means of protecting members of Parliament against
imprisonment and prosecution for opposing the arbitrary acts of the
Crown. It was at first merely an assertion of the independence of the
Lords and Commons as against the King, and a denial of the right of the
latter to call them to account for anything said or done in their
legislative capacity. But after it had accomplished its original purpose
and the tyrannical power of the King had been overthrown, it was found
to be serviceable in warding off attacks from another direction. It thus
came about that the means devised and employed by Parliament to shield
its members against intimidation and oppression at the hands of the King
was later turned against the people; for Parliament in divesting the
King of his irresponsible authority was desirous only of establishing
its own supremacy. It jealously guarded its own prerogatives, claimed
the right to govern independently, and just as formerly it had resisted
the encroachments of royal authority, it now resented the efforts of the
people to influence its policy by the publication and criticism of its
proceedings.

A standing order passed by the House of Commons in 1728 declared "that
it is an indignity to, and a breach of, the privilege of this House for
any person to presume to give in written or printed newspapers, any
account or minute of the debates or other proceedings; that upon
discovery of the authors, printers, or publishers of any such newspaper
this House will proceed against the offenders with the utmost
severity."[127]

This was the attitude of Parliament down to 1771, when, after a
prolonged and bitter struggle, the House of Commons was finally driven
by the force of an overwhelming public sentiment to acquiesce in the
publication of its proceedings.

There was, however, a small minority in the House that opposed the
policy of prosecuting the representatives of the press. The following
extract from the Annual Register for 1771 describes the attitude of this
minority.

"Some gentlemen however did not rest their opposition on the points of
decorum and prudence, but went so far as to deny the authority of the
House in this respect, and said that it was an usurpation assumed in bad
times, in the year 1641; that while their privileges and authority were
used in defense of the rights of the people, against the violence of the
prerogative, all men willingly joined in supporting them, and even their
usurpations we