to the Privileges of either House of Parliament: The only crime of Henry de Harewedon, and the others, seems to have been, serving Ecclesiastical Process in the Court of Chancery, in breach of the known liberties and exemptions of the King's Courts. Sir Edward Coke however, in order to bring it within the subject of which he is treating, subjoins a note in the margin[1], "That this Thoresby was then Clerk of the Parliament," but does not refer to any history or record to prove the truth of this anecdote. Prynn, in the Fourth Register, p. 830, positively denies it; but even admitting that he was so, the punishment inflicted upon the offenders does not seem to have been for any breach of the Privilege of Parliament, which is not so much as hinted at, but for their open contempt and violation of the franchises of the Court of Chancery.
These are all the Cases which Sir Edward Coke produces under the title of "Privilege of Parliament." What authority they will have, or how far they are applicable, to prove the existence of any Privilege now claimed by Members of the House of Commons, must be left to the judgment of the reader. It would be very unbecoming in me to pretend to offer my opinion against that of this great Oracle of the Law; I can therefore only refer to Prynn's Animadversions on the Fourth Institute, and to the Fourth Part of the Register of Writs, where there will be found a very laboured collection of arguments on the other side of the question.
- ↑ Qu. Whether this Marginal Note is Sir Edward Coke's or some subsequent Editor's?—See, in the Journal in of the 14th May 1621, a precedent, cited by Sir Edward Coke, of the 10th year of Edward III. “where the Clerk of this House had a subpœna served upon him and had Privilege.”—See this Volume the case, Chap. 3. N° 13, under the head of “Summoning Members or their Servants.”
