STATE PAPERS. 



441 



Second, and James the Second, 

 wereinstituted by the officers of the 

 crown, in derogation of the rights 

 and privileges of the Commons of 

 England. Those proceedings were 

 resisted and resented by the House 

 of Commons; were condemned by 

 the wholelegjslature, as utterlyand 

 directly contrary to the known laws 

 and statutes, and freedom of this 

 realm ; and led directly to the de- 

 claration of thebillofrights," That 

 the freedom of speech, anddebates 

 or proceedings in parhament ought 

 not to be impeached or questioned 

 in any court or place out of parlia- 

 ment ;" and your committee have 

 nohesitationin stating, thatthisar- 

 ticle in the bill of rights extends as 

 clearly to actions of indictments 

 brought, or prosecutions by indivi- 

 duals, as to informations or other 

 proceedings directly instituted by 

 the authority of the crown. 



The law of parliament on this 

 subject, so far as relates to words 

 spoken in parliament, was legisla- 

 tively declared in a statute to be 

 found in the parliament roll of the 

 fourthof Henry VIII. Bythatact, 

 the rights and privileges of free 

 speech in parliament are establish- 

 ed, and a special action is given in 

 favour of the party injured by any 

 action brought against him for 

 words spoken in parliament. And 

 from this statute it appears that 

 parliament, at that time, when the 

 case occurred, which" seemed to 

 show the expediency of legislative 

 provision to give fuller force and 

 protection to its privileges, made 

 it the subject of such provisions. 



In the fifth of Charles I. an in- 

 formation was filed against sir J, 

 Elliot, Denzel Holies, esq. and 

 Benjamin Valentine, for their 



speeches and conductin the House 

 of Commons ; judgment was given 

 against them in the King's-bench; 

 they were sentenced to imprison- 

 ment, and were fined. In the par- 

 liament which met in 164^0, the 

 House of Commons, after a report 

 made in the state of the cases of 

 Mr. Holies, and the rest of the 

 imprisoned members in the third 

 of Charles, came to several re- 

 olulions, by which they resolved, 

 ttiat these proceedingsvvere against 

 the law and privilege of parlia- 

 ment ; and condemned the authors 

 and actors in them as persons 

 guilty of a breach of the privilege 

 of parliament. 



In the reign of Charles If. these 

 proceedings were again taken into 

 consideration, and the House of 

 Commons came to several resolu- 

 tions. On thetwelfth of November, 

 J 667, they resolved, That the act 

 of parliament in the fourth year of 

 the reign of Henry VIII. above re- 

 ferred to, is a declaratory law of 

 the ancient and necessary rights 

 and privileges of parliament. On 

 the 23rd of November, 1667, they 

 resolved, Thatthe judgment above 

 referred to against sir J. Elliot, 

 D. Holies, and B. Valentine, 

 esqrs. in the King's-bench, was an 

 illegal judgment, and on the 7th 

 of December, 1667, they desired 

 the concurrence of the Lords. 

 The lords, on the twelfth of De- 

 cember, agreed with the Com- 

 mons in these votes. 



Your committeenext refer to the 

 case of sir William Williams ; the 

 detail of which they proceed to in- 

 sert from the report of a former 

 committee of this House. 



»• The case of sir William Wil- 

 liams, against whom, after the dis- 



