observations as have suggested themselves to me on the circumstances of the particular Case.
1. The First is that cited by Sir Edward Coke in the Fourth Institute, page 24, under the title "Privilege of Parliament;" The Case of the Master of the Temple in the eighteenth year of Edward I. and is entered in the Roll of Petitions in Parliament, 18 Edward I[1].
'Mag'r Militie Templi petit quod dare possit Episcopo Menevens' xxx s. redditus annui, & arrerag' x annorum, pro quadam domo in Loud' in qua non potest distringere nisi tempore Parliamenti; petit quod habeat licentiam distringendi tempore Parliamenti.
Resp. Non videtur onestum qđ Rex concedat quod illi de Consilio suo distringantur tempore Parliamenti, Sed alio tempore distringat per ostia et fenestras, prout moris est.'
" Whereby," says Sir Edward Coke, "it appeareth that a Member of the Parliament shall have Privilege of Parliament, not only for his servants, as is aforesaid, but for his horses, &c. or other goods distrainable."
2. The next Case is also cited in the Fourth Institute from 18 Edward I. fol. 1. It is quoted at length in Prynn's
- ↑ Rotul. Parl. 18 Edw. I. page 61. N° 192. It is remarkable that Prynn, in the Fourth Part of his Register of Writs, p. 817, and 1188, twice asserts, that after the most accurate search no such petition is to be found; however, in his Animadversions on the Fourth Institute, p. 18, he admits, that at last he has found it in the Treasury of the King's Receipt in the Exchequer.—Wherever in this Work, reference is made to the Rolls of Parliament, the Cases will be found in the Six Volumes of the Rotuli Parliamentorum, printed by direction of the House of Lords.
