House of Lords Journal Volume 39: April 1791 19

April 1791 19

DIE Martis, 19^o Aprilis 1791.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Impeachment of W. Hastings, Report of Precedents relative to State of.

The Lord Grenville reported from the Lords Committees appointed to examine Precedents relative to the State of the Impeachment against Warren Hastings Esquire, brought up from the Commons and proceeded upon in the last Parliament,

"That the Committee proceeded, in the first Place, to examine Precedents of Criminal Proceedings in Parliament, on the Petition or Impeachment of the Commons, which the Committee have classed in Chronological Order, N^o I.

"That the Committee next proceeded to examine Precedents of Criminal Proceedings in Parliament, originating at the Suit of the Crown or of Individuals, which the Committee have classed in Chronological Order, N^o II.

"That the Committee next proceeded to examine such Precedents of Proceedings in Parliament in Civil Cases, as appeared to them to throw any Degree of Light upon the Matter referred to them, which Precedents the Committee have classed in Chronological Order, N^o III.

"That the Committee next proceeded to examine into such Particulars of the Forms of Bail in Criminal Cases, as appear on the Journals of Parliament, which they have classed in Chronological Order, N^o IV.

"That the Committee have subjoined a Table of the Commencement, Adjournment, Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliaments, from the Ninth Year of Hen. III. to the Second Will. and Mary, Anno 1690, so far as they have been able to ascertain the same.

"Various References to Cases, appearing in the several Law Reports, and having Relation to this Subject, having been laid before the Committee by the Clerks, the Committee have thought proper to subjoin them to the Report.

The Manner in which it seemed best to the Committee to lay these Precedents before their Lordships, has been by making short Abstracts of the Substance of the several Records they have inspected, and to annex to the Report an Appendix containing the Proceedings more at large."

Class I.

Richard Lyons. 50 Ed. III. N^o 17. (m.3.) Vol. 2. Rolls of Parliament, P. 323.

"Richard Lyons, Merchant of London, was impeached by the Commons of divers Deceits, Extortions, and Misdemeanors, as well for the Time that he repaired to certain of the King's Council, as for the Time that he was Farmer of the King's Subsidy and Customs, &c.— (fn. 1) To Part of which Articles the said Richard pleaded Not Guilty; whereupon Evidence was examined touching the same: And as to the Rest, the said Richard submitted himself to the King's Grace.— (fn. 2) Whereupon he was awarded to Prison at the Will of the King, and to be put to Fine and Ransom according to the Horribility of his Offence, and to be disfranchised:—Upon which, at another Time, he was sent for before the Lords in Parliament, and informed that his Offences were so great he could not make Satisfaction for the same. Whereupon he submitted himself to the King touching Body, Lands, and Goods. Upon which it was awarded that all his Lands and Goods should be seized to the King's Use, and that his Body should remain in Prison at the Will of the King.—And as to the Extortions done by him while he was Farmer of the Customs, it was ordered in Parliament, that by Commission throughout England the same should be enquired of.

" (fn. 3) Afterwards, on the last Day of a Parliament held at Westminster, on the Quindene of St. Hilary, Anno 51 Ed. III. the Commons pray the King, that in respect the said Richard had been adjudged to the Tower by a hasty Process, he would release him and restore his Goods, Lands, and Tenements — N. B. This is One of Seven Petitions of the Commons, relative to which there is this Entry in the Roll;— (fn. 4) Be it remembered, That in this Parliament no Answer was given by the Lords to the said Seven Billes, nor could be, in respect the said Parliament was departed and finished the same Day, before any Thing further could be done in them. Vide Appendix to the First Class, N^o I.

Le S'r Latymer. 50 Ed. III. N^o 20 Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 2. P. 324.

"William Lord Latymer was openly impeached by the Commons for divers Deceits, Extortions, and Oppressions, as well while he served under the King in Britain, as whilst he was Chamberlain to the King and of the Privy Council.— (fn. 5) To which the Lord Latymer, then present in Parliament, saving what of Right belonged to him as a Peer of the Realm, as well in giving Judgement as otherwise, offered to answer any Person who would specially submit any of the Matters aforesaid.—Afterwards, in as much as no Person in particular would openly accuse the said Lord of the said Things in Parliament, and the Commons would maintain the said Accusations generally, the Lord Latymer in Excuse of himself answered the several Charges. To which the Commons replied. Whereupon to some the Lords answer, that they will report to the King that he may do Right therein; to others, that they will take the Advice of the Sages of the Law, and that Right shall be done. And upon Issue joined on others, and Evidence examined, after long Deliberation had, he was adjudged in full Parliament to be guilty,— (fn. 6) and was awarded by the Prelates and Lords in full Parliament to Prison, to be in the Custody of the Marshal, and to make Fine and Ransom at the Will of the King. Whereupon the Commons further pray that he may be ousted of all his Offices, and especially that of being of the King's Council in all Time to come, which is granted.—

(fn. 7) Upon which the Lord Latymer found certain Prelates, Lords and others, his Mainpernors during the Parliament, to have his Body before the King and Lords to answer further to the Articles so alledged against him. And by this Mainprize the Marshall of England let him go at large.

" (fn. 8) Then follow the Names of the Mainpernors, (Thirty-four in Number), who it is stated undertake for the Body of the Lord Latymer, during the Parliament, being forth-coming before the King and Lords in Parliament, for the Causes of which he was in the said Parliament, viz. 26th Day of May Anno 50 Ed. III. accused.—So however that if they shall deliver his Body in Parliament they should be discharged. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o II.

William Elys 50 Ed. III. N^o 31. Vol. 2. Rolls of Parliament, P. 327.

William Elys of Great Yarmouth was impeached in this present Parliament in diverse Manners; and first, on the Surmise of the Commons for sundry Extortions while he was Farmer of the King's Petit Customs, and Deputy of Richard Lyons (fn. 9), for the Subsidy of Sixpence in the Pound granted to the King; and in particular, for having extorted from some Scotch Merchants driven into the Port of Yarmouth by Storm, the Sum of Thirty-three Pounds. The said William being present in Parliament denies the Charge. The Commons replying, alledge that he had the Day before in the House of Commons, confessed the taking the said Thirty-three Pounds, and called John Botild and William Coupere to prove the said Charge. The said William in his Defence produced, amongst other Matters, a Release of all Actions, &c. from one John Foxhide, who was general Agent for the Merchants of Scotland. — And it appearing to the Lords that the Seal to the said Release was not authentic, the same was delivered to the Lord Percy to inquire into the Truth of the same, and if it was found to be forged, then that the said William Elys should be well punished.—And the Commons prayed that good Enquiry might be made concerning the said William Elys, and all the other Deputies of the said Richard Lyons;—which was granted by the Lords accordingly.

Also afterwards, John Botild and William Coupere, by Petition to the King and Council, severally complain of the said William Elys, for having exacted certain Sums of Money from them on account of Customs, and also for having, by false Suggestion, caused them to be imprisoned; and the said Petitions being read in Parliament in the Presence of the said William, upon his denying the said Exactions, and the Petitioners affirming the contrary, the Lords direct the same to be tried in the King's Bench.—And as touching the said Imprisonment upon the Answer of the said William, and Witnesses being examined, it appeared (fn. 10) to the Lords that the said Suggestion of of the said William Elys was untrue, and thereupon it was adjudged, that he was within the Statute against such as make Complaint to the King.—Wherefore the said William Elys was awarded to Prison, to make Fine and Ransom to the King, and to pay Twenty Pounds Damages to the said John and William in respect of the said Imprisonment.—And it was also awarded, that the said Commission should be directed to sufficient Persons to enquire concerning the said William Elys, and of all other the Deputies of the said Richard Lyons throughout the Kingdom.

(fn. 11) Afterwards, on the last Day of the Parliament Anno 51 Ed. III. a Petition of the said William Elys is presented by the Commons, stating the Proceedings in the last Parliament, and that the Commissions there mentioned were directed to the Earl of Suffolk, the Lord Willoughby, and other Lords before whom it was found, in the Presence of the said John Botild and William Coupere, that the said William Elys was not guilty; that by Reason of the said Complaints of the said John and William, he had been imprisoned Three Months and more, and was under Bail till this present Parliament, and praying therefore Remedy for the same, in Deliverance of the said William Elys as the Law requires. — This is another of the Petitions mentioned supra, P. 4. to which no Answer was given. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o III.

John Pecchee. 50 Ed. III. N^o 33. Vol. 2. P. 328.

John Pecchee was impeached by the Commons for procuring a Patent under the Great Seal, that he only might sell Wine in London, and for taking Three Shillings and Four-pence of every Man for every Pipe thereof: and the said Commons pray that he may be accused thereof in Parliament, and Justice thereupon done as well for the King as for the Parties aggrieved.—And the said John being present in Parliament, confesses and justifies the same: And upon Examination of the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, by the Desire of the said John, touching the same, he is awarded to Prison, and to make Fine and Ransom to the King, and to make Satisfaction to the Parties complaining.— (fn. 12) Afterwards, on the last Day of a Parliament held Anno 51 Ed. III. the Commons present a Petition of the said John Pecchee to the King and Lords in Parliament, in which the said John prays, that in as much as he was not suffered upon the said Impeachment in the last Parliament to have Counsel, though he requested the same, and for Want of the same was condemned and sent to Prison, that he may be permitted by his Counsel now to state what might have availed him then, if he had shewn it. — This is another of the Petitions mentioned supra, P. 4. to which no Answer was given. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o IV.

Lord John Nevill. 50 Ed. III. N^o 34. Vol. 2. Rolls of Parliament, P. 328.

The Lord John Nevill was impeached by the Commons for purchasing, during the Time he was of the King's Privy Council, sundry Debts due by the King to several Persons, and in particular to the Lady Ravensholm deceased, and to Reginald Love; and for other Matters; to all of which the said Lord Nevill, being present in Parliament put in his Answer; whereupon, after Examination of Witnesses touching the same the Commons pray Judgement against him, and that he may be ousted of all his Offices.—Upon which, shortly after, as touching the Article relative to the Lady Ravensholm, it was awarded in Parliament that he should make Restitution to the Executors of the said Lady; and further, that he should be punished according to the Measure of his Misdoing, come Autres. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o V.

50 Ed. III. N^o 45 Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 2. P. 329.

"An Ordinance was made in this Parliament, that henceforward no Woman should, by way of Maintenance, and for Lucre, &c. prosecute any Matter in the King's Courts, and especially Alice Perrers, upon Pain as therein mentioned.

Alice Perrers. 1 Ric. II. Vol. 3. Rolls of Parliament, P. 14.

On the 22d of December, at a Parliament held at Westminster on the Quindene of St. Michael, Anno 1 Ric. II. Alice Perrers was brought before the Prelates and Lords, and by their Command charged by Monsieur Richard le Scroop, Chivaler, Steward of the Household, with a Breach of the said Ordinance in Manner as is there particularly set forth: And having pleaded Not guilty, Day was given to the said Alice to the Wednesday following. And it was ordained by the Assent of the said Prelates and Lords, that in the mean Time the said Articles should be tried by an Inquest of those who were of the Household of Ed. III.—The same being accordingly done, she was found guilty; and thereupon it was awarded that she should be banished, &c. — In this same Parliament, the Commons, amongst other Matters contained in a Schedule sent up to the Lords of Businesses to be finished in this Parliament, pray that Alice Perrers may be punished according to her Desert. — That the said Matters being finished, the Grant for the Defence of the Realm should be assented to, &c.—After which an Entry is made, that it was ordained in Parliament, that the said Alice shall be sent for to answer in Parliament, and to receive what shall be ordained against her.

(fn. 13) Afterwards at a Parliament holden at Gloucester, Anno 2 Ric. II. Sir William of Windesore and Alice his Wife, by Petition to the King, pray, That whereas in the Judgement given in the last Parliament against the said Alice, by the Name of Alice Perrers, divers Errors are apparent, the said Record may be brought up, and the said William and Alice heard to assign Errors therein: Whereupon the same being read, the said Record was caused to be brought up, and being read, the said William, by his Counsel, assigned the Errors, and prayed a Reversal of the said Judgement. To which it was answered by the King's Serjeants, That without License of the King, they could not, either in Person or by Attorney, sue in such wise. Whereupon the said William and Alice petition the King, that he would be pleased to grant them his Licence accordingly to prosecute their said Plea by Attorney.

" (fn. 14) The King sends the said Bill to his Great Council in Parliament, to whom he also committed the Discussion of the same. Whereupon it is assented by the Lords of the Council, that by the King's Favour, as above, they might pursue the same.— Then the Errors are set forth.— (fn. 15) No further Proceeding appears in this Session of Parliament.

" (fn. 16) Afterwards, at a Parliament held at Westminster on the Morrow of Saint Martin, Anno 8^o Ric. II. the said Alice presents a Petition to the King and Lords, praying that the Statute and Ordinance made in the Time of King Edward III. and the Statute and Ordinance and Execution awarded against her in respect thereof in the Parliament held at Westminster Anno 1 Ric. II. may be declared null and void. —Whereupon it is answered by the King, with the Assent of the Prelates, Lords, and Commons, in full Parliament, That the same shall be repealed from thenceforward only, so as that all Gifts, &c. already made of any Lands, &c. by virtue of the said Statute and Ordinance, should remain in Force: And it was further agreed, that the said Repeal, &c. should be considered as a Statute.

" (fn. 17) Afterwards, at a Parliament held at Salisbury, on the Quindene of Saint Hilary, 21 Ric. II. upon reading the Petition of the said Alice Perrers to the King, complaining of the said Ordinance, &c. and the Judgement given thereupon against her, Anno 1 Ric. II. as erroneous, and praying that the Record and Process might be brought before the King, and the Errors therein corrected, &c. It was accorded by the King, with the Assent of the Lords and Commons, That the King, upon good Deliberation had, should determine and finish the Matter, as to him should seem meet.—No further Proceeding appears. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o VI.

Adam de Bury. 50 Edw. III. N^o. 47 Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 2. P. 330.

"Adam de Bury was impeached by the Commons, on the last Day of the Parliament, for divers Deceits and Wrongs done by him, while he was Mayor of Calais, &c. and being sent for to answer, and not being found, it was awarded that all his Goods and Chattels should be put in Arrest: A Writ issued for that Purpose to the Sheriffs of London and Kent, and the Bill remained on the File with the Special Petitions of Parliament.— (fn. 18) Afterwards at a Parliament held Anno 51^o Edward III. the Commons pray, that Adam de Bury, who was wrongfully impeached in the last Parliament, in the Quindene of Easter last past, should be contained in the Pardon granted in this Parliament, and he and his Pledges utterly released and discharged.—This is another of the Petitions, mentioned supra Page 4, to which no Answer was given. Vide Appendix, Class I.N^o VII.

51 Ed. III. N^o 90 and 92. Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 2. P. 374

"John de Leycestre and Wauter Sporier.—In the Rolls of Parliament, Anno 50 Edward III. Nothing appears relative to their Cases;—but in the 51st Edward III. the Commons pray, That whereas they were wrongfully and maliciously impeached in the last Parliament, they may be contained in the Pardon granted in this Parliament, and their Pledges utterly released and discharged.—The above are Two of the Petitions mentioned, supra Page 4, to which no Answer was given.—Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o VIII.

51 Ed. III. N^o 96. Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 2. P. 375.

"Hugh Fastolf. Nothing appears in the Rolls of Parliament Anno 50 Edward III. relative to this Case; but in the 51 Edward III. the Commons pray the Lords to understand, that by the Malice and Hatred of his Neighbours he was impeached in the last Parliament of divers Extortions. That thereupon a Commission of Oyer and Terminer was directed to certain Persons to enquire of all Extortions, &c. as well at the Suit of the King as of the Parties, before whom he was acquitted, as would appear by the Record, which was certified by some of the Commons present in Parliament.—No Answer appears to be given to this Representation on the Part of the Commons. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o IX.

Rolls of Parliament, 1 Ric. II.; Vol. 3. P. 10. N^o 38.

"William de Weston and John Sire de Gomenys.— The Commons pray, that all who have given up Castles, &c. beyond Sea, should be put to answer, and punished by Judgement of the Lords. Whereupon Weston and Gomenys are brought up and arraigned. They answer, and Judgement of Death is given against them. — All in the same Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o X.

Petitions of the Commons. 2 Ric. II. N^o 28. Vol. 3. Rolls of Parliament, P. 61.

"The Commons pray the King and his Council, Prelates, and other Lords; Whereas heretofore Petitions and Bills delivered in Parliament by divers Persons of the Commons, might have no Answer given to them,—That to their Petitions and Bills delivered in this present Parliament, and to all others that should be delivered in Parliament, in Time to come, good and gracious Answer and Remedy might be ordained before the Departure of each Parliament; and that thereupon a Statute to that Effect might be made in the present Parliament, and sealed to remain in all Time to come.—The King answers, that to such Petitions delivered in Parliament touching things that cannot elsewhere be determined, good and reasonable Answer should be made and given before the Departure of Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XI.

Bishop of Norwich. 7 Ric. II. Part 1. N^o 15 & 18. Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 3. P. 151.

"At a Parliament held at Westminster on the Morrow of All Souls, Anno 7 Ric. II. the Bishop of Norwich being accused by the Commons for not doing his Service according to Promise, and for receiving several Sums of Money from the King's Enemies, prays Audience, Hearing, Time and Space, that he may excuse himself in this Parliament.—Upon the Hearing of the Matter, it appearing that Five thousand Franks of Gold, Part of the said Money, were in the Hands of Sir Robert Fulmere, the Treasurer of the said Bishop, the said Sir Robert was charged upon his Allegiance to speak the Truth concerning the same; who confessing the Fact, and being heard as to what he had to say in his Excuse, the same was held insufficient; whereupon it was awarded that he should remain in Prison till he made Payment of the said Sum, and till further Order was taken for his Deliverance.

" (fn. 19) Also at the Prayer of the Commons, on the 16th of November in the same Parliament, it was ordered, That all Persons who had received any Money from the King's Enemies should come on the Morrow next following in Presence of the Chancellor of England and confess the same.

Cressingham and Skypeworth. N^o 17. Ibid. P. 153.

"In the same Parliament, upon Complaint made to the King against Pierres de Cressingham and John de Skypeworth for surrendering the Castle of Drinkham in Flanders, &c. they were put in Arrest by the King's Command, and afterwards put to their Answer in Parliament; whereupon John de Skypeworth being heard in his Defence, it was answered, de par le Roi, That if no one would contradict the Answer of the said John now made, the King would hold him excused, and he should be let to go at large.—The Answer of Cressingham being held insufficient, he was awarded to Prison, there to remain till the King should otherwise declare his Will concerning him.

Bishop of Norwich, 7 Ric. II. N^o 18. Ibid. 153.

"Also the Bishop of Norwich was impeached in this Parliament of divers Matters, and of Four Articles in particular, shewn to him in Presence of the King himself and Monsieur de Lancastre, in full Parliament, by the Chancellor, who thereupon by the King's Command, charged him with the same.— (fn. 20) To which the said Bishop, alledging that he ought of Right by Licence of the King to have Counsel, and answer by his said Counsel in this Case, answered however in Person; saving to himself to correct his said Answer thereafter.—The Chancellor replied to the same; and the Matter having been heard and understood in Parliament, the Chancellor, by Command of the King himself there present, informed the Bishop, that in respect his Answer appeared to the King and Lords insufficient, he was convicted of the Four Articles alledged against him, and should be put to Fine and Ransom at the Will of the King.— (fn. 21) Also at the Request made by the Commons of England in this Parliament, on Saturday the 13th of November, the Bishop was charged in Parliament, de par le Roi, to certify the King and his Council distinctly, and by writing, of the Names, &c. of those whom he had retained, &c. "To which the said Bishop, amongst other Things, answered, That if Sir Robert Fulmere, who had all his Deeds, &c. were set at large out of Prison, where he is detained by the King's Command, and Time be given, and Space fitting, because the Matter required moelt Grant Occupation, he would use his Diligence to execute the said Charge." Whereupon the said Sir Robert Fulmere was delivered out of Prison for a reasonable Time, by Mainprize; and the Bishop was commanded to make his Certification on the Wednesday next following at latest.—Afterwards, at the Request of the Bishop, the Time given him to make the said Certificate, was prorogued for eight Days next ensuing.— (fn. 22) And afterwards a further Day was given him, at which Day the said Bishop, rehearsing the Four Articles objected to him before in Parliament, and in Presence of the King himself, made the same Answer as before, with some Addition thereto.— (fn. 23) To which the Chancellor replied; concluding, that in respect the said Bishop had not amended his Excuse, &c.; therefore, by the Assent of the Earls, Barons, and other Lords Temporal, present in this Parliament, it was accorded that he should be in the Mercy of the King, and be put to Fine and Ransom for his Misdoings, according to the Quantity and Quality thereof, and be constrained thereto by Seizine of his Temporalities, &c.—All in the same Parliament.

Sir William Elmham and others. N^o 24 & 25. Ibid. 156–158.

In the same Parliament, Sir William Elmham, Sir Thomas Tryvet, Sir Henry de Ferrieres, and Sir William de Farndon, who had been before the Chancellor in consequence of the Proclamation, (supra, N^o 16.), and made Confession accordingly, were in like Manner arraigned in full Parliament, in Presence of the King, at the Request of the Commons, and having been heard in Answer, it was awarded that they should pay the King what they had received, and remain in Prison till they made Fine and Ransom at the Will of the King; and Sir William Hurnedon was to be at the King's Mercy as to Body and Goods.—All in the same Parliment. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XII.

Michael de la Pole, 10 Ric. II. No. 5 & 6. Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 3. P. 216.

"Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, late Chancellor of England was accused by the Commons before the King, Prelates, and Lords in Parliament upon several Articles.—To all which the said Earl, being present in Person, made Answer: The Commons replied, and the Earl rejoined to the Replication of the Commons, after which, at the Request of the Commons, the said Earl, in respect of the Greatness of the Offences surmised against him, was arrested by the King's Command, and committed to the Keeping of the Constable of England, and afterwards let to Mainprize. Judgement was afterwards given against him as to some of the said Articles; and as to those of which he was convicted, for Want of sufficient Answer, it was awarded that he should be committed to Prison, to continue there at the Will of the King, and not to be discharged before he had made Fine and Ransom at the Will of the King; and as to Three of the Articles, it appeared to the King and Lords in Parliament, That the said Earl ought not to be impeached by himself without his Companions, who were then of the King's Council. And if any One would impeach him in particular of any Fault, he should offer himself ready to answer. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XIII.

Sir Robert Belknap and others. 11 Ric. II. Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 3. P. 238.

"On the 2d of March, in a Parliament held at Westminster on the Morrow of the Purification, Anno 11 Ric. II. Sir Robert Belknap, Sir Roger Fulthorp, Sir John Holt, Sir William Burgh, Sir John Cary, and John Lockton, were sent for in Parliament, at the Request of the Commons, and there impeached by the Commons for putting their Hands and Seals to certain Questions put to them, and their Answers thereto, at Nottingham, &c.; a Copy whereof the Commons delivered, and the same being read, the Commons prayed they might be adjudged Traitors. The said Sir Robert, &c. having severally answered the said Charges, (fn. 24) the Commons replied, and prayed Judgement; whereupon the Lords Temporal took Time to consider the same; and afterwards, on the Friday following, the 6th of March, adjudged the said Sir Robert, &c. severally guilty of High Treason.

John Blake and another. Ibid. P. 240.

"On the 3d of March John Blake and Thomas Usk were brought into Parliament, and impeached by the Commons of divers Treasons; and being heard in answer to the said Charge, were, on the Morrow, adjudged by the Lords Temporal, with the Assent of the King, to be Traitors, and executed the next Day.

Bishop of Chicester. Ibid. P. 241.

"Also on Friday the 6th of March, in the same Parliament, the Commons impeached Thomas Bishop of Chichester, the King's Confessor, then present in the said Parliament, for exciting the said Sir Robert, &c. by Menaces, to answer the said Questions, &c. The said Bishop denying the Charge, and the Commons having replied, and praying he might be attainted, the Temporal Lords took Time to consider of the Judgment they should give.

Simon de Burly and others. Ibid.

"In the Interval, viz. on the 12th of March, Simon de Burly, Sir John de Beauchamp de Holt, Sir John Salisbury, and Sir James Berners, were sent for at the Request of the Commons, and by the said Commons impeached of several Matters; (fn. 25) to which the said Simon, &c. severally answered that they were not guilty;—the Commons replied that they were guilty. — Upon which the Lords Temporal took Time deliberately to examine the said Charges, and the Matters therein contained, and were in Consultation upon the same, as well as upon the Matters alledged against the Bishop of Chichester, till the Wednesday next before Easter, which was on the 20th of the said Month of March; on which (fn. 26) Day the King, with the Assent of the Lords in Parliament, adjourned the said Parliament to the Monday next after the Quindene of Easter, to be held in the same Place, and in the same State as it was in at the Time of the said Adjournment. On which Monday the King, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, assembled themselves in the same Place, in the Parliamentaforesaid.—From which Monday the Lords Temporal, through great Diligence, took to deliberate till Tuesday the 5th Day of May then next following.—On which Day they adjudged Sir Simon de Burly guilty of High Treason, and on the 12th of the same Month of May pronounced the like Judgment against the rest:—Also on the said 12th of May they pronounced the like Judgement against the Bishop of Chichester.

No 7. Ibid.

"In this Parliament all the Lords, as well Spiritual as Temporal, then present, claimed as their Liberty and Franchise, that the weighty Matters moved in this Parliament, and to be moved in other Parliaments in Time to come, touching Peers of the Land, should be proceeded on, adjudged, and discussed, by the Course of Parliament, and not by the Civil Law, nor by the Common Law of the Land used in other inferior Courts of the Kingdom.—Which Claims, Liberty, and Franchise, the King benignly allowed them, and granted in Parliament.

" (fn. 27) And on the same Friday, on Account of the Approach of Easter, the Parliament, by the Common Assent of the whole Estates, was continued till Monday next after the Quindene of Easter then ensuing. And by Command of the King, the Lords and Commons were ordered to be at Westminster on Monday the said Quindene of Easter, at latest.—And thereupon new Writs were made to all the Lords summoned to the said Parliament, to be then there, upon certain Pain, &c.

" (fn. 28) On which Monday the said Parliament was recommenced, and pursued its Course according to the Request of the Commons, and the Grant of the King. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o. XIV.

"All the Proceedings of the above Parliament, held Anno 11 Ric. II. were repealed in a Parliament held Anno 21 Ric. II. and revived by Stat. 1 Hen. IV. Cap. 4.

Thomas Arundell, Archbishop of Canterbury. 21 Ric. II. No 15. Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 3. P. 351.

"On the 20th of September Anno 21 Ric. II. the Commons, before the King in full Parliament, impeach Thomas Arundell, Archbishop of Canterbury, of divers Matters, and thereupon pray the King, that he may be in safe Custody. To which the King answers, that whereas the same respected so great a Person, he would be advised thereon.

(fn. 29) On the 25th of the same September, the Commons pray the King to give Judgement against the said Archbishop as the Case required. Whereupon the King in Parliament recorded, that the said Archbishop had confessed to him, in the Presence of certain Lords, the Matter alledged against him. Upon which the King and all the Lords Temporal, and Monsieur Thomas de Percy, having sufficient Power from the Prelates and Clergy, as appears by the Record of the said Parliament, adjudged him guilty of Treason. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XV.

Sir Thomas Mortimer. N^o 19. Ibid. P. 351.

"The Lords Appellants having impeached Sir Thomas Mortimer of High Treason, and the Commons having also impeached him of the same Treasons in the present Parliament, in respect the said Sir Thomas was held as a Fugitive, it was ordained by the King, with the Assent of all the Estates, that Proclamation should be made in England and Ireland for the said Sir Thomas to surrender himself within Three Months from the 23d of September, otherwise to be convicted and attainted of the Treasons of which he was appealed;—the like to be with respect to his Adherents after the said Three Months.

Adjournment of the Parliament,

" (fn. 30) Afterwards, on Saturday in Michaelmas Week, the King, in Consideration that certain great Cases and Matters, moved and depending in this present Parliament, could not well be finished at this Time, and for other evident and reasonable Causes moving him thereto, adjourned the present Parliament, from Saturday, and from Westminster, where it was held, to the Quindene of Saint Hilary next ensuing, at Shrewsbury, with all Estates and Degrees of Parliament as they were at that Time at Westminster, to be holden at Shrewsbury aforesaid, &c.; and Leave was given to the Lords and Commons to depart at this Time.

" (fn. 31) The Record of the Impeachment by the Commons, affirming also the Appeal of the Lords Appellants as good and lawful, is stated at large in the Placita Coronæ, &c. of this Parliament; where, after setting forth the above Proclamation, and that Day was given to the Appellants in the said Parliament to the Quindene of Saint Hilary, and that they were adjourned to Shrewsbury in the same Parliament, the Record states, that on the said Quindene of Saint Hilary, the Appellants appeared at Shrewsbury; and setting forth that the said Proclamation had been issued as directed, prayed that the said Mortimer, if he had surrendered, might be brought before the King in the said Parliament to answer the said Appeal; and the Commons shewed the King, that they had impeached the said Thomas of the same Treason, and prayed in like Manner.—That the Proclamation was returned, as appeared by the Record.—Whereupon the Duke of Lancaster, and all the Lords Temporal of the said Parliament, having sufficient Power from the Prelates and Clergy, as appears by the Record in the Parliament aforesaid, in respect the said Thomas Mortimer came not, with the Assent of the King, awarded that the Judgement so given against the said Thomas should be effectual and of Force, simply and without Condition. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XVI.

Sir John de Cobham. 21 Ric. II. N^o 10. Vol. 3. P. 381.

"On the 28th of January the Commons being in the said Parliament at Shrewsbury, represented to the King, that in the said Parliament at Westminster they had impeached Sir John de Cobham for procuring and counselling the said Commission to be made, &c. and prayed the King to cause the said Sir John to come in this present Parliament to answer the same.— Whereupon the King commanded the Duke of Surry to cause the said Sir John, who was in his Custody, to come, &c. who accordingly brought him the same Day; when the Duke of Lancaster, by the King's Command, informed him of the said Impeachment, and required him to answer at his Peril.—And the said Sir John having heard the said Impeachment, made Answer thereto; (fn. 32) after which the Commons prayed the King to give Judgement against him.— Whereupon the Duke of Lancaster, by Command of the King, and all the Lords Temporal, and William le Scroop Earl of Wiltshire, having sufficient Power from the Prelates and Clergy, as appears on Record in the said Parliament, by Assent of the King, adjudged the said Sir John de Cobham a Traitor. And afterwards the King pardoned him, upon Condition that he should continue in perpetual Prison out of the Kingdom, viz. in the Isle of Jersey. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XVII.

Petitions of the Commons. 2 Hen. IV. N^o 23. Rolls of Parliament, V. 3. P. 458.

"On Saturday the 26th of February the Commons represent to the King, that in many Parliaments heretofore, their common Petitions had not been answered before their Grant of Aid and Subsidy to the King, and thereupon pray, they may know the Answer to their said Petitions before any Grant was so to be made. — The King answers, that he would confer with the Lords upon this Matter; and afterwards, on the last Day of the Parliament, it was answered, That it was never in Use in the Time of his Progenitors that they should have any Answer to their Petitions, or Knowledge thereof, before they had shewn and done all the other Businesses of Parliament, whether it were a Grant to be made or otherwise. Wherefore the King would not change the good Customs and Usages of ancient Time.

William Bagot. 2 Hen. IV. N^o 24. Ibid.

"On the same Saturday the Commons represent to the King, that whereas heretofore William Bagot had been defamed of divers horrible Deeds and Misprisions; of the which, if they had been true, the Commons suppose the King and Lords would have had good Knowledge, from various Examinations had thereupon at the Time that the said William feust endistresse; and thereupon the Commons pray, Whereas the said William had been so defamed, and no Fault found against him upon the same, or upon the Impeachments aforesaid, that the King would restore him to his Lands and Possessions, save as therein mentioned.—To which the King answered, That whereas in the last Parliament Bagot had been put to answer before the King and the Lords to the Impeachments against him, and had there pleaded a general Pardon; against which Pardon the Lords were of Opinion he ought not to be impeached or put to answer by the Law, and also that he had not been attainted of any Impeachment then brought against him; therefore, as the King had done to him according to Law in this Respect, in the same Manner he would do to him according to Law in respect of the Remainder, at the Prayer of the said Commons. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XVIII.

Duke of Suffolk. 28 Hen. VI. N^o 14. Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 5. P. 176.

On the 22d of January the Duke of Suffolk besought the King that he might be specially accused, and heard to answer before the King, Lords and Commons, in this present Parliament, to that which many reported of him, that he was an untrue Man; and made Protestations thereupon (fn. 33).— (fn. 34) Afterwards, on the 26th of the same January, the Commons pray, that for the Matter contained in the Declaration of the said Earl, the King would commit him to ward after the Course of the Law.—The Lords, upon a Question put to the Judges, and their Answer to the same, held he ought not to be committed to ward till the Specialty were declared and shewn.— (fn. 35) Upon the 28th of the same January, upon a further Representation of the Commons, he was committed to the Tower, and on the (fn. 36) 7th of February following the Commons delivered a Bill of Articles of High Treason against him, being Nine in Number, to the Chancellor, and certain other Lords, sent to the Commons by the King's Command, all which they pray may be enacted, &c. and proceeded upon in this present Parliament (fn. 37).—On the 12th of the same February the said Bill was ready, and it was thought by the Lords that the Justices should have a Copy to advise thereon; but the King willed, that it should be respited till he was otherwise advised.

" (fn. 38) On the 7th of March following the Duke was ordered to answer.

"On the 9th of the same March a Bill was presented by the Commons to the Lords, containing other Articles of certain Misprisions against him, which they also pray may be enacted in the High Court of Parliament, and proceeded upon during the same Parliament (fn. 39).

" (fn. 40) The same Day the Duke of Suffolk was brought from the Tower, when the said several Articles were declared to him; whereupon he requested to have Copies of them, which was granted; and his Place of Confinement was changed to a Tower in the King's Palace of Westminster.

" (fn. 41) On the 13th of the same March, he was sent for to answer to the Articles, and made answer accordingly. On the 17th of March (fn. 42), the Duke was again sent for to come before the Lords, when the Chancellor observing to him, that upon his Answer to the said Articles he had not put himself upon his Peerage, asked him, what he would now say furthermore in that Matter; to which he said, He trusted he had sufficiently answered the said Articles, and therefore submitted himself wholly to the King's Grace. Whereupon the Chancellor, by the King's Commandment, said, That touching the First Bill, the King held him neither declared nor charged; but as to the Second Bill, touching Misprisions, not as Judge, but by Force of the said Duke's own Submission, the King banished him the Realm, &c. for Five Years. Against which all the Lords protested, the same being without their Advice and Consent.—All in the same Parliament.

Sir Giles Mompesson. Ann. 18 & 19 Jac. I. Vol. 3. Lords Journals, P. 33 & 68. Lord Chancellor and Bishop of Llandaff. Ann. 18 & 19 Jac. I Ibid. P. 51–3.

"Sir Giles Mompesson proceeded against by the Commons, 3d March 1620, and Judgement given by the Lords on the 26th of the same Month of March.— All in the same Session.

"Viscount St. Alban, Lord Chancellor, and the Bishop of Llandaff, impeached by the Commons, 19th of March 1620. (fn. 43) On the 20th of March, the Lord Chancellor being sick, a Letter from him, addressed to the House, was delivered by the Lord Admiral, and read; after which the Bishop was heard in his own Defence. (fn. 44) On the 23d of March, it was agreed that Three Committees, appointed on the 21st instant to examine Witnesses (in Causâ Domini Cancellarii) may from Time to Time examine Witnesses touching the said Cause, between the Recess and Access. On the 27th of March both Houses adjourned themselves to the 17th of April (fn. 45).—On the 3d of May, Judgement of Fine, Imprisonment, &c. was pronounced against the Lord Chancellor (fn. 46).

" (fn. 47) On the 16th of May, the Commons remind the Lords of the Complaint against the Bishop of Llandaff, and demand Judgement against him (fn. 48). On the 30th of May, it was ordered that the Matter be referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop to be admonished by his Grace in the Convocation House; and a Message was sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith. On the 2d of June, the Archbishop reported to the House, that he had given Admonition to the Bishop according to their Lordships' Order (fn. 49).—All in the same Session.

"Mathias Fowles, George Geldard, and others, are impeached by the Commons, 22d March 1620, and committed by the Lords on the same Day, post Meridiem (fn. 50). On the 26th of April Fowles is brought to the Bar, and the Charges against him read, to which he makes Answer; sundry Depositions touching the same are also read, and a Witness examined (fn. 51).—On the 27th of April, Fowles is again charged, answers at the Bar, and several Witnesses are examined. (fn. 52) On the 15th of May following, Fowles is bailed, conditioned to appear in Court upon Two Days Warning. (fn. 53) After several Adjournments by Commission, the Parliament is dissolved on the 28th of February 1621. no further Proceedings appear.

19 Jac. I. Vol. 3. Lords Journals, P 89.

"Sir Francis Michell impeached by the Commons, is called to the Bar; the Charges read to him, to which he makes answer; several Depositions are read, and he heard in his Defence, 26th April 1621. (fn. 54) On the 4th of May following, the Lords adjudge him guilty, and he is sentenced accordingly. — All in the same Parliament.

19 Jac. I. Lords Journals, Vol. 3. P. 87.

"Sir John Bennet impeached by the Commons 25th April 1621.—On the 2d of May (fn. 55) a Committee is appointed to take Examinations in the said Cause.— (fn. 56) On Monday the 28th of May the Lord Treasurer delivers a Message from the King to adjourn the Parliament, for the Causes therein mentioned; also that it was His Pleasure that the Lords should perform the the Acts in the House against Saturday next, especially that of Sir John Bennet; and that on the Monday next His Majesty would send a Commission for the Adjournment.—On the same Day, post Meridiem, the Commons desire a Conference touching a Message received by them from His Majesty for adjourning the Parliament.— (fn. 57) On the 29th of May the Lord Treasurer delivers another Message from His Majesty, taking Notice of the Conference desired by the Commons upon His former Message, &c. and declaring His Intention to adjourn or prorogue the Parliament on the Monday next. That it was His Pleasure the Bills already past both Houses should be sent to him, and for the rest he would advise afterwards; and that the Business of Sir John Bennet be hastened.—The same Day the Lords order Sir John Bennet to be brought to the Bar on the Morrow Morning; and a Committee is appointed to consider of all Petitions unanswered, (except those that concern Sir John Bennet), and report to the House what Answers are fit to be made to them. (fn. 58) On the 30th of May the Committee make their Report of the Examinations they had taken, whereupon Sir John Bennet is brought to the Bar, charged by Serjeant Crewe, and several of the Examinations are read, and the further Hearing is adjourned to the next Day; on which Day (fn. 59) a Bill, that the Parliament shall not determine by the King's Royal Assent to some special Acts, is brought in and read a First and Second Time, committed, reported, and ordered to be engrossed.—The same Day Sir John Bennet is further charged, and other Examinations read, and being called upon to answer, (fn. 60) he desires a Copy of the Charge, and Time proportionable to the Accusations to answer the same;—whereupon Time is given him for that Purpose till the next Access of Parliament.— On the same Day the above mentioned Bill is read a Third Time. The Lord Treasurer reports the Conference had with the Commons concerning the Adjournment, and a Message is sent to the Commons desiring a free Conference on the Subject of the last Conference; also with the above mentioned Bill, for their Concurrence and Dispatch. (fn. 61) On the 31st of March the Lords lay down Rules to be observed in the Conference.—The Lords go to the Conference, Report of which is afterwards made, with the Reasons of the Commons for having an Adjournment without the Royal Assent; — whereupon it is moved, that the Judges do distinguish between the Adjournment of a Parliament by the King, and the Adjournment by the Houses; and Precedents to be searched. (fn. 62) On the 1st of June the Attorney General produces divers precedents, shewing that a Parliament being adjourned by the House, all Committees were of Force, and the Bills remain in statu quo; but that an Adjournment by Commission from the King, determines all Committees, and they cease till the next sitting of the Court, but the Bills are preserved in statu quo;—whereupon it is moved, that it be signified to the King, that the Lords humbly leave the Manner of Adjournment to His Majesty. The same Day it is ordered that the Lord Chief Justice do take certain Persons mentioned, as Bail for Sir John Bennet's Appearance at the next Access of Parliament. (fn. 63) On the 2d of June Sir William Birdis, by Order of the Lords, appointed Judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury till Sir John Bennet shall be acquitted of the Charges brought against him. (fn. 64) The same Day, the King being present, makes a Speech to the Lords, relative to the Adjournment of the Parliament, offering to enlarge the Time for the same for Ten Days, if the Lords think it will expedite the Bills then in the House; whereupon the Lords send a Message to the Commons, desiring a Conference: after which they thank the King for his gracious Offer, and beseech him to enlarge it to that Day Fortnight; which the King grants, so as it be understood to be a free Offer to His People to have an Adjournment or longer Time to pass Bills, and so to make a Session. (fn. 65) On the same Day post Meridiem, the Lord Treasurer reports the Conference with the Commons, and their Reasons for preferring an Adjournment, upon which a joint Committee of both Houses is appointed to thank the King, for giving them their Election of an Adjournment or Prorogation.— (fn. 66) On the same Day it is moved, that the Lords Followers may enjoy their Privileges during this Session, &c. and the Judges to consult and advise thereof. (fn. 67) On the 4th of June, the Archbishop of Canterbury reports the King's Answer to the Thanks of both Houses, and that His Majesty is pleased (according to the Election of the Commons) to adjourn the Parliament to November next. (fn. 68) The same Day Report is made from the Committee for Petitions, relative to such as are not answered, viz. No Suits to be stayed in Courts of Justice on that Account:—Decrees not to be reversed upon Petitions exhibited in Parliament without the hearing of Counsel in both Parts: Reviews to be made, if the Judges shall find Cause sufficient, otherwise to certify the House what further Course should be taken: — That the Clerk of the Parliament should attend the Judges with the Petitions as called for, and to present them to the House, together with the Resolutions of the Judges thereupon at the next Meeting.—Also on the same Day the Judges delivered their Opinions touching the Privileges of the House; that as heretofore, to their Knowledge, the House had not been adjourned for so long a Time, they could not satisfy their Lordships of any Precedents of the Continuance of their Privileges during all the Time of the long Cessation: whereupon the Lords resolve, that the Privileges of themselves, &c. do continue, notwithstanding the Adjournment. — (fn. 69) On the same Day, a Commission for adjourning the Parliament, and all Causes and Matters begun and not yet finished, to the 14th Day of November next, was delivered by the Prince, and read; and a Message was sent to the Commons with the said Commission, and also to let the Commons know, that His Majesty's Pleasure hath been signified, that all Committees, Matters, and Business of Parliament, shall rest in the State they now are, until the next Meeting.— (fn. 70) On the 14th of November, there is a like Commission for adjourning the Parliament, &c. (fn. 71) to the 20th of the same November;— on which Day the Parliament met; and a Note is entered of the Bail which the Lord Chief Justice took for Sir John Bennet's Appearance, according to the Order of the House, conditioned for his Appearance before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal at the next Sitting in this Parliament, and to give his Attendance there from Day to Day, and not to depart thence without Licence. Capt. et cognit. 5^o Die Junii 1621.

Also a Note is entered of the Bail taken for the Appearance of Alexander Harris, conditioned in like Manner, but without any Date added of the Caption. Also a Memorandum, of the Appearance of the said Sir John Bennet and Alexander Harris accordingly. (fn. 72) On the 27th of November, the Lords Committees for Petitions are ordered to consider all former Petitions, and those which shall be exhibited, (except the Petitions concerning Sir John Bennet.)— (fn. 73) On the 8th of December Sir John Bennet petitions to have his personal Attendance from Day to Day dispensed with; but the House being thin, the Petition is ordered to be presented again when the House is fuller.— (fn. 74) On the 17th of December his personal Appearance is excused on Account of Sickness; and it being signified that many Petitions were daily exhibited against him, it was ordered, that Notice be given to the Petitioners that the Time was too short to proceed against him upon the same, but the Lords resolve at the next Access to proceed against him with all Effect.— (fn. 75) On the 19th of December the Lords Commissioners, in a Commission for adjourning the Parliament, and all Business, Causes, and Matters begun in the same, to the 8th of February then next, adjourned the same accordingly, and sent a Message to the Commons with the Commission to acquaint them with the same.— (fn. 76) On the 8th of February the Parliament was dissolved by Commission. —No further Proceeding appears in the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XXII.

Lord Treasurer, Anno 22 Jac. I. Lords Journals, Vol. 3. P. 306.

"The Earl of Middlesex, Lord Treasurer, impeached by the Commons, 16th April 1624.—Trial proceeded in during several Days, and Judgement pronounced 13th May following.—All in the same Session.

Bishop of Norwich. 22 Jac. I.

"Upon a Message from the Commons, desiring a Conference touching some Accusations against the Bishop of Norwich, the Lords make Answer, (fn. 77) That so soon as they could conveniently appoint a Time for the same, (divers Lords being then absent), they would acquaint the Commons therewith; 8th of May 1624.— (fn. 78) On Friday the 14th of the same Month, the Bishop of Norwich reminds the House of the said Message, and requests the Lords to appoint a Time with what Expedition they conveniently may.— Whereupon they appoint a Committee to meet a Committee of the Lower House on the Wednesday next; on which Day, viz. 19th May, Report is made of the Conference, and of the Charge of the Commons against the said Bishop, and of the Records cited by them to shew it was ordinary for them to complain of the Governors of the Church.— (fn. 79) The Report being ended, the Bishop stood up in his Place, and answered the same.— (fn. 80) The same Day it was ordered, That in respect of the Streightness of Time, and Multiplicity of Businesses depending, the said Complaint of the Commons should be referred to the High Commission, and they to make Report to the House, and then the House would judge thereof. The same Day a Message was received from the Commons touching His Majesty's Intention to put an End to the Session on the Saturday next, and requesting the Lords to join with them in a Petition to His Majesty for a longer Time.— (fn. 81) Whereupon the House besought his Highness the Prince to move His Majesty for a longer Day, and acquaint the Commons by Message with the same.— (fn. 82) On Thursday the 20th of May the Prince signified, That His Majesty was content to prolong the Session to the Saturday Se'nnight, so as neither of the Two Houses would entertain any new Matter in the mean Time.— (fn. 83) And accordingly, on the said Saturday, 29th of May, the Parliament was Prorogued to the 2d of November, and from thence, by several subsequent Prorogations, till it was dissolved by the King's Death on the 27th March 1625.—No Report appears to have been made from the High Commission Court, nor any further Proceeding in Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o. XXIII.

Duke of Bucks Anno 2 Car I. 8th and 9th May 1626. Lords Journals, Vol. 3. P 589–90. Anno 4 Car. I. Lords Journals, Vol. 3. P. 738.

"The Duke of Buckingham is impeached by the Commons, 9th May 1626.—He puts in his Answer on the 8th of June following, and requests the House to expedite the Cause. On the 15th of the same Month the Parliament is dissolved.—No further Proceeding.

The Earl of Suffolk is complained of by Message from the Commons, 14th April 1628. He denies the Charge; whereupon the Messengers being called in, are acquainted with the same.— (fn. 84) On the 17th of April, the Commons renew their Complaint by Message, and send up certain Examinations which they had taken touching the said Complaint.—Whereupon it is answered, That the Lords resolve to take the Matter into Consideration, and to give an Answer in due Time.—On the 26th of June, the Parliament is Prorogued.—No further Proceeding appears.

Doctor Mainwaring 9th June 1628. Vol. 3. Lords Journals, P. 845.

"A Declaration of the Commons against Doctor Mainwaring was reported by the Lord Keeper, and the Doctor ordered to be sent for presently, and the Serjeant to keep him in Custody, 9th June 1628.— (fn. 85) On the 11th of June he was brought to the Bar, and charged.— (fn. 86) Put in his Answer on the 13th of June, and the next Day Judgement was pronounced against him.— (fn. 87) On the 21st of June he was brought to the Bar, and made his Submission (Part of his said Sentence), a Copy of which was sent to the Commons, with a Message, that the Doctor was sent to make the like Submission there.

" (fn. 88) On the 18th of April 1640, the Declaration of the Commons against the said Doctor Mainwaring, since made Bishop of St. David's, and likewise the Sentence of the House against him, was read, and committed to the Consideration of the Committee of Privileges.— (fn. 89) On the 21st of April, the Records were ordered to be brought on the Monday next, that the House might determine the Cause.—On the 28th of April, the Lord Keeper delivered a Message from His Majesty, acquainting them, that His Majesty had given Command that the said Doctor Mainwaring should not come and sit in Parliament, nor send any Proxy.— (fn. 90) Whereupon the same was ordered to be entered so. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XXIV.

"The following Impeachments were brought up in the Long Parliament; but, as by Stat. 16 Car. I. C. 7. intituled, "An Act to prevent Inconveniences by the untimely Adjournments of Parliaments," it was enacted, "That the same should not be dissolved, Adjourned, or Prorogued, but by Act of Parliament," your Committee think it unnecessary to particularize the several Stages of the said Impeachments.

Lords Journals.

William Drake.

"William Drake impeached by the Commons, and ordered to be apprehended, 6th December 1660.— (fn. 91) On the 12th of December he is brought to the Bar, examined, and confesses.—On the 19th of the same Month, the House, taking into Consideration the Impeachment brought up from the House of Commons, in the Name of all the Commons of England, against William Drake, Merchant and Citizen of London; the Lords declaring their great Detestation of the Crime, which is already condemned by an Act of Parliament; and their Lordships apprehending that they may not have Time before their Dissolution to proceed in Judicature against him;

"It is therefore ordered and declared, by the Lords in Parliament, That the King's Attorney General do, in His Majesty's Name, proceed against the said William Drake in the Court of King's Bench upon the said Offences, according to the ordinary Course of Law.— (fn. 92) The next Day, viz. 20th of December 1660, a Committee was appointed to examine him, touching the Authors and Contrivers of the said Book. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XXV.

Viscount Mordaunt. Lords Journals, Vol. 12. P. 56.

"Viscount Mordaunt, impeached by the Commons 3d January 1666, (fn. 93) On the 16th of January, the Commons, by Message, remind the Lords of the said Impeachment.—On (fn. 94) the 17th January, the Lord Viscount Mordaunt put in his Answer.— (fn. 95) On the 21st of January, upon a Message from the Commons to desire a Day may be appointed for the Trial, a Day was appointed accordingly.— (fn. 96) On the 26th of of January, the Commons appear at the Trial, and object to the Lord Mordaunt's sitting in the House and having Counsel, whereupon Precedents are ordered to be searched; and upon Report of the same on the 28th of January (fn. 97), it was agreed his Lordship should sit on a Stool near the Bar uncovered, and Counsel to be admitted; and the Commons coming again to the Bar were acquainted therewith.— (fn. 98) On the 31st of January, the Commons again object to the Posture and Place the Lord Mordaunt was to be in; but the Lords insisting on it, the Commons went back to their House.— (fn. 99) Several Conferences were then had; viz. on the 1st, 4th, 5th and 7th of February, at the last of which the Matter of Difference not being adjusted, the Commons resorted to their House for further Directions.— (fn. 100) The next Day, 8th of February, the Parliament was Prorogued to the 10th of October, but re-assembled by Proclamation on the 25th July.—No further Proceeding appears in this House.

"But by the Journals of the House of Commons it appears, that a new Petition and Articles of Impeachment were there exhibited, and read in the next Session of Parliament, viz. on the 25th of October 1667. Whereupon it was (fn. 101) "Resolved, &c. That a Committee be appointed to consider of the Petition and other Articles annexed; and to examine what new Matter is in this Petition and Articles which was not contained in the Articles and Petition formerly exhibited; and to state what that new Matter is, and what the Progress and Proceedings were in this Business in the former Session of Parliament, and to report it, with their Opinion, to the House; and all that come are to have Voices: and they are to meet To-morrow at Two of the Clock in the Afternoon, in the Exchequer Chamber; and to send for Persons, Papers, and Records."—Which Com mittee, by several Orders, made (fn. 102) on the 8th and 28th of November, and 7th, 12th, 13th December, was revived, and (fn. 103) on the 14th December, post Meridiem, empowered to examine Witnesses on the Behalf of the Lord Mordaunt, and all others concerned, before they made their Report; but the Committee do not appear to have made any Report. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XXVI.

Earl of Clarendon. Vol. 12. P. 135.

"Earl of Clarendon,—impeached by the Commons, 12th November 1667. He withdrawing, the Lords order in and pass a Bill of Attainder.—All in the same Session.

Sir William Penn. Lords Journals, Vol. 12. P. 220.

"On the 13th of April, a Message was delivered from the King, signifying his Intention to determine the Session on the 4th of May.—On the 24th of April the King sends another Message, that on Account of the important Business in Agitation, he intends only an Adjournment for Three Months (fn. 104) —On the same Day (fn. 105) the Commons, at a Conference, impeach Sir William Penn.— (fn. 106) On the 29th of April, Sir William Penn delivers his Answer, and a Copy is sent to the Commons. — (fn. 107) On the 5th of May, the Lords move the King to defer the Adjournment for a few Days (fn. 108), that they might assert their Privileges, which had been disputed by the Commons.— (fn. 109) On the 6th of May, the King's Answer is delivered, desiring, if possible, all their Business to be finished by Thursday next. — But if there should be a Necessity of the House sitting a Day or Two longer, for asserting the Privileges of the Peers, he will consent to it.— (fn. 110) On the 9th of May, the King being present, notifies to both Houses that he is willing they should adjourn to the 11th of August.—Accordingly, the same Day both Houses adjourn to the 11th of August.—On which Day, upon a Message from the King, they again adjourn to the 10th of November.—Again, upon a like Message, to the 1st of March;—on which Day the Parliament was Prorogued to the 19th of October next.—No further Proceeding appears. Vide Appendix, Class I. N^o XXVII.

Earl of Arundell and others. Anno 30 Car. II. 1678. Lords Journals, Vol. 13. P. 403.

"On the 5th of December 1678, the Earl of Arundell, Earl of Powys, Lord Bellasise, Lord Petre, and Viscount Stafford were impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason. — (fn. 111) On the 9th of December, a Motion, to remind the Commons, of bringing up Articles against the impeached Lords, in some convenient Time, was, upon the previous Question put, negatived. — (fn. 112) On the 28th of December, upon reading the Information of one Dugdale, relative to Lord Viscount Stafford, certain Lords were sent to examine his Lordship;—the same Day, post Meridiem (fn. 113), Report was made of the Examination, and that his Lordship desired a speedy Trial and a full House.—On the 30th of December, the King being present, expressed to both Houses the Unwillingness with which he was come to Prorogue them; and, amongst other Things, that he would prosecute the Discovery of the Plot, to find out the Instruments of it. — After which, the Parliament was prorogued to the 4th of February next.— (fn. 114) On the 24th of January following, the Parliament was dissolved, and a new Parliament summoned to meet on the 6th of March.

"On the 6th of March, the new Parliament being met, (fn. 115) after a Speech from His Majesty, touching the Causes for holding the said Parliament, he left the rest to the Lord Chancellor (fn. 116), who, amongst other Things, acquainted the House, "That His Majesty had refused the Petition of the Lords, who, during the Interval of Parliament, desired to be brought to their Trial, and after so long an Imprisonment might reasonably have expected it;—but His Majesty thought it fitter to reserve them for a more public Trial in Parliament: For which Cause, their Trial ought now to be hastened, that there might be some Period to their Imprisonment."— (fn. 117) On the 11th of March a Committee was appointed, to receive Information tending to the Discovery of the late Conspiracy, and to consider in what State the Impeachments brought up in the last Parliament now stand, and to report to the House.— (fn. 118) The next Day Report was made from the said Committee of the Proceedings had upon the said Impeachments in the last Parliament; whereupon it was referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider of the State of the said Impeachments, and all the Incidents relating thereto, and to report their Opinion to the House. (fn. 119) On the 13th of March the Parliament was Prorogued to Saturday next the 15th instant. — (fn. 120) On which Day, upon a Motion to consider whether the last Prorogation made a Session, the same was postponed to the Monday following, and the Judges ordered to be heard thereupon. — (fn. 121) On the 17th of March it was resolved, that it was a Session, in relation to the Acts of Judicature of this House, but not as to the Determination of Laws determinable upon the End of a Session of Parliament. — On the same Day it was referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider, whether Petitions of Appeal presented in the last Parliament are still in Force to be proceeded on, as also to consider of the State of the Impeachments brought up in the last Parliament, and the Incidents relating thereto, and to make Report thereof to the House.— (fn. 122) The next Day the Committee report that upon Perusal of the Judgement of the House of the 29th of March 1673, they are of Opinion that Writs of Error continue in statu quo as they stood at the Dissolution of the last Parliament, without beginning de novo. — And as concerning the State of Impeachments, are of Opinion, That the Dissolution of the last Parliament doth not alter the State of the Impeachments brought up by the Commons in that Parliament. Whereupon the said Report was ordered to be taken into Consideration on the Morrow.— (fn. 123) Accordingly, on the Morrow the said Report was taken into Consideration, and agreed to by the House.— (fn. 124) On the 24th of March, a Committee was appointed to examine the Lords in the Tower, touching a Pamphlet in French, and to make Report (fn. 125) the next Day.— (fn. 126) On the 7th of April, Articles were brought up against the Five Lords, and read, and the Committee of Privileges ordered to consider the Method of Proceeding to be had upon the Trials.— (fn. 127) On the 8th of April, the Lords were ordered to be brought to the Bar on the Morrow, and an Address made for the Appointment of a Lord High Steward. On the same Day, Counsel were ordered to be allowed them in Matters of Law; and the King's Answer (fn. 128), that he would appoint a Lord High Steward, was reported. — (fn. 129) On the 9th of April, the Lords being brought to the Bar and the Impeachments read, they had Time given them to the 15th April instant to answer, with further Time to answer any new Articles that might be brought against them.— (fn. 130) On the 15th of April, the Answer of Lord Bellasis was received, he being sick, and communicated to the Commons.— (fn. 131) On the Sixteenth of April the other Lords delivered their Answers, which were communicated to the Commons the same Day.— (fn. 132) On the 6th of May, a Message was brought from the Commons, that they were ready to make good their Articles, and thereupon the Trial was appointed for Tuesday the 13th May, and an Address made to His Majesty for a Lord High Steward. On the 7th, the King's Answer was reported, that He will appoint a Lord High Steward by Saturday next.— (fn. 133) On the 9th of May, all private Business was ordered to be put off till such Time as the Public Business relating to the Hearings and Trials of the Lords be dispatched.— (fn. 134) On the 12th of May, Report was made from a Committee of both Houses;—the Trial put off till further Order, and a Declaration made, that the Office of a High Steward upon Trials of Peers upon Impeachments is not necessary. — (fn. 135) On the 13th of May, upon a Report from the Committee of both Houses, proposing the Form of a Commission of Lord High Steward to be, pro hac vice, the same was agreed to by the House. — (fn. 136) On the 20th of May, the Trial was appointed for the 27th instant;— (fn. 137) and on the 22d instant, Notice thereof was sent to the Commons.— (fn. 138) On the 23d of May, the Lords Committees were instructed to let the Committee of the House of Commons know, that there being Difficulties in the Case of the Earl of Danby, that are not in the Case of the other Five Lords, they have resolved to proceed first to the Trial of them; and a Protest is entered thereupon.— (fn. 139) On the 26th of May, a Conference was had at the Desire of the Commons, and a long Report thereof made, touching the Disputes relative to the Impeachments, concluding, "that the Commons, when they should be adjusted, would be ready to proceed upon the Trial of the Pardon of the Earl of Danby, and afterwards to the Trial of the other Five Lords."— (fn. 140) On the next Day the King, on Account of the Differences between the Two Houses, Prorogued the Parliament to the 14th of Angust next: And on the 12th of July, it was dissolved by Proclamation, and a new Parliament summoned to meet on the 17th of October.—After several Prorogations of the same by Commission, from the said 17th of October 1679 to the 1st of October 1680, the new Parliament met, and sat on that Day, (fn. 141) when the King in his Speech recommends a speedy Trial of the Lords in the Tower.— (fn. 142) On the 12th of November, upon a Message from the Commons, That they would begin with the Viscount Stafford, and desiring a Day to be appointed for his Trial, the same was appointed for the 30th of November, and an Address to the King to appoint a High Steward to continue during the Trial.— (fn. 143) On the 30th of November, a Commission to the Lord Finch, Lord Chancellor, appointing him High Steward, pro hac vice, was read previous to the Adjournment of the House to Westminster Hall.— On the same Day, the Trial was proceeded in.— (fn. 144) On the 1st of December, Counsel were assigned his Lordship in Matter of Law, and the Trial further proceeded in. Also on the 2d and 3d of December. — (fn. 145) On the 4th of December, the Lord Stafford having summed up his Evidence, and the Commons having replied thereto, his Lordship desired his Counsel to be heard, amongst other Points of Law, to these;—Whether Proceedings ought to be continued from Parliament to Parliament upon Impeachments; and, Whether an Impeachment be to be prosecuted in Parliament without an Indictment found by a Grand Jury.—The same upon Consideration, was refused. (fn. 146) On the 7th of December, he was found Guilty, and Sentence pronounced the same Day.

"For the Remainder of the Proceedings with respect to the other Lords who were impeached at the same Time as Lord Stafford, Vide the Earl of Danby's Case, infra.

Earl of Danby. Anno 30 Car. II. 1678. Vol. 13. Lords Journals, P. 432–3.

"The Earl of Danby was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason; and Articles delivered, with a Desire from the Commons, That he might be committed; and a Question, Whether his Lordship should now withdraw, negatived, and dissent. (fn. 147) 23d December 1678.— (fn. 148) On the 27th of December, his Lordship was ordered to put in his Answer on or before the 3d of January next.— (fn. 149) On the 30th of December, the Parliament was Prorogued to the 4th of February next. Before which Day, viz. on the 24th of January, the Parliament was dissolved, and a new Parliament summoned to meet on the 6th of March; on which Day the said Parliament met.— (fn. 150) On the 20th of March following, Lord Danby was ordered to put in his Answer on or before the 27th instant.— (fn. 151) The next Day, the Commons, by Message, remind the Lords of the Impeachment against him, and desire he may be sequestrated.— (fn. 152) On the 22d of March, His Majesty came to the House, and made a short Speech relative to the said Earl; whereupon a Bill to incapacitate him from holding any Office, and sitting in the House of Peers, was ordered to be prepared, and communicated to the Commons at a Conference. On the same Day, the Commons, by Message, demand Justice, and again remind the Lords of the Impeachment against the Earl of Danby.— (fn. 153) On the 24th of March, a Bill to disable the said Earl, was read a First Time, and an Order made for him to be attached by the Black Rod.—The same Day, the Commons, by Message, again demand Justice, That the Earl of Danby may be sequestered from Parliament and committed: To which it was answered; That it was so done before the last Message came. — (fn. 154) On the 25th of March, the Black Rod reports, That the said Earl is not to be found. —The same is communicated to the Commons.— Divers Proceedings are afterwards had upon the said Bill, which is read a Third Time, and passed on the 26th of March.— (fn. 155) On the 1st of April, a Bill to attaint the Earl of Danby is brought from the Commons, upon which divers Proceedings are afterwards had; and, being agreed to by the Lords (fn. 156), it was ordered, that His Majesty should be requested to appoint a short Time for the same to be tendered for the Royal Assent.—On the 15th of April, His Majesty's Answer, appointing the Morrow for that Purpose, was reported.— (fn. 157) On the Morrow, 16th of April, the Earl of Danby having surrendered himself, was brought to the Bar, allowed a Copy of the Articles, and Time to answer to the First Day of the Sitting of the House after Easter, and was committed.— (fn. 158) On the 25th of April, the Earl of Danby being brought to the Bar, delivered his Plea and Answer, which was communicated by Message to the Commons.— (fn. 159) On the 5th of May, the Earl of Danby having determined to abide by his Plea, the Commons come up with their Speaker, and demand Judgement. Whereupon it is ordered, that the said Demand be taken into Consideration on the Morrow.— (fn. 160) On the 6th of May, it is ordered that Saturday next be appointed for hearing the Earl of Danby make good his Plea—After several Conferences had between the Two Houses, upon the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 26th of (fn. 161) May, touching the said Earl of Danby, and also the other Lords then in the Tower, vide supra, the Parliament was Prorogued, on the 27th of May, to the 14th of August next (fn. 162).

"On the 12th of July, the Parliament was dissolved by Proclamation, and a new Parliament summoned to meet on the 17th of October:—After several Prorogations of the same, by Commission, from the said 17th of October 1679 to the 1st of October 1680, the new Parliament met and sat on that Day.— (fn. 163) On the 10th of January 1680, the Parliament was Prorogued to the 20th of the same Month, and on the 18th of January dissolved, and a new Parliament summoned to meet on the 21st of March following, when it met and sat.— (fn. 164) On Thursday the 24th of March following, the Earl of Danby petitioned to be bailed; —whereupon the Debate of the same was put off to Monday next.—On which Day, viz. the 28th of March, the Parliament was dissolved, and Nothing was done in the said Petition.

Anno 1 Jac. II. Vol. 4. Rolls of Parliament, P. 7 & 8.

"On the 19th of May 1685, a new Parliament met; and, on the same Day, the House being acquainted that the Earl of Powis, Earl of Danby, the Lord Arundell, and the Lord Bellasis, had entered into Recognizances to appear before the House on the First Day of the next Parliament, being this Day, and were attending accordingly; they were called to the Bar, made their personal Appearance, and being withdrawn, Petitions were presented from them to be discharged; and thereupon their Appearance was ordered to be recorded, and they to attend until the House, upon their several Cases, should take further Order.

" (fn. 165) On the 22d of May, upon Consideration of the Cases contained in the Petitions of the said Lords, upon a Question proposed, whether the Order of the 19th of March 1678-9 shall be reversed and annulled as to Impeachments, upon the previous Question put, it was resolved in the Affirmative; and then the main Question being put, the same was resolved in the Affirmative; and a Protest entered thereupon.— (fn. 166) On the 25th of May an Order was made for the Attorney General to have Recourse to the Indictments against the impeached Lords, to enter a noli prosequi thereupon, and for the Bail given in the Court of King's Bench for the Appearance of the said Lords to be discharged.— (fn. 167) On the 1st of June 1685, the said Lords and all Persons, Peers or others, who were Bail for the said Lords, were ordered to be discharged.

Edward Seymour. Anno 32 Car. II. 21st Dec. 1680. Lords Journals, Vol. 13. P. 724–5.

"On Tuesday the 21st of December 1680, Edward Seymour Esquire was impeached by Message from the Commons. Articles were delivered and read, and he was brought to the Bar, and ordered a Copy of the Articles, and to put in his Answer on the Thursday following, he himself desiring no longer Time. — (fn. 168) Accordingly, on Thursday the 23d December, he put in his Answer, which was read whilst he was at the Bar, and being asked if he would abide by it, he answered in the Affirmative. The same Day, a Copy of it was sent to the Commons, and the House adjourned to the 3d of January next, (fn. 169) on which Day he petitioned to have a speedy Time appointed for his Trial; whereupon a Message was sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith; and that the Lords finding no Issue joined by Replication of the House of Commons, think fit to give them Notice thereof.— (fn. 170) On the 8th of January the Lords appoint the Trial for Saturday the 15th instant, and a Message is sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and that they may reply if they think fit.— (fn. 171) On the 10th of January the King is present, and Prorogues the Parliament to the 20th instant, before which Day, viz. on the 18th of the same Month, it is dissolved.— No further Proceeding.

Sir William Scroggs. Anno 32 Car. II. 1680. Vol. 13. Lords Journals, P. 736–8–9.

"On the 7th of January 1680, Sir William Scroggs, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason, and other High Crimes; Articles were delivered and read, the Lord Chief Justice being present, and a Question for his Commitment negatived, and Dissent thereupon;—after which he was bailed, conditioned to attend upon the Court from Time to Time till discharged of the said Impeachment. Then a Question for an Address to suspend him from his Office till the Trial was over was negatived, and Dissent thereupon. —The same Day he was ordered a Copy of the Articles, and to put in his Answer on Friday the 14th instant;—before which Friday, viz. (fn. 172) on Tuesday the 10th of January, the Parliament was Prorogued to the 20th of January, and on the 18th of the same Month dissolved.

Anno 33 Car. II. 1680. Ibid. P. 752.

"On the 21st of March 1680, a new Parliament met, and on the 24th of March, Sir William Scroggs put in his Answer, which was read; also a Petition, desiring a short Day might be appointed for the Commons to reply.—The same Day, Copies of his said Answer and Petition were sent to the Commons.— (fn. 173) On the 28th of March, the Parliament was dissolved. —No further Proceeding.

Earl of Tyrone. Anno 32 Car. II. 1680. Vol. 3. Lords Journals, P. 739.

"On the 7th of January 1680, the Earl of Tyrone was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason.—On the 10th of January the Parliament was prorogued to the 20th instant, before which Day, viz. on the 18th of the same Month, it was dissolved.—A new Parliament met on the 21st March 1680, Anno 33 Car. II. which was dissolved on the 28th of the same Month.

Anno 1 Jac. II. Vol. 14. Lords Journals, P. 8.

"On the 19th of May, Anno 1 Jac. II. 1685, the House being informed that the Earl of Tyrone was attending, according to the Condition of a Recognizance taken in the King's Bench for his Appearance before the House this Day, he was called in, and his Appearance recorded, and he was ordered to attend the House till they should further consider his Case.— (fn. 174) On the 22d of May the Order of the 22d of May 1678-9, was reversed and annulled as to Impeachments, and Dissent thereupon.—On the 1st of June 1685, the Earl of Tyrone, and all Persons who were Bail for him, were ordered to be discharged.

Ed. Fitzharris. Anno 33 Car. II. 1680. Lords Journals, Vol. 13. P. 755.

"On the 26th of March 1680, Ed. Fitzharris was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason, and the Lords acquainted, that Articles would be exhibited in convenient Time.

"Upon which, Mr. Attorney General gave the House an Account of the Examinations taken against Edward Fitzharris; and said, "He had an Order of the King's dated the 9th of March instant, to prosecute the said Fitzharris at Law; and accordingly he hath prepared an Indictment against him at Law."—And after long Debate the Question was put, "Whether Edward Fitzharris shall be proceeded with according to the Course of the Common Law, and not by Way of Impeachment, at this Time."—

"It was resolved in the Affirmative. And a Protest was entered thereupon.

Sir Adam Blair and others Anno 1 Will. & Mar. 1689. Vol. 14. Lords Journals, P. 254.

"On the 26th of June 1689, Sir Adam Blair, Henry Vaughan, Frederick Mole, John Elliott, and Robert Gray, were impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason, and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors; and Articles were delivered at the same Time.— (fn. 175) On the 27th of June, the said Articles were read, and the Consideration thereof appointed for the Saturday following, and the Judges to attend.— (fn. 176) On which Day the said Impeachment was again read, and a Committee appointed to search for Precedents, and to make Report on Tuesday next;—on which Day, viz. 2d July, a long Report of Precedents was made, and a Question put to the Judges, whether the Record 4 Edward III. N^o 6. mentioned in the said Report, was a Statute; who answering "that as it appeared to them by the Copy, they believed it to be a Statute; but if they saw the Roll itself, they could be more positive:" A further Question was proposed to be put to them, Whether the Lords, by this Statute, be barred from trying a Commoner upon an Impeachment of the Commons; and the previous Question being put, Whether that Question shall be put to the Judges, it was resolved in the Negative.— Whereupon it was resolved to proceed upon the Impeachment against the said Sir Adam Blair, &c. upon which a Protest was entered.— (fn. 177) On the 12th of July, Vaughan, Mole, and Elliott put in their Answer, and were remanded to Newgate.— (fn. 178) On the 22d of July, Sir Adam Blair and Doctor Gray put in their Answer, and were in like Manner remanded to Prison, and Copies of their Answers communicated by Message to the Commons.— (fn. 179) On the 20th of August, the King being present, the Speaker notified His Majesty's Pleasure, that both Houses should adjourn themselves to the 20th of September, which they accordingly did;—and on that Day, upon a Message from His Majesty, they again adjourned to the 19th of October.—On Monday the (fn. 180) 21st of October, the King being present, the Parliament was prorogued to Wednesday next the 23d instant; (fn. 181) on which Day the King being again present, shortly referred to what he had spoken in His last Speech, and desired the Two Houses to take the same into their Consideration.— (fn. 182) On the 27th of January 1689, the Parliament was prorogued to the 2d of April next, and before which Day, viz. on the 6th of February 1689, it was dissolved; and a new Parliament summoned to meet on the 20th of March 1689-90, (fn. 183) which met accordingly on the said Day.— (fn. 184) On the 31st of the same Month, viz. March 1690, a Petition of Sir Adam Blair to be bailed was read and referred to the Committee of Privileges.— (fn. 185) On the 5th of April the Question being put, Whether Sir Adam Blair shall be admitted to bail, it was resolved in the Affirmative. Then it was ordered, That on Wednesday next this House will take into Consideration, Whether Impeachments continue from Parliament to Parliament.—Then an Order was made for Sir Adam Blair to be brought to the Bar on Monday next to be bailed.— (fn. 186) On which Day, viz. 7th April, he was accordingly bailed, conditioned to appear before the House at all Times when so ordered, upon an Order left at his House. The same Day Doctor Gray was, upon his Petition to be bailed, ordered to be brought up to the Bar on the Morrow;— (fn. 187) and being brought accordingly, was bailed upon the like Condition.—The same Day, viz. 8th of April, (fn. 188) it was ordered, That on Thursday next this House will take into Consideration, Whether Impeachments continue in statu quo from Parliament to Parliament; and also, Whether the Courts in Westminster Hall may proceed in the Intervals of Parliament after Appeals or Writs of Error are depending in this House.—On the same Day, Orders were made, upon the several Petitions of Henry Vaughan, Frederick Mole, and Doctor Elliott, to be bailed, for them to be brought to the Bar on the Morrow;— (fn. 189) and being brought accordingly, they were bailed upon the like Condition; and thereupon ordered to be discharged from their Imprisonment in Newgate— (fn. 190) On the 10th of April 1690, it was ordered, That on Tuesday next this House will take into Consideration the State of Impeachments, Whether they continue in statu quo from Parliament to Parliament; and also the Report made from the Lords Committees appointed to examine and consider, Whether the Courts below may proceed in the Intervals of Parliaments after Appeals or Writs of Error are depending in this House.— (fn. 191) On the 23d of May 1690, the King being present, gave the Royal Assent to an Act for a general and free Pardon; and, after a short Speech from His Majesty, signifying his Pleasure to have an Adjournment of the Parliament, both Houses adjourned themselves to the 7th of July following.— On which Day, the Parliament was prorogued by Commission from the Queen, appointed Regent by Statute in the King's Absence, to the 28th of the same Month; from thence to the 18th of August, and from thence, by a like Commission, to the 8th of September 1690; (fn. 192) on which Day, in respect the King was returned, and expected at the House on the Wednesday next, the House adjourned itself to the 12th of the same Month. On the 12th of September it was again prorogued by Commission to the 2d of October, on which Day it met and sat.— (fn. 193) On the 2d of December 1690, upon reading the Petition of Sir Adam Blaire, stating that he, according to his Recognizance, had attended the Pleasure of this House ever since the Order of the 7th of April last admitting him to Bail, and praying to be discharged and his Bail, the same was ordered accordingly—. (fn. 194) The next Day, upon the Petition of Captain Mole to be discharged, the like Order was made; — also a like Order upon the Petitions of Doctor Elliot, Henry Vaughan, and Robert Gray, on the 5th of December 1690 (fn. 195).

Earl of Peter-borough and Earl of Salisbury. Anno 1 Will. & Mar. 1689. Lords Journals, Vol. 14. P. 326–7.

"On the 26th of October 1689, the Earls of Peterborough and Salisbury were impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason, in departing from their Allegiance, and being reconciled to the Church of Rome, and the House acquainted, that they would send further Articles against the said Earls in convenient Time, and desiring they might be committed.—Whereupon the Earl of Peterborough was ordered to be attached, and, being brought to the Bar, was informed of the said Impeachment, and committed to the Tower; and the Earl of Salisbury being already in the Tower, an Order was made for His Lordship to be brought to the Bar on Monday next, and a Message was sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.—On the 28th of October, the Earl of Salisbury was brought to the Bar, and being informed of the Impeachment against him, was remanded to the Tower.— (fn. 196) On the 27th of January 1689, the Parliament was prorogued to the 2d of April next; before which Day, viz. on the 6th of February 1689, it was dissolved, and a new Parliament summoned to meet on the 20th of March 1689-90, which accordingly met on the said Day, and continued sitting to the 23d of May following, 1690; when the King being present, gave the Royal Assent to an Act for a General and Free Pardon (fn. 197). (fn. 198) —The same Day, both Houses adjourned themselves to the 7th of July following, and from thence the Parliament was prorogued by Commission from Time to Time to the 2d of October 1690; on which Day it met and sat.— (fn. 199) The same Day, upon reading the Petition of the Earl of Peterborough, shewing, "That he had been a Prisoner near Two Years, notwithstanding a Dissolution, and several Prorogations of Parliament, and also an Act of General Pardon, and praying to be discharged," the Judges were ordered to attend on Monday next to give their Opinion, whether the Earl of Peterborough be pardoned by the Act of general Pardon.—Also, upon reading the Petition of the Earl of Salisbury, "shewing that he had been a Prisoner for a Year and Nine Months, notwithstanding the late Act of General Pardon, and praying to be discharged," a like Order was made for the Judges to give their Opinion in His Lordship's Case. (fn. 200) On Monday the 6th of October, the Judges delivered their Opinions, That if their Crimes were committed before the 13th of February 1688, and not in Ireland nor beyond Sea, they are pardoned by the Act."—Then, upon the Question being put, Whether the said Earls should be now discharged of their Imprisonment, the same was resolved in the Negative. Then, upon the Question being put, whether the said Earls should be admitted to bail, the same was resolved in the Affirmative; whereupon an Order was made for the said Earls to be brought to the Bar on the Morrow to be bailed. (fn. 201) The same Day, a Committee was appointed to inspect and consider Precedents, whether Impeachments continue in statu quo from Parliament to Parliament, and to report their Opinion to the House. (fn. 202) On the 7th of October, the said Earls being brought to the Bar, were informed by the Speaker, "That the House had considered of their Petitions, and did not think sit to release them, but do admit them to bail," whereupon they and their Bail entered into Recognizances, conditioned to appear before the House at all Times when they shall be so ordered, or upon an Order left for them for that Purpose; and then the said Earls were ordered to be discharged from their Imprisonment.— (fn. 203) On the 9th of October, the Committee was empowered to send for the Records of the King's Bench relative to the Lords lately in the Tower, upon their Motions for Habeas Corpus.— (fn. 204) On Tuesday the 23d of October the Report being ready, the same was ordered to be made on the Tuesday next;—on which Day, (fn. 205) viz. the 30th of October 1690, a long Report of Precedents was made; after Consideration of which Precedents, and others mentioned in the Debate, and reading the Orders made the 19th March 1678-9, and 22d May 1685, concerning Impeachments; and after long Debate thereupon, and several Things moved, the Question was proposed, Whether the said Earls should now be discharged from their Bails? and the previous Question being put thereupon, and also resolved in the Affirmative, the main Question was put, and resolved in the Affirmative, and a Protest was entered thereupon.—The same Day, the said Earls and their Bail were severally discharged from their Recognizances, (fn. 206) On the 12th of November, upon Motion for a Day to be appointed for the Explanation of the Votes made the 30th of October, for discharging the Earl of Salisbury and the Earl of Peterborough, the same was ordered to be taken into Consideration on Tuesday next, and all the Lords to be summoned.—No Entry appears of the said Order being afterwards discharged, nor of its being read on the said Tuesday, nor any Renewal of the said Motion.

Duke of Leeds. Anno 7 Will. III. 1695. Lords Journals, Vol. 15. P. 580.

"On the 27th of April 1695, the Duke of Leeds was impeached of High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Message from the Commons, adding, That they would exhibit particular Articles in due Time, and make good the same.— (fn. 207) On Monday the 29th of April, Articles were brought up, and a Committee was appointed to inspect the Journals in Cases of Impeachments for Misdemeanors, and to report to the House on the Morrow.— (fn. 208) Report was accordingly made on the Morrow.— (fn. 209) The same Day the Duke of Leeds presented his Answer, "That he is not guilty of all or any of the Matters by the said Articles charged, in Manner and Form as the same are charged." Whereupon, a Copy of the said Articles was ordered to be sent to the Commons. (fn. 210) On the next Day, viz. 1st of May, a Message was sent to the Commons to put them in mind of the Impeachment, the Session being likely to be short, that a Day might be appointed when they were ready to make good the same. — (fn. 211) On the 3d of May a Conference was had at the Desire of the Commons, on Occasion of the above Message of the Lords, and, upon Report, an Address was made for a Proclamation to secure one Robart, a Witness, stated by the Commons to be material, and to have withdrawn himself.—On the same Day the Parliament was prorogued to the 18th of June next; from thence, by several Prorogations, to the 30th of October; before which Day, viz. on the 11th of October 1695, the Parliament was dissolved.

" (fn. 212) On the 24th of June 1701, the House taking into Consideration that there were several Lords charged and impeached by the Commons, and no Prosecution against them ordered, proceed to dismiss the same, and amongst the rest, the above Impeachment as follows.—"The House of Commons having impeached Thomas Duke of Leeds of High Crimes and Misdemeanors on the 27th of April 1695, and on the 29th of April exhibited Articles against him, to which he answered, but the Commons not prosecuting; —It is ordered, That the said Impeachment, and the Articles exhibited against him, shall be, and they are hereby dismissed."

Goudet and others. Anno 10 Will. III. 1698 Lords Journals, Vol. 16. P. 280.

"On the 10th of May 1698, the Commons, by Message, impeach John Goudet, David Barreau, Peter Longueville, Stephen Seignoret, Rene Bardovin, (fn. 213) Nicholas Santini, and Peter Dihearse, of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.— (fn. 214) And on the 11th of May, the Commons, by Message, impeach John Pearce also of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.— (fn. 215) On the 17th of May, Articles are brought up against the said several Persons, which are read the next Day. (fn. 216) On the 20th and 23d of May, they are severally bailed, upon Condition to appear personally before the Lords in Parliament from Day to Day, till further Order.—On Tuesday the 28th Day of June their Trial was appointed for Monday next.—On the 29th of June they all, except Longueville, withdrew the Pleas and the Answers they had put in, and pleaded guilty.— (fn. 217) On the 30th of June, John Dumaistre, who, together with John Aurioll, had also been impeached, by Message from the Commons, on the 28th of May (fn. 218), put in his Answer and pleaded guilty: And the same being communicated to the Commons, they, by Message to the Lords, desired to be informed what had been done in relation to John Aurioll; whereupon they were acquainted that the said John had been searched for, but was gone to Holland Five Weeks before.— (fn. 219) On the 2d of July, the Lords acquainted the Commons, by Message, that it will not be possible for the Lords to be ready for the Trial of Longueville upon Monday next.— (fn. 220) On the 4th of July, Judgement of Fine, and Imprisonment till the said Fines were paid, was passed upon John Goudet, David Barreau, Stephen Seignoret, Rene Baudowin (fn. 221), Nicholas Santini, Peter Dihearse, John Dumaistre, and John Pearce, who was also to be imprisoned a Year after his Fine was paid.—On the 5th of July the Parliament was prorogued to the 2d of August next;—before which Day, viz. on the 7th of July 1698, the same was dissolved.—No further Proceedings appears against Longueville.

Earl of Portland and others. Anno 13 Will. III. 1701. Vol. 16 Lords Journals, P. 641.

"On the 1st of April 1701, the Earl of Portland was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and the House acquainted that Articles would be exhibited against him in due Time.— (fn. 222) On the 15th of April the Lord Sommers, the Earl of Orford, and the Lord Halifax, were, by like Message from the Commons, also impeached of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.— (fn. 223) On the 5th of May, a Committee was appointed to draw up a Message to be sent to the Commons, to put them in mind of the said Impeachments; and upon Report by the Lord Steward, a Message was sent to the Commons, acquainting them, that the Lords thought themselves obliged to put them in mind that, as yet, no particular Articles have been exhibited against the said Lords; which, after Impeachments have been so long depending, is due, in Justice, to the Persons concerned, and agreeable to the Methods of Parliament in such Cases.— (fn. 224) On the 9th of May, Articles were brought up against the Earl of Orford, with Requisition that he might give Security to abide the Judgement of the House of Lords; whereupon, a Committee was appointed to consider of the Manner of the Commons delivering Articles and demanding Security.—The same Day, the Articles were read; (fn. 225) and on the Request of the Earl of Orford to have a Copy of them, and that he would put in his Answer in as short a Time as the House should think fit, it was ordered that he should have a Copy of them. The same Day, a Message was sent to the Commons, that the Lords do not find any Precedent of Security given to abide the Judgement of this House by any Peer upon an Impeachment for High Crimes, &c.— (fn. 226) On the 14th of May, the Earl of Orford delivered his Answer, and the same being read, a (fn. 227) Copy thereof was ordered to be made; and (fn. 228) on the Morrow, the same was, by Message, sent to the Commons; also a Message, to remind them of the Impeachments against the Earl of Portland, the Lord Sommers, and the Lord Halifax, in the Terms of the Message of the 5th of May; to which the Commons on the same Day make Answer, that the Articles are preparing, and will shortly be sent up. (fn. 229) On the 19th of May, Articles were brought up against the Lord Sommers, with Requisition that he might give Security to abide the Judgement of the House, and the same being read, (fn. 230) upon the Request of the Lord Sommers, it was ordered that he should have a Copy of them.— (fn. 231) The next Day, the Earl of Orford desiring that a Day might be appointed for his Trial, the Committee appointed to consider of the Manner of delivering Articles of Impeachments was revived, to inspect the Books;—and upon Report made the same Day of several Precedents, a Message was sent to the Commons, to acquaint them of the Earl of Orford's desire to have a speedy Trial; and that the Lords finding no Issue joined by Replication of the Commons, think fit to give them Notice thereof;—also a Message to remind them of the Impeachments against the Earl of Portland, and against the Lord Halifax, in the Terms of the former Messages of the 5th and 14th instant.— (fn. 232) On the 24th of May, the Lord Sommers delivered his Answer, and the same being read, a Message was sent to the Commons with a Copy thereof.— (fn. 233) On the 30th of May, the Trial of the Earl of Orford was appointed for Monday the 9th of June, in Westminster Hall; and a Message was sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and that the Commons may reply if they think fit. The same Day, an Address to His Majesty, to order a Place to be prepared for the Trial, was agreed to; and the former Message to the Commons, to remind them of the Impeachment against the Earl of Portland and the Lord Halifax, was repeated.— (fn. 234) On the 31st of May, a Message was brought from the Commons, that they will, for the present, defer bringing up the Replication to the Earl of Orford's Answer, proposing to begin with the Trial of Lord Sommers; and that the Message of the Lords relative to the Commons not having yet exhibited Articles against the Earl of Portland and Lord Halifax, was unparliamentary.— (fn. 235) Hereupon several Messages passed between the Two Houses, and other Proceedings were had on the 2d, 3d, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th of June; on which Day, (fn. 236) the Lords appointed Friday the 13th instant for the Trial of the Lord Sommers in Westminster Hall, and the same was communicated to the Commons by Message.— (fn. 237) After several other Messages between the Two Houses, and Conferences had concerning the Matters in Difference between them, the Lords, on the (fn. 238) 12th of June, acquaint the Commons, that they have appointed Tuesday the 17th instant for the Trial of Lord Sommers in Westminster Hall.— (fn. 239) On the 13th the Commons, by Message, communicate a Resolution to the Lords, charging Lord Haversham with Words spoken by him at a free Conference, and desiring the Lords to proceed in Justice against him.— (fn. 240) On the 14th of June, Articles were brought up against the Lord Halifax, with Requisition that he should give Security to abide the Judgement of the House: (fn. 241) and the same being read, the Lord Halifax was ordered to have a Copy of them.— (fn. 242) On the same Day, upon the Motion of Lord Haversham for a Copy of the Charge against him, the same was ordered; and a Message was brought from the Commons, desiring Justice may be done on the Lord Haversham before they renewed their Conference.— (fn. 243) On the 16th of June, a Message was sent to the Commons, with Notes and Rules to be observed at the Trial of Lord Sommers on the 17th instant.— (fn. 244) The same Day Lord Halifax delivered his Answer, and a Copy of it was sent to the Commons, and to remind them of the Impeachment against the Earl of Portland.— (fn. 245) On the 17th of June, a Message was brought from the Commons, concluding with some Reasons why they peremptorily refuse to proceed to the Trial of Lord Sommers on the 17th of June.— (fn. 246) The same Day, it was resolved to proceed on the Trial of the Lord Sommers; and a Protest was entered thereupon: After which, a Message was sent to the Commons, to acquaint them that the Lords intend presently to proceed to the Trial of Lord Sommers; and the Messenger being returned, and acquainting the House that the Commons were adjourned, the House adjourned to Westminster Hall; and being returned, a Question of Acquittal of the Lord Sommers, and that the Impeachment be dismissed, was agreed to be put in the Court below, and a Protest entered (fn. 247) — Whereupon the House again adjourned to Westminster Hall; and the Majority of the Lords being for his Lordship's Acquittal, the same was declared by the Lord Keeper there; and the House being returned, it was ordered, that the Lord Sommers be acquitted, and the Impeachment dismissed.

" (fn. 248) The next Day, the Trial of the Earl of Orford was appointed for Monday the 23d instant; and Notice sent to the Commons.— (fn. 249) The same Day, the Lord Haversham delivered his Answer, and a Copy of it was sent to the Commons.— (fn. 250) On the 20th of June, the Commons, by Message, acquaint the Lords, they are ready to go to the Trial of Lord Sommers as soon as they have received Satisfaction for the Affront offered by the Lord Haversham.— (fn. 251) Upon which the Lords acquaint them, by Message, That they acquitted Lord Sommers on Tuesday last, the Day appointed for the Trial, and that they have appointed Monday next for the Trial of the Earl of Orford.— (fn. 252) On the 21st of June the Lords resolve, That if the Commons do not prosecute the Charge against the Lord Haversham before the End of this Session of Parliament, they will declare him innocent; and a Protest thereupon.— (fn. 253) On the 23d of June, the House adjourned to Westminster Hall, for the Trial of the Earl of Orford, and the Commons not appearing, His Lordship was acquitted by a Majority of Votes; and, the House being returned, it was ordered, That the Earl of Orford be acquitted, and the Impeachment dismissed.— (fn. 254) On the 20th of June, the House taking into Consideration that there are several Lords charged and impeached by the Commons, and no Prosecution against them ordered, viz. the Charge against the Lord Haversham on the 13th instant; the Impeachment against the Earl of Portland of the 1st of April last, and no Articles exhibited; the Impeachment against the Lord Halifax of the 15th of April last, to which he has answered, and no further Prosecution; the Impeachment against the Duke of Leeds on the 29th of April 1695, to which he answered, but the Commons not prosecuting, the same were severally dismissed.

Doctor Sacheverell. Anno 8 Ann. 1709. Lords Journals, Vol. 19. P. 21.

"On the 15th of December Dr. Sacheverell was impeached by Message from the Commons, of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.— (fn. 255) On the 12th of January following, Articles were delivered, and Doctor Sacheverell ordered to put in his Answer on the 18th inst.— (fn. 256) On the 14th of January, he was bailed, conditioned to appear personally before the Lords in Parliament from Day to Day till further Order of the House.— (fn. 257) On the 25th of January, he delivered his Answer at the Bar, which was sent by Message to the Commons, and returned (fn. 258) with the Replication of the Commons on the 3d of February following. On the 27th of February, the Trial began, and on the 23d of March following, Judgement was pronounced. All in the same Parliament.

Earl of Oxford. Anno 1 Geo. I. 1715. Lords Journals, Vol. 20. P. 99.

"On the 9th of July 1715, the Earl of Oxford was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors, with a Requisition that he should be sequestered from Parliament, and forthwith committed to safe Custody; and Articles were delivered. (fn. 259) On the 12th of July, the Earl of Oxford was brought to the Bar, allowed Four Weeks Time to answer, and was committed to the Tower.— (fn. 260) On the 2d of August, further Articles were delivered.— (fn. 261) On the 3d of August, the Earl of Oxford was ordered a Copy of the said additional Articles, and allowed a Fortnight further Time to answer the same.— (fn. 262) On the 3d of September, His Lordship's Answer was delivered.— (fn. 263) On the 20th of September, the Replication of the Commons was brought up, and an Address made for a Scaffold to be prepared in Westminster Hall for the Trial:—On the 21st of September, the King's Answer, that he would give Directions accordingly, was reported, and the same was communicated to the Commons.— (fn. 264) On the same Day, the King being present, the Lord Chancellor notified His Majesty's Pleasure, that both Houses should adjourn themselves to the 6th of October next, which they accordingly did; and so in like Manner from Time to Time till the 9th January 1715, when they met and sat. —On the 26th of June 1716, the Parliament was prorogued to the 7th of August, and from thence, by several other Prorogations, to the 20th February 1716, and then met and sat.— (fn. 265) On the 22d of May 1717, the Earl of Oxford petitioned to have his Case considered, whereupon a Committee was appointed to search and report Precedents; and, in the first Place, such Precedents as relate to the Continuance of Impeachment from Session to Session, or from Parliament to Parliament.— (fn. 266) On the 25th of May, a long Report of Precedents was made, and, the same being read, it was proposed to resolve, That the Impeachment against the Earl of Oxford is determined by the intervening Prorogation; and, upon the Question put, it was resolved in the Negative, and a Protest thereupon.— (fn. 267) On the 24th of June following, the Trial of the Earl of Oxford began; when, the Lords coming to a Resolution, that the Commons be not admitted to proceed in order to make good the Articles against the said Earl for High Crimes and Misdemeanors till Judgement be given on the Articles for High Treason, (fn. 268) upon the Request of the Commons not to proceed on the Trial at the Time appointed, the same was put off to Thursday next.— (fn. 269) On the 28th of June, the Trial was again put off to the Morrow.— (fn. 270) On which Day, the Commons desiring a free Conference, the same was denied; and they were acquainted, That the Lords would proceed on the Trial on Monday next. — (fn. 271) On which Day a Messenger was sent to the Commons, to acquaint them, That the House intended presently to proceed on the Trial of the Earl of Oxford; and the House agreed on the Method of Proceeding, if the Commons should not appear at the Trial. Then the House adjourned into Westminster Hall; and the Commons not appearing, the Lords returned back; and having agreed upon a Question of Acquittal, went again into Westminster Hall, and unanimously voted His Lordship acquitted, and that the Impeachment be dismissed; and, being again returned to the House, the same was ordered accordingly.

Viscount Bolingbroke. Anno 2 Geo. I. 1715. Vol. 20. P. 149.

"On the 6th of August 1715, the Viscount Bolingbroke was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason and other High Crimes, with a Requisition that he might be sequestered from Parliament, and committed; whereupon he was ordered to be attached, and the Commons were acquainted with it by Message.— (fn. 272) On the 9th of August the Black Rod acquainted the House, that the Viscount was not to be found. The same was communicated to the Commons. (fn. 273) On the 15th of August, a Bill "to attaint the said Viscount of High Treason, unless he shall render himself by a Day therein mentioned," was brought from the Commons, and passed on the 18th of the same Month; (fn. 274) and a Protestation thereupon.

Duke of Ormond. Anno 2 Geo. I. 1715. Vol. 20. P. 155.

"On the 8th of August 1715, the Duke of Ormond was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors, with a Requisition that he might be sequestered from Parliament and committed; and Articles were delivered, upon which he was ordered to be attached; and the said Order was communicated to the Commons by Message.— (fn. 275) On the 10th of August, the Black Rod returns, that the said Duke cannot be found: and a Message is sent to the Commons to acquaint them with the same. (fn. 276) On the 16th of August, a Bill "to attaint the Duke of High Treason, unless he shall render himself by a Day therein mentioned," was brought from the Commons and read a first Time.— (fn. 277) On the 18th of August, it was read a Second Time and committed; and a Petion of the Dutchess, praying further Time for him to surrender himself, was read, and ordered to lie on the Table.—The same Day, the House was put into a Committee on the said Bill, and the Bill was reported and passed, and Dissent thereto.

Earl of Strafford. Anno 2 Geo. I. 1715. Vol. 20. Lords Journals, P. 192.

"On the 1st of September 1715, the Earl of Strafford was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Articles were delivered; whereupon the Earl was heard in his Place, and he was ordered a Copy of them, (fn. 278) and a Month's Time to answer.— (fn. 279) On the 20th of September, the said Earl, upon his Request, was allowed further Time to answer to the 1st of November next. — (fn. 280) On the 6th of October, the House, upon a Message from His Majesty, signifying his Pleasure that both Houses should adjourn to the 20th of October, adjourned itself to the said 20th of October; (fn. 281) on which Day, the Earl of Strafford taking Notice, that, by Order of this House of the 20th of September last, he was allowed Time to put in his Answer to the Articles of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Commons against him, till the 1st of November next; and His Lordship desiring the Opinion of the House, whether he should put in his Answer the next Time their Lordships meet, or defer the same till the Meeting of the Parliament to do Business;—It was ordered, That the said Earl of Strafford have Time allowed to put in his Answer to the said Articles till the First Day of Meeting after Notice given by His Majesty for the Parliament to sit to do Business.— (fn. 282) On the same Day, both Houses again adjourned themselves, upon a Message from His Majesty, to the 5th of November, and so in like Manner from Time to Time till the 9th of January 1715, when they met and sat: (fn. 283) on which Day the said Earl presented his Answer, which was read (fn. 284).— (fn. 285) On the 17th of January, a Copy of it was sent to the Commons. On the 14th of June 1716, the Replication of the Commons was brought up by Message, and that they were ready to prove their Charge at such Convenient Time as should be appointed for that Purpose.—On the 26th of the same Month, the Parliament was prorogued to the 7th of August, and from thence, by several Prorogations, to the 20th of February 1716, and then met and sat.—No further Proceedings appear.

Earl of Derwentwater and others. Anno 2 Geo. I. 1715.; Lords Journals, Vol. 20. P. 252.

"On the 9th of January 1715, the Earl of Derwentwater, the Lord Widdrington, the Earl of Nithisdale, the Earl of Winton, the Earl of Carnwath, the Viscount Kenmure, and the Lord Nairn, were impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason, and Articles delivered.— (fn. 286) On the 10th of January, the said Lords were brought to the Bar, allowed Copies of the said Articles, and Time to answer till Saturday next. On the 12th of January, upon the Request of the Earl of Derwentwater and Lord Widdrington for further Time to answer, it was ordered, That all the said Lords should have further Time till Monday next: on which Day, viz. the 16th of January they were ordered peremptorily to answer on Thursday next.—On the 19th of January, they severally pleaded Guilty, except the Earl of Winton, who was allowed further Time to answer to Monday next; and on the 21st of January, petitioned for further Time which was refused.—On the 23d of January, the Earl of Winton put in his Answer, &c. On the 28th of January, the Replication of the Commons to the Earl of Winton's Answer was brought up.— (fn. 287) On the 9th of February, Judgement was pronounced against the Six Lords, and against the Earl of Winton (fn. 288) on the 19th of March following. — All in the same Session.

Earl of Macclesfield. Anno II Geo. I. 1724.

"On the 13th of February 1724, the Earl of Macclesfield was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. —On the 20th of March, Articles were delivered, and the said Earl was allowed a Copy of them.—On the 8th of April, His Lordship delivered his Answer; and the next Day, a Copy of it was sent to the Commons. — On the 26th of April, the Replication of the Commons was brought up, and the Trial appointed, at the Bar of the House, on the Thursday Sennight. — On which Day, the Trial began; and, on the 26th of May, Judgement was pronounced against the said Earl.—All in the same Session.

Lord Lovat. Anno 20 Geo. II. Vol. 27. Lords Journals, P. 14.

"On the 11th of December 1746, Lord Lovat was impeached, by Message from the Commons, of High Treason. (fn. 289) On the 17th of December, Articles were brought up and read, and an Order made for Lord Lovat, then under Commitment, to be brought to the Bar To-morrow.— (fn. 290) Accordingly he was brought up on the Morrow, and ordered to put in his Answer on the 13th of January next. (fn. 291) On the 23d of December, a Petition of his Lordship for further Time to answer, was read and rejected; and on the same Day the House adjourned to the said 13th of January next.— (fn. 292) On which Day, Lord Lovat put in his Answer; and a Copy of it was ordered to be sent to the Commons. (fn. 293) On the 16th of January, the Replication of the Commons was brought up by Message, adding, that they were ready to prove their Charge, at such convenient Time as should be appointed.— (fn. 294) On the 22d of January, the Trial was appointed for the 23d of February, in Westminster Hall; and a Message was sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith. — (fn. 295) On the 18th of February, upon the Petition of Lord Lovat, the Time was enlarged to the 5th of March, and Notice sent to the Commons. — (fn. 296) On the 2d of March, a Petition of the Lord Lovat for the like Purpose was rejected. — (fn. 297) On the 3d of March, upon another Petition for the like Purpose, the Trial was put off to the Monday next, for the special Reasons therein assigned. — On which Day, viz. 9th of March, the Trial began; and on the 19th of the same Month, Judgement was pronounced against him.—All in the same Parliament."

Class II.

22 Ed. I. N^o 1. William de Vescy vers. John Fitz Thomas Vol. 1. Rolls of Parliament, P. 127.

"A RECORD of Proceedings in Ireland in an Action of Scandal, by William de Vescy against John Fitz Thomas, was delivered by Walter de la Haye, Keeper of the Office of Chief Justice of Ireland. — Day is given to the Parties to appear in Parliament, and the Process ordered to be continued to a subsequent Parliament in the following Year. — The Parties appear at the next Parliament, when the whole Proceedings are annulled for Error—Vide Appendix Class II. N^o I.

9 Ed. II. N^o 2. Hugh le Despenser. (m. 3.) Vol. 1. Rolls of Parliament, P. 352.

"Hugh le Despenser junior, was accused by Gilbert de Toutheby and Geoffry de Scrop, on Behalf of the King, for assaulting John de Ross in the Presence of the King, and in the present Parliament, in the Cathedral Church of Saint Mary, Lincoln, in Contempt of the King, in Breach of the Peace and the Terror of the People in the said Parliament. To which the said Hugh, &c. put in Two several Pleas, as there mentioned.—And because the said Premises appeared to be in Breach of the Peace, &c. therefore he was committed to the Marshall quousq; &c. Afterwards he was bailed to appear before the King, at the Command of the King, to do in the Premises what the King should think proper to ordain.

4 Ed. III. Vol. 2. P. 52.

"Afterwards, at a Parliament held at York, on the Octaves of Saint Hilary, Anno 13 Ric. II. the King, of his special Grace, pardoned the said Hugh, and commanded the said Process to be cancelled. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o II.

4 Ed. III. Vol. 2. P. 53.

"Judgement was given against Roger de Mortimer, Simon de Beresford, John de Maltravers, Bogo de Bayenne, John Deverley, Thomas de Gurney, and William de Ocle.—All in the same Session. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o III.

4 Ed. III. No 16. Vol. 2. P. 57.

"In a Plea of the Crown before the King, at a Parliament holden on the Monday after the Feast of Saint Katherine, Anno 4 Ed. III. Thomas de Berkeley was arraigned for the Death of King Edw. II. to which he pleaded Not guilty, and put himself upon his Country;—whereupon he was tried by a Jury of Twelve Knights in Parliament, on the Octave of Saint Hilary then next following, who found him in no Respect guilty of the Death of the said King, nor assenting or assisting in the same, nor that he withdrew himself thereupon. But because the said Thomas placed Officers under him by whom the King was murdered, a Day was given him before the King in the next Parliament to hear his Judgement, &c. and he was committed in the mean Time to the Steward of the King's Household, &c. — Afterwards at the next Parliament, (viz.) at Westminster, the Morrow after Saint Michael, Anno 5 Edw. III. (fn. 298) upon the Prayer of the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, to the King, to discharge Sir Thomas Berkeley from his Mainprise, the King chargeth them to advise him therein; whereupon they pray, that, whereas Monsieur Thomas de Gurney, who well knew how the Murder was committed, was alive, by whom the King and his Council might be informed touching the same, they might consider thereof till the next Parliament;— which the King accordingly agreed to; and afterwards granted, that pursuant to their Request, Sir Thomas and his Mainperners should forthwith be discharged from their Mainprise. — And thereupon Day was given to the said Thomas to the next Parliament.

"The following Record, relative to Thomas de Berkeley is among the Patent Rolls, 11 E. 3. P. 1. M. 28.

"REX, &c. Know, That whereas our beloved, &c. Thomas de Berkeley was impeached by Us and the great Men of Our Realm, and afterwards by the Peers of the said Thomas, of the Death of Edward, late King of England, Our Father; and by an Inquisition, upon which he put himself in our full Parliament, held at Westminster, in the 4th Year of Our Reign, it was found, that the said Thomas is in no wise guilty of the said Death, nor of assenting, assisting, or procuring the same.—Whereupon, We, in Our Parliament, held at York on the Morrow of the Ascension, in the Ninth Year of Our Reign, the said Thomas being then there present, and praying Judgement upon the Premises, charged the Earls, Barons, and other great Men of Our Realm, then there present, to give Us their Advice and Counsel what ought of Right to be done in that Behalf; and the said Earls, &c. after due Deliberation, answered, That they held the said Thomas, as to his Person, acquitted, freed from, and in no respect guilty of the said Death, &c. Saying, however, That concerning so horrible a Fact having happened in the Castle of the said Thomas, and under his Custody, they dare not precisely advise, but that We Ourselves should direct therein according to Our Pleasure: And although, at that Time, we were not fully advised concerning this, yet, taking into Our Consideration that it was found, as is premised, that the said Thomas is in no Respect guilty of the said Death; and that the said great Men held him acquitted and freed therefrom: Nevertheless, reserving to Ourselves, upon Advice and Counsel had thereon, further to dispose and ordain therein, according to Justice, &c. as by the Process had in Our said Parliament thereupon, and recorded, more fully appears:

"Now We, in Our present Parliament held at Westminster on the Monday next after St. Michael the Apostle, in the 11th Year of Our Reign, being fully advised of the Circumstances of the said Death by the Earls, Barons, and other great Men of Our Realm then present, with the Assent of the said Earls, Barons, and great Men, do, for Us and Our Heirs, wholly acquit the said Thomas of the Death of Our Father, and of assenting, assisting, or procuring the same, and do adjudge and repute him freed therefrom. So that neither We, nor Our Heirs, shall in future have any Action or Accusation against the said Thomas, in respect of the said Death.

"In cujus, &c. Teste Rege apud Westm xvi. Die Martij. Per ipsum Regem.

"Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o IV."

5 Ed. III. N^o 7. Vol. 2. Rolls of Parliament, P. 61.

"Hugh le Despenser the younger.—Nothing appears the Fourth Year of Edward III. relative to this Case. —But in this Parliament, Sir Eubal Lestrange, and Eleven other Mainprisers of the said Hugh, conditioned to have his Body at the next Parliament a ester au droit, and to do what in Council should be ordained against him, bring the Body of the said Hugh before the King, Earls, Barons, and great Men of the Realm, and shew the King's Pardon to him made. Whereupon they pray, that they may be delivered from their Mainprise, &c.; which the King grants; and also that the said Hugh should be discharged out of Prison. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o V.

15 Edw. III. N^o 8 Archbishop Canterbury. Vol. 2. P. 127.

"The Archbishop of Canterbury desires, That whereas he was defamed through the Realm, he may be arraigned in full Parliament, before his Peers, which the King grants; but says, he would first have the Public Business done, and then other Matters.— Afterwards, on the Saturday in the Week of Pentecost (fn. 299), it was agreed in Parliament amongst other Matters (fn. 300), that the Bishops of Durham and Salisbury, the Earls of Northampton, Arundell, Warwick, and Salisbury, shall hear the Answer of the Archbishop, and if the same were suitable, the King would hold him excused; but if it should appear to the King and his Council that the same were insufficient, then the said Answer should be debated in the next Parliament, and Judgment there given upon the same; and it is to be remembered, (fn. 301) that all Things touching the Arraignment of the Archbishop of Canterbury do remain with Sir William de Kildesby, Keeper of the Privy Seal.—Afterwards, at the Parliament holden at Westminster on the Quindene of Easter, Anno 17 Edw. III. (fn. 302) the King commanded that all Things touching the Arraignment of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which remained with Sir William de Kyldesby, at the Parliament holden at Westminster on the Quindene of Easter, Anno 15 Ed. III. should be annulled and cancelled; whereupon Sir John de Ufford was commanded to bring them into Parliament, there to be cancelled. See Appendix, Class II. N^o 6.

John de la Lee. 42 Ed. III. N^o 20. Vol. 2. P. 297.

"Upon the 21st May, the King gave Thanks to the Lords and Commons for their Presence, and for the Aid granted by them.—Afterwards, on the same Day, post Meridiem, the Lords, and sundry of the Commons, being assembled in the Chambre Blanche, Sir John de la Lee was sent for, and put to answer to various Articles alledged against him by certain Petitions; of which Articles, (fn. 303) in respect he could not sufficiently clear himself, he was commanded to the Tower, there to remain as a Prisoner until he should make Fine and Ransom at the King's Pleasure; and the Constable of the Tower was accordingly ordered to take Charge of him.—And so the Lords and Commons departed —And afterwards, (fn. 304) by Command of the King, the said John was brought to Westminster before the King's Great Council, and being again examined touching the Allegation in the Petition of of one William Latymer, and being heard in Answer thereto, the said Council (fn. 305) gave Order therein against the said John. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o VII.

Ralph Ferrers. 4 Ric. II. N^o 17 & 21. Vol. 3. P. 90.

"Sir Ralph Ferrers, Knight, having been arrested upon Suspicion of Treason, and being brought up into Parliament under the Guard of the Marshall of England, and there arraigned, de par le Roi, of certain Letters, and the Matters therein contained, (fn. 306) and being heard as to what he had to say in Answer to the said Charge and which he alledged he was ready to prove in such Manner as by the Law of the Land he might, he was remanded to Prison (fn. 307); and afterwards, the Matter being fully examined, he was adjudged to be innocent; (fn. 308) and thereupon, at the Request of the Lords in Parliament, he was delivered to the Earls of Warwick, &c. who became Pledges, Body for Body, for the said Ralph, to have him before the King and His Council, where, when, and as often as it shall please the King to appoint between this and the next Parliament, to be held in England, upon reasonable Warning given to them, in order to do and receive what the Law in that Case shall require, provided neither the King, nor any other Person, would say any Thing more concerning the same against the said Sir Ralph; (fn. 309) and so the said Sir Ralph was set at large.— (fn. 310) Also the Parson of Brington, and the Servants of the said Sir Ralph, who had been imprisoned for the same Cause, after being examined in Parliament and nothing found against them, were bailed to answer, at what Time they should be required, in respect of the same.

5 Ric. II. N^o 42. Vol. 3. P. 105.

"Afterwards, at a Parliament held at Westminster on the Morrow of All Souls, Anno 5 Ric. II. the Earls of Warwick, &c. Mainperners of the said Ralph de Ferrers, reciting the Condition of their Recognizance entered into the last Parliament, pray that,— Whereas the said Ralph de Ferrers was every Day in that, and is now present in this Parliament, to answer to whoever has any Thing to alledge against him in the Matters aforesaid,—they may be discharged from their Mainprise, in respect they had become Bail for him only till the said next Parliament, and not beyond. Whereupon they were discharged accordingly. —And also the said Ralph being present in Parliament, was, by the King, held to be excused of the said Letters, and the Matter contained therein. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o VIII.

5 Ric. II. N^o 43. Vol. 3. Rolls of Parliament, P. 105.

"Richard Clynedon exhibits a Bill in Parliament, complaining of Sir William Cogan, Knight; for that he, with other Accomplices of the Town of Bridgewater, extorted 200l. of the Prior of Jerusalem, &c. the which he offereth to try by Combat with the said Sir William.— (fn. 311) The same Sir William, being in Parliament, pleaded Not guilty, and put himself upon his Country. And thereupon, at the End of the Parliament, the said Parties were adjourned before the Justices of the Common Law, for that which pertained to the Law. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o IX.

5 Ric. II. N^o 64. Ibid. P. 113.

"On the 13th of December, Anno 5 Ric. II. in respect divers weighty Matters remained unfinished, it being near Christmas, and for other Causes, the King, with the Assent of the Prelates, Lords and Commons, adjourned the Parliament to the Wednesday next after the Conversion of Saint Paul. And the King willed and commanded, that Pleas, Causes, and other Matters already touched upon in the said Parliament, and not finished, and all other Things, with their Dependencies, should remain in statu quo nunc to the Friday aforesaid. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o X.

John Cavendish vers. De la. Pole. 7 Ric. II. N^o 11. Vol. 3 P. 168.

"Upon Complaint of John Cavendish, Fishmonger, in Parliament, first before the Commons in their Assembly, in the Presence of sundry Prelates and Lords then there, and afterwards before all the Lords and Prelates and Lords in Parliament, praying Surety of the Peace against Michael de la Polethen Lord Chancellor of England, the same was granted; and the said Chancellor, with his Sureties, the Earl of Stafford and the Earl of Salisbury, bound in Recognizance accordingly.—Which done, the said Cavendish accused him of Bribery, of which the Chancellor, first before the Prelates and Lords, and afterwards before the Lords and Commons, declared himself to be innocent; and upon Examination of Witnesses, the Lords acquitted him of the Whole of the said Accusation. Whereupon the said Chancellor prayed of the said Lords his Remedy against the said Fishmonger, more especially for the Slander of his Person, and that he might be arrested till he should find Bail to abide what should be adjudged against him in the said Matter. Whereupon the said Fishmonger and his Clerk were arrested, and afterwards bailed, upon Condition to have the said Fishmonger from Day to Day before the Lords, or such other Judges as should be assigned.—And afterwards, in respect the Parliament was at this Time near an End, and the Lords greatly occupied with other weighty Matters, the said Complaint, together with all Things relating thereto, was in this Parliament committed to the Justices of the King's Bench, to hear and determine the same finally, as well on Behalf of the King as of the Parties, according to Law, as the Lords of Parliament might have done, if the Complaint, eust este tretez pluis avant en lour Presence, et en mesme Parlement.—Then follows the Record of the Proceedings before the Justices assigned, by which it appears, that the said John Cavendish was convicted, and the Damages to the said Chancellor taxed at One thousand Marks; and further, that he was committed to Prison till he should have paid the same, as well as a competent Fine to the King. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o XI.

Thomas Hardinge and Sir John Sutton. 15 Ric. N^o 20. Vol. 3. P. 288.

"Thomas Hardinge de Manytre impeached and accused Sir John Sutton Knight, and Sir Richard Sutton Knight, in Parliament, as well by Bill as by Word of Mouth, for false Imprisonment.—Upon hearing of both Parties, in as much as the said Impeachment and Accusation appeared to be malicious, and also that several Lords bore Testimony that the said John and Richard were of good Name, the said Thomas was committed to the Fleet, there to continue during the King's Pleasure. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o XII.

21 Ric. II. N^o 53. Duke of Hereford and Duke of Norfolk. Vol. 3. Rolls of Parliament, P. 360.

"Henry Duke of Hereford, by the King's Command, exhibited to the King in Parliament a Schedule, containing a Charge against the Duke of Norfolk, of certain slanderous Words spoken by the said Duke of Norfolk against the King; whereupon it was ordained by the King, with the Assent of all the Estates of Parliament, that the whole Matter should be determined and finally discussed by certain of the Lords and Commons, assigned for that Purpose by Authority of Parliament, (viz.) Duke de Lancaster, &c. venantz pur le Parlement, four or three of them (fn. 312). Afterwards, on the 19th Day of March next following, both the Dukes appeared before the King at Bristow, where, by Assent of the King, and the abovesaid Lords and Commons, it was agreed, that the Determination of the same should be ended according to the Law of Chivalry, if sufficient Proofs were not found.— (fn. 313) On the 28th Day April following, which Day had before (viz. on the 23d of February preceding) been given to the said Dukes at Shrewsbury, for them personally to appear before the King at Windsor, the said Dukes appeared accordingly, when Day was given over to them to appear on the Morrow, on which Day they appeared accordingly; when, by the Advice of a vast Number of Dukes, Earls, Bishops, Barons, Baronets, and Knights, as well as of those authorized by Parliament (as aforesaid), Battle was joined between the said Dukes.—On the 16th of September Anno 22 Ric. II. the said Dukes were ready at Coventry; when the King, for certain Reasons, took the Battail into his own Hands, and gave Judgement, by Authority of Parliament, of Banishment against the Duke of Hereford for Ten Years, and against the Duke of Norfolk for Life. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o XIII.

N^o 14. Vol. 3. P. 385. Henry Bowett.

"On the 23d of April, Anno 22 Ric. II. it being shewn to the King at Windsor, that, after Judgement given against the said Duke of Hereford at Coventry, the said Duke had wrongfully obtained certain Letters Patent from the King, the same were cancelled. And in respect one Henry Bowett, Clerk, was aiding and abetting the said Duke in procuring the same, upon Examination of the Matter, the King, by Assent of the Lords and Knights of Counties, empowered by the whole Parliament to examine and determine, as well divers Petitions, &c. as all other Matters moved in the Presence of the King, and not finished by Authority of the said Parliament, adjudged him a Traitor. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o XIV.

Duke of Gloucester and others. 21 Ric. II. N^o 1. Vol. 3. P. 374.

"The Duke of Gloucester and the Earls of Arundell and Warwick were appealed in Parliament by the Earl of Rutland and others.—The Earl of Arundell was brought from the Tower, pleaded to the Charge, and was sentenced.— (fn. 314) A Writ was issued to the Earl Marshall to bring the Body of the Duke of Gloucester before the Parliament, who returned that the said Duke was dead. Upon which, at the Prayer of the Lords Appellants, and also at the Prayer of the Commons, he was adjudged a Traitor.—The Earl of Warwick was brought into Parliament by the Constable of the Tower; and, having heard the Accusation, pleaded guilty, and submitted himself to the King's Grace; whereupon he was adjudged a Traitor. Vid. Appendix, Class II. N^o. XV.

Henry Percy vers. Thomas Bardolf. 7 & 8 Henry IV. N^o 1. Vol. 3 Rolls of Parliament, P. 604.

"On the 19th June, Anno 7^o Henry IV. at a Parliament held at Westminster, it was declared before the King, by the Temporal Lords there assembled, That the said Lords, by Command of the King, were assembled in the last Week to advise what Manner of Process should be had, and what Judgement should be passed, against Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland, and Thomas Bardolf, sometime Lord Bardolf, for certain Offences against the Ligeance of the King. And thereupon due Deliberation being had by the said Lords, and having seen the Tenor of the Process delivered to them by the Constable of England, and the Proclamation made in the Court of Chivalry, against the said Henry Percy, in respect of divers Articles of Treason committed by the said Henry, the Tenor of which is set forth, &c. (fn. 315) And having considered divers other Informations, &c. it appeared to the said Lords, that several of the said Articles were High Treason. Whereupon, on the said 19th of June, the said Lords, by and with the Advice and Assent of the King, ordained in Parliament, that Proclamation should be made throughout the Realm for the said Henry Percy and Thomas Bardolf, to appear and surrender themselves before the Quindene of Saint John the Baptist, to answer the said Treasons before the King and Lords: — And in case they surrendered themselves, then they were to be put under safe Custody till they could answer the same: And if they did not appear, nor surrender themselves, then they were to be attainted by the Lords in this present Parliament.— (fn. 316) And on Tuesday the 30th of November, Anno 8^o Henry IV. the Commons being in this present Parliament prayed they might have Cognizance of what had been done in the late Rebellions. Upon which, by Advice of the King and all the Temporal Lords, Proclamation was made for the said Henry Percy and Thomas Bardolf, to appear and surrender themselves, in the same Parliament, on the Wednesday following, according to certain Proclamations made in divers Counties in England, by virtue of certain Writs for that Purpose, upon Pain of being held convicted of certain Treasons declared against them in this Parliament;—at which Wednesday the said Henry and Thomas make Default. Notwithstanding which, the King caused to be brought before him, in the same Parliament, all the Writs returned into Chancery, touching the Proclamation made for the Appearance and Surrender of the said Henry and Thomas, before the said Quindene of Saint John. Which Writs, with the Returns to them, being read in full Parliament, and the Lords Temporal, with the Assent of the King, considering that the said first Proclamation was sufficiently made before the said Quindene, in several Counties, by virtue of certain Writs returned into Chancery, and in other Counties after the said Quindene, and that the remaining Writs were not returned, it was ordained, that a new Proclamation should be made in the City of London only, for the said Henry and Thomas, to appear on the Friday next following, on Pain of Conviction. Upon a Writ issued accordingly, the Sheriffs made their Return into Chancery, and the same being sent for and read in Parliament, the Process was adjourned and continued till the next Day, when the same was read again before the King and Lords in full Parliament, (fn. 317) at which Day the said Henry and Thomas made Default.—Whereupon the Lords Temporal, by the Advice and Assent of the King, and by their Authority in Parliament, awarded that the said Henry and Thomas should be convicted as Traitors, &c. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o XVI.

Thomas Earl of Salisbury vers. John Earl of Salisbury, 2 Hen. V. N^o 12. V. 4 P. 17 & 18.

"Upon reading the Petition of Thomas Earl of Salisbury, complaining of a Judgement of High Treason pronounced by the Lords, with the Assent of the King, against John Earl of Salisbury, his late Father deceased, at a Parliament held at Westminster, Anno 2^o Hen. IV. as erroneous, and praying that the Record and Process, and the Judgement aforesaid, might be brought before the Lords in this present Parliament, to the End the same might be corrected and amended, and that he might assign Errors therein in this present Parliament, the Keeper of the Rolls, by Order of the King, brought the Roll of Parliament of the 2d Henry IV. in the said Parliament mentioned: Whereupon the said Thomas assigned the Errors therein, a Copy of which was ordered to be given to the King's Serjeants.—And, for the Sake of Expedition, the said Serjeants, and the King's Attorney General, were ordered to have the Proofs before the Chancellor by a Day certain, in order that the Matter might be the better matured by the next Parliament.—And thereupon Day was given to the said Earl to the next Parliament. Afterwards, at a Parliament at Westminster, viz. on Monday next after the Morrow of Saint Martin, Anno 2 Hen. V. (fn. 318) the said Earl appeared and prayed the King, in the Presence of the Lords and the Council, to proceed in this Parliament according to the Effect of the said Petition.— Whereupon the Matter being fully understood, it was adjudged that the said Earl should take nothing by his said Petition; and further, that the said Judgment against John Earl of Salisbury should be affirmed. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o XVII.

Johanna de Beauchamp Anno 10 Hen. VI. N^o 51. Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 4. P. 410.

"Upon reading the Petition of Johanna de Beauchamp Lady de Bergavenny, presented to the King in this Parliament, complaining of Error in the Record and Process, and also in a Judgement given in the Court of King's Bench upon a Writ of Scire facias, on a Recognizance of £1200 entered into by the said Johanna in Chancery (for keeping the Peace), and praying, that the said Record and Process, and all Things belonging thereto, might be brought in this present Parliament; and that being there viewed and examined, by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and by the Authority of Parliament, the said Error might be corrected; and further, that Right might be done to the said Petitioner according to Law; it was commanded, that the Chief Justice, then present in Parliament, should bring up the Record and Process in the said Petition mentioned, &c. who accordingly brought up the same. (Then the said Record, &c. is set forth).— (fn. 319) And the same being read in the Court of the present Parliament, and the said Johanna appearing in Person, assigned divers Errors, and prayed that the said Judgement, in respect of the said Errors, and for others to be assigned in future by the said Johanna, if necessary, might be reversed and annulled. Whereupon, after hearing the said Errors, and Ar guments of the Justices and the King's Serjeants, and others skilled in the Law, as well on Behalf of the King as of the said Johanna, in respect the Court of the said Parliament was not advised as to the Judgement in that Behalf to be given, it was considered that the said Johanna should have Day to be at the next Parliament, whensoever and wheresoever, &c. to do and receive what should be ordained in that Behalf; and that the Record and Process, with all Things touching the same, should be ready in the said next Parliament; and that, in the mean Time, the Execution of the said Judgement should be superseded for the Cause aforesaid.

" (fn. 320) Afterwards, at a Parliament held at Westminster, on the 8th of July, Anno 11 Hen. VI. after reciting the Recognizance entered into by the said Johanna and her Sureties, also the Breach of the same, &c. and the Judgement given against her in the Court below, also the Writ of Error, and all the Proceedings had thereon in the last Parliament, the Record in this Parliament proceeds as follows: And whereas now the said Johanna, in the present Parliament (being the next after the said Parliament holden in the said Tenth Year of the King) hath proffered herself and agreed to pay the said King a Thousand Pounds, and to give a Release to the Sheriff of Warwick who executed the Writ, &c. — The King, in Consideration that the said Johanna hath paid the said £1000 and executed the said Release, by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, hath released the said Johanna, and her Sureties, of the said £1200. Vide Appendix, Class II. N^o. XVIII.

Sir Henry Yelverton. Anno 19 Jac. I. Lords Journals, Vol. 3. P 76.

"On the 17th of April 1621, a Special Warrant, signed by the Lord Chief Justice (Speaker of the House) was ordered to be directed to the Lieutenant of the Tower to bring Sir Henry Yelverton before the House on the Morrow. (fn. 321) Being brought accordingly, the Particulars whereof he was accused were read by the Lord Chief Justice, to which he immemediately answered.— And the said Answer being read over to him, he acknowledged the same; but desired a Week's further Time to answer. Whereupon he had further Time given him to Saturday Se'nnight.— On the 16th of May following, Judgement was pronounced against him. — All in the same Session.

Earl of Bristol. Anno 2 Car. I. 1st of May 1626. Vol 3. Lords Journals, P. 576.

"On the 1st of May 1626, the Earl of Bristol was charged with High Treason by the Attorney General, by the King's Command. His Lordship put in his Answer on the 19th of the same Month of May. — (fn. 322) On the 15th of June, the Keeper signified to the House, that he had received His Majesty's Commission to dissolve the Parliament: — Upon which the Lords appoint a Committee to draw up a Petition, requesting His Majesty to continue the same: Who presently withdrew, and reported a Petition accordingly.

"Notwithstanding, the Gentleman Usher was sent to the Commons, who being come with their Speaker, the said Commission was read, and the Parliament dissolved.—No further Proceeding appears.

Duke of Bucks. Anno 2 Car. I. 1st May 1626. (Same Day)

"The Articles exhibited by the Earl of Bristol against the Duke of Buckingham (fn. 323), and against the Earl of Conway, were read. On the 13th of June, the Earl of Conway put in his Answer.—On the 15th of June the Parliament was dissolved by Commission. (Vide supra. The Earl of Bristol's Case.)—No further Proceedings appear.

3d January 1641.

"On the 3d of January, the Earl of Kimbolton and others were accused by the Attorney General, by the King's Command, of High Treason.—See the Memorandum relative to Impeachments during the Long Parliament: Class I. p. 28.

Earl of Clarendon. Anno 15 Car. II. 1663. Lords Journals, Vol. 11. P. 556–7.

"Earl of Clarendon.—On the 10th of July 1663, a Charge of High Treason, and other heinous Misdemeanors, was exhibited against him by the Earl of Bristol, and read, and then subscribed by the said Earl of Bristol; and in pursuance of the said Charge, it was, amongst other Things, desired by the Earl of Bristol, that the Earl of Clarendon might be secured.—After which the Earl of Clarendon made a short Speech declaring his Innocence.—And thereupon Copies of the said Charge were ordered to be made for His Majesty, for the Earl of Clarendon, and also a Copy for the Judges, who were directed to consider, whether the said Charge has been brought regularly and legally; and whether it might be proceeded in, and how; and whether there be any Treason of no.— (fn. 324) On Monday, the 13th of July, all the Judges delivered their unanimous Opinions:

1. "That a Charge of High Treason cannot, by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, be originally exhibited by any one Peer against another unto the House of Peers; and therefore, that the Charge of High Treason, by the Earl of Bristol against the Lord Chancellor, hath not been regularly and legally brought us.—2. And if the Matters alledged in the said Charge were admitted to be true, (although alledged to be traiterously done), there was not any Treason in it.—Whereupon the Debate on the Matter was adjourned till the Morrow. And a Message was delivered from the King concerning the said Articles delivered by the Earl of Bristol.— (fn. 325) On the Morrow, the Debate being resumed, the House concurred with the Opinion of the Judges on both Points, nemine contradicente.

"With respect to Bills of Attainder, the Committee find no Instance of any, where the Proceedings upon them have been continued from one Session to another, except in the 31st of Hen. VIII. when a Bill for the Attainder of several Persons for High Treason had been agreed to by both Houses; after which (viz. on 21st May 1539) an Address was presented by the Lords to the King, then present in Parliament, to prorogue the same.—On the 23d of May a Commission issued for that Purpose accordingly, when the Parliament was prorogued to the 30th of the same Month; and it was agreed between the Lords and Commons, that all such Acts and Bills as had been agreed to by them, or still remained unfinished, should continue in the same State as on that Day, notwithstanding the Prorogation.—Afterwards, on the said 30th Day of May, the Parliament met; and on the 28th of June following, post Meridiem, the King coming to the House, all the Acts which had been agreed to by both Houses in that Parliament were passed.

Class III.

Emon Frere de Roy 6 Ed. I. N^o 29. Rolls of Parliament, Vol. 1. P. 7.

"TO the Petition of Edmond, Brother of the King, praying the King to deliver to him the Manor and Wapentake of Werksworth, to hold according to certain Conveyances, it is answered, That the said Edmond has further Day to the next Parliament. See Appendix, Class III. N^o I.

Archbishop of York 18 Ed. I N^o 3. Vol. 1. P. 17.

"A Summons to the Archbishop of York to appear at the next Parliament, Three Weeks after Easter, to answer Robert de Scardeburgh of certain Trespasses by the said Archbishop committed against the said Robert. See Appendix, Class III. N^o II.

Bishop of Carlisle. 18 Ed. I. N^o 13 Vol. 1. P. 23.

"Upon the Petition of the Bishop of Carlisle to the King, claiming the Advowson of Burgh, by Feoffment of the Abbey and Convent of York, the Bishop is ordered to certify to the King the Right of the said Abbey and Convent to the said Advowson, at the next Parliament after the Feast of Saint Michael. See Appendix, Class III. N^o III.

Burgesses of Newcastle versus Prior of Tynmouth. 18 Ed. I. N 17. Vol. 1. P. 26.

"Pleadings in a Suit between the Burgesses of Newcastle and the Prior of Tynmouth, beginning with the Summons to the said Prior to appear before the King in his Parliament Three Weeks after Easter, to answer to the Burgesses of Newcastle of certain Injuries done to the said Burgesses; and the said Prior appearing agreeable to the said Summons, and the said Burgesses in like Manner being also there, and alledging what each had to say in his own Behalf, an Inquisition is directed to be taken before William de Vescy and others, and to be certified to the King at His next Parliment after Michaelmas:—A Day is given to the Parties ad eundem Terminum. Afterwards the King, in Trinity Term in the 19th Year of His Reign, by Reason of the Absence of William de Vescy, assigns Roger Brabazon, and others, who take the Inquisition, and return it before the King in His Parliament on the Morrow of the Epiphany, in the 20th of the King; which Inquisition is there delivered to Gilbert Thornton and his Fellows. See Appendix, Class III. N^o IV.

Hugo de Cressingham vers. John de Wogan. 18 Ed. I N 24. Vol. I. P. 33.

"Upon Complaint of Hugo de Cressingham against John de Wogan, for disturbing the said Hugo in holding a Court Baron, the said Hugo puts himself upon his Country; and upon Issue joined, Gilbert de Thornton and Robert de Thorp, Justices, are assigned to enquire into the Premises; and afterwards Day is given to the Parties to the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o V.

Hugh de Louther's Case. 18 Ed. I. N^o 27. Vol. I. P. 34.

"Hugh de Louther's Case:—upon a Question concerning Lands held in Capite, which formerly belonged to one Henry de Edelyngthorp, then in the Possession of Henry de Louther as his Heir, of which Thomas de Normanvill the Escheator was to give an Account this Parliament for recovering of the King's Right upon that Descent, and one Adam coming and laying Claim to those Lands, saying that he was right Heir, the Escheator is ordered to make Inquisition into it by a Jury, ita quod ad proximum, Parliamentum post Festum S^ti Michaelis distincte et aperte inde respondeat. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o VI.

William de Valentia's Case. 18 Ed. I. N^o 28. Vol. 1. P. 35.

"The Case of William de Valentia and Isabell Mareschal.—William de Valentia had been impleaded and put to answer the Parliament before, which was presently after Christmas, at the Suit of Isabell le Mareschal, for exercising the Office of a Sheriff in the Hundred of Hostereslegh. He pleaded, he did it in the Right of Johanna his Wife; and that he ought not to be put to answer without her. Whereupon he had Time given for him and his Wife to appear as this Day at this Parliament, beginning Three Weeks after Easter; and Isabell le Mareschal had the same Time given to prosecute.—At which Day the said several Parties appeared; and the said Isabell complains to the King, that the said William and Johanna have ejected her from her Commote of Esterlowe, and prays Remedy.—And the said William and Johanna alledge, that the said Lands are within the Jurisdiction of the County of Pembroke, and that they have Jurisdiction of all Pleas, as well criminal as real, within the same. And then stating the Descent of the said Johanna from Gilbert Earl of Pembroke, who was seised of the said Jurisdiction, and that she succeeded to the same upon the Death of John, who was last seised, as his Sister and Heir, they pray Judgement, whether, without the Writ of the King, they ought to answer to the King himself, or even to the said Isabell, concerning the said Tenements in that Court, before the Matter of the said Jurisdiction was discussed and determined between the King and them.—And because the said William and Johanna are in the Seizin of the said Jurisdiction, by Descent from the said John, and not by Usurpation, as is attested by Robert de Typotot, Steward of the King in those Parts, and of the King's Council, it is considered that the said William and Johanna eant sine die for the present, and that the King have his Writ, if he shall so please; and that the said Isabella wait till it shall have been discussed concerning the said Jurisdiction, &c.

" (fn. 326) In N^o 33 of the same Year, there is an Entry of the Proceedings in this Case in the former Parliament. See Appendix, Class III. N^o VII.

Bishop of Carlisle. 18 Ed. I. N^o 34. Vol. I. P. 37.

Pleadings in a Suit between the Bishop of Carlisle and the Prior, respecting Tythes.—The same Tythes are claimed by the King. Inquisition is directed to be made, and certified to the King at the next Parliament after Easter; and this Inquisition not being then made, on Account of an Inhibition from the Bishop, other Persons are assigned to take the said Inquisition, to certify it to the King, at his Parliament after Michaelmas, and to adjourn the Parties to the same Day. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o VIII.

Roger de Montealte vers. Reginald Grey. 18 Ed. I. N^o 37. Vol. I. P. 39.

"Upon Complaint of Roger de Montealte against Reginald de Grey Justice of Chester, for detaining certain Lands, the said Roger, amongst other Things, setting forth that the said Lands were, upon an Inquisition in the 52d Year of Hen. III. found to be his Inheritance, and praying that the King, upon Inspection of the said Inquisition, would do therein as he should see right; Day is thereupon given to the said Roger till the next Parliament after Easter, &c. But because the said Inquisition could not be found, Day is given to the said George to the next future Parliament. Afterwards, at the Parliament after the Feast of St. Michael, in the 21st Ric. II. in respect, the said Inquisition could not be found, a new Inquisition is directed to be taken, and returned in the next Parliament, Anno 22 Ric. II. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o IX.

Earl of Fife. vers. Rex. Scotiæ. 22 Ed. I. N^o 22. Vol. I. P. 112.

"Magdulphus Earl of Fife had made his Complaint, that John, King of Scotland, had unjustly taken from him certain Lands in the County of Fife; a Writ of Scire facias was thereupon directed to the Sheriff of Northumberland, to warn the King of Scotland to appear before the King in Parliament such a Day. The King of Scotland appeared, and having made a Defence that was not satisfactory, and upon a further Day being offered to him, refusing the same, Judgement was pronouncing against him; but before it was pronounced he desired Respite till the next Parliament after Easter to advise with his Council in Scotland, and that then he would come and do what in Duty he ought to do. Upon which, Day was given him till the next Parliament, which was to be after Easter, in omnibus eodem statu quo nunc. Vide Appendix, Class III. No X.

William Paynell & Ux. 30 Ed. 1. N^o 2. Vol. 1. P. 146.

"Entry of the Proceedings in an original Suit, upon the Petition of William Paynell and Margaret his Wife, presented in Parliament Anno 28 Edw. I. claiming the Third Part of the Manor of Torpell, and which Cause was heard in the said Parliament, and Order made that the said William and Margaret should be at the next Parliament to hear Judgement, who accordingly appeared at the next Parliament at Lincoln, on the Octave of St. Hilary, in the 29th Edw. I. when a Day was given them to the next Parliament following, &c.;—at which Parliament, viz. on the Octave of St. John the Baptist, in the 30th Ed. I. they came again, when their Petition was dismissed. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XI.

William de Breouse. 30 Ed. I. N^o 3. Vol. 1. P. 148.

"Entry of Procedings in an original Suit upon the Petition of William de Breouse, presented to the King and His Council in Parliament 28th Edw. I. claiming the Lands of Gower, &c. and opposed by Walter de Pederton on the Part of the King, and the Cause having been heard in the same Parliament, (fn. 327) a Day was given to the said William to the next Parliament to hear the Judgement, and the said Walter was ordered, in like Manner, to be then there to prosecute, &c.; and it appearing that there were several Complaints preferred in the same Parliament by different Persons against the said William, relative to the said Lands of Gower, they were also directed to appear at the next Parliament, in as much as their Complaints could not be heard till the Matter in Question between the King and the said William was determined.—Afterwards, at the next Parliament at Lincoln, on the Octaves of St. Hilary, in the 29th of Edw. I. the said several Parties appear, when Day is given to the said William to appear again at the then next Parliament to hear Judgement, and also to the said other Persons to prosecute, &c— At which next Parliament at Westminster, on the Octaves of St. John the Baptist, in the 30th Edw. I. the said several Parties appear, when an Inquisition is directed relative to the said Matter in Dispute between the said William and the King, the same to be returned at the next Parliament after the Feast of St. Michael at Westminster, and Day is given to the said William to hear Judgement.—Also another Inquisition relative to the other Complaints against the said William, to be returned at the next Parliament, in like Manner, before Auditors assigned, who are to appoint the same Term to the said Parties to hear Judgement thereupon. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XII.

Petition Mercatorum. &c. 30 Ed. I. N^o 8. Vol. 1. P. 155.

"Certain Merchants petition the King and His Council for some Debts owing to them by Recognizance taken before the Steward and Marshall, for which they have no other Shewings but the Court Rolls, which are in the Keeping of the said Stewards and Marshalls, Officers to the King, before whom the said Recognizances were taken, who refuse to shew them without special Warrant. Whereupon they are ordered to bring all their Court Rolls to the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o. XIII.

Prior of Durham, &c. 33 Ed I. N^o 13. Vol. 1. P. 179.

"Entry of Proceedings, stating, That the Prior of Durham had Day to be before the King's Council at York, on Saturday next after the Feast of St. Martin: That afterwards the said Day was continued to Thursday after the Morrow of the Octaves of St. Martin, at which Day he came, and had to the next Parliament. At which Parliament afterwards, on Sunday next after the Feast of St. Michael the Apostle, in the 33d Edw. 1st, the said Prior appeared by his Attorney and the Prior of Goldingham in Person, and acknowledge, that the Priors of Goldingham did Fealty to the King of Scotland, &c. But the King, being desirous to be further certified in the Premises, Day was given to the Parties to the next Parliament.— Afterwards, at a Parliament at Westminster, on the Octaves of the Nativity of the blessed Mary, Anno 33 Edward I. (fn. 328) the said Prior appears; but the Inquisition not being returned, Day was given to him at the Parliament next after Easter, viz. on the Morrow of the Ascension; to which Day the Lieutenant of the King in Scotland was adjourned, and Order was given to the said Lieutenant, and to the Chamberlain of Scotland, to examine the Rolls, and to make Enquiry, &c. and to certify to the King on the said Morrow; and that the whole Process should be sent to the said Lieutenant, and to the Chamberlain, under the King's Seal. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XIV.

Petition of Thomas de Ergum, &c. 8 Ed. II. N^o 15. Vol. 1. P. 309.

"To the Petition of Thomas de Ergum, claiming a Messuage and certain Lands in Preston, Parcel of the Inheritance of Odinell and Christian, the Petitioner's Father and Mother, of the Gift of Isabell de Fontibus, and which the said Odinell and Christian quietly enjoyed for Twenty Years, till Thomas de Normanvill, the Escheator of the late King, took them, without any reasonable Cause, into the Hands of the said King; it is answered, that it be examined in Chancery, whether upon the Inquisitions post mortem of the said Isabell, returned into the said Chancery, any Thing can be found relative to the said Lands and Tenements; and that a Writ be directed to the Treasurer and Chamberlain to examine the Account of the said Thomas de Normanville, &c. and to certify the Result to the King, under the Seal of the Exchequer, in the next Parliament, that he may do Justice. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XV.

Petition of Hugo de Courteney, &c. 8 & 9 Ed. II. N^o 1. Vol. 1. P. 334.

"Upon the Petition of Hugo de Courteney to the King, claiming certain Lands and Tenements in the Isle of Wight, &c. as Heir to Isabell, Countess of Devonshire, it was answered by the King, That the Treasurer and Chamberlain should certify to the King, in the next Parliament, how the said Lands came into the Hands of the late King; also, that the Inquisition post mortem of the said Countess, returned into Chancery, should be examined; and the Result certified also to the King at the next Parliament.—Afterwards, at the next Parliament, viz. at Lincoln, in Fifteen Days of Saint Hiláry, in the 9th Year of the King, the said Treasurer and Chamberlain return to the King's Council the Writ, tested the 30th of May, Anno 8 Edward II. together with certain Evidence relative to the same. And the said Hugo comes to the said Parliament at Lincoln, and presents another Petition (fn. 329) to the King and His Council, reciting, that he had prosecuted his Claim in divers Parliaments; and, reciting the Proceedings in the last, he prays that Right should be done to him. Whereupon, for the greater Security in the said Affair, a further Enquiry is directed to be made in the Treasury and Wardrobe of the King, and the King and his Council to be certified thereof in Fifteen Days after Easter at Westminster:—on which Day, the Keeper of the Wardrobe sent to the King and His Council a certain Deed of the said Isabell, releasing to the King all her Right in the Premises. And the said Hugo appearing, and praying as before, John de Staner, on the Part of the King, prays Judgement for the King, in respect of the said Release by the said Isabell. The said Hugo pleads, that the said Isabell was seized of the said Premises in her Demesne, as of Fee, at the Time of her Death; which he prays may be enquired of by the Country.—And because the said Hugo said nothing as to the said Deed, he is told, that he may plead further as to the same if he shall think fit. Whereupon the said Hugo prays, that he may have further Time to be advised thereon, till the next Parliament, which is granted him; and the said Affair to continue in eodem Statu quo nunc. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XVI.

Thomas de Multon and Anthony de Lucy, 9 Ed. II. N^o 39. (m. 38.) Vol. 1. P. 347.

"Upon the Petition of Thomas de Multon and Anthony de Lucy to the King, setting forth, that at the last Parliament at Westminster, they, by Petition, claimed several Manors in the said Petition mentioned; to which Petition it was answered, That Order should be given to Sir Roger le Brabanzon to view and examine the Record mentioned in the Petition, and to certify at the next Parliament; and also to the Treasurer and Chamberlain, to search the Remembrances touching the said Lands, and to certify to the King, touching his Right therein, at the next Parliament; also to the Treasurer and Barons, by Writ of Exchequer to summon the Heirs of John Eston and others, to be at the next Parliament, to inform the King touching his Right; and setting forth, that the said Writs had been issued out, and that the said Heirs been summoned accordingly. And, in respect it was answered by the said Treasurer and Chamberlain, that the Evidences touching the said Lands are in Chancery, praying the King that, having viewed the said Records and Remembrances, Right may be done them; it is answered, That the said Petition be sent to the Judges of the King's Bench, (together with the Process heretofore had upon the said Petition by Sir Roger le Brabanzon, and which Process the said Roger delivered to the King's Council at Lincoln), who, calling to their Assistance the King's Serjeants and others, are to examine the same; but so as that the King be certified touching the same before Judgement is given thereon.—Then the Writ sent to Roger de Brabanzon is entered; which Writ is tested at Westminster, Anno 8 Ed. II. and states the Proceedings upon a former Petition in the Reign of Edw. I. and that the same were referred to the King's Bench; but that the said Process, by reason of the Death of the King, huc usque est sopitus, by reason of which the said Thomas and Anthony, by their Petition now exhibited, pray, &c. wherefore it is commanded that the said Roger, having seen and examined the said Record and Process, do certify the King touching the same in the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XVII.

Hugo le Despencer. 9 Ed. II. N^o 6. Vol. 1. P. 353.

"Hugo le Despencer, by Petition to the King in Council, first at Westminster, and afterwards at Lincoln, claimed, in Right of Eleanor his Wife, one of the Coheiresses of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hereford, deceased, the Purparty of the said Eleanor, in the Lands of the said Earl, held of the King in Capite; whereupon Gilbert de Tondely and Geoffry le Scroop objected to the same, in respect that in some of the Inquisitions taken upon the Writ of Diem clausit extremum, it was mentioned that Matilda, the Dowager of the said Earl, was pregnant at the Time of his Death, &c. and therefore praying Judgement for the King, &c. (fn. 330) Upon which, as from the Novelty and Difficulty of the said Matter, the same could not be determined sine Assensu Magnatum, Day was given to the said Hugo and Eleanor to the next Parliament.—Afterwards, the King, having, by Letters under his Privy Seal, commanded the Chancellor and the Two Chief Justices, calling to their Assistance such of the King's Council as were in London, to hear any new Arguments the said Hugo might offer, and to report their Advice thereupon to Him without delay; and the said Hugo having committed certain Reasons in Writing to them, and the said Chancellor and Justices, &c. reporting to the King, That in respect of the Novelty and Rarity of the said Affair, they durst not determine, nor even advise His Majesty thereon, the King appointed a Day for the said Hugo at the next Parliament.

Afterwards at the next Parliament at Lincoln, on the Quindene of St. Hilary, Anno 9 Edw. II. the said Hugo appeared, and prayed as aforesaid, and the said Gilbert and Geoffry also; whereupon, certain Prelates and Persons learned in the Civil and Canon Law were appointed by the King to consider the same, who not being able to agree how finally to determine the same, Day was given to the said Hugo and Eleanor on the Quindene of Easter before the King and Council wheresoever, &c. At which Day, the said Hugo came before the King and his Council at Westminster, praying as aforesaid, when, on Account of the Difficulty of the said Matter, Day was given to him to the next Parliament.—Afterwards, on Monday after the Feast of Saint Nicholas, Anno 10 Ed. II. the Matter was referred to the Chancellor, Treasurer, the Barons of the Exchequer, the Justices, and such of the King's Council as were in Town, who, if they could not determine it, were to deliver the Lands to certain Persons, &c.—which the said Justices, not being able to determine the said Matter, accordingly did, to keep the same to the Octaves of Saint Hilary, unless a Parliament or Convocatio Magnatum should first assemble. Afterwards, in the Quindene of Easter, Anno 10 Ed. II. in a Convocation of Prelates, &c. the Matter was referred, by Command of the King, to the Prelates, Lords, and such of the King's Council as were in London, when, upon Examination, it was found that the said Eleanor, &c. were the right Heirs of the said Gilbert de Clare. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XVIII.

Bishop of Durham. 18 Ed. II. N^o 8. Vol. 1. P. 418.

To the Petition of Lewis Bishop of Durham, to the King and his Council, shewing, that whereas heretofore he delivered certain Petitions in Parliament, praying our Lord the King to do him Right in respect of divers Manors, &c. therein mentioned, which Petitions remain unanswered; and therefore praying the King to give Order, that the said Petitions should be answered, and that he may not be delayed of his Right,—it is answered, au prochein Parlement. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XIX.

Amongst the Petitiones in Parliamento.

"Annis Incertis Edw. I. & II.

No 31 and 32. Vol. 1. P. 466.

"Upon Petition to the King by Richard Lovel, who had married the Daughter and Heir of Sir John Soules, relative to Lands and Tenements in Dumfries, and also to the Manor of Roxburgh, which the said Sir John had, Steps are directed to be taken therein by the King's Lieutenant in Scotland, and certified at the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XX.

N^o 41.

"Upon the Petition of John de Erleye to the King and Council, respecting Lands said to be held of the King in Chief, Inquisition is directed to be made and certified into the Exchequer: The Books and Rolls of the Exchequer to be searched, and the King to be certified thereof in the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXI.

N^o 46.

"Inquisition is directed to be made and certified to the King, at the next Parliament, upon the Petition of Reynald le Chien. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXII.

N^o 49.

"Inquisition is directed to be made and certified to the King, at the next Parliament, on the Petition of the Earl of Ross. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXIII.

N^o 54.

"Inquisition is directed to be made, and if Difficulties occurred, the Case to be certified to the King at the next Parliament,—on the Petition of David Marshal of Scotland. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXIV.

N^o 57.

"On the Petition of Alexander de Baliol, Inquisition is directed to be made touching Part of the Prayer of the said Petition, and certified to the King at the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXV.

N^o 58.

"On the Petition of John de Corbrigge, Inquisition is directed to be made and certified to the King at the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXVI.

N^o 65.

"On the Petition of the Bishop of Aberdeen, Inquisition is directed to be made and certified to the King at the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXVII.

N^o 74.

"On the Petition of the Abbot and Convent of Melross, it is answered to that and all other similar Petitions, that the Chamberlain of Scotland should take Account of what was due from all Creditors of the same Decscription, and certify the Result to the King at the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXVIII.

N^o 80.

"On the Petition of Alard of Winchelsea, Inquisition is directed to be made and to be reported at another Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXIX.

N^o 112.

"On the Petition of Peter de Pontone, who had been imprisoned for a Trespass on the Chace of the Earl of Warren, praying that he might be tried by his Country, or be held to Bail till the next Parliament, so that the King may then give Order touching the same Accusation according to his Pleasure, It is answered, That he shall find Bail in Chancery according to the Form of the Petition to the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXX.

William de Montagu Earl of Salisbury. 1 Ric. II. N^o 28, Vol. 3. P. 7.

"Upon reading the Petition of William de Montagu Earl of Salisbury to the King, complaining of a Judgement of the Court of King's Bench, by which Roger de Mortimer Earl of March, Father to Edmond the present Earl, had recovered from the said Earl of Salisbury some Lands in Wales, as being erroneous; and stating, that he had sued from Parliament to Parliament for Redress by divers Petitions, and amongst others, at the Parliament held at Westminster on the 8th of November, in the 46th Year of Edward III. (fn. 331) praying therefore, that the Record and Process may be brought before the King and Council in the present Parliament, and that the said Edmond may be called, and the said Record and Process examined, and if erroneous, reversed; (fn. 332) it was ordered, that the Chief Justice should bring the said Record and Process into Parliament without Delay, who brought the same accordingly, the same being tacked to divers other Records in a certain Roll. Whereupon the said Earl assigned divers Errors in the said Record and Process, praying a Writ of Scire facias to warn the said Edmond to be in the next Parliament to hear the said Errors, &c.—The same was accordingly awarded, and ordered to be made returnable the next Parliament. Afterwards, towards the End of the Parliament, the Chief Justice, by Order of the House, carried back the Record and Process into the King's Bench, to remain there till the next Parliament, at which Parliament it is ordered, that the same shall be forth-coming again.

"This Parliament ended the 28th Day of November 1377. (See N^o 137. Vol. 3. Page 29.)—In the next Parliament held at Gloucester on Wednesday after the Feast of St. Luke the Evangelist, viz. 21st October 1378, Anno 2 Ric. II. (fn. 333) the Record of the Proceedings enrolled in the last Parliament is entered, and then the Record of this Parliament proceeds to state the Appearance of the said Earl of Salisbury in the said Parliament.—The said Record and Process relative to the said Judgement is brought by the Lord Chief Justice, and the Sheriff of Shropshire returns non est inventus to the Writ of Scire facias awarded in the last Parliament, which Writ is tested the 1st of December, Anno 1 Ric. II. directing the said Edmond to be summoned to be in the next Parliament wheresoever, &c. and the said Writ and Return are also entered; whereupon the Earl of Sarum prays an Alias seire facias to the said Edmond to be before the King at the next Parliament, which is accordingly granted, and ordered to be made returnable at the next Parliament.—And the Record and Process are moreover ordered for the said Cause to be at the next Parliament.—In the next Parliament, viz. at Westminster, on the Quindene of Easter, Anno 2 Rich. II. (fn. 334) the Record of the Proceedings in the last Parliament is recited, and then the Record of this Parliament proceeds to state the Alias scire facias (fn. 335), directing the Sheriff to summon the said Edmond to appear in the next Parliament, wheresoever, &c. Tested 12th December, Anno 2 Ric. II. and the Return of the Execution thereof (fn. 336) : And the said Earl of Salisbury and Earl of March appear (fn. 337); and the Writ and Return, and the Record and Process being read, the said Earl of Salisbury, by his Attorney, offers to assign the Errors. (fn. 338) The Earl of March excepts to the Return of the Writ of Alias scire facias as not sufficiently describing him. (fn. 339) To which the Earl of Salisbury answers, &c. And it is entered (fn. 340) that the Parliament being near an End when this Business was entered upon, and there being other Business of Importance, a Day is given to the Parties to the next Parliament, all Things being in the same State as they then were, and saving to the Parties their Reasons and Challenges whatever.—And further it is accorded, that the Record and Process shall be in the next Parliament, for the Cause aforesaid. At which next Parliament, viz. at Westminster, on Monday next after St. Hilary, Anno 3 Ric. II. (fn. 341) the Earl of Salisbury appears, and prays, that whereas Day was given him in the last Parliament to the present Parliament, and that he has so long prosecuted his Suit from Parliament to Parliament, he may be heard to assign Errors; (fn. 342) whereupon John de Bishopston, a Clerk of the Earl of March, the said Earl being absent, puts in a Protection, with a Clause of Volumus tested 1st December, Anno 3 Ric. II. which Protection is entered at Length, (fn. 343) and being read in Parliament, examined and allowed, it was awarded that the said Earl of March should go without Day.—Afterwards, at a Parliament held at Westminster on Monday after the Feast of St. Vincent, in the 20th of Ric. II. (fn. 344) William de Montagu Earl of Sarum brings a new Writ of Error upon the same Judgement, and the Record, &c. is brought by the Chief Justice, and Errors are assigned by the said Earl, who prays a Writ of Scire facias to Roger de Mortimer, Cousin and Heir of Roger the Son of Edmond, returnable in the next Parliament, which is granted accordingly. (fn. 345) Afterwards, at a Parliament held at Westminster on the Monday next after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, Anno 21 Ric. II. the said William Earl of Salisbury being dead, upon the Petition of Error of John de Montagu, his Nephew and Heir, the Record is brought up again, and he assigns Errors, and a (fn. 346) Scire facias is awarded to the said Roger, to hear the Errors in the next Parliament.—No further Proceeding appears. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXXI.

Prior and Convent of Montagu. 7 Ric. II. N^o 20. Vol. 3. P. 172.

"Upon a Bill delivered by the Prior and Convent of Montagu, praying that a Judgement given in the King's Bench, in a Suit between the said Prior and Convent and Sir Richard Seymour, might be entered and amended, the same was ordered accordingly. Whereupon the said Prior and Convent, by another (fn. 347) Bill alledging that there were divers Errors in the said Judgement, pray that certain Persons of the Council may be assigned, before whom the said Record might be sent for, and that they might have full Power and Authority to hear the said Errors, and to warn the said Richard Seymour to appear at a certain Day, to hear the Assignment of the said Errors, and that they might correct the same, and give Judgement according to Right, and that no Protection should be allowed to the said Richard Seymour.

"Whereupon it was ordered, that said Prior should have a Writ of Scire facias, returnable in the next Parliament, to warn the said Richard to be at the said next Parliament, to hear the Errors assigned or to be assigned, &c. And further, that the said Record and Process, with all Things touching the same, should be in the next Parliament, and that no Protection should be allowed to the said Richard.

"N. B. Among the Petitions in Parliament of this Year (fn. 348), there is a Petition of the said Prior and Convent of Montagu, setting forth that the said Richard Seymour is suing a Writ of Procedendo to the Justices of the Common Pleas, and praying that they may have a Writ of Supersedeas omnino. Whereupon it is awarded, by the King and Lords in Parliament, that no Writ of Procedendo should be granted to the said Richard in the Plea mentioned in the said Petition, till the next Parliament.

" (fn. 349) Afterwards, in the next Parliament, viz. at Westminster, on the Morrow of Saint Martin, the Record and Proceedings in the last Parliament are entered, and then the Record of this Parliament proceeds to state, that a Parliament having been summoned to be held at Westminster on the Morrow of Saint Martin, then next following, the said Prior prosecuted, and had his Writ of Scire facias directed to the Sheriff of Somerset, returnable in the said Parliament to be held at Westminster on the Morrow aforesaid.—That the said Sheriff has returned the said Writ accordingly. Then the Writ, bearing Teste 15th October, Anno 8 Ric. II. (fn. 350) requiring the said Richard to appear in the Parliament at Westminster, on the Morrow of Saint Martin then next following, and the Return of the Execution thereof is set forth.—Also a Writ of the Abbot of Muchelney, reciting a Licence to the Prior of Montacute, to appear by Attorney in Parliament, on the said Morrow of Saint Martin, and requiring him to return the Names of the said Attorneys, when he shall have received them, tested 16th October, 8^o Ric. II. together with the Return and Execution of the said Writ. Whereupon the said Prior appearing by his Attorney, and the said Richard Seymour in Person, on the Morrow aforesaid, it was commanded by the King and Lords, at the Petition of the said Prior, that the Chief Justice of the King's Bench should bring the Record and Process, with all Things relating thereto, in the same Parliament, which he accordingly did.—Then the whole Record and Proceedings in the Court below are set forth, and same having been read in Parliament, the said Richard prays that the said Prior may assign Errors, who accordingly assigns the same; and the said Richard having joined Issue thereon, the Judgment is reversed (fn. 351). Saving however to the said Richard to sue by Writ of Right, or by Scire facias de novo, if he shall think fit. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXXII.

7 Ric. II. N^o 23. Vol. 3 P. 181.

"Upon the Petition of the Abbot of the Church of Saint Peter of Gloucester to the King and Council in Parliament, stating, that whereas the said Prior had by Writ of Right, at the Great Sessions in Wales, claimed the Advowson of the Church of Saint Paterne de Lampadavn-vaur against the Abbot of Villa Real, &c; upon which the said Abbot of Saint Peter applied to the King and Council, for a Writ of Procedendo to the said Justice; and that by Advice of the said Council, the said Abbot of Villa Real was warned to be at Westminster, on the Quindene of Easter last past, before the Council, to shew Cause why the said Writ of Procedendo should not issue: At which Day the said Parties severally appeared before the said Council, and had Day given them to the Quindene of Saint Michael next following, unless a Parliament should be held in the mean Time; and from that Day, Day was given to the said Parties to the present Parliament, to the great Delay of the said Suit, and to the Injury of the said Abbot of Saint Peter.— Praying thereof that the King and his Council would direct a Procedendo to the said Justice:

"It is answered, That the King, by Assent of the Lords in Parliament, wills that the Process, of which the Petition makes mention, be continued in the State it now is till the next Parliament.

"And afterwards, at the Parliament at Cambridge, on the Morrow of the Nativity of our Lady, in the 12th Year of Rich. II. it was accorded by the King and Lords in Parliament, that the said Process be continued in the State it then was till the next Parliament. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXXIII.

Abbot of Villa Real. 7 Ric. II. N^o 24. Vol. 3. P. 182.

"To a Counter Petition of the said Abbot of Villa Real to the King and Council relative to the same Suit, praying a Writ of Supersedeas omnino, the same Answer is given in this Parliament, as to the Petition of the Abbot of St. Peter.

"Also a like Order thereupon at the subsequent Parliament held at Cambridge, Anno 12 Ric. II. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXXIV.

Appendix Pat. 9 Ric. II. N^o 26. Vol. 3. P. 399.

"In the Patent Rolls, 9 Ric. II. there is recited a Statute of the 40^th Edw. III. ordaining, that in every Parliament One Prelate, Two Earls, and Two Barons should be chosen to hear and determine Petitions of Error or Delay of Justice, with Power to send for Records. And in case it should appear to them, that the Difficulty was so great that they could not determine the same without the Assent of Parliament, then they should bring the Transcript of the Records to the next Parliament there to be finally determined; and on the Petition of Thomas Lovell a Commission is issued accordingly in his Case. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXXV.

Sir Thomas Metham. 13 Ric. II. N^o 15. Vol. 3. P. 260.; N^o 16. P. 261.

"Upon reading the Petition of Sir Thomas Metham to the King and Lords in Parliament, complaining of Error in a Judgement of the Court of King's Bench, by which he was found to be an Abettor of an Appeal of Death brought by one Elizabeth Fitzwilliam against John Aske and others, wherein she was nonsuited; and in respect the said Elizabeth was not able to pay the Damages assessed to the said John Aske, being 500 Marks, the said Thomas was adjudged, as an Abettor as aforesaid, to pay 440 Marks, Part thereof; and praying that the Record and Process, in the said Appeal, might be brought in the present Parliament; and that he might be bailed, finding sufficient Surety to abide by and perform the Order and Award of Parliament in all Respects touching the said Matter: It was ordered, That the Chief Justice should forthwith bring the said Record and Process in Parliament, which he accordingly did; and the same being read, the said Thomas assigned Errors therein; and thereupon a Scire facias was awarded for John Aske to appear in the next Parliament, wherever the same should be held within the Realm of England, to hear the Errors which should be assigned by the said Thomas in the said Record and Process; and further to do and receive what in the said next Parliament should be adjudged upon the said Matter.— And that the Record and Process should be ready in the said next Parliament; and also, that the said Thomas should be discharged out of Custody of the Marshalsea, upon sufficient Bail, till the said Errors were discussed: And the said Thomas was accordingly bailed. And the Chancellor was commanded to make the necessary Writ for his Discharge, together with the Writ of Scire facias en contre le dit proschein Parlement. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXXVI.

John Frere. 13 Ric. II. N^o 17. Vol. 3. P. 261.

"A Petition, totidem verbis mutatis mutandis, was presented by John Frere, who was found to be another Abettor of the said Appeal, and was, by the same Judgement, awarded to pay the said John Aske 40 Marks, Part of the said 500 Marks; and the same Proceedings and Order were had thereupon. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXXVII.

Abbot of St. Osyth. 15 Ric. II. N^o 17. Vol. 3. P. 287.

"Upon reading the Petition of the Abbot of St. Osyth, to the King and Lords in Parliament, setting forth, That whereas the said Abbot, at the last Parliament held at Westminster, presented a Bill against John Rokell for divers Grievances, and particularly in respect of 300 Marks, in which Sum the said Abbot was taxed by a false Inquest, at the Suit of William Newman and others, by the Maintenance and Embracery of the said John Rokell; whereupon, by Advice of the Lords, and the Justices of the one Bench and the other, the said John was, upon his Answer, committed to the Tower.—After which the said Matter was mutually submitted by them to the Award of the Lord de Guyen; but the said John hath not fulfilled the said Award, nor done any Thing therein; by reason of which the said Abbot is in great Danger, and particularly because he, the said Abbot, had a Supersedeas till the present Parliament touching the said 300 Marks, and which Supersedeas is now done away; and praying therefore Remedy in the same, so that he may be discharged therefrom entirely:—The said John Rokell was caused to appear, and the Award of the said Monsieur de Guyen being read, the said John Rokell undertook to perform the same, &c. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXXVIII.

John Shepeye vers. Prior of Huntingdon. 15 Ric. II. N^o 22. Vol. 3. P. 289.

"Upon the Petition of John Shepeye, Prebendary of Lincoln, complaining of a Judgement of the Court of King's Bench in a Suit by the Prior of Huntingdon against the said Prebendary, as being erroneous, and praying the Record and Process may be brought in the present Parliament, and that the said Prior may be warned to appear in this present Parliament, to hear the Errors therein, &c. It is ordered, That the said John shall have a Writ of Scire facias, returnable in the next Parliament, for the said Prior to appear in the next Parliament wheresoever, &c. to hear the Errors that should be assigned by the said John, &c. and the said Record and Process to be in the next Parliament. Afterwards, at the next Parliament, at Winchester, on the Octaves of Saint Hilary, Anno 16 Ric. II^di. (fn. 352) the said Proceedings in the last Parliament are recited. And then the Record of this Parliament proceeds to state, that the Writ of Scire facias, which the said John had brought against the said Prior, being quashed, for certain lawful Causes, the said John prayed a new Writ of Scire facias to be granted him; and the same was accordingly granted him, returnable in the next Parliament. Afterwards, in the next Parliament, viz. at Westminster, in Fifteen Days of St. Hilary, Anno 17 Ric. II. (fn. 353) it is considered, (fn. 354) that in respect it appeared to the Court, that the Petition of Error of the said John Shepeye, presented in the Parliament held at Westminster Anno 15 Ric. II. was insufficient in Matter, the same should be quashed. In the same Parliament, the said John Shepeye brings a new Writ of Error in the same Cause, complaining as therein is set forth, and praying, that the Record and Process may be brought in the present Parliament, and that a Scire facias may be awarded for the said Prior, to hear the Errors, in the next Parliament after the present Parliament. Whereupon it is ordered, that a Scire facias be awarded, returnable in the next Parliament, wheresoever, &c. and the Record and Process to be in the said next Parliament. No further Proceedings appear. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XXXIX.

Dean and Chapter of Litchfield vers. Prior of Newport Pagnell. 15 Ric. II. N 23 Vol. 3. P. 289.

"Upon reading the Petition of the Dean and Chapter of Litchfield, complaining of a Judgement of the King's Bench in Error, in a Suit between the Prior of Newport Pagnell, Plaintiff, and the late Dean of Litchfield, Defendant, as erroneous, and praying that the Record and Process may be brought in the present Parliament, and that the said Prior may be warned to appear in the present Parliament, at a certain Day, to hear the Errors; it is ordered, that a Writ of Scire facias, adapted to the Case, shall be issued, returnable in the next Parliament, for the said Prior to be present in the next Parliament, wheresoever, &c.; and that the Record and Process shall be in the next Parliament. Afterwards in the next Parliament, viz. at Winchester, on the Octave of Saint Hilary, Anno 16 Ric. II. (fn. 355) the Record of the Proceedings in the former Parliament is recited, and then the Record of this Parliament proceeds to state, that in the present Parliament the Scire facias sued out by the said Dean and Chapter being returned, was quashed for lawful Cause, and that thereupon the said Dean and Chapter pray to have a new Writ of Scire facias, which is granted to them, returnable in the next Parliament.

"Afterwards, in the next Parliament, viz. at Westminster, in Fifteen Days of St. Hilary, Anno 17 Ric. II. (fn. 356) it is considered, that in respect it appeared to the Court that the Petition of Error of the Dean and Chapter of Litchfield exhibited in the Parliament held at Westminster Anno 15 Ric. II. against the Prior of Newport Pagnell, is insufficient in Matter, the same should be quashed.— (fn. 357) Afterwards, in the same Parliament, the said Dean and Chapter present a new Petition of Error in the same Cause, complaining of the said. Judgement as therein is set forth, and praying that the Record and Process may be brought in the present Parliament, and that the said Prior may be warned to appear in the next Parliament to hear the Errors. Whereupon the same is granted, returnable in the next Parliament, wheresoever, &c. and the Record and Process to be in the then next Parliament.—Afterwards, at a Parliament held at Westminster in 15 Days of St. Hilary, Anno 18 Ric. II. (fn. 358) the Record of the Proceedings in the former Parliament is recited; and then the Record of this Parliament proceeds to state, that afterwards a Parliament being summoned to be at Westminster in Fifteen Days of St. Hilary, in the 18th Year of the King, the said Dean and Chapter prosecuted, and had their Writ of Scire facias returnable on the said Fifteenth Day.—That now, in this Parliament viz. on the said Fifteenth Day, the Sheriff of Warwick had returned the said Writ; then the Writ is set forth tested 25th November, Anno 18 Ric II. and the Return of the Sheriff that he had executed the same.—Whereupon the said Dean and Chapter appear, but the said Prior makes Default;—wherefore the said Dean and Chapter pray Judgement, and that for Default of the said Prior's appearing, the Matter of the said Writ of Error may be examined;—the same is agreed to.—Upon the Petition of the said Dean and Chapter in the same Parliament, the Chief Justice is directed to bring up the Record, which he accordingly does.—Then the Record is set forth, and the same being read, the said Dean and Chapter assign the Errors, and pray that the said Judgement of the King's Bench, reversing a Judgement of the Court of Common Pleas, may be reversed; whereupon, after due Consideration had, the said Judgement of the King's Bench is reversed, and the Judgement of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed.

Prior of Newport Pagnell vers. Dean and Chapter of Litchfield. 2 Hen. IV. N^o 40. Vol. 3. P. 464.

"The Prior of Newport Pagnell sued a Petition of Error in Parliament in the First Year of the present King, which was answered as follows:—That the said Prior should have a Writ of Scire facias returnable at the next Parliament; upon which the said Prior sued a Writ of Scire facias, returnable in this Parliament, which Writ is continued to the next Parliament, in the State it now is. — A Parliament met Anno 3 Hen. IV. but there are no Proceedings of Record.

4 Hen. IV. N^o 26.

"In the Parliament held at Westminster on the Morrow of St. Michael, Anno 4 Hen. IV. (fn. 359) it is entered thus: Also, touching the Plea that is pending in Parliament by Writ of Error, between the Dean and Chapter of Litchfield and the Prior of Newport Pagnell, the said Prior, by his Attorney, put into Parliament his Errors, consisting of Six Articles; of which the First Article was read, and nothing more done therein. And upon this, the last Day of the Parliament, the King ordered the Process of this Matter to continue in the State it now is till the next Parliament.— Which Errors are as follow; 1st. That by Law, no Writ of Scire facias can issue out of any Court to warn a Party to hear the Errors of a Record, till the Record, in which Errors are assigned, is brought into the Court which is to correct the Errors; and that upon this Petition a Writ of Scire facias was awarded, to warn the said Prior, before the Record and Process were caused to be brought into the Parliament. Secondly, inasmuch as the Default of the said Prior was recorded in the said Parliament, and an Examination of the Record and Process was awarded; whereas there was, at that Time, no Record or Process touching the said Matter in the Parliament.—Then several other Errors are assigned.— No further Proceedings appear. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XL.

Esm nd Basset. 15 Ric. 2. N^o 24. Vol. 3. P. 289.

"Upon reading the Petition of Esmond Basset to the King and Lords in Parliament, complaining of a Judgement in the King's Bench, in a Suit in which the King was Demandant, and the said Esmond Deforciant, and praying the Record and Process to be brought in the present Parliament, in order that the Errors therein may be corrected, &c. it is awarded, that the said Matter shall continue in the State in which it is till the next Parliament.—Afterwards, at the next Parliament, viz. at Winchester, on the Octaves of St. Hilary, Anno 16 Ric. II. (fn. 360) the Record of the said Proceedings in the former Parliament is recited, and it is awarded in this present Parliament, that the said Matter shall continue in the State in which it is till the next Parliament.— (fn. 361) Afterwards, at a Parliament held at Westminster on the Quindene of St. Hilary, Anno 17 Ric. II. there is this Entry; "Also it is considered that the Petition of Esmond Basset, exhibited in the same Parliament, (viz. Anno 15 Ric. II.) for correcting certain Errors, be continued in the State it now is till the next Parliament." No further Proceedings appear in the subsequent Part of the Reign of Richard the Second. But at a Parliament held at Westminster on the Octaves of St. Hilary in the Second Year of Henry the Fourth, a new Petition of Error to the King and Lords was presented by the said Esmond, stating and praying in Terms of the former Petition; whereupon the Record and Process were caused to be brought out of Chancery before the King and Lords in Parliament; and being there read and understood, there appeared to be manifest Error; wherefore it was accorded by the Lords, with the Assent of the King, that the said Record and Process, together with the Judgement thereupon, should be reversed, and the Petitioner restored to all his Lands. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XLI.

William Leygrane vers. Thomas Carlton. 17 Ric. II. N^o 13. Vol. 3. P. 314.

Upon reading the Petition of William Leygrane de Bristuyt to the King, and all the Lords of this present Parliament, complaining of a Judgement of the Court of King's Bench as erroneous in reversing a Judgement of the Mayor and Bailiffs of the Town of Bristuyt aforesaid, in an Assise of fresh Force against John Carlton and others; and praying that the Justices, together with the Record and Process, may be caused to come in the said present Parliament; and that the said Errors in the said Judgement may be redressed:—It is considered, That the said William shall have a Writ of Scire facias adapted to his Case, returnable in the next Parliament wheresoever, &c. for the said John Carlton and others, to hear the Errors, &c. and that the Record and Process aforesaid should be in the next Parliament. No further Proceeding appears. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XLII.

Sir William Culwen vers. Robert de Louth. 17 Ric. 11. N^o 19. Vol. 3. P. 316.

"Upon reading the Petition of William Culwen Knight, to the King and Lords in Parliament, complaining of a Judgement of Outlawry in the King's Bench, at the Suit of Robert de Louth upon an Appeal of Death against the said William, as being erroneous; and praying that the said Record and Process of Outlawry may be caused to be brought before them in this present Parliament; and that the said Robert, and the Chief Lords of whom the Petitioner holds his Lands and Tenements, may be warned to appear in the said Parliament, to hear Errors, &c. It is considered that the said William shall have a Writ of Scire facias adapted to his Case, returnable in the next Parliament wheresoever, &c. to hear the Errors, &c. and that the Record and Process aforesaid shall be in the next Parliament. No further Proceedings appear. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XLIII.

William Seward against John Dautry. 1 Hen. IV. N^o 91. Vol. 3. P. 430.

"William Seward, alias William Cheddre, presented a Petition to the King and Lords in Parliament, on the 17th of November, stating, that formerly, to wit, in the last Parliament held at Winchester, the said William had presented a Bill, complaining, That whereas the said William was presented and inducted to the Parsonage of Wooton under Egge, in the County of Gloucester, and continued in Possession thereof, till the King, upon the untrue Suggestion of one John Dautry, Clerk, presented the said John to the Church of Wooton under Heg, in the said County; whereas there is no such Church in the said County, as the said William by his Plea pleaded, in a Quare impedit brought by the King; upon which Writ afterwards, the King, by Default of the said William, recovered his Presentment to the Church of Wooton under Heg; and a Writ was thereupon issued to the Bishop of Worcester, to admit the said John; and praying that the said William might be restored to his Possession of the said Church of Wootton under Egge: Which Bill was endorsed as follows; To be sent to the Chancellor; and the Presentment of the King to be enquired into by the said Chancellor, with the Advice of the Treasurer, and others of the King's Counsel that he may think sit to call, and to do as in their Discretion they shall seem meet;" which was not yet done; and therefore he prayed Remedy in this present Parliament. And the said Petition being read, in respect that the said John was an Officer of the Exchequer, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer was ordered by the King to cause the said John, with his Counsel, to appear in Parliament the Tuesday following, to hear the Petition, and what should be adjudged thereupon. Who appearing accordingly, and the said Petition being again read, and after hearing what was alledged by both Parties, it was adjudged by the Lords, with the Assent of the King, that the Presentation to the said John Dautry should be annulled, and the said William restored. And a Writ of Restoration was awarded accordingly. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XLIV.

Roger Deyncourt vers. Ralph Adderley. 5 Hen. IV. N^o 40. Vol. 3. P. 530.

Upon the Petition of Roger Deyncourt to the King and Lords, complaining of a Judgement in the King's Bench in Error, affirming a Judgement of the Common Pleas in a Suit between Ralph Adderley and the said Roger Deyncourt, as erroneous, and praying that the Record and Process may be brought in this Parliament, and the Errors therein corrected; which Petition being read in the said Parliament, and the Record and Process shewn, and considered as read, and the Errors assigned thereupon also read, it was awarded that the said Roger should have a Writ of Scire facias, returnable in the next Parliament.— And thereupon the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, on Account of the Shortness of Time, had a Copy of the said Record and Process examined Word for Word, and delivered the same with his own Hands to the Clerk of the Parliaments to take care of till the next Parliament. — And because there were many other Records annexed and sewn to the said Record and Process, the Lord Chief Justice prayed that the said Records and Process might remain in his Custody till the next Parliament, or till the Errors assigned serroient trovez.—The same was agreed to, and accordingly the said Record and Process relative to the said Roger, continued in the Custody of the said Chief Justice.—Then the Errors assigned are set forth.—Afterwards, in the next Parliament, viz. at Coventry, on the 6th of October, Anno 6 Hen. IV. (fn. 362) it is stated, That whereas a Writ of Scire facias, at the Suit of Roger Deyncourt against Ralph Adderley, upon Error pending in Parliament, it was returned Tarde venit, it is accorded in Parliament that the said Roger may pursue another Writ of Scire facias, returnable at the next Parliament, if he so please, and that the Process had therein should be continued. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XLV.

John Gunwardby vers. John de Wyndesore. 1 Hen. V. N^o 19. Vol. 4. P. 7.

Upon reading the Petition of John de Gunwardby, and others, to the King and Lords in Parliament, complaining of a Judgement of the King's Bench in an Assise of novel Disseisin between the said John Gunwardby, and others, and John de Wyndesore, as being erroneous, and praying that the Record and Process may be brought in the present Parliament, and the said Record heard, and also the Errors to be assigned therein; and also to warn the said John de Wyndesore to be at the next Parliament, wheresoever, &c. and that the Errors might then be corrected.—The said Record and Process were brought by the Chief Justice in the said Parliament, which being read, and the Errors assigned therein heard, a Writ of Scire facias was awarded for the said John de Wyndesore to be in the next Parliament, wheresoever, &c. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XLVI.

Richard Catermayn. vers. Executors of Thomas Le Hore deceased. 3 Hen. V. N^o 19. Vol. 4. P. 74.

"Upon reading the Petition of Richard Catermayn to the King and Lords in Parliament, complaining of a Judgement in the King's Bench in an Action of Trespass by Thomas Le Hore, since deceased, against the said Richard, as erroneous, and praying the Record and Process may be brought in the present Parliament, that the Errors therein may be corrected, and that the Executors of the said Thomas may be warned to be in the next Parliament, to hear the Errors, &c. it is considered, with the Assent of Parliament, that a Writ of Scire facias should be awarded, returnable in the next Parliament, to warn the said Executors to be in the said next Parliament, wheresoever, &c. to hear the Errors. And the said Richard in the present Parliament, personally appearing, appointed Thomas Haseley, &c. his Attornies, &c. Vide Appendix, Class III. N^o XLVII.

Anno 23 Eliz. 1580. Lords Journals, Vol. 2. P. 38.

"Memorandum. That on Saturday the 25th of February, which Day was before appointed to the Parties for Assignation of Errors, Mr. Cowper came in for the Plaintiffs, and openly before the Lords in the Parliament House, assigned the Errors: After the hearing whereof, the Lord Chancellor, with Consent of the Lords, ordered, that the said Plaintiffs should have a Scire facias, returnable either the First Day of the next Session, or the First Day of the next Parliament.

Akerode, &c. and Whawley. Anno 27 Eliz. 1585. Lords Journals, Vol. 2. P. 82.

On the 15th of February 1585, it was ordered, that the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Baron, Justice Gawdie, and Baron Shute, should have the hearing of the Matter of the Writ of Error between Akerode, &c. and Mr. Whawley. — On the 11th of March, post Meridiem, it appearing by the Certificate of the Lords Chief Justices, the Master of the Rolls, and others, appointed Committees to hear and examine the Matter privately before them; that the Writ of Error and the Scire facias were insufficient in Law, for divers Causes opened to this Court; it was ordered, that the said Writ of Error should abate, and the Plaintiffs to pursue their Remedy as they should think good.

Anno 19 Jac. I. 1621. Lords Journals, Vol. 3. P. 121.

"On the 14th of May 1621, the Lord Chief Justice brought in the Record of the Judgement given in the King's Bench in the Cause of Nicholas Stafford, who now hath brought his Writ of Error. The Clerk received the Record and the Transcript, and laid it on Table. (fn. 363) On the 24th of May, the said Writ of Error being brought by the said Nicholas Stafford, in the Name of William Macdonnogh his Lessee, to reverse a Judgement of the King's Bench, concerning Lands in Ireland, it was moved to consider whether the Scire facias in this Case to be awarded, shall be directed to the Sheriff of Middlesex or the Sheriff of Ireland where the Land lies, and the Judges to consider thereof.— (fn. 364) On the 24th May 1621, the Judges report that they find a Writ is to be directed, by Warrant from this House, to the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, requiring him, by Writ out of that Court, to command the Sheriff of the County of Wexford (where the Land lies) to give Notice to the Party Defendant to make his Appearance here in Parliament, at a certain Time appointed to hear Errors: Ordered accordingly; but the Plaintiff is to assign Errors before the Writ is awarded.

(fn. 365) On the 14th of June 1621, a Commission was issued to adjourn the Parliament, and all Causes and Matters not finished, to the 14th of November 1621. On which Day, another Commission was issued for a like Adjournment to the 20th of the same Month; when the Lords met and sat, and continued sitting till the 18th of December 1621; during which Time no Proceedings appear relative to the said Cause.—On the said 18th of December, a Commission was issued for a like Adjournment to the 8th of February following, on which Day the Parliament was dissolved by Commission. — (fn. 366) On the 19th of February 1623–4, a new Parliament met and sat. In this Parliament, viz. (fn. 367) on the 28th of May 1624, the Lord Chief Justice brought in the Record of the Judgement in the King's Bench between William Macdonnogh and John Stafford Defendant, in Ejectment, for Lands in the County of Wexford in Ireland, according to His Majesty's Writ of Error. — Then a Warrant of Attorney, by the said William, appointing Thomas Farrer his Attorney, was received by the Lord Noel and the Lord Montague, and delivered by them to the House: And the said Thomas assigned the Errors, whereupon a Writ was awarded, and directed to the Chief Justice of the King's Bench in Ireland, to grant a Scire facias to the Sheriff of the County of Wexford. to appear before Their Lordships at the next Session of Parliament here in England, to hear the said Record and Process of Error in the said Judgement in the King's Bench in England. — And the Clerk signed a Warrant for the said Writ, directed to one of the Clerks of the Petty Bag. — The next Day, post Meridiem, the Parliament was prorogued to the 2d of November next, and from thence by several Prorogations, to the 20th of April 1625, before which Day the King died, and so that Parliament was dissolved.— No further Proceedings appear.

Anno 19 Jac. I. Lords Journals, Vol. 3. P. 152.

"Ordered, That His Majesty's Writ of Scire facias ad audiendum Errores, in a Writ of Error against John Moyle, be awarded to the Sheriff of the County of Bucks. But Evre is to assign Errors first, 2 Junii 1621.—No further Proceedings appear.

Anno 23 Jac. I. 1624. Ibid. P. 417.

"On the 28th of May 1624, the Earl of Bridgewater having ended the Report of the Answers of the Lords Committees for Petitions to divers of the said Petitions, it was ordered, That all the Petitions not yet reported may remain in statu quo till the next Session of Parliament.

Haines vers. Crowch. Anno 1 Car. I. 1625. Lords Journals, Vol. 3. P. 461.

"On the 8th of July 1625, Edward Haines appoints Thomas Ventris his Attorney, in a Writ of Error against Thomas Crowch, in Ejectment: and thereupon the said Thomas came and assigned Errors in the Judgement given in the King's Bench for the said Thomas Crowch. — Whereupon it is ordered, That a Writ of Scire facias shall issue, directed to the Sheriff of Dorset, to warn the said Thomas Crowch, &c. returnable immediately before the Lords in Parliament. —And the said Errors appear on the Files of this Parliament. — On the 11th of July, a Commission issued to adjourn the Parliament, and all Causes and Matters begun and not finished, to the 1st of August next, at Oxford; when and where it met and sat, till the 12th of the same Month, when it was dissolved by Commission. — No further Proceedings appear.

Anno 2 Car. I. 1626. Ibid. P. 646.

"On the 20th of May 1626, it was ordered, upon the Petition of Roger Martine and Ann his Wife, that a Writ of Scire facias shall be awarded out of the Office of the Petty Bag, in the Chancery, directed to the Bishop of Durham to give Warning to Marmaduke Blakiston, returnable the 14th Day of June next, to hear the Errors in the Record and Process; and also in the Judgement of the King's Bench, in a Plea of Debt, between the said Roger and Ann, and the said Marmaduke.—On the 15th of June, the Parliament was dissolved.—No further Proceeding appears.

Anno 2 Car. I. 1626. Ibid. P. 650.

"Upon the 24th of May 1626, it being moved to consider the Petition of Robert Lane, exhibited in this Parliament against Ferdinand Baude, complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, the said Cause was appointed for hearing on the Monday Sevennight, and the said Lane to give Notice to the said Baude.—On the 2d of June, the House adjourned to Thursday the 8th Instant; and on the 15th of June the Parliament was dissolved.— (fn. 368) On the 17th of March 1627–8, a new Parliament met and sat. And (fn. 369) on the 3d of May following, it is entered, That whereas Robert Lane did exhibit his Petition unto this House, the last Parliament, against Ferdinando Baud, to be relieved of a Decree in the Chancery, concerning the Freehold of divers Lands; whereupon it was then ordered (24 Maii 1626), That the said Cause should be heard here at the Bar, at a Day then appointed, by Counsel on both Sides, and in Presence of both Parties: The House being moved this Day to renew the said Order, on the Behalf of the said Lane; It is ordered, That the said Ferdinando Baud and William Baud his Son have Notice hereof, and that they do prepare their Counsel for their Defence herein, against such Time as their Lordships shall appoint to hear the same; and Notice is to be given hereof unto the said Ferdinando and William by the said Robert Lane.

"On the 8th of May the said Ferdinando is ordered to be brought before the House, for a Contempt of the said Order of the 3d instant.—On the 14th, upon his Petition the Charges of the Serjeant at Arms were moderated, and no other Fees to be paid.—And the same Day the Hearing of the Cause was appointed for Tuesday next, and afterwards, on the 27th of May, put off to Thurday next; (fn. 370) when it was heard by Counsel on both Sides, and ordered to be heard again that Day Se'nnight.—On the 26th of June the Parliament was prorogued to the 20th of October following, and from thence to the 20th of January next, when it met and sat.— (fn. 371) On the 5th of February 1628, it was ordered, That the Cause between Robert Lane and Ferdinando Baude should be heard in open Court, on the 26th instant, so as Notice be given to the said Ferdinando within these Seven Days. And on the Petition of the said Robert, Four Counsel were assigned him. Upon another Petition, Counsel were assigned to the said Robert, in forma Pauperis, on the 20th of February; and on the 23d of February the Cause was deferred to the 24th of April, on the Petition of the said Ferdinando, his Counsel being gone the Circuit.—But, on the 10th of March, the Parliament was dissolved.—No further Proceeding.

"Die Veneris, 17^o Martii 1625.

Anno 1 Car. I. 1625. Vol. 3. Lords Journals, P. 532 & 533. Waterhouse vers. Ingram.

"THE Lord President reported, That the Lords Committees for Petitions have conceived an Order, upon a Petition exhibited unto this House by Sir Edward Waterhouse, against Sir Arthure Ingram, which was read; videlicet,

"Whereas Sir Edward Waterhouse Knight, hath exhibited a Petition in Parliament against Sir Arthure Ingram Knight, for the reviving of his Complaint, comprized in a former Petition of the said Edward Waterhouse, against the said Arthure, and by him answered, but remaining undetermined, the last Parliament of our late Sovereign Lord King James; and whereas, upon the Hearing thereof, before the Lords Committees for Petitions, upon Thursday the Second of this Instant March, it was Ordered," &c.

"Now, forasmuch, &c. "It is ordered, That the said Sir Edward Waterhouse shall rest satisfied, and not any further prosecute any Suit against the said Arthure Ingram, according to his own Consent and Agreement."

"Ordered accordingly.

Anno 12 Car. II. 1660. Vol. 11 Lords Journals, P. 206. Sir S. Fanshawe and Impey.

"On the 11th of December 1660, upon reading a Petition of Sir Symon Fanshawe, against a Decree in the Court of Exchequer, it was ordered, That the Consideration thereof should be adjourned to the Sixth Day of the Sitting of the next Parliament; and all Proceedings in the Exchequer to be staid in the mean Time.

" (fn. 372) On the same Day is the following Entry:

"Upon reading the Petition of Sir Symon Fanshawe; complaining of "an unjust Decree made against him, to his great Prejudice, in the Court of Exchequer 1657, where those as sat then as Barons of that Court, viz. Nicholas, Parker, and Hill, did then openly prosess much Animosity against the Petitioner, and for the other Suggestions and Allegations in the said Petition, at the Suit of one Thomas Impey, therefore prays, Their Lordships would be pleased to re-hear the said Cause in this House."

"Now, in regard this Parliament is near the Time of Dissolution, whereby this Cause cannot come to be heard this Parliament; therefore it is ordered, That the Consideration of this Petition; and the Matter therein contained, is hereby adjourned to the Sixth Day of the Sitting of the next Parliament; at which Time all Parties are to attend, with their Counsel, at this Bar; and the original Decree in the Court of Exchequer concerning this Business is then to be brought into this House, that so Their Lordships may proceed to a full Hearing of the Business; and in the mean Time no further Proceedings is to be had in this Cause in the Court of Exchequer, or upon the Decree therein mentioned.

"On the 29th of December 1660, the Parliament was dissolved; and on the 8th of May 1661 the new Parliament met.— (fn. 373) On the 18th of May 1661, upon reading the Petition of Sir Symon Fanshawe Knight, this Day in the House, complaining of "a Decree in the Exchequer gained by Thomas Impey against him:" It was ordered, That the Cause shall be reheard on the 30th instant; the Parties concerned to have timely Notice, and Copies of the Petition in the Interim; and to attend with their Counsel at that Time.

" (fn. 374) On the 26th of June 1661, upon hearing the Cause, it was ordered, that the Petition and Contents thereof be dismissed.

Anno 12 Car. II. 1660. Lords Journals, Vol. 11. P. 213.

"On the 17th of December 1660, a Writ of Error between Aylworth Defendant, and Evett Plaintiff, was brought in by the Lord Chief Justice. On the 29th of the same Month the Parliament was dissolved; (fn. 375) On the 8th of May 1661, the new Parliament met. — (fn. 376) On the 25th of May, upon the Petition of Henry Evett Gentleman, Defendant in a Writ of Error brought into the House of Peers last Parliament, by Richard Ayleworth Esquire, Plaintiff in the said Writ, who hath not prosecuted the same, nor assigned any Errors thereupon, to the Prejudice of the Petitioner, and contrary to Course, it was ordered, That the said Richard Ayleworth shall assign Errors within Twenty Days next after the Date of this Order, and prosecute the same; or otherwise the said Record shall be remitted, and the Defendant left to take out his Execution, notwithstanding the said Writ of Error.

" (fn. 377) On the 20th of June 1661, it is entered as follows: Whereas Henry Evett Defendant, in a Writ of Error depending in this House, brought in by Richard Ayleworth Esquire, Plaintiff, the last Parliament, hath not prosecuted at all in the said Writ, nor assigned Errors, although he hath had Twenty Days given him, by an Order of this House, dated the 25th of May last:

"It is ordered, That the Transcript of the Record shall be remitted, and the said Evett left to take his ordinary Course in Law, notwithstanding the said Writ of Error: And hereof those whom it may concern are to take Notice, and yield Obedience accordingly.

Anno 12 Car. II. 1660. Lords Journals, Vol. 11. P. 220.

"On the 21st of December 1660, the Lord Chief Justice brought in a Writ of Error between Dethick and Bradbourne.—On the 29th of the same Month, the Parliament was dissolved. — No further Proceeding.

Anno 13 Car. II. 12 Decemb. 1661. Lords Journals, Vol. 11. P. 348.

"On the 12th of December 1661, it was ordered, That a Draught of an Order shall be prepared and brought into this House on the Morrow, to prevent the Delay in Proceeding upon Writs of Errors brought into this House.— (fn. 378) Accordingly the next Day the same was brought in, requiring every Plaintiff in a Writ of Error, to assign Errors within Eight Days after the bringing in of the Writ with the Record, otherwise the Plaintiff to lose the Benefit of such Writ, the Defendant to go without Day, and the Record to be remitted.—Also that, upon Diminution alledged, the Plaintiff, before in nullo est erratum pleaded, should be at Liberty to sue forth his Writ of Certiorari, and procure the same to be returned within Ten Days next after such Plea of Diminution put in, otherwise to lose the Benefit of the same.—Whereupon it was ordered, that the House agrees to the same. Afterwards on the 8th December 1670, the same was ordered to be entered upon the Roll of standing Orders (fn. 379).

Roberts versus Wynn & al. Anno 16 Car. II. 1664. Lords Journals, Vol. 11. P. 583.

"On the 16th of March 1663, upon reading the Petition of Robert Roberts Esquire, &c. against Thomas Wynn, and others, it was ordered, that the Defendants should be summoned to appear forthwith; and afterwards a short Day to be appointed for the Hearing of the Cause, &c. (fn. 380) On the 29th of April 1664, upon hearing Counsel whether the Petition was regularly brought, the Cause was ordered to be retained, and proceeded on To-morrow.—On the Morrow, upon a Question put, Whether any Direction should be given the Lord Chancellor in the said Case, it was resolved in the Affirmative; and the Matter again adjourned to the Saturday next, (fn. 381) on which Day, viz. 7th of May, it was ordered, &c. That this House will resume the Debate of the said Cause upon the Fourth Day of the next Meeting of this House after the Recess now at Hand.

" (fn. 382) On the 17th of May the Parliament was prorogued, and met again on the 24th of November.— (fn. 383) On the 28th of November, upon Consideration of the Petition of Robert Robertes Esquire, and his Wife and Son, it was ordered, That the Lord Chancellor should proceed to make a speedy Decree in the said Case; and the Matter further adjourned to the Morrow, when an Addition was made to the said Order, and a Protest thereupon.

Pettit versus Hyde. Anno 18 Car. II. 1666. Vol. 12 Lords Journals, P. 95.

"On the 29th of January 1666, upon reading the Petition of Henry Pettit, complaining of a Decree made against him in the High Court of Chancery, at the Suit of one Laurance Hyde, (in the Year 1661), it was ordered, That the said Petition should be shewed to the Lord Chancellor.— (fn. 384) On the 4th of February 1666, a Paper touching the same was, by Desire of the Lord Chancellor, presented to the House, which being read, the House made no Order therein.— (fn. 385) On the 5th of February it was ordered, That Henry Pettit should have a Copy of the said Paper. —On the 8th of February 1666, the Parliament was prorogued, and met again 25th July 1667.— (fn. 386) On the 31st of October 1667, upon reading the Petition of Henry Pettit, complaining of some Wrong received in the Proceedings in Chancery by the Earl of Clarendon, it was ordered, That the Earl of Clarendon have a Copy of this Petition, and to give Answer thereunto by Wednesday next.

" (fn. 387) On the 11th of November 1667, upon reading the Petition of Henry Pettit, complaining of a Decree made against him in the Court of Chancery, at the Suit of one Laurance Hyde, in the Year 1661, and also the Answer of the Earl of Clarendon (late Lord Chancellor of England) to the said Petition (which was shewed to His Lordship by Order of this House), Counsel was ordered to be heard upon the said Petition, on the 18th of November, and Notice to be given to the said Laurance Hyde.— (fn. 388) On the 25th of November 1667, the Decree was reversed.

Anno 23 Car. II. 1670.

"On the 18th of March 1670, the Petition of Dame Allissimon Reade, Wife of Sir John Reade, praying to be relieved against the hard Usage of her Husband, was recommended by His Majesty, and read:— (fn. 389) On the 4th of April 1671, it was ordered, That Counsel on both Parts should be heard on Thursday the 6th of the same April:—On which Day, the Lords ordered, That the further Debate of that Business should be adjourned to the first Tuesday of the next Sitting of the Parliament after the Recess then at Hand; and that, in the mean Time, the said Dame Allisimon Reade may proceed in the Ecclesiastical Court as she shall think fit.— (fn. 390) On the 22d April 1671, the Parliament was prorogued, and sat again on the 4th of February 1672.— (fn. 391) On the 22d of March 1672, Lady Reade, having obtained a Divorce, and a Decree for Arrears of Alimony, presented another Petition for Relief. After hearing Counsel on both Sides relative to the same, (fn. 392) on the 20th of February 1673, it was resolved, That the Case, as it stood before the House, was not ready for Relief.

Mercer vers. Mercer. Anno 23 Car. II. 1670. P. 466.; Lords Journals, Vol. 14. P. 223.

"On the 21st of March 1670–1, upon reading the Petition of Appeal of Robert Mercer, complaining of a Judgement of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, concerning the Settlement of some Freehold and Copyhold Lands in the County of Lancaster, the Defendants were ordered to answer by their Guardian on Tuesday the 4th of April next.— (fn. 393) On the 22d of the same Month of April 1671, the Parliament was prorogued, and met again on the 4th of February 1672.— (fn. 394) On the 10th of February 1672, a new Petition of Appeal was presented by the said Robert Mercer, complaining as above, and the Defendants ordered to answer by their Guardian in a Fortnight.—No further Proceedings appear till the 23d of October 1689, when, in the Petition of the Appellant, one John Wright was made a Party, and the Cause appointed for Hearing on the 4th of December next. (fn. 395) On which Day the Judgement was affirmed.

Ixem versus Hill. Anno. 23 Car. II. 1671. Ibid. P. 490.

"On the 13th of April 1671, upon Report from the Lords Committees appointed to receive and consider of Petitions, That Their Lordships have heard Counsel on both Parts upon the Petition of Frederick Ixem, being an Appeal from the Court of Chancery, and upon the Answer and Demurrer of John Hill, &c.; and find the Case fit to be heard. The same was appointed to be heard on the First Tuesday of the next Meeting of the Parliament, after the Recess now at hand. On the 22d of the same Month of April, the Parliament was prorogued.—No further Proceeding.

Holdsworth versus Lady Honywood. Anno 23 Car. II. 1671. Ibid. P. 492.

"On the 15th of April 1671, upon Report from the Lords Committees of Petitions, that having heard Counsel upon the Petition of William Holdsworth, Administrator of John Wood, being an Appeal from the Dismission of a Bill of the said John Wood out of the Court of Chancery, concerning some Estate of John Lamot deceased, and upon the Answer of Hester Honywood put in thereto, they thought it fit to be heard by the House. The same was ordered to be heard on the Second Tuesday of the next Sitting of the Parliament, after the Recess now at hand. — (fn. 396) On the 22d of April 1671, the Parliament was prorogued, and sat again on the 4th of February 1672.— (fn. 397) On the 13th of February 1672, upon reading the Petition of the said William, with a Petition annexed, being an Appeal from a Dismission of the Bill of John Wood out of the Court of Chancery, concerning some Estate late of John Lamot deceased, the Defendant, Dame Hester Honywood, was ordered to have a Copy of the said Petitions, and to put in her Answer to the same within Ten Days after Service of the Order.— (fn. 398) On the 12th of March 1672, the Cause was heard, and the Appeal dismissed.

Anno 12 Car. II. 1660. Vol. 11. P. 220.

"Dethick against Bradbourne. — Writ of Error brought in 21st of December 1660.—Parliament dissolved the 29th of the same Month.—No further Proceeding.

Anno 15 Car. II. 1663. Lords Journals, Vol. 11. P. 549.

"Witherings against Roch. The Writ of Error brought in 3d July 1663.—Parliament prorogued 27th of the same Month.—No further Proceeding.

Anno 16 Car. II. Lords Journals, Vol. 11. P. 581.

"Lenthall vers. Skinner. Writ of Error brought in 13th of February 1664.—Parliament was prorogued the 2d of March following.—No further Proceeding.

Anno 18 Car. II. 1666. Lords Journals, Vol. 12. P. 92.

"Goodwin against Isted.—Writ of Error brought in 28th of January 1666.—Parliament prorogued the 8th of February following.—No further Proceeding.

Anno 19 Car. II. 1667. Lords Journals, Vol. 12. P. 171.

"Biroh against Fuller.—Writ of Error brought in 16th of December 1667. Both Houses adjourned themselves on the 9th of May 1668, by the King's Desire, to the 11th of August—again to the 10th of November—again to the 1st of March 1668, on which Day the Parliament was prorogued.—No further Proceeding.

Toomes vers. Etherington.

" (fn. 399) Toomes against Etherington.—Writ of Error brought in 9th of March 1667; and on the 13th of March 1667, it was ordered, that a Writ of Scire facias be awarded against the said Robert Etherington ad audiendum Errores, returnable into this Court on Monday the 6th of April; on which Day the Writ being returned, the Errors assigned were ordered to be argued on the 10th of April; and Notice to be given to the said Robert Etherington.

Anno 20 Car. II. 1668. Lords Journals, Vol. 12. P. 221.

"On the 22d of April 1668, on the Petition of one Darcy, to be heard for his Interest, the Hearing was put off to the 28th of April, and some of the Judges then to attend. — On the 9th of May 1668, both Houses adjourned, by desire of the King, and so from Time to Time till the 1st of March, when the Parliament was prorogued.—No further Proceeding.

"Cornwall vers. Hawes.—Writ of Error brought in 13th of April 1668.—On the 9th of May 1668, both Houses adjourned themselves to the 11th of August, and so again from Time to Time to the 1st of November 1669, when the Parliament was prorogued.— No further Proceeding.

Office of Great Chamberlain. Anno 12 Car. II. 1660. Vol. 11. P. 229.

"On the 28th of December 1660, several Petitions of Awbrey de Vere Earl of Oxon, Charles Earl of Derby, and Thomas Lord Windsor, were read, concerning the Office of the Great Chamberlain of England; and it was ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petitions should be adjourned to the Fourth Day of the Sitting of the next Parliament. — (fn. 400) The next Day the Parliament was dissolved. — (fn. 401) On the 8th of May 1661, a new Parliament met and sat.— And on the 11th of May, it was ordered that the Petition of the Earl of Oxford, touching the Title of Lord Great Chamberlain, be taken into Consideration on Monday next. (fn. 402) Accordingly on Monday next, 13th of May, the House took the same into Consideration; and the Order of the 28th December and also the Petitions of the Earl of Derby, and of the Lord Windsor, being read, the further Consideration was deferred till Thursday next. — Several Proceedings were afterwards had on the 16th of May; the 8th, 15th, and 25th of June; and the 11th of July 1661, but no Order of Judgement appears to have been made touching the said Claims.

Anno 23 Car. II. Lords Journals, Vol. 12. P. 490.

"On the 14th of April 1671, in the Case of the Lord Delawarr and the Lord Berkeley of Berkeley, concerning Precedency, it was ordered that Counsel should be heard peremptorily on the Second Monday of the next Meeting of the Parliament after the Recess, now at Hand.— (fn. 403) Put off on the 26th of March in the next Session, to the Second Thursday after the Recess then at Hand.—No further Proceeding.

Anno 21 Car. II. 1669. Vol. 12. Lords Journals, P. 283.

"On the 8th of December 1669, Issue having been joined upon a Writ of Error between Warwick Ledgingham and Roger Portbury, the Cause, which had been appointed for hearing this Day, was deferred to the 13th instant; before which Day, viz. on the 11th instant, the Parliament was prorogued.—On the 14th of February 1669, the Parliament met;—and on the 8th of March following, (fn. 404) the House being moved to give Directions concerning the said Writ of Error depending in this House in the last Sessions, it was ordered, that it be referred to the Committee for Privileges, to search and examine Precedents concerning this House proceeding upon Business depending and left undetermined in a former Session of Parliament, and make Report thereof to this House; and that such Judges as Their Lordships shall appoint, may attend them concerning this Matter.—No Report appears to have been made, nor any further Proceeding had.

Anno 23 Car. II. 1670. Lords Journals, Vol. 12. P. 422.

"The King against Edmonds. — Writ of Error brought up 8th of February 1670.—Parliament prorogued the 22d of April following.—No further Proceeding.

Anno 25 Car. II. 1672–3.

" (fn. 405) On the 11th of March 1672, it was ordered to be referred to the Lords Committees for Privileges, to consider whether an Appeal unto this House (either by Writ of Error or by Petition) from the Proceedings of any other Court, being depending and not determined in One Session of Parliament, continue in statu quo unto the next Session of Parliament, without renewing the Writ of Error or Petition; and report their Opinion unto the House. (fn. 406) On the 29th of March, post Meridiem, the Lord Widdrington reported from the Lords Committees for Privileges, &c. That in pursuance of the Matter referred to their Lordships by Order of the 11th instant, (videlicet,) whether an Appeal unto this House, (either by Writ of Error or Petition,) or any other Business wherein Their Lordships act as in a Court of Judicature, and not in their Legislative Capacity, being depending, and not determined in One Session of Parliament, continue in statu quo, unto the next Session of Parliament, without renewing the Writ of Error or Petition, or beginning all anew, Their Lordships considered several Proceedings, both ancient and modern, (which were produced to Their Lordships at the Committee,) and set forth in the said Report: (fn. 407) Upon the Consideration of which Precedents, and of several others mentioned at the Committee, Their Lordships came to a Resolution, and accordingly declared it their Opinion, That Businesses depending in One Parliament, or Session of Parliament, have been continued to the next Session of the same Parliament, and the Proceedings thereupon have remained in the same State in which they were left when last in Agitation."

"The House taking the said Report into their Consideration, do approve thereof, and order it accordingly.

The King and Squib in Error. Anno 21 Car. II. 1669. Lords Journals, Vol. 12. P. 274.

"Squib against the King—Writ of Error brought in, 25th of November 1669—No further Proceeding had till the 11th of February 1673; when,

" (fn. 408) Upon reading a Petition of the said Edmond, shewing, That in the Twenty-first Year of His now Majesty's Reign, a Record of a Judgement given in the Court of Chancery against the said Edmond Squibb, in a Monstrans de Droit, was brought into this High Court, by Writ of Error, and Errors are thereupon assigned by the Petitioner; but, by reason of Prorogations of Parliament, His Majesty's Attorney General hath not joined Issue thereto, and therefore praying, that a short Day may be appointed for that Purpose; the Attorney General was ordered to plead thereto on the 25th Instant, and timely Notice to be given to him for that Purpose. — On the 24th February 1673, the Parliament was prorogued, and sat again on the 13th of April 1675.— (fn. 409) The next Day, upon reading the Petition of the said Edmond, shewing, That the said Record was now depending by Writ of Error, and Errors thereupon assigned; but, by reason of the late Prorogations of Parliament, His Majesty's then Attorney General did not (according to the Order of this House, dated the 11th of February 1673) join Issue thereto; and therefore praying a short Day might be appointed for that Purpose; —It was ordered, That Notice be given to His Majesty's (now) Attorney General, and that he do put in his Plea thereto on the 5th of May next: (fn. 410) On which Day His Majesty's Attorney General having joined Issue, the same was appointed to be heard on the 19th of May inst: (fn. 411) On which Day Counsel were heard in part, and ordered to be further heard on the 27th of May.—Hearing deferred at different Times to the 9th of June 1675, on which Day the Parliament was prorogued; and sat again on the 13th of October. — On the 14th of November the further Hearing was appointed for the 1st of December next. No further Proceeding appears."

Class IV.

"RICHARD Duke gave Bail to make his personal Appearance here at the First sitting of the House next after Easter, 23d March 1620 (fn. 412).

"Sir John Bennett left to his Choice to give Bail for 40,000l. for his Forthcoming, with such Securities as the Court shall approve, or to be committed to the Tower, April 25, 1621 (fn. 413). Time given him till the next Access of Parliament to make his Answer, and to be bailed upon 20,000l. May 31st (fn. 414). Ordered that the Lord Chief Justice do take Bail of Sir John Bennett for his Appearance at the next Access of Parliament, himself in 7,000l. and Eleven other Persons in 1,200l. each, June 1st (fn. 415). One of his Bail being out of Town, another was ordered in his Stead, 4th June. The same Day the Parliament adjourned by Commission to 14th November 1621 (fn. 416). The Condition, &c. that the said John Bennett shall make his personal Appearance in the Upper House of this Parliament, before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal there at the next Sitting of this Parliament, and shall give his Attendance there from Day to Day, and not depart thence without Licence, 20 November (fn. 417). (The same Day is an Entry of the Bail of Alexⁿ Harris, Warden of the Fleet, on the like Condition).

"The Lord Chief Justice allowed to take Bail for the Appearance of George Gildart before the Peers in Parliament, 18th May 1621 (fn. 418).

"Lord Bishop of Ely enters into Recognizance for 10,000l. to appear from Day to Day till Wednesday next, when he is to procure sufficient Bail for that Sum for his Forthcoming and abiding the Judgment of Parliament, 19th December 1640 (fn. 419). The Bishop produces his Bail for the said Sum, the Condition of which is, that he shall appear personally before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the High Court of Parliament assembled, from Time to Time; and to appear and be present at the Judgement of Parliament against him, if any be; December 23, 1640 (fn. 420). Summoned to appear according to the Condition of his Recognizance, July 26, 1642 (fn. 421).

"Five of Six Judges accused, enter into a Recognizance of 10,000l. each, to appear from Day to Day, on the 30th of December, and then to give sufficient Bail for that Sum, December 22, 1640 (fn. 422). All bailed in that Sum, (except the Chief Baron, whose Bail was not approved,) on Condition of appearing personally before the Lords in Parliament here, and to be present at the Judgement against them, if any shall be; 30th December 1640 (fn. 423). The Lord Chief Baron gave Bail also on the like Condition, January 2, 1641–2 (fn. 424).

"Bishop of Bath and Wells gave Bail to appear personally here before the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the High Court of Parliament assembled, and to be present at the Judgement of Parliament against him, if any shall be; 29th December 1640 (fn. 425).

"Doctor Cozens, and divers others, bailed on the same Conditions as the Bishop of Bath and Wells.— Sir Charles Cæsar, Master of the Rolls, gave his Word on the same Conditions, which was accepted in lieu of Bail, 20th March 1640–1 (fn. 426).

"Doctor March and Doctor Aylett, ditto, 30th March, post Meridiem (fn. 427).

"John Lively, Clerk, gives Bail to abide the Judgement of Parliament, if any be; 6th April, 1641 (fn. 428).

"Sir Edward Herbert, bailed by the Earl of Monmouth, to appear before the Lords in Parliament this Day Se'nnight, February 14, post Meridiem, 1641–2 (fn. 429). The former Bail discharged, and Lord Newburgh enters into Recognizance of 5,000l. for Sir Edward Herbert's Appearance before the Lords in Parliament, at the Judgement of Parliament, if any shall be against him in this Cause, 22d February 1641–2 (fn. 430).

"The Black Rod undertook to the Use of the King, Body for Body, that the Bishops of Durham and Coventry and Litchfield shall appear before the Lords in Parliament on Friday Se'nnight, being the Day of their Trial, 15th February 1641–2 (fn. 431).

"Post Meridiem.

"The Ten other Bishops bailed, conditioned to appear the same Day (fn. 432).

"Sir William Wilmer, released from the Custody of the Gentleman Usher, upon entering into a Recognizance of 2000l. before the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas to attend this House, de Die in Diem, upon Notice given him from the House, 8th April 1642 (fn. 433).

"Three Bishops bailed, on Condition of appearing before the Lords in Parliament within Three Days after Notice given, 5th May 1642 (fn. 434).

"Three others bailed on the same Condition, 6th May 1642 (fn. 435).

"Richard Spencer, bailed on Condition to appear before the Lords in Parliament, at such Times as they shall assign, to hear the Sentence pronounced against him, upon the Impeachment brought up from the House of Commons, if any Sentence shall be, &c. 12th May 1642 (fn. 436).

"Sir George Strode, bailed on the same Day, and on the same Condition (fn. 437).

"Sir William Scroggs, to attend upon this Court from Time to Time till he shall be discharged of his Impeachment brought up from the House of Commons, 7th January 1680–1 (fn. 438).

"The Earl of Danby, who was bailed before the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench on the 12th February 1683–4, to appear on the First Day of the next Parliament. Appeared accordingly in the Parliament on the 9th of Day of May 1685 (fn. 439). As did also the Earl of Powis, Lord Arundell of Wardour, and Lord Bellasis, and also the Earl of Tyrone in Ireland, in pursuance of (fn. 440) Recognizances entered in the said Court of King's Bench to appear on the said 1st Day of the Session.

"Sir Adam Blair,—to appear before this House at all Times when he shall be so ordered, by leaving an Order of this House, 7th April 1690 (fn. 441).

"Earls of Salisbury and Peterborough, on the like Condition as Sir Adam Blair, 7th October 1690 (fn. 442).

"Goudet, and others, bailed to appear personally before the Lords in Parliament, from Day to Day, until the further Order of this House, 23d May 1698 (fn. 443).

"Doctor Sacheverell bailed, on Condition that he shall appear personally before the Lords in Parliament, from Day to Day, until the further Order of this House, 14th January 1709 (fn. 444)."

TABLE of the Commmencement, Adjournment, Prorogation, and Dissolution of Parliaments, from the 9th Year of Henry III, to the 2d Year of William and Mary, Anno 1690.

The Writs of Summons to those Parliaments, of which any Proceedings are to be found either in the Rolls or Journals of Parliament.

References to Cases in the Law Reports.

Crompton, Tit. Parliament, 20.

4 Institute 21

Foster's Crown Law 44, 45, & 138 to 153.

Comyn's Digest, Tit. Parliament, Vol. 4, Page 329 to 332; also Vol. 6. Page 526.

Jenk Cent Page 22, Case 41; also Page 244, Case 29.

2 Hawk. Pl. C. Book 2, C. 15, Sect 74.

Ordered, That the said Report do lie on the Table.

Ordered, That the said Report be printed.

Dormer's Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for enabling Trustees to grant Leases of Part of the Estates of Susanna Ann Treffry Dormer and Jane Treffry Dormer Infants; and to invest the Monies arising from the Leases to be granted on Fines, in the Purchase of real Estates, to be settled to the subsisting Uses of the Estates so to be leased."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords following:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on Friday the 6th Day of May next, at Ten o'Clock in the Forenoon, in the Prince's Lodgings near the House of Peers; and to adjourn as they please.

Kington Canal Bill.

Hodie 2^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for making and maintaining a Navigable Canal from Kington, in the County of Hereford, by or through Leominster, to join the River Severn, near Stourport Bridge, in the County of Worcester."

Ordered, That the said Bill be committed to the Consideration of the Lords Committees aforenamed:

Their Lordships, or any Five of them, to meet on the first Day of Meeting after the Recess at Easter, at the usual Time and Place; and to adjourn as they please.

Staunton's Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Hobart and others:

To return the Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting certain Estates, late of or belonging to Thomas Staunton Esquire, deceased, in the Counties of Essex, Suffolk, and Buckingham, in Trustees to be sold, and for applying the Money to arise therefrom in such Manner as therein is mentioned;" and to acquaint this House, That they have agreed to the same, without any Amendment.

Flimwell Vent Road Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Hobart and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enlarging the Term and Powers of certain Acts of the Second and Twenty-second Years of his present Majesty, for repairing and widening the Road from Flimwell Vent, in the County of Sussex, through Highgate, in the County of Kent, and the Parishes of Sandhurst, Newenden, and Northiam, to Rye, in the said County of Sussex, and from Highgate aforesaid to Cooper's Corner, in the said County of Sussex; and for repairing and widening a Piece of Road communicating with one of the Roads comprized in the said Acts, called Whitebread Lane;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

Vinehall Road Bill.

A Message was brought from the House of Commons, by Mr. Hobart and others:

With a Bill, intituled, "An Act to repeal so much of an Act of the Eleventh Year of His present Majesty for repairing and widening the Road from the Turnpike Road at Vinehall, in the Parish of Mountfield, in the County of Sussex, to Cripps's Corner, and from thence to Staple Cross, and to the Turnpike Road near the Windmill, in the Parish of Beckley, and from Staple Cross to Longley's Water Corn Mill at Kent Ditch and from Cripps's Corner to the Town of Rye, in the said County, as relates to the said Roads from Staple Cross to the Turnpike Road near the said Windmill, and from Staple Cross to Longley's Water Corn Mill aforesaid; and for enlarging the Term and Powers of the said Act, so far as relates to the rest of the said Roads;" to which they desire the Concurrence of this House.

The said Two Bills were, severally, read the First Time.

Manchester Canal Bill.

The Lord Cathcart reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for making and maintaining a Navigable Canal from Manchester to or near Presto-lee Bridge, in the Township of Little Lever, and from thence by one Branch to or near the Town of Bolton, and by another Branch to or near the Town of Bury, and to Weddell Brook, in the Parish of Bury, all in the County Palatine of Lancaster," was committed: "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true, and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House without any Amendment."

Brighton Roads Bill.

The Lord Cathcart made the like Report from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for enlarging the Term and Powers of an Act passed in the Tenth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, for repairing and widening the Roads leading from Brighthelmston to the County Oak on Lovell Heath in the County of Sussex," was committed.

Whitchurch Road Bill.

The Lord Cathcart made the like Report from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act to enlarge the Term of an Act passed in the Tenth Year of the Reign of His present Majesty for repairing and widening the Road from Whitchurch, in the County of Southampton, to the Turnpike Road at Aldermaston Great Bridge, in the County of Berks," was committed.

Fyfield Road Bill.

The Lord Cathcart made the like Report from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for enlarging the Term and Powers of Three several Acts passed in the Sixth and Twelfth Years of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Second, and in the Third Year of the Reign of His present Majesty, for repairing the Road from Fyfield, in the County of Berks, to Saint John's Bridge, in the County of Gloucester; and from an Inn called The Hind's Head, in the Parish of Kingston Bagpuze, in the said County of Berks, to that Part of Newbridge which stands in the said County of Berks," was committed.

Shepton Mallet Roads, &c. Bill.

The Lord Cathcart made the like Report from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act to enlarge the Term and Powers of Three several Acts passed in the Twenty-fixth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Second, and in the Fifth and Twentieth Years of the Reign of His present Majesty, for repairing several Roads therein mentioned, leading to and from the Town of Shepton Mallct, in the County of Somerset, and for repairing the Road from a Place called Long Cross Bottom to the Bruton Turnpike Road, near Batcombe Church, in the said County; and for paving, cleansing, lighting, and regulating the Streets, Lanes, and other public Passages within the said Town," was committed.

Tarvin Enclosure Bill.

The Lord Cathcart also reported from the Lords Committees, to whom the Bill, intituled, "An Act for dividing, allotting, and enclosing certain Commons and Waste Lands within the Parish of Tarvin, in the County of Chester," was committed: "That they had considered the said Bill, and examined the Allegations thereof, which were found to be true; that the Parties concerned had given their Consents to the Satisfaction of the Committee, and that the Committee had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House without any Amendment."

Norfolk Wool combers' Bill:

Hodie 3^a vice lecta est Billa, intituled, "An Act for more effectually preventing Frauds and Abuses committed by Persons employed in the Manufactures of combing Wool and Worsted Yarn, in the County of Norfolk and City of Norwich, and County of the same City."

The Question was put, "Whether this Bill, with the Amendment, shall pass?"

It was resolved in the Affirmative.

Message to H. C. with an Amendment to it.

A Message was sent to the House of Commons by Mr. Ord and Mr. Walker:

To return the said Bill, and acquaint them, That the Lords have agreed to the same with One Amendment, to which Their Lordships desire their Concurrence.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Mercurii, vicesimum diem instantis Aprilis, horâ undecimâ Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.