the parts of it do confine the extent of the Act "to cases bailable, and directs such courses for "the execution of the Act, as cannot be under"stood should relate to any commitment made

by either House. This House is a court of "itself, and part of the highest court in the "nation, superior to those in Westminster Hall; " and what laws this House joins in making, "are to bind inferior courts, but cannot be un"derstood to bind themselves, as a court. That "would prove not only dangerous, but destruc❝tive to the dignity of Parliaments, and level "them with the courts in Westminster Hall. "Great care ought to be taken, how you allow "of restraints and limitations to the proceedings "of both Houses, being so great a part of the legislative power of the nation, lest thereby you should, by degrees, render them useless. "A commitment of this House is always in na"ture of a judgment, and the act is only for

cases bailable, which commitments upon

judgments are not; at least commitments. by "this House were never yet allowed to be bail"able and I suppose you will never grant "them so to be. Can it be imagined, that this "House, who represent all the Commons of England,

È 2

66

England, should not be entrusted with so "much power, for the preservation of their "constitution, upon which the support of the

government so much depends, as ordinary "courts and offices are entrusted with, which "are only designed for the welfare of particular

persons. I am of opinion, that no act can de

prive this House of that power which they "have always exercised, of committing persons "without bail, unless in express words it be so "declared; nor of discharging upon bail, after "committed. The same reasons which may be

given for discharging such as are not commit"ted for breach of privilege, if it be grounded "on the Act for the Habeas Corpus, will hold 66 as strong for the discharging of persons com"mitted for breach of privilege, and so, con

66

sequently, deprive this House of all its power "and dignity, and make it insignificant. This "is so plain and obvious, that all judges ought to "know it; and I think it below you, to make

any resolve therein, but rather leave the judges. "to do otherwise, at their peril, and let the "debate fall without any question."

In these opinions, the then Speaker (Mr. Williams,) Serjeant Maynard, Serjeant Stringer, and Sir F. Winnington concur.

The case being again mentioned on the next day, Sergeant Maynard says: "I am clearly "of opinion, that this is a cause out of the "statute of Habeas Corpus † and a commitment "is not only a judgment of this House, but an "execution, and though the statute does not " mention the Parliament, other Courts shall "not grant it in (case of) judgment and execu"tion. There can be no trial of one committed "from this House, but in this place, and this "act is not intended for commitments from

" hence. Suppose Sheridan should bring an "action against the judge (for refusing a Habeas Corpus) "if your commitment be for breach of "privilege, no inferior Court will judge of it."‡

Mr. Powle. (who was afterwards Speaker)

Anciently, the judicial power of Parliament was "exercised by King, Lords, and Commons, but, "for some ages past, we and the Lords, by tacit "consent, have had a separate jurisdiction in "that point, and they punish for their breaches "of privilege, and we for ours." §

Grey's Debates, vol. viii. p. 229.

On

† In conformity to this opinion of Serj. Maynard, it will be found that the writ of Habeas Corpus issued in the cases of Crosby, &c. is at common law and not at Statute.

Grey's Debates, vol. viii. p. 231.

On the 7th of January the House is informed, that a writ of Habeas Corpus had been directed to the Serjeant of the House, to bring the body of Mr. Sheridan to Mr. Baron Weston's house. The debate upon the subject is adjourned till the next day, and Parliament being prorogued on the 10th, it does not appear whether Sheridan was discharged or remanded, or whether he was brought to the judge's house till after the prorogation. Probably, however, there was no decision upon the subject, or it would have been mentioned in the subsequent debates of 1697 and 1704, on Duncombe and the Aylesbury men, as the case is there repeatedly alluded to.

After the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, Charles II. took the resolution of governing without Parliaments, and of resorting to to every means to lower their credit and authority. With this view, in the year 1683, an information was filed against the late Speaker, Mr. Williams, for having, by order of the House of Commons, directed the printing of Dangerfield's information, many parts of which reflected on the Duke of York, and actions were commenced by Jay, and eight other persons, who had been committed by the House of Commons,

mons, against Topham, the Serjeant for false. imprisonment.* In both instances, the Defendants pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court, that what they had done by command of the House of Commons was not cognizable elsewhere. This plea was, in both cases, over-ruled.

Immediately after the Revolution, † the House of Commons took these cases into consideration, and summoned before them the two surviving judges, Pemberton and Jones, who had given judgment for over-ruling Topham's plea. Upon being questioned, as to the grounds of their judgment, they distinctly stated," that they "did not doubt the authority of the House to

commit, and that they should have held Top"ham's plea perfectly good, if pleaded as a justification; but that they thought it, bad, as "a plea to jurisdiction, because, if it had been "allowed, there would have been no place " where it could have been enquired, whether "the Serjeant had exceeded his authority." How

far

* It appears from Roger North, that one of these actions, viz. that brought by Verden, rested upon different grounds. Parliament was prorogued, while he was on his way to town, in custody of the Serjeant. And the action was founded on the subsequent imprisonment.

July 10 and 19, 1689.