A judgment was obtained against Sir W. Williams, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the second year of James II., for having caused a paper entitled Dangerfield's Narrative' to be printed by order of the house. This the house declared to be " an illegal judgment," and against the freedom of parliament. A bill was also brought in to reverse the judgment, but it miscarried in three dif ferent sessions. (10 Commons' Journals, 177, 205.) The denial of the exclusive jurisdiction claimed by the commons in 1704, in respect of the right of elections, as stated above, is another important occasion in which the privilege of the commons has clashed with the judgments of legal tri bunals.
The only other case which need be mentioned in this place is that of Stock dale v. Hansard. Messrs. Hansard, the printers of the House of Commons, had printed, by order of that house, the Re ports of the Inspectors of Prisons, in which a hook published by Stockdale was described in a manner which he con ceived to be libellous. He brought an action against Messrs. Hansard during a recess, but had a verdict against him upon a plea of justification, as the jury considered the description of the work in question to be accurate. On that occa sion Lord Chief Justice Denman, who tried the cause, made a declaration ad verse to the privileges of the house, which Messrs. Hansard had set up as part of their defence. In his direction to the jury, his lordship said " that the fact of the House of Commons having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish all their parliamentary reports is no justification for them, or for any bookseller who pub lishes a parliamentary report containing a libel against any man." In consequence of these proceedings, a committee was appointed, on the meeting of parliament in 1837, to examine precedents and to ascertain the law and practice of parlia ment in reference to the publication of papers printed by order of the house. The result of these inquiries was the passing of the following resolutions by the house ;— " That the power of publishing such of its reports, votes, and proceedings ss it shall deem necessary or conducive to the public interests is an essential inci dent to the constitutional functions of parliament, more especially of this house as the representative portion of it.
"That by the law and privilege of par liament, this house has the sole and ex clusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges, and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit, or other proceeding, for the purpose of bringing them into discus sion or decision before any court or tri bunal elsewhere than in parliament, is a high breach of privilege and renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its Just displeasure, and to the punishment consequent thereon.
"That for any court or tribunal to as sume to decide upon matters of privilege inconsistent with the determination of either House of Parliament is contrary to the law of parliament, and is a breach and contempt of the privileges of parlia ment." Notwithstanding these resolutions, Stockdale immediately commenced an other action. The Queen's Bench de cided against the privileges of the house. A third action was then brought by Stockdale, and not being defended, judg ment went by default, and the damages were assessed in the sheriff's court.
As yet the jurisdiction of the courts to inquire into the privileges of parliament and to give judgments inconsistent with its determination has alone been touched upon ; the next question is as to the mode of dealing with actions involving privi lege when brought in the courts. The practice has been extremely various and inconsistent, as a rapid view of it will show. An action had been brought against Topham, the serjeant-at-arms, for executing the orders of the House of Commons in arresting certain persons. Topham pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court, but his plea was overruled, and judgment was given against him. The house declared the judgment to be a breach of privilege, and committed Sir F. Pemberton and Sir T. Jones, the judges, to the custody of the serjeant. (10 Commons' Journals, 227.)