bankrupt may be iſſued againſt ſuch privileged traders, in like manner as againſt any other.
The only way by which courts of juſtice could antiently take cognizance of privilege of parliament was by writ of privilege, in the nature of ſuperſedeas, to deliver the party out of cuſtody when arreſted in a civil ſuit[1]. For when a letter was written by the ſpeaker to the judges, to ſtay proceedings againſt a privileged perſon, they rejected it as contrary to their oath of office[2]. But ſince the ſtatute 12 W. III. c. 3. which enacts, that no privileged perſon ſhall be ſubject to arreſt or impriſonment, it hath been held that ſuch arreſt is irregular ab initio, and that the party may be diſcharged upon motion[3]. It is to be obſerved, that there is no precedent of any ſuch writ of privilege, but only in civil ſuits; and that the ſtatute of 1 Jac. I. c. 13. and that of king William (which remedy ſome inconveniences ariſing from privilege of parliament) ſpeak only of civil actions. And therefore the claim of privilege hath been uſually guarded with an exception as to the caſe of indictable crimes[4]; or, as it hath been frequently expreſſed, of treaſon, felony, and breach (or ſurety) of the peace[5]. Whereby it ſeems to have been underſtood that no privilege was allowable to the members, their families, or ſervants in any crime whatſoever; for all crimes are treated by the law as being contra pacem domini regis. And inſtances have not been wanting, wherein privileged perſons have been convicted of miſdemeſnors, and committed, or proſecuted to outlawry, even in the middle of a ſeſſion[6]; which proceeding has afterwards received the ſanction and approbation of parliament[7]. To which may be added, that, a few years ago, the caſe of writing and publiſhing ſeditious libels was reſolved by both houſes[8] not to be intitled to privilege; and that the reaſons, upon which that caſe
