The privileges of Parliament were not given for the ornament or advantage of those who are the members of Parliament.[10] They have a real use and efficacy toward that which is the end of parliaments. We are free from suits that we may the more entirely addict ourselves to the public services; we have, therefore, liberty of speech, that our counsels may not be corrupted with fear, or our judgments perverted with self respects. Those three great faculties and functions of Parliament, the legislative, judiciary, and conciliary power,[11] cannot be well exercised without such privileges as these. The wisdom of our laws, the faithfulness of our counsels, the righteousness of our judgments, can hardly be kept pure and untainted if they proceed from distracted and restrained minds. It is a good rule of the moral philosopher,—_Et non lædas mentem gubernatricem omnium actionum_. These powers of Parliament are to the body politic as the rational faculties of the soul to a man; that which keeps all the parts of the commonwealth in frame and temper, ought to be most carefully preserved in that freedom, vigor, and activity, which belongs to itself. Our predecessors in this House have ever been most careful in the first place to settle and secure their privileges; and he hoped, that we, having had greater breaches made upon us than heretofore, would be no less tender of them, and forward in seeking reparation for that which is past, and prevention of the like for the time to come. Then he propounded divers particular points wherein the privileges of Parliament had been broken. First, in restraining the members of the House from speaking. Secondly, in forbidding the Speaker to put any question. These two were practiced the last day of the last Parliament (and, as was alleged, by his Majesty’s command); and both of them trench upon the very life and being of parliaments; for if such a restraining power as this should take root, and be admitted, it will be impossible for us to bring any resolution to perfection in such matters as shall displease those about the King.[12] Thirdly, by imprisoning divers members of the House, for matters done in Parliament. Fourthly, by indictments, informations, and judgments in ordinary and inferior courts, for speeches and proceedings in parliaments. Fifthly, by the disgraceful order of the King’s bench, whereby some members of this House were enjoined to put in security of their good behaviour; and for refusal thereof, were continued in prison divers years, without any particular allegation against them. One of them was freed by death. Others were not dismissed till his Majesty had declared his intention to summon the present Parliament. And this he noted not only as a breach of privilege, but as a violation of the common justice of the kingdom. Sixthly, by the sudden and abrupt dissolution of parliaments, contrary to the law and custom.