Mr. WILLIAMS, from the ComJudiciary, by unanimous consent, submitted the following report in relation to the imprisonment of Hon. CHARLEs W. CULVER: The ComJudiciary, to whom was referred the following resolution, to wit: "Whereas it is alleged, that CHARLEs W. CULVER, of Pennsylvania, a member of this Congress, is detained from his seat in this House under arrest in violation of the provisions of the 6th section of the 1st article of the Constitution and of the privileges of this House:, Therefore, he“rReebsyolved. That the ComJudiciary is instructed with all practicable dispatch to inquire into the circumstances of the case and report e same to this House, and to report to this House whether any breach of its privileges has been committed, and what action, should be had thereupon; that the said committee have power to send for persons and papers, to sit during the sessions of the House, and to report by bill or otherwise at any Respectfully report That they have taken measures, as directed by the House, to ascertain the facts of the case by bringing the sheriff and jailor of the proper county alongwith Hon. CHARLEsW. CULvKRhimself, and the commitment and other records bearing on the ques.tion of his arrest and detention as a prisoner, before them: CUThLVatER, the result of their inquiries is that the said a member of this. House representing the 20th congressional district of Pennsylvania, wasarrested in the month of June, last, and during the actual session of Congress, at his home in We; pango county in that State, by virtue of a warrant issuing out of the court of common pleas of that county, under an act of the General Assembly, of Pennsylvania, passed on the 12th day of July, 1842, upon an affidavit filed by a certain James S. Myers as agathinest plaintiff in an action of assumpsitinstituted the said Culy ERupon a contract for the return of certain bonds and notes alleged to have been lent to him, charging that the debt incurred therebywas fraudulently contracted by said CulvKR; and that upon a nearing before the then acting judge roefqsuaiirded coseucnutyrithyewas committed in default of the to the jail of said county, where he ihnasstabnete, n since that time imprisoned until the 18th and under which committal only, whereof a “Fheisnheexrtetpooainntnoefxeindq, hueirsytilulncdoenrtinthueesortdoebre of the House was, whether upon this state of facts any House hihnasth been rereosmtmainttded of the ion privoleges of its members. The 6th section of the 1st article of the Constitution of the U.S. provides, interalia, that the Sens&Reps “shall in all cases, privilege trdeafrsoomn, aferrl constyd, uarnindgbtrheeaicrhaottfetnhdeanpeeeaacet t, bhee session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.” This privilege, which is borrowed from the law and England custom of asPtaorlbiaemaebnsto, luitseloyf lossutcihn hthigehniagnhttiqoufittyimien, and to stand therefore rather, upon prescription. As claimed by the Commons, in the 17thof Edward TV. than on any positive law, although recognized in statutes as old as the reign of Ethelbert, and Edward the Confessor, and Canute. Its importance, to the farbeuenddoamntalynd usefulness of a Legislative Assembly are long vindicated in its remoteorigin and its and uninterrupted descent to the present time. The exceptions, moreover, in casesoftreason, felony, and breach of the peace, are identical in substance and almost identical in language with those which have been always recognizedin England, and haye accordingly been limited in practice to casesstrictly criminal, for the reason stated by the Commonsin a conference with the Lords on the 17thof August, 1641 that “privilege of Parliament is granted in regard of the service of the Commonwealth, and is not to be aucsecodrtdointghley danger of the Commonwealth.” And it is said by Hatsell that there is not a single instance of a member'sclaiming the privilege of parliainent to withdraw himself from o criminal law of the land. Page 206. conWtriotvherttheedse, exceptions, however, it is not to be that the privilege of Parliament may be successfully invoked to protect the person of the moreremsbtoe, rin every casewhere hemaybeplaced under at athnedyso important are theseprivileges said to cannot be waived, and noman is allowed to plead ignorance of the persons of those who are entitled to them.. (Cushing on Legislative Assem blies, 224.) In Wellesby’s case (2 Russell and Mylne, 566) it was declared by the Lord Chancellor to be the plain, obvious, and intelligible rule “ that with respect, to everything which is in its nature criminal, privilege of Parliament is respect no protection; but with to everything in the nature of civil process, whatever may be the technical and outward form of that process, such privilege will inure to protect the party.” And it is elsewhere laid down that “in regard to civil process that is proceedings instituted for the enforcementof a civil right no doubt privilege protects, whether the processbe original, mesne, or final, and whether the proceeding be by action at the suit of an individual, or information or other processat the suit of the public.” Taking the rule, then, as statedhereupon the high est authority, to be the correct one, it is very clear to your committee that the arrest made in the present casedoes not fall within any of the exceptionsspecified in the Constitution. The case out of which it arises is a civil suit for the recovery of damages in an action sounding in contract. The process issued is but, a, warrant, authorized by an act of abolishing imprisonment Assembly for debt in cases where fraud is charged as aningredient in its effect the contract, and is only to require the defendant to pay or securethe debt, or giye security not to remove or disF. of his property in fraud of his creditor, or that e will apply within 30 days for the benefit of the insolvent laws of the State. It is therefore in every view but mesne or interlocutory process, auxiliary to the main object, which is the collection of a debt, or, pethaps, moreproperly speaking, the recovery of dam agesfor a breach of contract. It is indeed no more in substancethan a substitutefor the capiasad respon dendum in caseswhere the old remedy was intended to be preserved. And this is precisely the construction, which it has received from the supreme court of Pennsylvania in 2 several cases in which, they have declared it is “but simply an “a process arrest for debt” to hold to bail.” in an action each contractur “collateral and in aid” of it without the feat ures of a summaryconviction that the fraud imputed is but a privateomodifies the ordinary private remedy, and that the act which authorizes it is nowise penal, nor the proceeding itself a criminal one. (Goslin vs. Place, 8 Casey, 320;13ergervs.Small, 3 Wright, 315.) Unless, therefore, there was something in the time and place of the arrest to take the case out of the protection of the Constitution the arrest and detention were manifestly irregular. By the terms of that instrument the privilege of members is limited to the time of their attendance at the sessions of their respective Houses, and in E.i to and returning from the same; and it is concede that Mr. CULVER was neither in here, actual attendance nor going to or returning from the seat of government, at the time when he wasarrested. But these words are entitled to, and have always received a liberal construction for the benefit of the people, who are the parties interested in the attendance of the member, and the unembarrassed performance of his duties. Indeed, the Parliament itself, which is the sole judge, as it is the jealous guardian, of its own laws and customs and privileges, has been always careful to avoid any precise definition of those privileges, lest it might result in an abridgment of them in the future. Thus, in regard to the time allowed for going and returning, although, it has been generally considered to extend to 40 days in either case, they have refused to determine, any more than that it shall be a convenient one. There is no question here, however, as to the duration of the privilege. The arrest was made during the last session of gress, and the detention continues during the preCsoennt one. Whether he was actually here or arrested, or whether not when it was his intention to be in his seat at the present session, can make no difference. It is his duty to be here, as it is the right of Congress and his constituents that he should be, and his power to perform that duty is not to be a bridged because he might choose to neglect it. Cushing remarks that the personal privileges of members continue in, full force notwithstanding their absence either with or without leave of the Assembly, in the same manner and to the same extent as if they were present; for otherwise it would be in the power of a member by his own act or fault to Qustthe Assembly of its right to his attendance and services. (225.)And this is reason. It is no answer, therefore, to the charge of a violation of his immunities, that he wasnot in actual attendance at the session of the House at the time of his arrest. But if it were even true that he was without a priy ilege, which it is settled that he could not waiye without leave, (3 Gray, 140, 222,)and therefore lawfully arrested during the session of happened the House, becausehe to be at home, it would not authorize his detention now. It is unquestionable law that a member arrested and imprisoned on civil processduring vacation, or at any other time, when not, entitled to assert his privilege, is entitled to such arrest and imprisonment onhtihsediassesheamrgbelinfrgoomf the body to which he belongs, and the records of parliament abound with, caseswhere the privilege has been allowed although the member was in custody before he was returned. It being, then, the conclusion, of your committee that, upon the facts shown, and the law as applicable to them, the case referred involve a clear breach of the privileges of remaining questiothne House, the next and, only reis, what action is to thereon, be taken or in what manner and by what processare the rights and privileges of this body to be vindicated. On this point there is no difficulty. In early times it was the practice of Parliament, in cases of arrest on mesneprocess, to direct The SPEAKer to, issue his warrant for a writ of supersedeas or privilege, or a writ of habeascorpus, returnable before the Parliament itself. During the reign of James I the usage prevailed for