Page:Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons (4th ed, 1818, vol I).djvu/226

This page needs to be proofread.

206

Conclusion.

[chap. 5.

importance, by commitment by orders from the Crown, for any supposed offences.' Beyond this, they seem never to have attempted; there is not a single instance of a Member's claiming the Privilege of Parliament, to withdraw himself from the criminal law of the land^[1]: for offences against the public peace they always thought themselves amenable to the laws of their country^[2]: they were contented with being substantially secured from any violence from the Crown, or its Ministers; but readily submitted themselves to the judicature of the King's Bench, the legal Court of criminal jurisdiction; well knowing that 'Privilege which is allowed in case of public service for the Commonwealth, must not be used for the danger of the Commonwealth^[3];' or, as it is expressed in Mr. Glynn's Report

of

↑ On the 4th of June, 1614, the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, in a case then before the House of Lords, declares, "That no Privilege of Parliament doth protect any man in case of breach of the peace." So on the 7th of February and 8th of June, 1757, on a complaint against Earl Ferrers, the Lords resolve, "That no Peer or Lord of Parliament hath Privilege of Peerage or of Parliament against being compelled, by process of the courts in Westminster Hall, to pay obedience to a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed to him."—In the year 1795, the Earl of Abingdon was committed to the King's Bench Prison, as part of the punishment inflicted on him, being convicted of publishing a libel.
↑ See Lord Cochrane's case, 21st and and March, 1815, Appendix to this volume, p. 283, N° 5.
↑ On the 17th of August, 1641, Mr. Pym reports from the Committee appointed to prepare heads for a conference with the Lords—'To let the Lords understand that the conviction of divers recusants hath been hindered under pretence of Privilege of Parliament from their Lordships; and to declare unto their Lordships, that the opinion of this House is, That no Privilege of Parliament ought to be allowed in this case, for these reasons; (1.) Privilege of Parliament is not to be allowed in case of peace, if the peace be required. (2.) It is not to be allowed against any indictment for any thing done out of Parliament. (3). It is not to be allowed in case of public service for the Commonwealth, for that it must not be used for the danger of the Commonwealth.'—In the entry of this conference in the Lords Journals of the 18th of August, 1641, these reasons are somewhat differently expressed. (1.) ' That no Privilege is allowable in case of the peace

' betwixt

[1] On the 4th of June, 1614, the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, in a case then before the House of Lords, declares, "That no Privilege of Parliament doth protect any man in case of breach of the peace." So on the 7th of February and 8th of June, 1757, on a complaint against Earl Ferrers, the Lords resolve, "That no Peer or Lord of Parliament hath Privilege of Peerage or of Parliament against being compelled, by process of the courts in Westminster Hall, to pay obedience to a Writ of Habeas Corpus directed to him."—In the year 1795, the Earl of Abingdon was committed to the King's Bench Prison, as part of the punishment inflicted on him, being convicted of publishing a libel.

[2] See Lord Cochrane's case, 21st and and March, 1815, Appendix to this volume, p. 283, N° 5.

[p206-3] On the 17th of August, 1641, Mr. Pym reports from the Committee appointed to prepare heads for a conference with the Lords—'To let the Lords understand that the conviction of divers recusants hath been hindered under pretence of Privilege of Parliament from their Lordships; and to declare unto their Lordships, that the opinion of this House is, That no Privilege of Parliament ought to be allowed in this case, for these reasons; (1.) Privilege of Parliament is not to be allowed in case of peace, if the peace be required. (2.) It is not to be allowed against any indictment for any thing done out of Parliament. (3). It is not to be allowed in case of public service for the Commonwealth, for that it must not be used for the danger of the Commonwealth.'—In the entry of this conference in the Lords Journals of the 18th of August, 1641, these reasons are somewhat differently expressed. (1.) ' That no Privilege is allowable in case of the peace

[1]

[2]

[3]