aliorum de Consilio ipsius Domini Regis, remifit eidem Bogoni pred' inille libr' usque ad centum libr', &c.
Et Sciend' quod Plegii de predicto Fine admittuntur coram Thes' ad Scaccarium, per preceplum Domini Regis: et predictus Prior mitlitur ibidem ad faciend' secundum quod Thes' ei dicet ex parte Domini Regis,' &c.
This Record does not appear to warrant the conclusion Sir Edward Coke draws from it, viz. "That the same Privilege holdeth in case of Subpoenae, or other process out of any Court of Equity." The contempt in this Case seems to have been not so much in breach of the Privilege of Parliament, as that the citation was served in the King's palace, and in a privileged place belonging to the Abbot of Westminster, contrary to the rights of the King's servants, the Lord Steward and Lord Marshal, and of the said Abbot. And Prynn's observations upon it in the Fourth Register, p. 822, are in my opinion sensible and well founded[1].
3. The third precedent cited by Sir Edward Coke, is that of Writs of Supersedeas issued to the Justices of Assize in favour of Members of Parliament. The Writs are at length in the Fourth Register, p. 834, and in the Appendix to Ryley's Placita Parliamentaria, p. 551; and are as follows[2]:
- ↑ It has been very properly suggested, that in differing from so great an authority as Sir Edward Coke, one should speak with diffidence; especially in matters in themselves obscure, on account of their remoteness from the present times.—I have always endeavoured to do so.
There is a very similar case quoted in the Fourth Register, p. 1 1 89, of a Citation served in the 8th year of Ed-ward If. on Joan de Barro, Countess of Warren, at that time resident in the King's palace. The Record at large, and Prynn's observations upon it, are worth consulting.
- ↑ See Appendix ad Rotulos Parliamenti, temp. Ed. II. p. 449.
