House of Lords Journal Volume 3: 18 April 1626

Die Martis, videlicet, 18 die Aprilis,

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales, quorum nomina subscribuntur, præsentes fuerunt:

Absent Lords excused.

Forging Peers Protections.

WHEREAS William Pettus, Mathewe Deboyse, William Sumpter, and Edmonde Hasellwood, were, upon the Affirmation of George Gardner, brought up by the Serjeant at Arms, to answer their Contempt, for buying and selling of divers Protections, counterfeited under the Hands and Seals of Lords of Parliament; they did this Day all appear accordingly; and the Lords, considering the Allegations of the said George Gardner, found the same to be of no Validity to justify his Affirmation; and therefore cleared them of the said Contempt, and discharged them of their further Attendance; and Ordered, That the said George Gardener shall repay them their Charges.

And the said George Gardener being at the Bar, whilst the Lords examined his Allegations against the said Parties, and afterwards withdrawn; the House Ordered, That he should now be punished, according to their former Order, made 4 Aprilis.

And thereupon the said Gardener being at the Bar again, and kneeling, the Lord Keeper pronounced the Sentence of the House: videlicet,

Gardner's Sentence.

"That he should stand on the Pillory Two Hours To-morrow, at Westm. with Papers on his Head, declaring his Fault, and be afterwards carried down to Norwich, and stand there on the Pillory, in like Manner, upon a Market-day; and further, that he should not be discharged until he had re-paid unto the aforesaid William Pettus, Mathew Deboyse, William Sumpter, and Edmond Haselwood, their Charges."

Report from the Committee, touching the Commitment of a Peer during the Sitting of Parliament.

The Lord President reported the Proceedings of the Lords Sub-committees for Privileges, etc. upon the Commitment of the Earl of Arundell.

First, That the King's Counsel had searched, and acquainted the Lords Sub-committees with all that they had found, in Records, Chronicles, or Stories, concerning this Matter; unto which the said Lords Sub-committees had given full Answer; and also shewed such Precedents as did maintain their own Right. All which followeth, in bæc verba: videlicet,

Precedents against it.

"Touching Imprisonment or Restraint of Lords in the Time of Parliament:

"I.

18 Ed. I. Plac. Parl. Rot. I. 4 Cod. Parl. 18 Ed. I. in Arce London.

Duke of Cornwal's Case.

"Under Edward the First, the Privilege of the Lords of Parliament was such, that, although the Power of the Church were so great, that it pretended to be scarce less than the highest Temporal Power, yet when Edmond Duke of Cornewall, in Parliamenttime, was but cited by a Process from the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was far less than any Imprisonment, he recovered a Thousand Marks Damages against Bogo de Clare, that procured the Citation; and both this Bogo, and the Prior of St. Trynity that served it, were fined in great Sums to the King, for the Contempt also against Him in the Citation."

"II.

Rot. Parl. 15 Ed. III. M. 6. & 7. et 15 Ed. III. Cap.

Abp. Stratford's Case.

"The Case of Archbishop Stratford, in 15 Ed. III, is observable. Here it appears, that, though he were commanded to stay from the Parliament until he had answered certain Articles in the Exchequer, touching an Account; yet, by a dutiful Standing on his Right, he did get his Place in the House. And so sensible were the Lords of that Breach of their Privilege, in that Restraint of the Archbishop, that they declared that none of them ought to be questioned in any Place but in Parliament. And to that Purpose also an Act passed that Year, though with the rest of that Year it stands now repealed."

"III.

Claus. 5c Ed. III. Pars 2. M. 6.

Bp. of Winton's Case.

"Between the Parliaments of 50 and 51 Edw. III, William Wickham, Bishop of Winton, was called to an Account, for divers Monies that he had received of the King, and some other Matter; and his Temporalties were seized. And, by Command of John Duke of Lancaster, in the King's Name, he was not to come near the King, by Twenty Miles. This was in Michaelmas Term, 50 Ed. III. In Hillary, 52, a Parliament was held, where the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy, that then were a Third State of the Parliament (as they were called frequently in the antient Time), being pressed to give the King a Supply, made their Complaint to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the chief of their State, De Injuria illata eorum Confratri et Co-episcopo Domino Episcopo Winton, et quomodo non solum sibimet in ipso, sed omnibus illis est, et toti Libertati Ecclesiæ derogatum; unde constanter asseruerunt se de instantibus Negotiis nullatenus effictunliter tractaturos, donec coadunarentur fingula Cleri membra; affirmant revera instans Negotium eum cum illis communiter tangere, et quod omnes tangeret, debere eb omnibus approbari. And although the Archbishop (fn. 1) were willing to have declined the meddling with their Suit (being of the Duke's Part), yet he was so far urged by them, that at length he sent for him to come and take his Place amongst them, as he did also; notwithstanding also no Writ of Summons appears to have been sent to him that Parliament."

"IV.

Rot. Parl. 20 Rich. II. N. 8.

Absent Lords to be sent for.

"The Presence of all the Lords was thought by the House of Commons to be so necessary, and a Matter wherein they had such Interest, that they desired that all the Lords that were absent might be sent for. But it was answered, that it would be too long a Delay of the Parliament; but such as were near should be sent for."

V.

Rot. Parl. 4 Hen. IV. N. 13.

Ld. Grey of Ruthin's Cafe.

"The Lord Grey of Ruthin being imprisoned by Owen Glendour, in Wales, the Commons conceived they had so much Interest in the Presence of every Lord there, that they petitioned the King to give the Lords of Roos and Willoughby Leave to provide his Ransom (which was a Thousand Marks); which was granted."

"VI.

Rot. Parl. 5 Hen. IV. Art. 71.

Privilege from Arrests.

"A Bill passed both the Houses, in 5 H. IV, wherein it is affirmed, that, according to the Custom of the Realm, the Lords, Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, and their Servants, coming to the Parliament, and there staying, and returning Home again, ought not to be arrested, or in any Manner be imprisoned in the mean Time, for any Debt, Account, Trespass, or other Contract whatsoever. It was desired, that, if any did offend against this Privilege, he should suffer Fine and Ransom, and pay Treble Damages. But the King's Answer is, Y ad sufficient Remedy en le cas. So that there was no Doubt made of the Privilege, though a Desire were of a greater Remedy than the Law had yet provided."

"VII.

Rot. Parl. 8 H. VI. N. 57.

Mildred's Privilege in Lack's Arrest.

"The Commons, 8 H. VI, in their Bill for Larke, a Servant to William Milred, a Burgess of Parliament (which Bill passed both Houses also), affirm, that the Privilege of Parliament was clear, That no Member was to be arrested in Parliament-time, but for Treason, Felony, or Surety of the Peace."

"VIII.

Rot. Parl. 31 H. VI. N. 28.

Privilege except in Treason, etc.

"It was resolved, upon great Advice, in 31 H. VI, That no Member of the Parliament was to be arrested, saving in Cases of Treason, Felony, Breach of the Peace, or upon a Condemnation had before the Parliament; which (as the Law is to this Day) must be understood of an Arrest of a Commoner upon an Execution, before his Time of Privilege of Parliament, etc."

"IX.

34 Hen. VIII. Hollmshed, p. 956.

Ferrers's Case.

"In the 34th Hen. VIII, the King Himself, in His Speech, touching Ferrers's Case (that being a Burgess was taken in Execution, but discharged by Order of the Commons House), says, That His Learned Counsel had informed Him, that all Acts and Process coming out of any other Inferior Courts must, for the Time, cease, and give Place to the Parliament, as the Highest.

"And that whatsoever Offence or Injury is, in Parliament-time, offered to the meanest Member of the House, is to be judged as done both against the King and the whole Court of Parliament. And the Chief Justice Sir Edward Mountague, and the rest of the Judges, confirmed with divers Reasons all that the King said to that Purpose."

1° Caroli, Cas. Domini Vaux.

L. Vaux's Case.

"Though a Lord, at the King's Suit, be sued in Star Chamber, for a Contempt or Riot, etc yet the Suit is to be stayed, by Privilege of Parliament, in Parliament-time."

Precedents of the Commitment of Peers, during the Sitting of Parliament.

"Precedents alledged by Mr. Attorney General, to prove that a Lord of Parliament may be committed in Parliament-time, for a Petsonal Offence done to the King; though it be neither Treason, Felony, nor Breach of the Peace: videlicet,

E. of Arundel's Case.

"Phillip Earl of Arundell was committed, and not for Treason, sitting the Parliament, Anno 28° Eliz. for which Mr. Attorney cited Cambden, in his First Part of his History of Elizabeth.

"Nota. This Parliament began 29 Octobris, on which Day the said Earl was not present. Ultimo die Octobris he was present, when the Speaker was presented; and then the Parliament was continued until the 4th of November following, and then the said Earl was not present. Nor the 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, nor 10th of that November, though his Name is inserted in the List of the Lords. All other Days of that Session, which continued to the 2d of December, the said Earl's Name is omitted. And then the Parliament is continued to the 15th of February following; on which Day the Parliament began again; and in all that Journal the said Earl's Name is omitted."

"Answers to the Precedents alledged by Mr. Attorney;

Answer.

"Cambden (out of whose Annals the Case is cited) faith expressly, that, after the Parliament was ended, the Earl, purposing to go beyond Sea, wrote a long Letter to the Queen, complaining of the Malice of his Enemies, and of the Misfortune of some of his Ancestors that had suffered in this State, and touching also the Liberty and Exercise of his Conscience, which he meant to gain to himself in other Countries, where the Roman Catholic Religion was exercised; which Letter he meant should have been delivered after his Passage over. But, his Purpose being discovered, he was taken in Sussex, while he was entering on this Journey, and thence brought back, and then committed to The Tower. And for the omitting of his Name in the Journal, on many Days of the Parliament of 28°, that is no Proof at all of his being committed in the Time of Parliament; for there are Omissions of Lords Names in divers Days of the Journals very frequently, when yet without Question they were not committed."

"2d Precedent alledged by Mr. Attorney:

E. of Hertford's Case.

"The Earl of Hertford was committed to The Tower, by Queen Elizabeth.

"That the Commitment was in Parliament-time, he alledged, That the Parliament began 12 Januarii Anno 5° Eliz. and continued to the 10th of April; thence prorogued to the Second of October; thence, by many Prorogations, unto the 13th of September, Anno 8° Eliz. and averred that the said Earl was committed (not for Treason, etc.) during the Prorogation. To prove this, he cited Camden's Annals, in English."

"5° Eliz. The Earl of Hertford's Case answered.

Answer.

"The Earl of Herteford was committed long before 5° Eliz. as appears by Camden's Annals, where he places both his Commitment and his Censure in the Star Chamber about the Beginning of 1562, that is in 4° Eliz. so that, the Parliament of 5° Eliz. beginning not till 12 Januarii, it is plain that he was both committed and censured long before the Parliament."

"3d Precedent alledged by Mr. Attorney.

Bishop of Rochester's Case.

"Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, committed in Parliament-time, Anno 25° H. VIII, for his Opinion to maintain the Pope's Supremacy, which was not Treason by Statute until the Year following. For this he cited Martin's Chronicle.

"Vide Parliamentum, Anno 25° H. VIII, that the said Bishop of (fn. 2) Rochester was not present all that Parliament, as appears by the Journal."

"28 H. VIII. the Case of Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, answered.

Answer.

Journal of 25 H. VIII. 30 Martii.

"This Bishop (though all were granted to be true that Martin faith of him) was not committed in the Time of Parliament, but after the Parliament ended; and that both for Misprision of Treason, and for Treason. First, One of his Offences is supposed to have been the denying to take an Oath of Supremacy, ordained by the Statute of 25 H. VIII. Cap. 22°, for the Defence of that Act, the Refusal whereof was Misprision of Treason by the same Act. But the First Time this Oath was offered to any Man was the very last Day of that Parliament, that is, 30 Martii, when the Form of it was made, and remains yet in the Journal of that Year; so that his Refusal of that Oath must be either on the very last Day (on which it seems it was not, because he is not mentioned in the Journal to have been then present), or after the End of the Parliament, for before that Time never was any Man put to swear any such Oath. Secondly, to this Offence is added, in Martin, that he contested and protested against that Act of Parliament, touching the Dissolution of the Marriage with Queen Katherin, and the Confirmation of that with Queen Ann, for which he was committed, and suffered as a Traitor; but, until a Month after the Parliament, it was not Treason to do any Act against the Second Marriage; as appears in the Body of that Statute. And, after a Month ended, that is, from May following, it was by that Statute made Treason to do any Act in Derogation of it. So that neither his Misprision of Treason, nor his Treason (for which Martin faith he was committed), nor his Commitment, could fall in the Time of Parliament; nor doth Martyn or any other say so; nor doth the Journal that hath not his Name in that Parliament prove any such Matter; for in that very Journal divers Lords Names are often omitted, that no Man can conceive stood therefore at the same Time committed. Yet perhaps there was Reason enough to have committed him in the Parliament-time also; for he stood then very much suspected of Treason, as we may see by the Act of the same Parliament, wherein he was attainted of Misprision of Treason.

25 H. VIII. Cap. 12.

Rot. Parl. 26 H. VIII. N. 3 & 4.

"But the Truth of the Case is, that the Relation of it in Martyn is false here, as it is delivered; and divers others mistake it also, that wrote before him. This Bishop was not condemned that Year at all, for aught appears, nor committed; but in the 26th H. VIII, he was attainted by Act of Parliament, (fn. 3) for Misprision, for refusing the Oath, and thereupon committed. And in the 27 H VIII, he was attainted of Treason, for speaking traiterous Words, against the Statute of the 26 H. VIII. Cap. 13°."

"4 Precedent alledged by Mr. Attorney.

Duke of Suffolk's Case.

"Anno 28° H. VI. The Duke of Suffolk, being accused by the Commons of Treason, put himself upon the King's Grace, and not upon his Peers. And the King alone judged him; and the Lords did not demand him; but required that a Protestation might be en ered, to save the Privilege of their Peerage."

"28 H VI. The Duke of Suffolke's Case answered.

Answer.

"In that Case, for so much as concerns Commitment (which is the only Question now agitated), it appears expressly, that when it was in Question before the particular Accusations that the Commons put up against him, whether he should be committed by Reason of a general Fame raised against him, the Lords only determined that he ought not yet to be committed.

Rot. Parl. 28 Hen. VI. Art. 16. Ibid. Art. 28

"Afterwards, the Commons accusing him in particular, that, by his Invitation, the French King was ready to invade the Realm; at the Request of the Commons, it is said, he was committed to The Tower, but the Roll mentions not by whom. But, howscever, there is nothing in that Proceeding concerning Commitment, that shews he was at all committed for any less Offence than Treason. And, before the Charge of Treason laid against him, the Lords alone determined whether he should be committed or no. Afterwards the Commons put in Two Bills of Accusation against him; one of divers Treasons, the other of Offences of less Nature: And he is by Writ brought from The Tower, to answer; and then desires Copies of the Accusations, which are granted him; and the King; by Advice of all the Lords, then committed him to the Award of Three Esquires, to be kept in a Tower at Westm.

Ibid. Art. 48

"Now, for the King's judging him in Time of Parliament, which is the Point objected, the Case goes on thus: The Thirteenth of March, which was Four Days after he had made his Answer to divers Particulars, the King and the Lords sitting in Parliament (fn. 4).

Ibid. Art. 49.

Ibid. Art. 50 & 52.

"The 14th, being Saturday, the Chief Justice, by the King's Commandment, remembered all the Lords of what was done the Day before in this Matter; and asked what Advice they would therein give to the King. At which Time, they deferred their Advice until the Monday following; but on Monday nothing was done; and on Tuesday the King sent for the Lord Chancellor, and all the Lords that were in Town, to his Palace at Westm. and when they were all assembled, He sent for the Duke also, who came, and denied divers of the Offences, and submitted himself wholly to the King's Rule and Governance, to do with him as He list. Thereupon the Lord Chancellor, by the King's Commandment, told him that he conceived that the Duke, not putting him on his Peerage, had submitted himself wholly to the King's Rule and Governance; wherefore, touching the Treason, the King held him neither clear nor guilty; and touching the other Offences, the King, by Force of his Submission (as the Words of the Roll are), by His own Advice, and not reporting him to the Advice of His Lords, nor by Way of Judgement (for He is not in Place of Judgement), putteth you to His Rule and Governance; that is to say, that you, before the First of May next coming, shall absent yourself out of His Realm of England for Five Years, etc. And instantly, upon this so said by the Chancellor, the Viscount Beamont, on the Behalf of all the Lords, and by their Advice, Assent, and Desire, declared to the King, that this that so was decreed and done by Him, concerning the Person of the same Duke, proceeded not by their Advice and Counsel, but was done by the King's own Demeanance and Rule; and desired that this may be entered into the Parliament Roll with this Protestation, that it should not be, nor turn, in Prejudice nor Derogation of them or their Posterity; but that they might have and enjoy their Liberty and Freedom, in Case of their Peerage, hereafter, as freely and largely as ever they, or any of their Ancestors or Predecessors, had and enjoyed before this Time. Upon this it is now objected, that the King here judged him, and the Lords demanded him not.

Rot. Judic. 21 Ric. II. Par. v. Art. 18. Rot. Judic. II. Ric. II. &c.

"But it is first plain, that it was no Judgement at all. The Chancellor says expressly, it was neither by Way of Judgement, nor in Place of Judgement; it was only a Declaration made to him by the King, out of Parliament, that he should absent himself out of the Kingdom for Five Years, etc. and this Declaration was made by Way of Rule and Governance of him, and not by Way of Judgement. Secondly, a Judgement could not be so given against him, nor was it any legal Banishment; for, by the ordinary Course of the Common Law, there is no Punishment by Banishment; and that which hath been in Examples hath been by Judgement given in Parliament, as appears in that famous Case of the Dukes of Hereford and Norfolke, under Richard the Second, and others at that Time.

Rot. Parl. II Rich. II.

"And for the Lords demanding him, there was no Need or Colour at all why they should have demanded his Person; for he was not restrained from them; he was extrajudicially bid absent himself only out of the Kingdom; and of his own Will, to obey the King; while he was about to do so, he was taken upon the Sea, and there slain. And for the Matter of Judgement and Proceeding [ (fn. 1) against him,] which should otherwise have been before the Lords, they sufficiently saved their Right, by protesting first, that all that was done to the Duke by the King, was only by the King's own Demeanance and Rule; and that this should not prejudice their Right of Peerage, or Jus Paritatis, which is the Right of judging as Peers, as it is called in the Protestation of the Clergy, when they left the House because they would not be Partners to Judgement of Blood, in the II Rich. II."

"5. Precedent alledged by Mr. Attorney:

Lark's Case.

"Anno 8 H. VI. The Commons petitioning for the Discharge of William Larke, arrested in Execution during the Parliament; and that the King would be pleased also to ordain, that no Lords, Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, nor their Servants, coming to the Parliament, may be arrested during the Parliament, unless it be for Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace; the King granted the first Part of their Petition, but quant al remnant, le Roy s'advisera."

"8 H. VI. Rot. Parl. N. 57. Larke's Case answered.

Answer.

"To this the Answer is full: That the latter Part of the Bill doth comprehend more than it was fit the Royal Assent should have been given unto; and more than was, or at this Day is, the Law of Parliament.

Rot. Parl. 31 H. VI. N. 28.

"For it is, That no Member of either House be arrested, or detained in Prison, during the Parliament, saving in these Three Cases. To be arrested, is to be taken by Officers, by Process or otherwise. To be detained in Prison, is either to be detained after an Arrest, or after a Commitment from the Bar of some Court, which is never called an Arrest, though in Truth it be one; so that the Bill desired not only that none should be arrested, or detained upon Arrest, during the Parliament, which is the only Privilege supposed in the Body of the Bill; but also that none should be detained in Prison during the Parliament. Whereas there is no Doubt, but that any of the House of Commons, or their Servants, or the Servants of Lords, being detained in Prison upon an Execution served on them before the Time of Privilege of Parliament, or being in Execution by any other ordinary Course of Justice before that Time, ought to be detained still, as it is practised at this Day. And accordingly also a Fourth Limitation is added to these Three, in the 31 H. VI. in Thorp's Case, where Treason, Felony, Surety of the Peace, and Condemnation before the Parliament, are the Cases excepted; so that, there being more asked by the Bill than the Privilege of Parliament allowed, there was Reason enough why the King assented not to it."

"6. Precedent alledged by Mr. Attorney.

Bp. of Carliste's Case.

"Anno 1° H. IV. The Bishop of Carlile was arrested, by the Lord Marshal, in Parliament Time, and not for Treason; for that he was committed to the Abby of St. Alban's, which was no Prison for Traitors."

"1 H. IV. The Commitment of the Bishop of Carlile in Parliament answered.

Answer.

Holinshed, p. 512.

"This Bishop was committed for as high a Treason as could be uttered; for he expresly denied H. IV to be King, in open Parliament; and for this being committed to the Abby of St. Alban's, that or any other Place, without Question, at the Pleasure of the King, was a Prison for Traitors as well as others."

"7. Precedent alledged by Mr. Attorney.

Earl of Northumberland's Case.

"Anno 5° Henrici IV. The Lords of Parliament claimed their Privilege to judge the Earl of Northumberland, in respect of the Statute of 25 Edw. III, and not in respect of Privilege of Parliament."

"5° Henrici IV. The Earl of Northumberland's Case answered.

Answer.

Rot. Parl. 5 H. IV. N. 12 & 13.

"The Lords in that Case expressly claim and exercise their Right of Judgement, both in Matter of Treason and Matter of Trespass: They first consider the Statute of 25 Edw. III, of Treason, and then the Statutes against Liveries; thereupon they judge the Earl's Offence not to be Treason or Felony. But they judge also that it was Trespass only; and for that they judge also, that he ought to make Fine and Ransom at the King's Will; so that upon the one Statute, as Judges in Parliament, they judge the Fact to be no Treason; upon the other, to be Trespass; and so give their Judgement as Judges of their Peers, as well in Trespass as Treason: And the Iteration of their being Judges of Parliament, in this Case, in the Roll, is an express Mention and Claim of their Privilege also."

"8. Precedent alledged by Mr. Attorney.

Archbp. of Canterbury's Case.

"Anno 15° Ed. III. The King denied the Archbishop of Canterbury to come into the Parliament House, until he had answered certain Articles objected against him in the Exchequer; and then also the King denied his Entrance. Yet at last, at the Intercession of the Lords, he was admitted. For this Mr. Attorney cited Mathew Parker, De Antiquitate Ecclesiæ Britannicæ."

"15 Edw. III. The Case of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stratford, answered.

Answer.

Antiq. Ecclesiæ Brit. et Godvini. in Vita ejus.

"It is true, that the King denied him for some Time to come into the House, until he had answered those Articles. But he did, upon challenging of his Right as a Peer, and Baron of the Kingdom, come in before he had answered to them. And so well he understood the Right of his Pairalty, that, though the Parliament House Door were shut against him, where he was kept out by Violence, he yet stood there, and professed he would not go thence until he were either suffered to come in, or else some Cause were shewed why he should not. And what the Lords thought of his being kept out of the House, or questioned in any other Court, sitting the Parliament, may appear in the Roll of that Year; where, while he was kept out, they desired the Law to be declared touching questioning of Peers in any other Court but in Parliament; and thereupon a Committee of Twelve Lords was made, to examine in what Case Peers should be bound to answer in Parliament, and not elsewhere.

Rot. Parl. 15 Edw. III. N. 6 & 7.

"And the Committee's Report is general, Que lez Piers de la Terre ne devient estre aresuez ne mesez en Judgement, si non en Parleament et per leur Piers. And the same Day that this was reported, the Archbishop came into the House, where he desired of the King that he might be tried, which the King granted."

"9. Precedent alledged by Mr. Attorney.

Bishop of Winchester's Case.

"Anno 3° Edw. III. Termino Paschæ, The Bishop of Winton was indicted in the King's Bench, for departing from the Parliament at Salisbury."

"3 Ed. III. The Case of the Bishop of Winchester answered.

Answer.

Dors. Claus. 2 Ed. III. M. 15.

Dors. Claus. 3 Edw. III. M. 19.

Pasch. 3 Edw. III fol. 19. et Pasch. 3 Edw. III. coram Rege Rex, M. 9.

"This was the same Stratford that was Archbishop of Canterbury in that Case of 15 Ed. III. But it is plain, that the whole Proceedings against him was long after the Parliament from whence he departed. The Parliament was kept at Salisbury (not Salop, as it is false printed in the Year Book), and began in 15° Michaelis. It ended 31° Octobris following, as appears by the Writs for levying the Expences of the Knights and Burgesses. And the next Parliament is summoned by Writ, dated 14° Junii, 3° Edw. III. Now Edw. III began his Reign 25 Januarii, so that from the 31 Octobris in 2 Edw. III, to the 14 Junii in 3 Edw. III, there was neither Parliament held, nor any Summons sent forth. In that Time falls Easter Term, wherein the Bishop of Winton was questioned in the King's Bench, as appears both in the Year Book, and in the Roll of the Case. So that it proves nothing at all to the Point in Question, being done out of Parliament."

No Lord to be imprisoned during the Tune of Privilege of Parliament, unless for Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace.

These being read, it was Agreed, upon the Question, by the whole House, nemine dissentiente, That the Privilege of this House is, That no Lord of Parliament, sitting the Parliament, or within the usual Times of Privilege of Parliament, is to be imprisoned, or restrained, without Sentence or Order of the House, unless it be for Treason, or Felony, or for refusing to give Surety for the Peace.

And it was thereupon Ordered, That the said Lords Sub-committees for Privileges, etc. or any Five of them, shall meet this Afternoon, to consider of a Remonstrance of the Privileges of the Peers of Parliament, and of an humble Petition to be made unto His Majesty, to enjoy the same.

The Earl of Devon is added to the Committee for Petitions.

Adjourn.

Dominus Custos Magni Sigilli declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque in diem crastinum, videlicet, 19^m diem instantis Aprilis, hora nona, Dominis sic decernentibus.