablislied [is argument, that the doctrine so sixm af wards condemncil by the unanimous sense the Legislature when it jkasscd the I/ihel i did not originate with himself; and thai only pronounced the law as he found it, esl I lisheti by a train of nio<l<Tn decisions. ] I supportcti us we now are.by this jndgmen I Parliament, we nuisl vontm*e humbly to dj I from so truly givat an authority. ^Tlie L : Bill does not cnnfrr upon the Jury any jii ; diction over thi^ luw, inconsistent with general principle of the ootuiitutiuu : Imt i bidering that tlvc finest ion of libel or no lib

frequently a questinn of fact rather than of I andf in many cases (»f fiu^ and law almoat ii pfffably MeiMled togtsther ; it directs the Ju as in other umcs, to deli?er hit opinioii to

57} STATE TRIALS, Q2 Charles II. l6S0.^Prhilege of Parliament. [38

*- QOOMon the otiiKMt oonfunon, if every court I *' «f this Hall sbouM have power to examine " the eoBimkinents uf the other courts ot' the ** HaB for oonterapts ; so that the jud^neiit ** tad cmnmitinent uf each respective court as ** to contempts, must be final and without con- ^tnH. It is a confidence that may, with per- ■^ftd SM&ty and security, be rejiosetl in tlie ■< JQ%a aiMl the Houses of Parliament* The

Jaiy upon the whole matter, inchuling' of eoone oe question of libel or no libel, leaving Aem at the same time to found their verdicts vmi such whole matter, so brought bc-fore nen m ia all other rriminai cases. The betit to the apprehensions of the great and Chief Justice, regarding tliis course of pneeediDe, as then contended tor by Mr. Er- Aine, ana now established by the Libel Art, is Ibe experience if seFenteen years since that a(!t

" legislature since the revolution (see 9 ftnd 10 • *' W. 3, c. 15,) have created many new con- *' teiiiiits. The ol)jectiuns which are brought, • '* of aousivc consct|ueut'ts, prove too much, be- ** cause they- are applicable to all coui-ts of *' dernier resort : * et ab abusu ad usum non ** ' valcnt consequoiitia,* is a maxim of law as <* well as of logic. General convenience must '* always outweigh partial inconvenience ; even

of divers mischiefs b«>tli of slate and common- wealth."

" Before the statute it was not difficult for fc MoA abandoned and profligate libeller, frills eren of the most mali^ant slander upon prrrale men^ to connect his cause with tlie gnat privileges of the Jury, to protect iniio- i. Upon the Judge directing the Jury, " to the ukl system, to tincTa verdict uf

^aky npon the fact of publication ; shutting iitf altogether from their consideration the fnlity of the matter published, ingenious eooBiel used to seize that occasion to shelter a goihr indiridnal under the mask of supporting great public right ; and Juries, to show that any were aot implicitly bound to fmd verdicts tf Gnitv upon auch evidence alone, were too wnoeKfully incited to find improper verdicts of ■e^iaaal : bat anoe the paasmg of the Libel iAt whea the whole matter has been brought vwkr fiicir eoosideration ; when the quality of the matter published has been exposed when criouBai, add defended when just or iimoccnt, paries hare listened to the .nid|^ with atteu- tioD and reverence, without being bound in Aeir consciences (except in matters of abstract hw), to fellow his opiniou, and instead of that aaeeitainty anticipated by lord Mansfield, the admioistnitiim of justice has been in general ■ait . satisfactory, anil the public uutburitv been vindicated against unjust attacks, with ■oeh gineater security and more supported by pdific opinion, than when Juries were instni- K9lB in the hands of the fixed magistrates ; whibt at the same time public liberty has beeu Mnred by leaving the whole matter in all pub- iefibek to thejudgment and consideration of [he people. This reforraeil state of the law, as iti|^anb the liberty of tlie press, is noiv so Mivmany acknowledged, . tnat the highest aipiti atiB have deelared in the House of Lonh, that no new laws are necessary either to Mpport the state, or protect the p •»ple."

ar Eilward Coke (Proceedings and Debates tf the Honae of Commons, in 1620 and IG^I, ViL «, p. 109) predicted that <« if the mittinius iftha riny'Cdimcil most contain the cause of "■ "^ ""Jt .^wnld hinder the finding out

* It seems generally to happen, that persons, who either {>oskcsk or lay claim tu power of any . kind, arc strongly diKposcHl to be of opinion that tlicy may be safely entrusted with such po^ er. l^us in our own liistorr, to omit the various instances of claims on tbe part of the crown to exorbitant power, and to confine oursclv(^ to a few judicial cases, it is not un^ reasonable to believe that privy-counsellors of old thought they might be safely intnisted with the vast power which they so mischievously and oppressively assumed in the ancient * Court of Uequestx ;* that the council in James the. first's time thought they might be satcly in- . trusted with the power to suunuon bciure theiil membcis of the Ilouse o^' Commons, to com- mand them to burn the notes, arguments and collections which they had made tor preparing themselves to a conference with tlie Lords upon a most momentous constitutional question, and aAerwards to imprison and otherviise to

Imnisli them fur no other cause but that they lad been assigned by the House of Commons tu be agents in such conference (see Hargrave's Preface to lord Hale's Treatise on the Jurisf fic- tion of tlie Lords House or parliament, p. ix. Note.) ;- that lord Bacon thought he might safely be intrustetl with the power by arbitrary in- junctions to protect debtors Yrom pa^^'ment of their just debt*; (see Proceedings and IJebates of the House of Commons in lO'JOand lo<21, &c. Oxford 1766 vol. I. p. 157 et seq.) ; that arch- bishop Lautl and his coailjutors thought they might safely be iutnisted with the arbitrary power whicn they so cruelly exercised in the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commis- sion ; that Chief Justice Kelyng and other judges thought they might be safely in-> trusted with the ariiitrary power of fining H.w\ imprisoning jurors (as to which see the <^ases of Penn and 1^1 ead, and of Bushcll, ai/f, vol. 6, p. 951, 999, and the notes to those cases :) and that Jefferies, Crew, Cartwright« W.right, HerlxTt, and Jenner, thouglit tliey m *glit be safely intrusted with the power wliicu as ' Conmiisionei-s of Ecclesiastical AfiiBdrs'they employed for the purpose of subverting the protcstant religion. It is to be regretted, that the learniMl judge did not adduce any proofs of his assertion, that, " this ct>nfidence may with |ierfect safety and security be reposed in the Judges and the H«mses of Parliament ;" for indee<l the tnith of the assertion is by no mean5 self-evident. It is >udicieut]y obvious that thft

991 Bl'ATE TRIALS. 32 CharlrsIT. iSSO.'-^Proceedingi against R.Thomp90t

'' lAiroonng (wlucli in mj oonscienoe, I am ^ fiur from soppoaitt^) (ha^ in the present case ** the House has abused its power. 1 know,

CMes in which discretionary uncontrouM power is moat likely to be abused, and in whidi con«e<|aem!y it is most dangiproas, are thoae in which tlie intereata or the personal feelingB of the parU; exercising such power are conoamed. Now, ir it be so indisputable, as the learned jini^e appears to haye thought it was, that each ot* the Houses ot Parliament and that courts may safely be intrusted with a discretionary nnconts-ouied power of imprisonment for what- ever it may please them respectirdy to adjudge to be a contempt towards themsefres, in most jof which cases their personal feelings at least frill be concerned; it may not perhaps be fbund rery easy to ahew why they mignt not aforiiorihe still more safely intrusted with the like discretionary uncontrouled power of im- prisonment in other cases, in wnich their m- tcrcsts and their feelings are not concerned. But I apDrchcnd the learned judge would acarccly have maintained that in such other cases they might be safely intrusted with dis- cretionary uiK'ontrouled power of imprison- ment : seeing that, in the first Tohime of his Commentaries, p. i:^5, when illwitrating " the great importance to the public of the preser- vation of perKonal liberty," he says, and with great tnith, that " If once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to un- prison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper, there would soon be an end of ' all other rigfits and immunities." Yet indeed it is very easily discoverable that if a vote or an adjudication of contempt by a House of Parlia- ment or a court be unexaminable elsewhere, and if the power of imprisonment ujion such vote or fdjwlication be discretionary and uncontrouled ; each Hoiwe of P^liamcnt and each court pos- sesoes a discretionary and uncontrouled power of imprisonment for every action and every (Mnission of a man's Itfe ; naj^, for the bare un- proved imputation of any action or omission ; nay even without the nnputation of any speci- fic actor omission. «< If" as Mr. Haigrare p Jurid. Aig. and CoQ. 16)Tery forcibly states it^ '* the doctrine of contempts be thus wide ; if the House of Lords or Commons or the Court of Chancery, or any of the great Courts of Westminster IJall, may construe what they please into contempts, and may under that de- nomination without trmhby jur}' convict all per- ■ons of crime, and have also an indefinite power of punishing by fine and imprisonment, and if aB this when done be thus unajipealableand thus vnexaminable, what is there out their own wis- dom and moderation, and the danger of ubusing 80 afhitrary a imiwct, to prevent the House of Ijords «r the House of Commons, or any court of Westminster Hall, under she'ter of the law 'of contempts, from practising all the monstrous tjrcanny which first diKgraced and at laigth •Ifarwhdmed the i^tar-Chambcr ?"

I

<* and am sure that the House of Coi '' are both able and weD inclined to do j <* How prspostsrout ia the present m

Indeed the Homae of CommoDs hai manifyted a very laudable iealousy of comnutaenta by others. While tne e 16Car.<l, o. lOy waa in its passage House reaolrodf (see hird Camden's jud in the Caae of Entick asainst Carringt others, a.d. 1765, in tSa Collection), the body of the Lords of the Council, n one of tnem in particular, as a privy coui has any power to nnpriaon any treehoi ject, except in auch cases aa they are rized by the statutes of the realm.'' all one," says lord Hale (Jurisdiction Lords Houseor Parliament, p. 10?), '' t a law, and to have an authoritative po judge according to that which the judge fit siionld be law, though in truth there law extant for it."

How far the condusion against the tr the learned judge's tiiftum^ to which th ceding considerations appear to lead, hi fortified by experience l cannot under affinn, because I have not been able to e^ so extensively as that would require i precedents upon the subject : but if thi cise of* this discretionary power ahall \n to have been at all analogous to the exei other sorts of uncontroul^ discretionary as recorded in our history, the prccedei certainly not corroborate sir William stone's gratuitous assertion. I will n a few cases. And first au action of t brought in parliament in 18 £d. t.

*Mnan action of trespass brought i liament in 18 £d. 1. (as was then the pi by the king, the king's steward 6of his YvM) Peter de Chanet, the king's mars his household) Walter de Fanecourt, the Cornwall and the abbot of Westminster \ the prior of the Holy Trinity in Londi Bo^ de Clare, (or, as the record express which the two latter persons were attac ans>ver the five former) for that tlie sai served an eoclesiostical citation upon the Cornwall as he was going through Westi Hall to attend the parliament according writ of summons he had received, by citation tlic earl was oomnumded to ap| such a day at such a place before the bishop of Canterbury, and the said Ik Clare procured the said prior to serve t citation, which serving the laid citation to have been in contenii»t of the lord thi and to his disgpraco of 10,000/. ; also t been to the prejudice of the ecclesiastics cbise of the abbut of Westminster grant by the court of Rome, by which Westi Hiill, as being within the jurisdiction > abbot of Wei^iinster, is cxem|vted Ir jurisdiction episcopal or archiepiscopal, the abbot's danmge thereby of 1,000/. hare been to the preindioe of the office atewird and mamal (of the king'a hoQi

u] STATE TRIALS, SSCilABLls II. l6W>.—Pririlegt t^ ParUamtnt. [iS

'tat Mtm^uDt! Hm Hoom of ComiiMwa '■ knc litis pnwer only in caminoB whli all tike "MMtorWatmiiuter-IbU; andifBiiytKr-

tM M the (bnwoc of llw «rl of Comwall

tmUte bet, urf pat thansdrei npoa the la^n^c]'. And jndgincBtM gi*en ■ninit itwitutitey be commiaed to tbe Tower ^nftbelunff's pkanre. AAenranIi Bogo ttOM m tmeA to die kmg in 9,000 marin, (ipMHBi BOW, in thoae 4lm«airor~— mi)a4tfne»ta gay ijOOS3l. damagm ■frfCnnwaU ftr the tmpMi comi . _ fma Iwn. which the eeri of Contrail it the iMaceof the biahopa of Ely and Diafaan, ■<wh«r gTPWt men, afterward* remitted ox-

m^ 100/."

IMWT eariy caK ia tbu ef John deNorth- ■^ rdencd to id the Appendix (E.) (An*- %)B dte Report heforc lu- Th« man waa ''^fney of the Court of Kiiic'a B<acb, (to ■M CKumatanee attentiaB tbooU be given '»ttaaltnaf[ the eaae aa an aothnrity), anil tewetinea of the judget of Uiat court, that | ^UiadepcDdenreenou^iDal tOMBWa^ed i ^Njal nmunaniU, he nrmi ailjndg«d in 10 doing ■*bu«beeB|(uih}-of a contempt of the court.

' KMu may be aafely tnwted with Ihii power,

■ tli«y muat sarcly be the Commopa, who ara

■ chi»en by the people ; for their privilege

paased upon Fioytle may be seca at vol. 3, p, 11.^3 of Uiiit ColleL-tion, m a brief report of hia caae, wliich appears to have boon tliroughout a tlMue of irreKularit)-, luurpation, and op- pteanao. In iUmtrattuu of tlie tupic noir under eonuderation I will subjoin, at the end of this Cue, aome pauaues respecting Ployd which occnmil in ihe House ot Com' aaona, together with lord Oxford'i rcprobalkni of (he mmwodinga in the case.

JnHidiai'a Caae, 1631, (aee a bctef re. port of it, vol. 9, p. 1131, of tbia Collection,)

the Uouae of Commons took

upon tl

into imiloily, ■■i was oUig«d to find nainpemer*. Itord Me Am rdalea tliecaae, with Huie eonfu- Mtof JahBiodHobert.

ICr. 18 £. 3, ronm rtgt Jtot. 151. LUtlUm. Ma de NonhamptoD, an attorney of the

KiagVBMch, wrote a letter to John Ferrers

Mfrfihekiw'Aeounael, that neither sir Wra.

tecMrfjuUcc, nor hii fetlowsthe kinggjus- ■n^ ear their cletka, any great thing would di t^ tte eonmuuidiDeDt oTour lord £c lung-, ^■f^wes PUlipi ia that place, more then of MT nv of the rcabn i which nid John being oM. enfcsaed the eaid letter by him to be

^ per se acr^tam Roberto dc

Ffnm, ya 4< <k concilia regis, qiuc litera

— = — ■ — ■■ — — ^*"-in: pnetextu

etjuatidarioa

r prineev to be a brcBoh Mir Men prrvflems, or a contempt Iawai4 ■*as Wl *• Mnk •Mlcwe «Urii Ihey

•■ IW he abmiU be h^ onwmthy to be • jnatice of the peace ; and be dedarml dimUe and nnworthy to be of that eommisitoo, or any other w^Mtaoercr. To be lent at two of (be clock in the aftenooi to tiie Tower Ihroi^ the Hreel on foot."— He wa* pardimed to hare •ay forthcr punisbment, in respect of hia &iher's worth, who was aecretary to Walstngf- ham, and sutfered much for religion in queen Mary's time, and wiis then held to be » very honest, reli^iu gentleman \ And so MicheU was railed tii the hw to h«ar Ills sentence on hia knee.— ADer uaitcncc oaaced he desired to bn heard, but it was denied.

Mr. ChanceUor of tlie Dulcby. That b« might be heard oAcr juilgmpnt, so as it he ai> bumble suit ; or any thing not concerning the sentence given by lUc Huuke.

Sir Edaiard Cookf. Tliat he ought not \a be heard afW judgment : And so it was agreed by the Vole of the whole House.

In the same year the House of Lords sen> fenced John Blount (tliis, Mr. Hargrave, Juri- dical Arguments mid Collections, 197, tells ui is the first privilege precedent he flod* fiir im- priNonment for a ti-rin rertnb by Ihe Lords) (o the pillury, and to imuriionment and labour in Bridewell for life. His offence was ROunter-

It,

the Lord.

Keeper (thia, Mr, Margrave, ub. tup. tells u* is the nisi privilege pnM^ent of a line l^ iha Lords) (o a fine of 1,000/. and the pillm}'. Two olher cases I will n![iort in the words of Mr. Hnrgrave, (Prefiire to lord Hale's Tmct on the Juiisdir.tioiiof the Lords' House or Par> liament.)

" Another case, in which judicature aa be< twcen the two Hoiihch became the tubjeet of eoiisitle'ation, ocrurrcil soon aAer the impeach, mcnt of lord Clarenilon. It arose on petition to the Common* from a BIr. Fitton, oomplain. ing of some eierwc of jiirisdirtinn by thtt Lords : and on a report of ihe case from a ootn. mittee that the matter nf jurisdiction was flt ta be aivued at tliu bar of the House of Commonf, the House ^luuinteil a day to hear it accord. in^y, andat tnesame time appointed a oan> nuncoto iwiuire into prcoedents in casea af «

43] STATE TRIALS, 32 Charles II. ^SsO^^Proceedmgt agamai R. Thomptcn: [44

** and powers are the privile^speR and powers of " the peoj^e. There is a threat lallacy in my «* brottier Glynn's whole arf^ument, wlien he " makes the question to bi*, Wliether the

like kind ; and amongst the C<»mmittee were nani^d, solicitor j^reneitil Finch, aftcrwanls lord eliancetlor Nottiiifjfliain, Mr. Serjeant Maynard, Mr. Vauyfhan, atWwanls loi-d chief justice, and Mr. Pr\'nne ; and tlie thi'ce latter were de- sired to tiike s^iecial care in the business. What was the prf^ci^. nature of this case of Mr. Fitlon, is not Rtaled in the Journal of the Commons or in the piiiitcd account of the de- hate. Dut from various entries in the Journal •f the Lc»rds tlie substance of the case appears on the whole to have been to thi!« (^tfect. Mr. Fitton and three others had been fornierly pm- ceede«l a<^ainst l>cforc the li<»rds for contriviiijcf and publish ins^ a libel upon lonl Gerrai'd of Brandon ; and the 1 jonls in July 1063 had sen- lencc<l Fitton in a fine of 500/. to imprisonment in the Kinuf*H-Ik?ncli prison till he should pro- duce AbraTiain (j ranger, whose name was to the libel, and to fuid securities for gfood bclui« ▼iour during* life, with direction to the chief justiire of the Kinjif^s- Bench to take such secu- rities. Uufler this sentence in a case at least mixeil with privilege, Fitton, noiwitlistanding a pronigation of parliament, which confcsserlly terminates imprisonment by the House of Com- mons in privilege ceases, still continued in pri- son ; and one ^Villiam Carr, on his owning the lame libel and his having dispersed it, liad been recently ailjudgcd by the Lonls to pay a fine of 1,000/. and to iuiprisonment in tlic> Fleet during the king's pleasm*e, and to the pillory. Being Wh thus imprisone<l by the I/onls, Fitton and Carr resorted by several jielitions to the C'om- mons for reliefs. A Committee was appointed upon Carr*s petition as well as upon Fitton's. However no report appears to have been ever made u{)on the [letition of Carr, and what Ik.*- camc of his case is not mentioned, except that three years afU^rwards he published a relation of it and of his sufferings, with a plea against the jurisdiction of the Hcuise of Lords. But Fitton's |H'tition wsls re[)oi1ed u|Mm as fit for solemn arginneut at the bar of tbe IIoiLse of ComuKKis as to the jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and >vas ordercil to be argued accord- ingly in the manner before mentioned. It ap- |Mears also, that the oiLie was argued at the bar of the Coumions by Fitton*s counsel Mr. Offley, who said some strong things against the juris- diction oftlie Ijords, but is reproa(*hi>d with hav- ing so closely lM)rn)we<l from a prior argument of the solicitor general Fincli, afterwards lord chancellor Nottioghuni, at th<' bar of the Lords, though in what ease is n<<t nu^ntioiied, as to havemdueeil the latter to leiive tlie Conunons. When the argument was <iver, the del>ate was ai\joumed for a week, liut the Journal of the Commons is silent as to any further pnK'ce^ling ui)on the case, i^nibablv ibis ejise became ab- Borbetl in the consideratum of tlur great case, which aimobt immediately ioUowcd, and

" House hive acted according' to their right or '* not ? Can any good man diink of involvii^ " the judges in a i*ontest with either House sf " parliament, or with one another ? And yet

^ ■

brought the two Houses to a direct issue on one great branch of the jurisdiction claimed by the Lords but ilenied by the Commons : or perhaps- tlie Commons thought this case of Fitton aii4i that of Carr too much mixed with contempt' and breach of privilege to be convenient casH to make their stand ujion. However these twa: cases should not be foi'gotten. Eitlier they< were cases of breach of privilege and contempt, or they wei-e not. If they were, the contion-' ance ot' imprisonment af\er the prorogation af parliament, the fining, and every other part afi the sentence in both cases, became disputaUar for it may be aske<l, how on breach of privilCiM' are the Lords warranted to do moretlian can la done by the Commons in a like case ? On tfaa other hand, if they were not cases of privily and contempt, then the proceedings of tneLoirii ajgainst Fitt(»n and Carr were oiten to the objee*' tion of an exercise by. the Lonls of an original jurisdiction^ over crime, of having ailjudged a coniiuoner for misdemeanor without impeach- ment of the Commons or the verdict or jury, and of having so expressed the imprisomnaal |>ai't of their stintence in both cases as to make It imprisonment for life, that is, in Fitton's mi* less they should interirase to declare it termiB* ated, and in Can's iwless the king should pleaaa to determine it. To some of these objecikNii Mr. Offley did in effect advert in argiung Fifr^ ton's cas-e. In remarking also upon the coo- sequence of such an exercise of criminal jun^ diction by t!ie peers, he nointedly said, * tha

* juri.s<liction of the Star-Chamber is now trans-

* JTormed into the House of Lords, but some-

* what in a nobler way.* It did not occur tn him to add, that the jurisdiction of the Star- Chamber, though justly odious both for tkic mode of trial and the excessive punishments il had inflicted, and therefore wisely diolished, was in some degree sanctionefl by the 8ta*atei of the realm : but tliat it remained to explain, how the House of Lords had obtained the Ufa or any other sufficient sanction for exercising the same jurisdiction ; and how it could U proptT to tolerate that in an hereditary kind o Star-Chaml>cr, without the sanction of statute and without any other limitation than such ai their own moderation should prescribe, whu4 the legislature had so indignantly abolished, ii the case of a court sanctioned by statute am not pretending to adjudge crime of a highei oifler than misdemeanor."

It may be (|ucstioiied, whether in answer to what has been stated, it will be Uiought suifi< cient to alledge, in support of Mr. J ustice Black stone's assertion, that the moderation, tlie up: rightness, the intcgiity, the regard to jiistici and to rational lil)erty,Vhich now character«< the procfx.'dings of our Houses of Pariiameq and of our Courts affoixl us security, that siniifau proceedings will not hcrcailer occur. . WluU Im

n'ATE TOIALS. 32 Cbablbs II. \6s6.~Priviltge of Parlianimt.

bee Mtb i

mnm ii the only judge uf i1

mtv be. Lmws Are nrovideil, uU the insti- iviateirty are establinbod, nnt upon con- c of tlu eoud vhtch we hope men will du, naporeb^nuEnortbecTil, which we know nj Jo. True il ii, llierc is no immediate ti upteheniriuD tlmt mrn will be net far pUurv and (.-oDdeniiipd to liord labour ('■ ftgaot.fur couaterfcltinif aliOrd'spro- D : bat that most [mwerfuf ad^ot-ate fbr Mk ronsiitullonal ii;uvcTincnt, Sir. Burke ftaioalbeCausesofthel'resentDin^ou- , bu left lU most whnlesoTDc wan]in|r, tpiUc liberty will be among ua, ns ainou|r Mefton, obooxiuui to «ome )i«rson or ; udilut opiMjrtunitiesMillbelumiiilied, efting U KBEt, Bomc ultcralion to the Eee of uar eouBtttutitni. These attcmjitii MnHjr Tsiy in their mode, acconling tu ■4 rirrmiislaiKes. Forambition, though mr the same yvneral vIeivE, has nut at wtbe taiae means, nortlic sanieparticu- fKCt. A (Treat deal of the lumlltire of nnnnnv la worn to rai^ ; tlie rest is en- Mt <if ttihioB. Besides, there are lew ■tofo T«ry clumsy and awkward in their !« ulo rail into the identiisl snare whii'h !vi*d fatal to their preOec(»Bora. fben ao aHiitrary imnosition is attempted the Mibject, undoubtedly it will tot uear ferelKad thenaraeurSbiii-monev. There tot(er that an extension of the forest rinold be the cboten mode of opprea- ■ttil Igv. And when we hear any in- •rf miniMerial rapncitv, to the prejiidiec mn^tuaf private lite, It will rertahilynot • oacnoD ut' two luimlred [iiiHRtu I'ruui a ■ •Tfaslii'iii, for lisiTe lu lie witli her own ad." r L'siir HuironiM de Nerit dot Domino

Domino Sim llii)^

iij^iiG d

cSlcvill. I de Snnlnn) At- <viituiii jinllinis c Hnip> de eeiituin {faliinlK ndile^idifi caput Ua»dra;rcsima> ; etsiquie ilbirmu t wl tune reddendo, redduitur ud pruxl-

Paseh. Rut. fin. 6. J. m. S. dorsu.] '.Ttrr KXc has it mm uiBitners and its po- Irpeadi-nt upon them ; and the some al- 1 will not be made against a conslilution farmed and matured, tliut weri- useit to y il in tlie cradle, ur to resist its yrnwtli f itiiDraDey.

Igainst the being of parliament I am sa- il* irwa» bare bceu ever I'niertaiiied Aaicvounian- Every uiut must ^MkbalmiiiHv the interest of tlic MM^ HMMrid etuue interposed between SI and the people. The i^entlemen ■■e of Conmitn*' have an interest ^n( in aiutaining the part of that It caiiM. However they may hire iftan of their voices, they Dtver iviJ hi Sm uid inlrenmnce.

"judges in this point, but we must be gorenisj "by the eleven, and not by the single one. '* It is a right inherent in aO supreme courts ; " the House of Coinninns have always exer* " cised it. Little uicc objections of particidar " words, and forms and ceremoaics of execU' " tier, arc not to be regarded in the acta of tha " House of Commons; it is our duty to pre- " aume the orders of that House, and (heir cxa- " eution, nre acconling to law. The Habeas " Corpus in Sliirmv's Case v "law. Ic<

LT entirely with my Lord Chief

1771.— Oliver's Case. And in Mr. Alderman Oliver's Case, argaeil in the Court of Exchequer on the 27th of April 1T71, the tour judges, CbierBBrunFoi'ker, Mr. Baron tjuiythe, Mr. Baron Adams, and Sir. BaroD I'errot, unanimnusly acknowledged in like manner the right of tlie House of Cooi-

1709.— Dumford and East's Report*, K. B. Book 8, p. 314. Flower's Case.f

In the case of Flower, comraitt^ by the Huiiie of Ijonls, t'ur a liliel nn the Usliap of I^audatr, on his being broiit:ht up to the King's* Bench npnn Flabeas Corpiks.

Lord kenyon, Chitf Justice, said—" If we " entertained any doubts u[)on this aubjcO, it " would be uiibecomuig iu us to lusli to a " ipecily docisioD n-itbout looking through aU " the cases cited by the di^fendant's oounsel; " but nut having any doubts, 1 think it best ta '• <li!4>usc of the case at ouce. The cases that " have been referred to arc all coUerted in lord " Hale's Treatise on the Juriiidictiun of the *' Lords' Fluuse >>f |>arlinmoiit, and lliat valua- " lile I'relace to it iniblished by Air. Hargrave ; >' but iii tltc whole ot' that puUication the de> " feiulaiit's counsel hns luit found one case ap- ■' plin^le tu the present. This is one of the " pluiiu-st <|iicsil<nui that ever was discussed in " a court of law. Siuiie tilings, however, have *' drup|tt:d from thu learned counsel, lliut re- " iiiiirc aj) anHwer: — First, it is said that the

'* Acc(inlin<>ly those wlio have been of the mnstkniiwiiilevotiou tu the will aud|)lcasure of tlieoiurt, bavi'nl tite same time been the must tbrwuni in asserting un high authority in the House Iff Ciimmoiix,. When tliey knew wlui weretnusc tliat BUtliority.and how it waa to Ih' euiploynl, thcv thought it never eould be carrii'il tiH> far. It must be a'ways the wish uf an uneonMitutinnal statesman, that an House uf Commons who are entirely depen- dant upon him, sIkiuIi) bave every riglil of the lieoplc dcjMUidont upon tlieir pleasure."

* ^<ec Mr. Uargravc's oliscn'atipiu on Ihi* case, 1 .lurid. Arg. and Coll, 17.

t tk-e litis Case heieBncr iu this CoIInc-

47] STATETRIALSt 32 Citarlss II, \6V>.^Prouedhgi tgmmgi R. Tha^VBon: (i

IC Tt^^^^ ^^V ---»- :^ ^m^ A ..^M.^ ,M^..<w.M.^ . aL.^« (( Alan* *Ua Utf^noA aI* Y mmAa X^.mmm ma* «l..i> - - --

*' Home of Lords it not a court of record : that ** the HoQie of Lords wheo exercising a legis- «' ktire capacity is not a courtof record is un- «< doubtedly true; but when sitting in ajodi- «' dal capacity, as in the present case, it is a «« court of record. Thai it was objected, that <« the defendant was condemned wiUiout being <* heard in his defence : but the warrant m ** oommitmcnt funusbes an answer to that ; *' by that it appears, that * he was informed of it < the complaint made against him,' &c. and «* having been heard as to what he had to say «' in answer to the said compbiint, &c. he was •( adjudged * guilty of a high breach of the <* ' privueges of the House,' Stc, so that it ** clearly appears that he was heard in his de- * ftntfe, and had tlie same opportunity of call« ** mg witnesses, that erefv other defendant has f^-in a court of justice. Then insinuations are << thrown out against the encroachments by the «* House of L«rds on the liberties of the sub- «< jeot : but the good subjects of this coimtry <' feel themselves protected in their liberties by •' both Houses of parliament. Government «* rests in a great ciegree on pubVc opinion ; ** and if ever the time shall come, when fac- *' tious men will overturn the government of << the country, they will begin their work by ** calumniating the courts of justice and both •< Houses of iMtrliament.

** The ground of this proceeding is, that the ** defendant has been g^lty of a breach of pri- ^ vileges of the House, and a contempt of the «* House. This claim of right to punish by *^ Ane and imprisonment for such an offenre, is <* not peculiar to the House of Lords ; it is fre- ** ipieiitly exercised by this and other courts of ** record, and that not merely for contemiiti} ** committed in the presence of the court: One ** instance of which was that of Mr. Beard- «* more*, under sheriff of Mi<ldle8ex, for a con- *' tendpt of the oourt in not executing part of <( the sentence pronounced on Dr. Slicbbeare. «* And tliat case answers another objection, «< strongly insisted on by the defendant's coun- •( sel here, that if the party accused can be pu- «* nished in any other manner, tliis moile of «* trial cannot be resorted to ; for there Mr. ** Beardmore might have been indicted, but ** yet he was attached, examined upon inter- •* rojpitories, and fhied and imprisonea. Again <* it IS objected, that the House of Lords cannot *^ impose a fine for such an offence : but this *' ana other courts of record have the power of « finine in this summary manner ; and why << should not the House of Lords have the same ** power of imposing a fine for a contemjit of •* their privileges? Then several instances were ** alluded to, where the House did not choose <* to exercise this privilege, but directed urose- *^ cntions to bo instituted in the courts of law. •< The same ol>servations might equally be <' made on the proceedings of this court, who '* have sometimes directed indictments to be « preferred. We are not therefore to conclude

mm

♦ Vide « Burr. 792.

(C

(( <c i(

(C

I(

(4

«

CC

C(

i( (( il (( (i i(

C( iC C(

<(

CC iC

i< «

(C

(( u

(C

a

«i ((

(C

((

C(

(( (I (( ii

« (( (( (( ii

Ci

((

(C

(( I( (i

iC CC

that the House of Lords has not the pow of inflicting this punishment, from the ci cumstance of its not exercising it on all oec sions. When lord Shafleobury's Case can on, there were some persons who wished abridge the firivilMfcs of the House of LorA but Mr. Serjeant Maynard was one of the who argued in support of their privilege and he surely was not capable of concma in any attempt to infringe the libertiee bfu peoi>ie. It has been said, however, lb though many instances arc to be found i which tlie House of Lords has in poinli fact exercised (his power, whenever lb power has been resisted it lias been reairti with effect ; from whence it is inferred, th the House of Lords has not the authodl which it assumes : but in this case I m avaO myself of the same ailment in &voi of its jurisdiction, for no case has been Iba where it has been holden to be ilkgaJ in tl House of Lords to 6ne and im]irison a peiM guilty of a breach of i>rivilege. Wc WV bound to grant this liaheas Corpus ;-b liaving seen the return to it, we aixi bound ' remand the defendant to prison, because tl subject belongs to ' alind examen.' Then nothing unconstitutional in the House i I^rds proceeding in this mode for a bren of priv-uogc ; ana unless we wish to asakti the attempt that is made to overset the Ll of Parliament and the constitution, we ni remand the defendant." Grose, J.—" This question is not new; has frequently been coiisiden*d in couitii law ; aud the principles dLiciissed to-dv and the rases cited, were examined not mai years ago ; aud the result is very ably slift by Lord Chief Justice I>e Grey, m 3 Wl 199. *■ When the House of Conunoos (a

* the same may be said of the House

* Lor' Is) adjudge any thing to be a cuotem ' or a bn^aeh of jtnvilegp, their adjudicati ' is a couvii*tif»ii, and tl^eir commitmeoc ' consequence, is exccuti(Hi ; and no olfa

* court can discharge or hail a pei'son that il ' execution by the juvigiiivnt of any oth ' court.' In another [lassuge he said * Eva ' couit mu^t be sole judge of its own co

* tenints.' And agahi, * The counsel at i

* bar liavc not cited one ca^ic where any coi ' of this Hall ever detciinioed a matter

* privilege wliieh did not come immediati

* oefore them.'

'' Having stated this, 1 think I need nol m more in the prtseut case." Per Curiaiu.t

IjCt the defendant be remandi

f Mr. Justice Lawrence was not in con being indis|K>8e<l ; and Mr. Justice Le Blal havinf^ attended at the Guildhall sittings I lord Kenyon, and not returiiinn* tiU the ■!( ment was closed ; gave no opinioiw

■9] STATE TRIALS, 39 Cbaslrs U.

Apranm (E.)

Cud bT Commifaiieiita for Contempt by

ComtB of JuMiee.

In Micfaaflniu Term, 18 Edwnnl 3. ' J(hi Pe NorthatnptOD, aa Bttomey of tlie Cwt of Kin^i-bencli, oonfesiing hiniEtlf giilr vtwthiag a lc4l«r rMpecdne Iho judges M'omitat Kin^s-bench, which IcHlt wii iii»lpi ij Uk court to contaiD no trnth in it, uA )• be calcuhled to excite the king's iuilie- wrtaiyiiMt the emirt and the judges, to the imW (f the nidcwirtuHl judge*, waaeom- hiwdHihetnanM, and ordered to findtc- (■ilMi Af bis good hchariour.— S Inst. 174. BiUryTenn, 11 Ann.

A Writ of Attocbmeot was issued gainst IWoM LHWaon, liir sppakinff disrespectful Midi «f the Courts cf QDren's-hench, u|ioa bbong serml with a nile of that Court. Hilary, 14 Ann.

A Writ of Attachnicnt was granted against lAmd HemUe, for speaking disrespectful mAaflhc Lord Chief Justice of the Court 4QaEen'*-bnx4i, moA his warrant. Trinity Term, 5 Geo. 1.

AWiitef Attachment^iainst Jones,

httmi&g the process of the Court of KingV Wh eogtemptuouHly ; and there being an ■timatiM that he icEed on the sasistsnce of tH MaW'Woriunen to rescue liim, the Court ■M tat theritcriffof Middlesex into Court, ■dMdcredhimtotakea auffirient force.— l

isTem, OGeo. 1. A Win of AnachneDt was granted to Richard I'ifc, he conlemptuouo wmds concerning a wntfriM a judge of the Court of King'S'

Eaatee l^nn, « Geo. 1.

■ Wilkiiw Iwrinff oonfemed himself

nik^oTfuUidiingftlibriupon the Court of Myitanh, the diort made « rule coin- ■iMgfain tothe marshal.

He next term Wilkin having made an affi- kilehanring doetor Colebatch with being the

iMkorofuie libel, was sentenoed to pay a fine tf 3/. and to gi*e security for his good b«-

inbryTmn, rOeo. 1.

Aa Altmt^naent waa granted against John

Buber, esq. for cnDtem[iliious words of the

Unat of Kiuf^S'beuch, in a speech to llie

NO»on eouncJ of London.— 1 Stim^e, 443.

Hilary Term, 9 Geo. 1.

Doctor Colebntch hsTing been examined

[ ^Bteringalories, ft>r contempt in ptiblish-

I |vilAel, the interrogatories and aiiKwer were

, NMrnd u the king's coroner and aitomey ;

bi Easter Term, 9 Goo. 1. . Or. Colebateh,1)rang in the fiustody of tlie 'O'dttl, wav brought roto Court, and waa n'li- ''wtdto pav a fioeot SOL and to give security hUi aoarf behkrionr liir » jeor, and van I MMUedwiheaMriiaiaflMestini.

'01. Till.

ifiM. — Privilrgf of ParVemrnt. [50

Michaelmas Term, 9 Geo. ].

A Writ of Atlachiiicut ma granU'il s^nst John Uolton, clerk, iar contLinptaaus words respecting the wamiiits of llie I.ord Chief Jiuticeof the Court of K Liar's- bench, al a meet- mg uf hia poriiihioiivi^ in the Cburch-yaid. Easter Terra, 9 Geo. 1.

John Wyalt, a bookseller in St. Paul's Chiirch-yanI, ]iitl>li!ihing a p.-unphlet, written byDr. Cooyers>IidTFIeton, in tlie il'^icntiiin of which to the vice-chancellor of Camlnidge, were some nassajfcs reflecting upon a proceed- ing of the Court of Kinir's-beucli ; tlii: (^uurt granted a rule Furaiust \Vyatt, tu shew cause why a M'rit of Attachment elinuld not issue agoiiist bim for his ei<iitt^iupl ; and Wyatt having made an affitlaiit that CurneUus Crown* field bad emplciyeil liiui to sell tlie iii>ni[>hlet, and he bavin); cliar^red l)r. Cnnyers MiddletOD with being llie author of it, Crountiekl was dU- charged upon payment of the «Mh, and a Writ of Attnrliment was granted against llr. Con- vers Middleton, who, in tlie next term, gave bail to answer the contempt ; he ivas after- wards exaiuined upon internigatorit's, and upon the report of llu' kind's coruuer and attorney lie was adjudged tu E>e in ccnienipl, and was committcil tu the martial in execution <|U0UB- qiie, &c. and it was reli-rred to the luasier to lax thuprusecutov's coKlN.

It is stated in Fortescuc's reports that Dr. MiUillelon was RCiileneed lo pay a line of !>0l. arid to give securily fur a year ; but ni> nde fur KUch sentence has at |ii'est-nt been lound ; Bnit Br. Culelnlch hat ing received such a Nenlence, for a similar ofleuee, in' the |ireee<ling term, it is pusMble that this senlrnce may, by iiiisiake, have been applied to Dr. Midilletun. Miehaelmas Term, 5 Geo. f.

The Court granted a Writ of Attachment agiunat lady I^wli'Vi ti>r a contempt in pub- lishing a pa|iei' relk'cting upon the jwuceedin^ of the Court ; and she having been exonuned upon iutcrrc^tories, was in Easier Tenn tbl- luning reportMi by the oSicer of the Court t> be in contempt, and was conunitted lu the marshal.

And in Trinity Term 6 Geo. 3, she was brought into Court, aud a rule made, xlalin^ lliat " fecit Euhmiflsionem situm petivit i eniam " de curia ;" and thereupon she was lined live

also examined uixiii iuterru^tories, tor

rblisliing the same libeJ. !j BamBrdistouj •s It. 43.

Extract fii>m Atkjiis's Rp|)orts, Book 1, p. 4<!t>. First Seal after Mieliaeliuas Term, Uw, 3, 1742. A motion agaiiiNl lite printer of Hic Cham- pion, unil the pritiler of llieSt. .lamcK's Eveiv- ing Post ; that the former, wlio is already in the Fleet, niar be committed elose prisoner, and that the other, who H «l Vn^, «>?; W £

$1'} STATE TRIALS, 31 ChAeIesIL iSSO.-^Prcceedingsngahui R.37lMq

committ^ to the Fleet, for publishing' a libel Against Mr. Hail and Mr. Garden, executors of John Roach, esq. late major of the garrison of Fort 8t. George in the East Indies, and for reflecting likewise upon ^governor Mackay, governor Pitt, and others, taxing them with turning affidavit-men, ^c. in the cause now de- pending in this court ; and insisting that the pnblishuig such a pa(>er is a high contempt of this Court, for which tliey ought to be com- mitted.

Lord Hardwicke, Lord Chancellor, ' Nothing is more incumbent upon courts of justice than to presence their proceedings from being raisrcprescDted ; nor is there any thing of more pernicious consequence, than to preju- dice the nofinds of the' public against persons Concerned as parties in caases, before tlie cause is finally heard.* It has alyi-ays been my opi- nion, as well as the opinion of tnosc who have sat h^re before me, that such a proceeding on^httobe discountenanced.

But to be sivre Mr. Solicitor- General has put H upon the right footing, that notwithstanding this should be a Ubel, yet unless it is a con- tempt of the Court, I have no cognizance of it ; for whether it is a libel against the public, or private persons, the only method is to pro<x^ fit law.

The defendants' counsel have endeavoure<l two tilings— 1st, to shew this paper does not t^ntain defamatory matter ; l?dly, if it does, yet there is no abuse upon the proceedings of this Court : and therefore there is no room for me to interpose.

Now take the whole trw-ether, though the letter is artfully pennefl, there can remain no doubt in every common reader at a coffee- house but this is a defamatory hbel.

It is plain therefore who is meant ; and as a jury, if this fact was before them, could mlike no doubt,. so, as I am a judge of facts as well as law, I can make none.

1 ini;u[ht mention several strong cases, where frvcn teigncd names have been construed a )ibel u|K>n those persons who were really meant to be hbcUed.

Upou the whole, as to the libellous part, if so far there sliould remain any doubt whether the evccutqr^ are meant, it i^ clear beyond all contradiction upon the last paragraph, ui which lire these words : ** This case ought to be a ** warning to all fathers to take C4ire with ^' whom they trust their children and tlieir for- f * tuncis, lest their own characters, their widows f * and their children be aspersed, and their for- ♦* tunes Kipinudered. away in law-siuts.^'

And HkcHise, though not in so strong a de- cree, tlie words " tum«l affidavit -men," is a liliel against those gt^ntlemen who have made them.

There are three different sorts uf contempt : One kiml of contempt is, scandalizing the jPouititeelf.

^ Vide liaker v. Hart, post. 488, Mr«. Far- 4^'8 gwe, « Vcs, ^20,

There may be likewise a €X)nten Court, in abusing parties who are co causes here.

There may also be a contempt of 1 in prejudicing mankind against pen the cause is heard.

There cannot be any thing of grea quence than to keep die streams clear and pure, that parties may pn safety botti to tiiemselves and their <

The case . of Raikes, the print Gloucester Journal, who pidilistied one of the Journals against the com of Charit^le Uses at Burford, callinc; tisement, A Hue and Cry afler a C of Charitable Uses, was of the sau this, and the Court in that case comn

There are several other cases of * one strong instance, where there w reflecting upon the court, in the ca: tain Perry, who printed his brief cause caine on ; uie offence did not the printing, for any man may give brief as weil as a written one to coi the contempt of this Court was preji world with n^^ard to the merits of before it was beard.

Upon die whole, diere is no dou is a contempt of the Court.

With regard to Mrs. Read, the p Saint James's Evening Post, by wii viation, it is said, that she did nol nature of the paper; and that print and pamiihlcts is a trade, andwh) her livelihood by.

But diough it is true it is a trad< must take care to do it with prudence don ; for if they print any thin^ tli luus, it is no excuse to say that the | no knoA^ ledge of the contents, and w ignorant of its lieing Ubellous : anr rule of law, and 1 will always adhi strict rules of law in these cases.

Therefore Mrs. Read must be coi the Fleet according to the comuio: the court upon contempts.

But as to Mr. Hujvgonson, who it prisoner in the Fleet, I do not think motive for compassion ; because the generally take the advantage of t prisoners, to print any libellous or d matter which is brought to then scruple or hesitation.

U these printers had disclosed di the person who brought this papc there miu^ht have l)een something sa gadon ot their offence ; but as they per i<f conceal it, I must order Mi*s. 1 committed to the Fleet, and Huggoi taken into close custody of die ward Fleet.

13th Vesey, jun. page 237. — Lord Lord Chancellor. Dec. 20, 2i E^qiarte Jones.

The object of this petition was to r Commitlee of a lufliftqcy and (0 biiiig

«] STATE TRIALS, 52 ChabLBS II. l6ffO.—PrMhge of Parliament. [ j«

LonI CbumUor an alleged contennpt by tlip ODDmiltM aud bi* wife and other personi, bh tha atnbora pnoten and publLKlien of a fiBphlct, nitb an addresi to (he Ixint Chan~ ailof by way of dediration, rcfleclii>i»n|wn the oadiKt of tbe petitioner and other arfiiig' in Ae sunagenient of the afbirs of the hinalip ■deronkn made in piirenanre of the Iruxls tf a aOI, tbe affidavit ivprciiciitiiif; the conduct rfthr mmmrttee and his wife iotnujin;; into the- HMr'i office, and intemiptiiig liini, not only ialhebniiiKSi of thU particular lunacy, but nlh aim haqness. The wife of the timiniitlee UMndhrneH'to be the author of the uamphlel. (Dm; the innocence of her hiisbanil.

IV SoUcitor- General (Sir Namucl Romilly) ■rf Hr. Hart, in support of the petition, weii Apfrd by the Lord Chancdlor, who called on da (oonad i^;aiii«t it.

Mr. Plowden resisted the petitinn, contend- ■ctbtlthe petitioners had a remedy at law.

liad£nJtiiif: fThe Lord Cliancetlur.) Ab kiMiedy at law, the aubject of this applica- IM ii not the libel a^auiot the petitioner. — Tkiawof Ronch v.Gan'an['jAlk.4C9] »nd ano- thr, there mentioned, were cases ol'constructirc tMEapt, denendtDg; upon the inft-r^nrc of an tdntion to olmlruct the course of justice. In AJinSancr, that ianotletlto conjecture; and ■hlim may be said as to a connruutive con- tain thtnngn tite medium of a libel againKt poHM engaf^ in controversy in the court, it ■•tr has beni nor can be denied, that a publi- atfke not only with an obvious tendency but vitti tbe desig'n to obstmct the ordinary course rf juttee, ia a very higli contempt. — Lord BmM^ rmaidered petwuis concmied in iWrWimai of the court aa beiiw underthe fttteim of the court, and dM to be drirai to Mkv maEes against libda upon them in tm nftcL — But without considering whether lb ii or IB not a libd tipaa thb (letilkmer, what ORHcan be alleffcdtbr the whole leoorof im bak, asil introduced by thii dedsration of fteporaoxe which the author bte|>ded it to an- Mv? limiKlit besuffidenttonvof tbebook Mt, Gripped of the dedicatian,4iiat it could bpaUiahed with no other intcniion than to teroct the duties cast upon the petitioner, and

Dee, la tlus dedica&n tbe olject is avowed, J iAaaag tbe proceeding of the court maHaff upon its nue* and mileia, and inte- ^^uf the puWc, prejitdtced in fovnur of the ■hir by her «wb partial rvjircscntatitni, to Menc ■ diffkrent tpecies of jnd^cnt from tewtuch votdd be ftdnuMstered in the ordi- Wjeonrse, and by flattering the judge, to ■a the source of justice. — This pamphlet bii:

Is to the printer*, lord Hanlwickc obscrres. IliiQaexcnaelhntthe printer was ienonuit of tbt omtenti. Their intention may Tiave been ^Mmt ; but, a« lord Manstield hod said, the kawkencttlieiUegri inoti** ia iiterad muit

be traversed, and tlic party adfliittinf; the Ml cannot deny the niotjie.— Thp maxim, ' Artua

made npplii-dbfe to lliiu xubje^H in the ordinary ailministr.itions of justice, as tbe cffen woufd be that the ends nfjustice would be dcfuatcd try contrivance. — Itiit upon the satis^ctoiy ac- count ifivcn by three of these printers, tlHiuifh undoublcilly under a criminal pnireeding, tiiey would be 111 mercy in a casu of ciinK-mjrf. Tlinu!{'li I have tbe juriijdiction, 1 shnll notnsu it. — 'Ilie oilier printer appears upon the affida- vits under illHerem circnmslnni.'es. Having maile the obxcrvalion, (lint this pam|ildi>l ought not to be |iriiitc(l, being intnUy uniniercxtinff to the uublic, ret lie does print it ; and thbugli the liicui pciiiCeritiit was aUbnted to him, attii he was called u|ion not to print any more, he proceeded until be hod noticv of this pe-

Lel (lie Commiltec, and Uis wil%, and tha printer to whom 1 have last oUudnl, be cum- tiiitted to (he Fleet Prison. Oisiuiwtbe Coni- miltce from that office ; and direct a reference to the master, as to tbe appuiutnient of another Coiumiltec.

Extracts from Sir Eanlley Wi)niot*t) Opinions * and Judgments ; p. 353. Hilary Term, 5 Geo. 3. V65. Tlie KciO n. Almoh. " It ha.s been argued that the mnde of pro' cecding hy attachment It uii invasion ujinn the. ancient simplicity of the law ; that it took its. rise from the statute of tVestuiiusler, eh. 3 ; and Gilbert's Histoh' of the Practice of the Court of Common Pleas, p. 30, in the first edi- liun, is cited to nmre that position. And it h said, that act only ai>plics to ixriont rcsLsting process ; and tliou^ this mode of proceeding IS very proper to remove obslructioiis to tha execution of process, or to any contumelious treatment of it, or to any contempt to the au- thority of the court, yet that pn])er9 retlccling' merely uiKin the quajitits of jnilgiw Uipm selves, are rot tne proper objects of an attairhnient ; that judges have proper rcmiilies In recover ft BBtislaction fur such reflections, hy actions of "Scandalum A1a(,'Datum;" nnd that in th* case of a pear, the House of Lords maybe ap-> plied to fur a breech of privilege : That snch libellers may be bruught to puiilshnient by in-

* Tliis opinion was nut delivered in court^ tbe prosecution having been dropped in conse* ■luence, it is sup|>o«i,'<l, of the resignation of the tlicn Ailomcy Ucnerjl ; but atler the death of tliiv eminent and very learned Chief Juntice, was fdund in his own band-tvriting among hia papers by his son, nho published it in Memon-fl of lii» Life, p. S43. The occasion of it was a motion in the Cuurt of King's- Bench, Ibr an attachment against 3Ir. Ahnun, for a contenpt in publishing « libel i^^ tha Court, and ui>on ttw Cbiaf Jiutieft.

55] STATE TRIALS, S^ Charles II. 1 GhO.'^Praceedimgt ag^mti ItThmpi

dietment or infovmation,* that there are bat few instaDcen of this sort upon libds on courts or judges ; thai tlie Common Pleas lately re- fused to do h ; that libels of this kind nave been pmseouted by actions and indictment; and that attachments ought not to be extended to libels of this nature, oecause judges would be determininif in their own cause ; and that it is more proper for a jury to determine quo animo such libels were published.

'* As to the cnrijpn of attachments, I think tiiey did not take their rise from the statute of Westminster, ch. 9 ; the passacife out of Gil- bert docs not proKe it ; but ne ordy says, '< the ^ oriffin of commitments for contempt, ' seems * *' to oe derived from this statute ;'* but read the paragraph through, the end contradicts tlie

* seeming * mention^ in the beciniiing of it ; and shews, that it was a part of Uie law of the land to commit for contemjvt, confirmed by this statute.! And indeed when that act of l^rlia-

* Thus Mich. 8 Elix. Rot. 1, Walsh wosiu- Aoted for scandalising one sir Robert Catling, and the Court of Queen*s-Bencli, by saying, ** My Lord Chief Justice is incensed agaiimt me ; I cannot have justice, nor can I be heanl, fi>r it is made a court of conscience." See the Attorney (leneraPs Argument in the Case of the City of London, Quo IVurrauto^ a. B. 1683, infra,

t On this subjoct the following passage taken from Mr. £vans*s letter to sir Samuel Uowilly is deserving attention :

*' As a great deal has been urged in favour of the privilege of the Commons to imprison for a Libel, by way of analogy to the practice of Courts of Justice, which, it is said, may commit for contempti, I shall beg leave to ac(d a few words on that part of the subject. liord Chief Baron Gilbert h^s stated, that, * .It is

* one part of the law of the land to commit for ' contempts, and confirmed by the stat.We8tm. « 9, c. 39." (Hist, of Com. Pkais, p. 25). Now, I must declare, that after lookmg into that statute, I camiot find any thing to war- rant his assertion. AH that the statute says, is, that many great men (who in those da^s had oistles, ftwtresiies, and lilierties, wherein tliey used to secure themselves) had resisted the Shorifi' in executir^ }he Kings's writs ; which, <7eating great inconvenience, tlie Sheriflf b ordered to remove all obstructions to the execu- tion of the pnicess. The act, therefore, only applies to pc>rsons resisting the King's writs, and docs not say a ivord aliout any other con- tempt.- 1 must confess, that I cannot nixlcr- «tand how Courts of Justice can imprison- for a MMf without infringing upon Magna Charta. All tliat they csn do, in a constitutional man- oer, is, in my opinion, to imprison such per- anhs aft commit contempts in fticie curie ; or, m o^er words, who occasion an immediate ob- itruction to the administration of justice, nnd^ as audi, are disturber^ -'oT^ the peace. But, eran in dioae cases, Lfijllstiie that the Courts

"iBDOi fwmstitiitinnilJr^ Iwiffriiinii durinff thair

ment is read, it is iropoasible to draw mencement of such a proceeding out empowers the sheriff to imprison pt sistmg process, but has no more to

pleasure, but that the offender must a be brought in, to answer by due proce and receive sentence of punLshmenl jury. For, tliough the stat. Westm. declares. That such person as shall be of resisting tlie Shenff, shall be pui the kind's pleasure, yet my lord Co exposition of these wwds, says, * Tli

* cording to that which shall be, upon ' ceeding, acyudged coram regt in th' ' Court of Justice ; for no man can hi

* ed by absolute power, but ttecundum

* eontueludinem Anglur, as hatli beei < fore, in the exposition of Magna Cb ' elsewhere hath been often said.* ^4.) Ifa Judge could imprison fo he must necessarily become what our i warrants, that is, a Judge in his ow and if he could imprison during his he would be possessed of an absolni which our constitution does not alio fact is, that great and good men lia times, been very tender of the lil)er subject. Chief Baron Gilbert sa; ' When the Common Pleas proceeded*

sum frcgit, the defendant was under disadvantages as when he was an a Latitat." Upon which the annots was well acquainted with the laws ar tution of his countrv,) observes — * I Chief Baron caiididdy aUoi^-s, tliat tl by Clausum fregit in the Common F by the Latitat in the King's Bench, the defendant under disadvantages. Chief Baron had said, *• under unwa

* oppressions in open violation of Kin

* Great Charter, not only by subvei ' perverting the ancient process of t < trespass, out also by an ai'bitrarv

* barons abuse of special bail : If^ 1

* Baron had stiguiatiseed this process I ' with the seemingly harah, but riclil;

* tenns aliovc mentioned, as sir ' ' Bridgeman, Chief Justice of the <

* Fleas did, when the Latitat was fi ' duced into the King's Bench, he w< ' haps have done no more than an hone ' nation, at the innovation, would n

(Hist, of Com. Pleas, 3d. ed. p. 183.] discretion, I am for investing the JuiJ as little as possible. We know, th men view matters m a different li|j tluit in which they are seen by otliers

* discretion of the Judge,' (says Mi very truly) < is the first engine of t *' the hiws of a free people dioukl fbi ' determine every (|uestion that may ' arise in the exercise of power and t]

* actions of industrr.'. (Uediue aad!

r. a-p. 1U.)" To this I will add tile memoraU

Mid fagr kidCaiiMiMi ia

17] STATE TRIALS, 32 Charles II. iGSO^^Pritikge of ParliamenL [58

riiin(^ cooTLs of justice a power to vinclicate Hkv uwh ditfnitVt than any other chapter in ibiartof nriainenL ** The power which the courts in We8t- Hall have of vindicating their own au- ^ , ii coeval with their finit foundation and kioD ; it is a necessary incident to every of iaslice, whether ot record or not, to iad nnprison for a contempt to the court, the face of it, 1 Vent. 1, and the issuing* 4 tftochinenLs by the supreme courts of jiis- ia H estniinst'er Hail, for contempts out of upon tlie same iinmemonHl usage

aftMMOits the whole fabric of the common kw ; a is as much the ** Lex Teme," and axUs the exce^itiun of Magna Charta, as the any oth^ lt*gal process whatever.*

rfHindson aiid Kersey, in the Court of C— wo Pious, when*hc was Chief Jus- tt» f4 that CouTi ; *• Tlie discretion of ' ft Jiidl^e is the law of t^Tants : It is al-

* «w% loknown : It is different in different

* OKfl : It Y^ casual, aud dcjiends upon constitu- ' riua« ftiuptT, passion. — In the btst it is ofb^n- *tmit% raprioe : In the worst it is ciery vice, *fidk. ndpasaionf to which human nature is

Jfr. Bmie in his *• Thoughts on tlie present SToea so far as to assert that ** All 3 of an uncontrouled discretionary kilinii. to aggrandizement and profit of ibdr •«■ body have a]wa3'8 abused it."

* Lwd Cilice, commenting upon the words, ^ Uy Teine," in Magna Cliarta, says :

*' Aspinst this antient and fundamental law,

wt inihe &ce thereof, I find an act (4* parlia-

HMtU H. 7, c. S.] made, that as well jus-

liBeifl Mat* as justices of peace (without

MT Miof or presentment by the vei-dict of

Mit am) upon a bare information for the

Asf kibre them mafle, should have full

IMw sad authority by their discretions to

■vaad dctennine all onences, and contempts

or done by any person, or ]iersons

the form, ordinance, and effect of* any

nadc, and not reuealed, ^cc. By colour

act, shaking tiiis fundamental law, it

■ am rrtilible what horrible oppressions and

iMdisBa, to the undoing of infinite numliers

if pea^, were committed by sir KiclianI

knight, and Edmund Dudley, being

of peace, throughout England; and

this unjust and injurious act (as common-

If ia like cases it lalleth out) a new ofiicc was

and they made masters of the king*s

: at the Parliament, holden in the first

H. 8, this act of 11 H. 7, is recited,

void, and icpeuled, and the reason

Tielded, fur that by fon*c of the saiil

ftvna'maaifestl}' known, that many sinis-

. aad crafty^ feigned, and forged informa-

^ kid been pursued against mvers of the

^ aabyecta, to their great damage and

vM vexation : and.tM Ul Buocess hereof,

wfaaU Mdi vf th«ife two oppreMQfs,

9

" I have examined very carefully to see if I could find out any vestiges or traces of its in- troduction, but can find none ; it is as ancient as any other part of tlie Common Law; there

should deter others from committing the like, and should admonish Parliaments, that instead of this ordinary and precious trial, per legem Ui rtf', they bring not ui absolute, and partial trials by discretion." 3 Inst. 61.

In commenting on the Statute of Marlebridge, 62 H. 3, lord Coke says :

^* The preamble shews the mischiefs, which were four.

" 1. That in the time of the kite troubles, great men and others refused to be justified by tli(! kin^ and his court,. as they ought, for here it is said, * multi magnates et aLi indignati ' fuerint reciperc justitiam per dominum regem,

* et curiam suaia.'

*' 2. ' 8ed graves ultiones fecerint,' That they (refusing the course of the king's laws) took upon them to be t|ieir own judges in their own causes, and to take such revenges as they thought fit, until they had ransoms at their pleasures. * Aliquis non debet c«sc judex in *' sua propria causa.'

*^ 3. I'hat some of them would not be justi- fied by the king's offi(x;rs."

''Ihe IxKlyof the act consisteth of divera brant^hes.

*' First, a remedy in general for all the said mischielk.

'* (1). * Provisum est, concordat um, et con- *• cessum, qiuid tain majores nuam minores*

* justitiam habcant et recipiant in curia domini ^ regis.'] This is the golden metewand, that the law hath appoint»l to measure the cases of all and siiigidar persons, high and low, to hav» and rec-eive justice* in the king's courts ; for the king liath distributed his judicial |Kiwer to several courts of justice, and cfMirts of justice ought to determine all causes, and that all pri- vate revenges be avoidt*fl.

^* Upon this gcuei-al law, four conclusions do follow.

*M. That all men, high and low, must be justified, that is, have and receive justice in tho king's courts of justice.

'' *i. That no private n'venge l>e taken, nor any man b}' his uwn arm or |>ower revenge himself: and this aiticle is gr<Mmded U[M)n tlifr law of God, « viiidic*ta est inilii et ego retri- ^ buam,' saitli Alnu:j>hty God. All revenge must come from G(mI, or from hLs lieutenant the king, in some of his courts of justice.

*^ 3. That all the subjects of the realm ought to be justilie<l, tlmt is, submit themselves to the king's officf-i-s of justice according to law."

See also Mr. Helden's Argument for sir Ed - nmnd Hampden, anie^ vol. 3, p. 16, et ieq* See, too, pi). 7(), ]2a, 16^, 16.S, 164, and the 4tli and 6tn clauses of the Petition of Kight, pp. 292, 2'^S, of the same vohime ; and a pa»> sage firoiii Uogcr North, inserted in a Note tw the CaM of 1: iteharris, a. o* 1(^ i, in/ra.

B9] STATE TRIALS, S^Cnknms II. l6so,^Praceeiingiagmiui ILTkcmpi

it no priority or |K)steriority to be discoTered ■about it, and therefore cannot be said to in?ade the common law, but to act in alliance and triendly conjunction with every otlier provision which the wisdom of our ani'estors has estab- lished for tlie general {^tood of soc'iety. And thou^ I do not mean to compare and contrast attachments with trials by jury, vet truth com- pels me to say, that tlic mode in proceeding by attachment stands upon the very same foimda- tion and basis as trials by jury (to, immemorial nsa^c and practice ; it is a' constitutional re- medy in |>artioular cases ; and the jud^ifes in those cases are as much bound to give an activity to this part of the law, as to any other part of it. Indeed it is admitted, that attach- ments are Tcry properly granted for resistance of process, or a contumelious treatment of it, or any violence or abuse of the ministers or others employed to execute it. But it is said that the courts of justice in those cases is oh- ■tructcd, and the obstruction must be instantly removed ; that there is no such necessity in the case of libels upon courts or judges,* which may wait for the ordinary miethod of presecu- tion, without any inconvenience whatsoever. But where the nature of the offence of libel- ling .judges for what they do in their judicial capacities, either in court or out of court, comes to be considered, it dot^, in my opinion, be- come more proper ibr an attachment than any ether case whatsoever.

*' By our constitution, the king is the Rmn- tain of every specit^ of justice whidi is ad- ministered in this kinsfdom, 19 CV). 5t5. The kiopis ' de jure' to distribute justicre to nli his •ubfects; and because he cannot do it himself to all persons, he delegates his power to his judges, who have the custody and guanl of the king's oath, and sit in the scat of the king * concerning his justice.'

** The arraignment of the justice of the judges is arraigning the king's justice ; it is an impeachment of his wisdom and goodness in the choice of his judges, and excites in the mind of the people a general dissatisfaction fvith all judicial atiterminations, and indisposes their minds to ol»ey tliAii ; and whenever mens allegiance to the laws is so fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and tlie most dan- gerous obstruction of justice, and, in my Ofu- nion, calls out for a more rapiil and immediate ledress than any other obstruction whatsoever ; not for the sake of the judges, as private indi- ▼iduids, but because they are the channels by which the king's justice is conveyed to the people. To be impartial, and to be universally thought so, arc both absolutely necessary for the giving justice that free, ujien andf un- intemipted current, which it has for many ages round all over this kin^lom, and which so eminently distinguislies and exalts it above all mttim* upon the earth.

** In the moral cstimatioa of the offence, and In grery public consequence arising from it, iriMt an infinite disproportion is there between gpnlriiy iMMfitiimftlioua words of the rulee <tf

I the court, for which attachments arc constantly, and coolly and delibawlely the most vhiilent and malignant sonndi fancy could suggest upon the judge selves. It seems to be material to fix ( of the words *' autliority" and ^* coni tlie court," to speak with precision u question.

'' Tlie trial by jury i»one part of t' tem, the punishing contempts of the c attachments is another : we must not c the modes of proceeding, and try cc by juries, and murders by attacbmi must give that energy to each which t stitutiun prcjicribcs. In many cases, not see the correspondence and def which one part of the system has ami another ;. but vre must \wy that defe the wisd(nn of many ages as to pres And I arn sure it wants no great intuitio that trials by juries will be buried in t1 gmvc with the authority of the courts

to iireside over them. * '

i'

Trinity Tei-m, 8 Geo. 3.

Writs of attachment were granted Staples Stcare, John Williams, and Joh dm, for contompt, in publishing the Nc ton Extraordinary, No. 4, containing atlilressed to lord' Mansfield, Lord Cni tice, containing gross reflections on his 1

They were all examined upon interru] and reiiorted in contcm]it.

And Michas. Term. 9 Geo. 3. Ste sentenced to be imprisoned three • months.

\Endff the Reports of the j Commons^ 1810, in the Cai Francis Burdett.]

Mr. Wynn in his learned ' Argument' cdotlicr authorities in support ot the unc ed power of the House of Commons, to < There are also thi«c Reports of l^rece( nunishment for contempt in the Jouma House of Lords, viz.

Dec. 19, 1699.

Ordered, That tlie committee appoi inspect the Journals of this House, m to tlie punishing of persons, whose bi writings have been censured by this He scandalous libels) be revived ; to mc sently. Then the House was adjoiunei pleasure. The House was resumed.

And the marquis of Normanby report the said committee the precedents foil

March Q3, 1623, Thomas Moriey.

March Ci2, 1623, Waterhoase.

July 9,1625, llalph Brooke.

April 16, 16^8, Anthony Lamplugb.

March 29, 16*2, John Bond.

July 9, 1663, Fitton.

March 8, 1689, Uowning.

November 18, 1693, PoUard.

I>eccniber 18, laar.

n] STATE TRIALS, 32 Charges II. \6S0.^Prmlege of Parliament. (St

November ?5, 1734.

The Imrd Delawar acquainted the House ^^Tte the lords committees appointed to Miidi precedents, as to what punishments hue been inflicted, or methods taken to vindi- rafe tiie honour of this House, in cases of any kttA of tbeir lordships pri^ileg^, or con- tiiBpIs to this House, had inspected precedents anmo^y ; and had prepared a Report ; which he u-as ready to mAe, when their lord- ibips will please to receive the same/'

OrAeiedt That the said Rep<»rt be now re- onvcd.

.locpidiogiy liis lordship reported from the Ofd cwwiKttee, as follow » :

*^Tbat the committee have inspected the Jounalsofthis House, in relation to tlie mat- icn tn them referred ; and think proper to flier to your lordships consideration the tullow- 1^; ibMances ; >iz.

""Ffhruarv 27, 16W. Richard Re^-nolds aad Rsbert \Vright, for arresting a servant to (he eari of Oxford, were ordered to be set on hmehack, near Westminsler Hall ; neither of than to have cloak or bat ; but to ha%'e on their hreasts and backs papers, expressing tlieir M; (viz.), * £For a contemptuous breach of 'tbepmil^res of parliamt:nt, activated by 'cmtemptoous speeches ;*] and so to p&ss to the Fleet, wher^ they are to be left prisoners. " Nor. 37, 1621. John Blunt, for countcr- fieitiaf the lord StrafTord^s seal to a protection, sasorderedto stand on the pillory, at West- niuter and in Cheapside, with papers on his head shewiiv his offence; and then to be wied toBridewelU and there to remain during hbUfe, acd tn work for his living.

**Marth««, 1693. TTIiomas Morley, for

pohfafaiBg a printed petition, very scamlalous

a^inst the lord keeper in particular, and by

Mpenion against the whole court of 8tar-

f^fntber in ^;eneral, and at the bar insolently

^aag many msolent words of the lord-keeper,

jb pKKnce of their lordships, was imprisoned

a the Fleet, fined 1,000/. to the king; set

vitb his neck in the pillory in Cheapside, with

tteof the {ictitions on his head ; ordered to

uke submissiony and acknow ledgment of his

ftuh, at the bar and in the Star-chamber. The

■est day one Waterhouse, who penned the finst

taig^ of Morley 's petition, wasaiijudged to

W a prisoner in the Fleet, and debarred |ion,

■k, and paper» durin)/ the pleasure of the

Hock ; fined 500/. to the king ; to make snb-

■haon, and acknowledgment ot*this his fault,

ttthe bar, in the Star-chamber, and to the lord-

kttper: and Bernard Alsop, the printer of the

fcidion, imprisoned in the Fleet, admonished

•otto print any more petitions ; and to make

wbnussioh and acknowledgment.

'* May 28, 1C94. Upon a report from the committee of privileges, the fine on Moriey *tt reduced to 500/. and he was diMrliargcd M of prison; au«l Waterhouse's punislmt;;iil, iH>M his petition, was remitted. ""July 9, 1695. IU4ph Bwke, Yorke

Herald, for exhibiting a false and scandalous petition against the earl Marshal, was sen- tenced to make his submission to the said carl Marslial at the bar, to be imprisoned in the Tower during pleasure, and Hned 1,000 marks. *• April 4, 1626. George Ganlner, for buy- ing and selling of coimteHeited protections under the hand and seal of a peer in parlia- ment, was ordered to be set on the pillory at Wesitminster, with a paper on his head, declar- ing his otfence ; and afterwards to be carried down to Norwi4'h, and there to stand on the pillory, with the like paper.

" ISth June following, The same Ganlner, for scandalizing the justic^e of this House, and for unjustly slandering the lord keeper, was or- dered to stand in the piUory at Westminster, wi:h a paper on his head, declaring his offence; and to ride backward with the siuue na{)er to the cross in Cheaptiiide, and to stanci on the pillory- there, and so to ride hack to the Fleet : and though the lord keeper did earnestly dcsiro this puntshment might be forgiven Gardner, yet the House deuied it.

'* April 16, 16-28. Anthony liamplugh, for exhibiting an unjust and scandalous petition afpiinst ttie lord keeiier and lord bishop of Lmcohi, was sentenced to stand committed to the Fleet ; to a^jknowletlge here, at tiic bar, ' That the said petition is unjust and scandalous, * and that he is sorry for it ;' and to ask tlieir lordships forgiveness ; and to be brought to tlie chancery bar, and there to make the like ac- knowledgment.

*' l^lie next day, he having asked forgive- ness at the bar, the remainder of the censure was forgiven.

*'June 12, 1678. Kusign Reynde, for ig- nominious speeches uttere<l by him against the lord discount Hay and St*ale, and for his con- tempt of this high court of I'ar'ianient, was adjudged ne^er to beai- anus hereatier, but ac- counted unworthy to t>e a soldier ; to be impri- soned during pleasure ; to stand under the pil- lory, mth pa|)ers on his head shewing his 'of- fence, at Cheapside, and at Banbury ; to b6 fined at 200/. to tlie king ; and to ask lorgive-

ness.

'* And as to tlie precedent last mentioned, the committee thuik proper to observe to the House, That it apjiears ny the Journal, that their loixlships utmost eudc^avours were used^ to apprehend and bring the said Reynde in pei-son. More them, to justice ; but h^ ab- Kcomletl, so that he could not be taken ; not- withstanding which, the House, in his absence, proi'eided to the censure above-mentioned ; and directed the court cd' Star-'Chamber, to put the si>ntence against him in execution, if bfe should happen to be apprehended after th^ ending of the session, and out of time of Par« lianient.

'^ Jan. 13, 1640. James Faucet, for inao* lent and abusive speeches againit the earl of Newport, was sentenced to stand committed to tlie Fleet ; to make his humble submission to the said eari, and to pay him SOOL for damages.

fS] STATE TRIALSb 32 Chakles II. l6SO.—Pr§eadmgi if «Mff A. TIUfl^MMi : [(

** Much 29tfa, 1642, pott mgndim. John | Bond, fbr bein^ the author ind contriver of a friae and Kandilous k?ttcr, precmdad to he MOt from the queen in Holland to his majesty at | York, was sentenced to stand on the pillor^- at ' WeatnuDster Hall door, and in Cheapiide, with a paper on his head, written, ' A Contriver of * Fake and Scandalous Libels;' the said letteni to be called in, and burnt near him as he stands ; and he to be committed to the house of correc- tion.

«' April S8, 1C42. 8ir William 8an Ravy, knight, for false, scandalous and malicious re- ports and speeches a^inst the carl of Danby, was fined, to the king, in the sum of 100/1 ; ordered to pay the said earl, by way of damages, SlQOL ; to make a submission at the bar, and to he imprisoned in the Fleet.

** July 9, 1663. Alexamler Fitton, for con- triring and publishing an infamous libel agahist the k!rd Gerrard of Brandon, fined 500/. to his maiesty, committed to tlie King's Bench, and to find sureties for his iKjhaviour during life.

'' December 18, 1667. William Carr, for dispersing scandalous and seditious printed uapen against the lord Gemurd of Brandon, fined 1,000/. to the king, to stand thrice in the pillory, to be imprisoned in the Fleet, and the papers to be burnt.

"March 1, 1676. Dr. Gary was fineil 1,000/. for refusing to discover Kis knoulefls^e of a libel ; and to lie committed to the Tower tiU lie pays the same.

«< March 8, 1688-9. William Downing, for nrinting a paper reflecting on the lonl Grey of fVarke, was committed to the Gatehouse, and fined 1,000/. to the king.

** June 11, 1689. Percy's |>ctition, claim- ing the earldom of Northuinlierland, containing several reflections, was dismissed the House ; and the said Percy was ordered to be brought before the four courts in Westminster Hall, wearing a |)aper upon his breast, in which these wonis shall be written, *■ The False and

* Impudent Pretender to the Earldom of Nor- ' thunilierland.'

''April 11, 1690. Thomas Garston, for counterfeiting protections, to stand twice: iu the pillory, an<l lie committed to tlic Gatehouse till ke |Ni\'8 his fees.

" Feb. 23, 1695. The House was informed, That there was a iia|)er dulivei-uil at the door, reflecting on the House, by llobert Crosfielfl:" WhdkieuiNm he was cidkMl in, and owned the paper ; but, refusing to give the liouse an ac- count who printed it, he was ordered into cus- tody.

" March 17, 1697. A liM, intituled, * Mr.

* JWrtie^M Casi^ ^<*- ^th some Heniarks on ' the Judgment given therein,* was voted false, inalicirnM anil scandaloiui, and onlered to be burnt ; and a conuuiltee was ap|Niinted to con- «der of tlic said paper.

^ March 18, 1697. Report was made from Iki eonmiitteo. That the printer had confessed dttl Mr. Robert Uertk*, a member of the House of CSMMBOaa* had em|doycd him la print it.

" 26th of the same month. Coniridcnth was had of the said paper ; and the eari < Abingdon, in his plaoe, declared, That he dl in t£e name of his son, ask pardon of tl House and the Lord Chancellor ; whidi tl House accepted.

" May 7, 17 16. James Mynde, a aoBcilB was ordered into custody, tor puttiiig conntd names to an appeal witliout their koowledn.

'* 19th of same May, Mynde was broo^i the bar, and, by a petition, confessed hoM guiltA' ; and a committee was appointed, t» ii spect precedents of punishments mflicted.

** 18th of that month, report was made fi« that committee ; and M^iule fined lOU/. to tl king.

"June 4, 1716. He petitions to be di charged out of custody ; and his petitkm wi rejected.

" 12th of the tame month. He was ordoi to cause his fine to be paid into the cU hands, in order to be e<Area2d into the E chequer, for the regubr payment of the an

" 1 4th of the same montti. The Henn I ing informed. That the derk had receifed i said fine ; Mynde was ordered to be hnnuhl the bar, to be' discharged ; and the nextwj! was brought, reprimanded, and discharged i cordiiigly, (paymg his fees)."

March 3, 1764.

The earl of Marcfamont reported fron 1 Lords' committees appointed to seareh pni dents, as to what punishments have been I dieted, or methods taken to vindicate the 1 nourof this HoiiKe, iu cases of any hreadi their lordships' privilege, or contempts to 1 House :

'* That the committee have taken into ooa deration the matter to them referred, and hi inspected the Jonnials in relation thereto; I find that a long report was made from a eoi mittee, to this House, the 95tli of Noremh 1724, of precedents of puntshmcnts inflicted, methods taken to vindKate the honoiur off 1 HoiLse,- in canes of breaches of privilege or o tempts ; which report being entered in t Journal, the committee think it unnece^aw]! do more tlian to reliT thereto. But they thi it their duty to offer to .the consideration of I House the folloMing instances, which hi occurred since the making of tlie said repwl

" Feb. 4, 1724. Matthias Cater, fat ■ curing and selling protections of the em Huflbik, and for an unlawful combinatioa chaige certain [lersous falsely, was fined noUes, onlered to be cfimuuhed to Newg for three months, niid until he pay the i fine ; and to be put tw ice in the piUory , (hr 1 space of an hour each time, with a paper o his head, signifying his offVnces.

•'April 21, 1725. Thomas Tooke an tomey, for a breach of the earl of Mtra(Rii inriviiege, was ordere<l into the custody of i gentleman usher of tlie black hnI.

•• Feb. 22, 1795. Upon ^ repreaentil of the black rod agoinat TW« and ethen, i

STATE TRIALS^ 32 Charles II. iffSO-^PHviligv of ParBdmint. [66

imo eulody for breaches of pri- i Ihej were all ordered again into cot-

B. tU 17S6, July 4, 17127. The said i, not hariiq^ madle hb submission, nor as fees, was again ordered into custody, by SS, 1728. The yeoman usher and r the doorkeepers, being examined oon- m the briHLTionr of the said Tooke when ^iBciHCody, the House adjudged that id Tooke should pay a fine of 600/. to Mr, for breach of privilege and contempt tfisose : And the sherittii of Loudon and leKi were ordered to take him, and keep a Newgate till he should pay the said fine, k/ccs and charges to the usher of the black wi ether otficers of this House, cb. 19, 1754. David Home, for forging Hmg protections in the name of the ean canUiaoe and earl of Crawfurd, was or- is be committed to Newgate for one year, » be put twice in the pilk>ry tor the space bbareach time, wim a paper oyer his i^pifying his offence. Immer IG, 1756. George King, for ai 1 1 ui il in printing and publismng a ■i md forged printMl paper, disponed stfdy sold aa nis majesty^s speech to Vaoses of PaHian^nt, was tined 50/. and ibed to Newflfate for six months, and le nay the said fine : fra 1, 1757. Upon his petition, express- is abhorrence of ni» crime, and sorrow for ■c, and hombly imploring forgiveness ■rey, he was ordered to be brought to

^^4, 1757. He was brought to the ■wnTingly ; where he, on his knees, re- t$ a ic^niand fi?om the Speaker, his wa mutted ; and he was ordered to be ■qpdaot of Newgate, paying his fees.^'

mr CONCERNING PRIVILEGE.

the SOtfa of April, 1771, a Committee Bmmt of Commons which had been ** ap- d la examine into the several tacts and relative to the late obstructions to of the orders of the House,'' made It in which, after having stated the evi- •T Ae facts and circumstances rdative to ahatimtiiips, they stated that they hail lied 10 Ae other part of what was given in cbaige; namdy, *^ to consider what bar proceeding may be reqniHite to eu- • ft doe obtdienee to tho orders of tlie ■i;** and, in order to form their Judg- ■|n Ibat matter, thov have made a dili- bMick in the Journals, to see what the Kpi of die House have been on similar ■k; or, if no cases strictly analogous ■•scar, mt least to deduce, troni the g^ of the House, such principles of Ivy law as might be ajiplicable to it natter referred to their consider-

the Committee beg leave to teii'appeafs to them that thia House

has, ih>m the earliest times, asserted and ei^er- cised the power and authority of summonhig' before them any commoner, and of compelling his attendance; — and that this power and au- thority has ever extended as wdi to the city of Loudon, without exertion on account of charters from Ae crown, or any pretence df separate jurisdiction (instances of which appear in the cases (l)referred to in the margin) as to every other part of the realm.

And that the House have ever considered every branch of the civil authority of this go- vernment as bound (when require") to be aidSng and assisting to cairy into execution the war- rants and o^ers of this House.

In order to la^ before the House the residt of their enquiry with tolerable brevity, and some degree of method, the Committee have rcdnced under three ^peneral heads the obstnictions which have been given at different times to the oitlers of the House, and under each of these heads have ranged the different modes in which these breaches of privileges and contempts have been offered ; and then submit to the consideration of the House the several metho<ls of |nt>ceeding which the House hath opposed to these Offences, the proofs of which proceeding appear by cases referred to in the margin of this Report.

The three general Heads of breadi^ of pri^ vilege and contempts of this House are, namely, those arising from, First, Evasion. Secondly, Force. Thudly, Cok>ur of Law.

Offences under the First and Hecond of these heads have been committed — by the absconding of theparties summoned — by open resistance to the officers of the House-^and by riots and tu- mults— by the refusal of civil officers to assist the Serjeants or messengers of this House, or to release persons entitled to the privilege of this House when detained in their custody.

1 1 appears also to your Committee, as well firom searching the Journals of this House, as firom «>ther auuientic evidence, that, in order to re- medy the abuses, and to remove the obstructions above recited, this House has proceeded to' sup- port their privileges, and to enforce the execu-

(1) Ferrers' Case, in Crompton, fo. 9 ^ 10.— Stanman, 6E. 6. 1st vol. p. 18.— Boswell, |S and 3 P. and M. 1555.— Nov. 30, 1st vol. p. 44.— Corbet, 5 and 6 P. and M. 1557, Nov. 10, 1st vol. p. 51.— Six Servants of Sir H. Jones, 10 Feb. l.-ibS, Isl vol. p. 65.— Win. Jones, 29 Oct. 8 Eliz. 156<j, 1st vol. n. 75.— Sir J. Shiriey, March 22, 1608, 1st vol. p. 169.— Steriing, 1666, vol. viii. p. 335.-4 June 1675, vol. ix.

f». 354, ** 'Tis not against the King's dignity or the House of Commons to punish, bv ini- iinsonnient, a commoner that is guilty of vio- lating their privilege, that being accordmg to the known laws and custom of (mrliament, and the right of their privilc^gres, declared by the king's royal Predeceusors in Ibrmer pariia- ments, and by himself in this." — 1 April 1697, vol. xi. p. 765, John Salusbury. — 5 Jan. 1703, vol. xiv. p. 269, Tutehin, How, and Brag. — tZ May 1721, vol. zisL p. 562| Mist

^<ionortkeirmrden,Vjthelbllawiiig mediods; oamelv,

I. By rnddnmuof the crawn to iwiie prodt- imtioni ibr appranendiittr those persons whe thiM stood ID contempt of the House (2).

U. By reDCfwinijr their orders against soch ' persons, and comniitting them in a subsequent session fifpartiament (3).

II I . By orders to mayors, bailiffs, and sheriffs, to assist the Seijeant or messenger for the ap- prehending of such penons; or to the Serjeant of this House, to call on the riierifis of Mid- dlesex, and the sheriffii of other counties, and all other magistntes and persons, for their as- natanoe (4).

IV. By committing, for breach of pririlege of this House, those officers of the peM% who haTc refused their assistance to the Serjeant of ' this House when so called on (6).

V. By imprisoning those who reftised to re- lease persons entitled to the privilege of this House, and by increasing the sererity of their restraint according to the nature of tlie offence, and in consequence of the contumacy of the of- fender (6).

With regard to the third head, namelj^, . breaches m privilege, and contempts of tlus

(9) Sir Giles Mompesson, S8 Feb. and 3 March 1620, vol. i. p. 537.— Windebank, Dec. 10, 1640, vol. ii. p. 18.— Sir Basil Brook, April f 4, 1641, vol. ii. p. 127. — Sir John Llovd, &c. Jan. 8, 1680, vol. ix, p. 702.— Brent, Feb. 22,

1688, vol. X. p. 33.— ^r Adam Blair, June 16,

1689, vol. X. p. 182— SCandish, March 12, 1694, vol. xi. p. 966, — Mckenzie, vol. xi. p. 416. — Grascomb, Nov. 30, 1696, vol.xi. p. 602.— So- ranzie, April 11, 1700, vol. xiii. p. S?l.— Jef- freys, Addy, and Clifton, 3Iarch 2.*) and 26,

1701, vol. xiii. p. 427, 436, 437.— Colepeper

and otbent, Marcli 28, April 2, 1702, vol. xiii.

p. 826.— Tutching, &c. Printers, Feb. 14, 1703,

vol. xiT. p. 336.— KioterK, in Sache«erors case,

March 2d, 4th, and 6th, 1709, vol. x\l p. 343,

346.— Rebels, 4 and 6 Feb. 1715, u»l. xnii. p.

368.— Wilkinson, 0 June and 4 July 1791, ^ol.

xix. p. 585.— Lc-veriand, 6 March 1746, vol.

XXV. p. 313.— A. Murray, 26 Nov. 1751, vol.

xxu. p. 309.— Reynolds, 11, 12, 15, 16, and

18th tcb. 1768,vol.xxxi.p. 603, 606,610,612, 618. . , , «,

(3) Harvey and Martin, 22 April 1713, 17th vol. p. 298.— InrfefieW, 29 Jan. 1725, 20th ▼ol. p. 549.— Phillipsand Barnes, 22 Jan. 1733, 22d vol. p. 210.— A. Murray, as above.

(4) Itatcliff; 14 Nov. 1640, vol. ii. p. 29.— Sir lsa»il Brook, Jan. 11. and 25, 1641, vol. ii. P-.^^V"^***" *"^ Tliompson, 21 Dec. 1660, vol. vih. p. 222. -Dudley, 24 Jan. 1670, ^ol. IX. p. 193.— Topham, 4 June 1675, P. M. vol. IX. p. 353.

^ (5) Hastings and Crook, 19 May 1675, vol. IX. p. 341.— Topham, as above.— BMhe, 7 April 1679, vol. ix. p. 587.— Owen, 28 March

1702, vol. xiii. p. 826. (6) Ferrers.— Sir T. Shirley and

House, onderoohNiraiid pRteneeoflaw ; pan to your Committee, that the aune been attempted, hy discl|ai^g;iii^ out of cc penons who have been committed by or the House:

By impleading, in the courts of justice sons intitlrd to die privilege of tlus Hoc the cases there brought in question.

By prosecutions, before the said eomi work or actions spoken or done under tb tection of this House.

By accusations, tcndiuj^ to caD in ipM before the said courts, ivords or actions so s or done, under fahe or pretended denomin of offences, not entitled lo the privilege c House.

It appeare also to your Committee, in ai ing the Journals, that in the above redti stances this House has proceeded,

1st, By takiiiir again into custody n discharged without order of the House (7

^dly, By directing Mr. Speaker to letters to the justices of assize, and other ji to stay proceedings (8).

3dly, By resolutions of this House, Th suits and actions commenced and carried these cases should be discontinued and am ami should be deemed violations of the leges of this House (P).

(7) Pemberton and othera, 2 June 167. ix. p.351. Duncomb, March 22, 1691 xii. p. 174 ; when the House Resolved, no |ierson committed by this House, csmd, i the same session, be dLscharged by any authority whatsoever. Charles Dun ha% ing been romuiitte<l by order of this 1 and aifterwards discharged hy the order House of Lnrds, without the consent o House ; it was Ke.solvcd, That thesaid C Duncombe he taken into the custody < Serjeant at arms aticnfUngf this House.

(8) Strickland, 19 March 1605, vol. 287.— Potts, 2 Feb. 1606, vol. i. p. 351.- rison, 26 and 27 Feb. 1606, for stay of Tk in other like cases has been usual, vol. i. p 343. Sir R. Gargrave, ISir W. King eodem die ei loco. Bond, Feb. 28, 1606, p. 345. Hyam, 5 Maroh 1606, vol. i. p. S Powlett, 5 May 1607, vol, i. p. 369. Bi ham, 13 May 1607, vol. i. p» 373. Bow May 1607, vol. i. p. 375. Johnson, 10 1607, vol. i. p. 38 1 . Stone, 20 June 16a i. p. 386. Pelliam, 2 May 1610, vol. i. p —Sanders, 18 and 21 May 1610, vol. i. |i — ** Geneni motion about letten to be n to the justices of assize, referred to the' mittee of privileges, report this Resoli Res(»lvcd, That the former course of writii ters to the justices of assize, according tl cedents ; and, if required, a warratit ibr I tionto the party." 3 March 1620* ral 537. Lord Bulkley, 28 April 1691, vol 537.

(9) Sir Robert Howard, 17 Feb. 1625, p. 820.— Sir WUUam Wflliama, 7 Feh. voL z. p. 21» 146» and 216.— HoUii and^

STATE TRIALS. 32 Cu a rlss II. 1 6S0.^PH9ilege ef Parliamtni. [70r

Serjeant to repair to the Compter ih Bread* street, whither the said Ferrers was carried*, and there to demand the deliveir ot* the pri- soner. The Serjeant went to tlie Compter, and declared to the clerks there, what he Iiad in - commandment ; but the clerks and other offi- cers of the city, after many high words, Ibrcibly resisted the serjcant. Whereupon ensued a tray, in which the Serjeant's man was knocked down, and the serjcant was driven to detend himself with his mace of aitns. During this frav, the sheriffs of London, called Rowland Hill and H. Suckley, came thither, to whom the Serjeant €M>mplained of this injury, and re« ouired of them the delivery of the prisoner ; but they took part with their officers, and gave no attention to his complaint, and contemptuously reiused to deliver the prisoner. The serjeant returned to the House, and nude his report of the above transaction ; who thereupon would •sit no longer without their burgess, but rose and repaired to the upper House, where the whole case was declared by the mouth of theSi)eaker, before the lord chancellor, and all tlie lords and judges there assembled, who, judging the con-* tempt to be very great, referred the pumshment thereof to the order of the House of Commons ; who, being returned to their House, ordf*red- the Serjeant to repair immediately to the sheriffs of London, and to require the delivery of the prisoner, without any writ or warrant, though the lonl chancellor offered to grant a wnt, which the House of Cwnioons refused, being^ cleaHy of opinion, that all commands, and other acts proceeding from their House, were to be (lone and executed by their serjeant, without writ, oidy bv shew ot his mace,- which was hie-' warrant. — I'he sheriffs, upon this second de-* maud, delivered the prisoner; but the serjeant. in pursuance of his orders, charged the said sheriffs to appear before the House the follow- ing <lay, by eight of the clock in tlic morning, and to bring tiuther the clerks of the Compter^ and such other of thdr otficers as were parties to the fray. — The serjeant had also orders to take into custody the said White, who had pro* cured the said arrest, in contempt of the privi- lege of parliament. The sherins, on the next day, with one of tlie clerks of the Compter, who was the chief occasion of the fray, together with the said White, app«»red before the House; where the Speaker charging them yviUtt their contempt andmbdemeaiiur aforesaid, they Nvere I compelled to make immediate answer, without I being admitted to any counsel; although sir Ro« bert Cholmley, then recorder of licmdon, and other the counsel of the city there present, offered to speak in the cause, ^I'liich were all put to silence, and none sufl'ered to speak but the parties themselves : whereupon, in conclusioii, the said sherifis and White were committed to the Tower of London ; and the said clerk, who was the occasion of the fray, to a place there called Little ^nae^ and the officers of London call Taylor, with four otlier officers, who had arrested Ferrers, were conunitted to Newgate. *< The king, bemg iofonned of this pfOMed»

\ By oomnuttiDg those judges who have led to the trial of, or pronounced sen- | ipoa, penoDS entttled to the privilege of «se, tor words or actions spoken or done die protedioD of the privilege of this (iO).

r Comiinittee have selected a few cases, noog the many referred to in the margin Report, which, from the nature of their sluces, or the importance of the doctrine they iUosirate, or toe consequences which RMUioed, seemed to your Committee fit MTP fully slated than the margin would ; wA 9IV therefore added as an Appendix. w Committee beg leave to observe, that, dttsrent search tliey have made in the ik, uey have not been able to find an e, that any court or magistrate has pre- le commit, during the sitting of pariia- iB officer of the House, for executing the of the House.

jr tanher beg leave to observe, that they nt been able to find, that there has ever % instance, wherein this House has suf- lay person, committed by order of this , i» oe discharged, during the same ses- ^ soy otlier auUiority whatsoever, with- ■B committing such person, therefore, with regard to J. Miller, who ivered from the custody of the messenger ( lord mayor, who fur the said offence is ider the censure of tlie House ; as it ap- ayour Committee, that it highly concerns faity and power of the House, to main- I avthority in this instance, by re-taking ■i J. 3lilkir ; The Committee recom- ooDsiileration of the House, it may not be expedient, that the edbMU order. That the said J. MiUer be liMi the custody of the Serjeant at Arms Avihs House.

i ttat the Serjeant at Arms, his deputy he strictly enjoined to call upon the officers of the peace, and other nho, by the terms of the Speaker's nt, are re<|uired to he aidinjyr and assisting I m the execution thereof, for such assist- ■ the Mid Serjeant, his deputy or deputies, fad met wary to enable him