Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/435
Case 2.—John Prinn, Esq.,—Plaintiff; John Howe, Esq.,—Defendant (in Error) [29th January 1704].
[And see now the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 40).]
7 Mod. 107. 2 Ld. Raym. 812. Viner, vol. 1. p. 442. ca. 19. 499. ca. 13.
[How v. Prin.]
The defendant being a candidate to represent the county of Gloucester in parliament, and also a justice of the peace for that county, the plaintiff, in the presence of many of the [65] electors, spoke of the defendant in the following words: Don't you give your vote for Mr. Howe, for he is a Jacobite, and for bringing in the Prince of Wales, and for bringing in popery, to destroy our nation. And some time afterwards, when the defendant was a deputy lieutenant of the said county, and a privy counsellor, the plaintiff, in the presence of many persons, spoke the following words of him: I was arrested at the suit of the Right Honourable John Howe, esq. and it hath cost me 5s. and 6d. for my breakfast, and, if you don't vote for him, he will serve you so too; and I know why it is, 'tis because I would not give my consent to him, to bring in popery and the Prince of Wales.
On an action brought for those scandalous words, the defendant in error obtained a verdict, and 400l. damages; and, upon a motion in arrest of judgment, the single question being, whether the words were actionable? the Court of Queen's Bench were unanimously of opinion, that they were, and gave judgment accordingly; and this judgment was afterwards affirmed, upon a writ of error, in the Exchequer Chamber.
To reverse both these judgments, the present plaintiff brought a writ of error in Parliament; but neither of the printed cases contains any reasons either for or against the reversal. (T. Powys, S. Harcourt.)
After hearing counsel on both sides (J. Mountague, N. Lechmere), the Judges were ordered to look into the precedents, and to attend and inform the House of what they should find, relative to the matter. The Judges accordingly attended; and, after hearing their report of the precedents, and a second argument by the defendant's counsel, it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment given in the Court of Queen's Bench, and the affirmance thereof in the Exchequer Chamber, should be affirmed; and that the record should be remitted, to the end execution might be had thereon, as if no such writ of error had been brought. (Jour. vol. 17. p. 617, 625, 632, 634, 635.)
return thereupon, to multiplicity of actions, vexatious suits, and unsupportable expences; and will subject them to different and independent jurisdictions, and inconsistent determinations in the same case, without relief. 4thly, That Matthew Ashby having, in contempt of the jurisdiction of this House, commenced and prosecuted an action at common law against William White, and others, the constables of Aylesbury, for not receiving his vote at an election of burgesses, to serve in parliament for the said borough of Aylesbury, is guilty of a breach of the privilege of this House. 5thly, That, whoever shall presume to commence or prosecute any action, indictment, or information, which shall bring the right of electors, or persons elected to serve in parliament, to the determination of any other jurisdiction, than that of the House of Commons, except in cases especially provided for by act of parliament, such person and persons, and all attornies, solicitors, counsellors, serjeants at law, soliciting, prosecuting, or pleading in any such case, are guilty of a high breach of the privilege of this House." (Chandler's Debates, vol. 3. p. 385.)
419