made to question them in other courts, and the legality of such attempts must thus have been brought under the decision of" such men as De "Grey, Mansfield, or Kenyon;" men, whose names will be revered and honored, so long as that law subsists, with which their determinations are embodied. It must, therefore, be sufficient, to decide this question, if we prove, that the power, now claimed, has been constantly exercised by the House of Commons from the earliest period, and that its exclusive jurisdiction in such matters has, whenever it has been disputed, been maintained and justified, by the most enlightened and upright judges who have sat in Westminster Hall. The difficulty, in this case, consists rather in selecting, than in discovering authorities. The number of instances, in which the House of Commons has directed the commitment, imprisonment, or custody of delinquents, from the year 1547 to the present time, amounts to little less than a thousand. How many cases may have occurred, previous to that period, it is impossible to ascertain, as the journals of the House of Commons, in which alone they would be recorded, have not been pre served served to us from any earlier date. As, however, the case of Ferrers, in 1543 (which survives by the relation of a contemporary historian), and those of Fludde and Crikestoste, in 1552, of Monington, in 1554, and of Trower, in 1559, appear to have passed without question, no one can doubt, that the power of commitment to custody, for breach of privilege, must must have been familiar in those days, and exercised in for mer instancs མ It is not a little singular, that Sir Francis Burdett, in quoting the case of Ferrers, from the publication of Mr. Hatsell, who copies the exact words of Holingshead, should have totally altered the most material fact in the case Sir Francis gives the following abstract. "In 1543, in the case of George Ferrers, who ❝ was arrested, and who, as well as being a "Member of Parliament was servant to the 3 King, on which account the Commons seem to "have proceeded in a different manner, by "sending their Serjeant at Arms, for the first ❝ time, to relieve their member. This was re"sisted by the Sheriffs with violence: the Ser jeant had his mace broke, and returned with" out the member; whereupon the Sheriffs WERE SUMMONED SUMMONED BEFORE KING, LORDS, AND COMMONS, who referred their punishment to the latter who sent them to jail."* It is unnecessary here to remark, that there is no evidence whatever, that this was the first time that the House of Commons sent their Serjeant to relieve a Member under arrest, or that it was done on account of his being the King's servant, as Sir Francis has been led into these errors by Mr. Hatsell's remarks; but the assertion, that the Sheriffs were summoned before King, Lords, and Commons, is exclusively his own. No trace appears of this fact, but, on the contrary, this part of the case is thus related in the book, from which Sir Francis professes to have taken it: "The Serjeant, having then further in com"mandment from those of the Neather House, charged the said Sheriffs to appear personally, "on the morrow, by eight of the clock, before "the Speaker of the Neather House."t It is also to be observed, that, in this case, the Commons alone took cognizance of the breach of their privileges, committing the two Sheriffs, * Sir F. Burdett, p. 21. † 1 Hatsell, 53. and and White, who occasioned the arrest, to the Tower, and the five officers, who executed it, to Newgate; and that they refused, the writ which the Lord Chancellor offered to grant for the delivery of their Member, upon the express ground, that all commands of the Lower House were to be executed by their own authority... To enter fully into the particulars, or even to insert the names of all the other cases of com mitment by the House of Commons, would be tedious and unnecessary. I shall, therefore, only state a few, which relate to libel, or to scanda TH lous us words, or which, upon other accounts, may be considered more immediately to apply; and it will be found, that, for the last two hundred and པ fifty years, there has never been any considerable interval, during which offences of this nature have not in this manner been proceeded against and punished by the House. On the 15th April 1559, William Thrower, charged with having spoken evil words against the state of the House, is committed to the Serjeant's keeping. On the 29th February 29th February 1575, Walter Williams, is charged with unfitting speeches, in mislike of the present state and government of of this realm, "as also for threatening and assaulting a Member, is committed to the custody of the Serjeant. 11 On the 4th February 1580, occurs the case of Arthur Hall, who is complained of for a book, not only reproaching some par "ticular goodMembers of the House, but ❝also very much slanderous, and derogatory "to the general authority, power, and state of this House, and prejudicial to the validity "of its proceedings, in making and establishing ❝ of laws.” The result is, a sentence of imprisonment in the Tower, a fine of five hundred marks, and expulsion from the House. fol Dub It is perfectly true, that from the entrie in the journals it appears, that his offence was still, aggravated by subsequent misconduct; but edly, the slander upon the undoubt of the House; and this seems clear, from the account of this case, which is reported by Heywood Townsend,* to have been given in a debate upon the 28th of November 1601, when upon the question, whether Holland, who had assaulted C. 2 * Page 260, |