Benyon v Evelyn S C cite in Carthew and by holt c j in salk as Bynions case  and by holt c j in salk as in car c b binjon v eveling decide that fill a  original against a parliament man be no breach of privilege the case be much  notice in Burdett v abbot east c a few copy of it be print in by Mr Hargrave  of which one be preserve in the library of the British museum title Bridgman  in the catalogue of print book there in the manuscript Mr Hargrave have insert  the follow references  Salk lee v Roger lev king v paty ld Raymond Prynne  parliament short catalog W c Ann c g c g c by which change have be make in the  law of privilege and Lord shaftesbury case of habeas corpus b r Tr car and  most of his note to the judgement be state in their proper place in this  volume in Mr hargrave preface to Lord hale jurisdiction of the lord house p  cxxxix the case be notice in prynne brief survey of parliamentary writ refer  to by Mr Hargrave it be state that the case of sir George Benion against sir  John eveling be adjudge in the court of common plea hill car by all the judge  thereof upon demurrer it be resolve upon solemn argument by all the judge  especial the Lord chief justice sir Orlando Bridgman argue it very large and  learned that the privilege of parliament do not take away the liberty of the  subject to commence and prosecute action of trespass debt account covenant and  the like against member of parliament or their menial servant even in  parliament time as be evident by the Commons own petition and the king lord  and judge resolution in the case of lark Thorp clark hide atwell Welsh cousin  Ferrer and Trewynnard which the chief justice vouch and insist on in his  learned argument of this case to the great satisfaction of those of the long  robe and most auditor then present as well member of the Commons house as  other Mr Prynne state the other case full a Tr car c b rot it be lawful to sue  out a original against a member of the house of Commons although parliament be  sit from the death of Charles the first to the restoration of Charles the  second the law do not die but be only suspend in its operation by the  impediment of the usurpation and as the law do not require a plaintiff to sue  in the court set up during that time nor look upon they as court and as the  Act of car concern judicial proceed be not to be extend to confirm the court  themselves only the act do in they the not sue in those court be a merit not a  laches nevertheless where the cause of action accrue on the that of July first  of Charles the first a action of the case bring upon Bridgman oh er p a writ  sue forth oh the that day of may in the that of Charles the second be bar by  the statute of limitation of James c although the defendant be a member of the  house of Commons from the say that of July until the that of January Charles  the first and although no legal court sit afterward until the restoration the  reasan be that the lapse of time be a bar in the body of the say Act of  limitation and the proviso of exception reach only to case of infant non  compos chin femes covert the imprison or beyond the sea and not to person  impede by the obstruction of justice or otherwise hark ms No fol fol Bridgman  c j sir George Benyon bring a action upon the case upon a indebitatus  assumpsit for S d for Bridgman oh merchandise against sir George Evelyn of  Wiltshire suppose to be make saint of April the defendant plead non assumpsit  infra sex aged proximo ante diem impetrationis short catalog primitive the  plaintiff reply that at the time of the promise and from thence till the that  of January car the defendant be a member of the house of Commons in the  parliament of the say king begin November car and thence continue to the say  that of January car which day it be dissolve by the death of the say king and  that by the privilege of parliament every person be a member thereof  strengthen be et strengthen be to withhold ab omnibus arrestationibus act  follow continually et prosecutionibus whoever nisi pro prodition felon et  fraction peace domini king ita quod non liceat some non existence member the  same parliament some breve originate or billam versus once mask to step out  member parliament ex aliquan curian domini king de think over durante  continuation the same parliament pro aliquan causan how Bridgman oh at any  time impetrate or attendance and he further say that neither the say that of  January car nor at any time after until the that of may car sec to be aliquan  curian cancel dom king England extra how some breve originate per Self  georgium to gain one to be able versus the same Johan nee to be some dorn king  magnum sigillum England cum quo aliquan ankle short catalog original sigillari  to be able nec aliquan alian curian domini king de think over in how  prediction georgius act svan prediction versus the same Johan per breve well  per billam psosequi to be able ad some time a prediction die January year say  in addition to usque prediction diem maii year say in addition to liberan et  area free from obstacles to be nec to be some placitum in aliquan curian  domini king durante tempore prediction placitatum or pursue and further say  that within six year after the say that of may year say in addition to  videlicet die maii year royal power domini king nunc he sue forth and  prosecute his original against the defendant et hoe a preparation be verify  unde petit judgment et financial loss c the defendant rejoin that king Charles  the first die that of January car post pron  interrog  death regimen what  royal power to climb down speech lord king nunc ut son et haearedi of the say  late king and that the cause of action if any do arise to the plaintiff do  arise and accrue to he Julii car et non postea and that a tempore act  praedicts overgrown with et durante vita speech recently reopis nec non a  tempore death paedicti recently king haec usque tam curian porter how curian  de superior banc curian de common banc et curian scaccarii time salary of  pastor to be area free from obstacles et handle at Westminster proad ita quod  the plaintiff may have free prosecute his Bridgman oh er p action with effect  against he and further say that by a Act in parliament Apr car it be enact  that no writ process plaint plead c have commence or prosecute before the that  of may in the name style title or testae jailer freedom England c or of Oliver  protector c shall be put without day or abate quash or discontinue by the king  most just reassumption of the actual exercise of his kingly government nor  shall the same be cause of error abatement or discontinuance but all such writ  process c shall Bridgman oh stand and be continue and shall and may be proceed  upon prosecute and return notwithstanding the same be commence or prosecute in  English and notwithstanding the happy change and restitution of his majesty  name and style in judicial proceed prout by the say Act inter alian it appear  et hoc paralus be verify unde ut prius the plaintiff surrejoins that at the  time of the action accrue and from thenceforth to the that of January car the  defendant be a member of the house of Commons of the say parliament ita quod  the say plaintiff some breve original or aliquan billam versus prediction  Johan ex aliquan curian speech recently king de think over pro causan  prediction durante continuation the same parliament impetrate et attendance  non to be able et beyond that from the say that January car quo die parliament  praedicturn loose to be until the say that day of may car non to be nec to be  some curiae speech domini king de think over nec curian domini king de cancel  nee curian ad placita coronae in person Self ring tenant nec curian domini  king de common banc nec curian domini king scaccarii Himself nec some other  spear speech domini king de think over at Westminster well alibi infra kingdom  England in who well in who prediction georgius act svan prediction versus the  same Johan per breve well billam attendance cum execution to be able freely et  aperte et hoc a preparation be verify unde ut prius petit judgment et  financial loss svan occasion praemissor Himself adjudicar the defendant  demurrer general and the plaintiff join in demurrer upon this record it appear  that it be a action of the case upon a indebitatus assumpsit in first  September pro goods prius offer for sale et deliberate the defendant plead non  assumpsit infra sex aged proximo ante diem impetrationis short catalog  primitive the plaintiff excuse he by his replication for not bring the action  within six year first that at the time of the promise and from thence till the  that of January car when the parliament dissolve by the king death the  defendant be a member of parliament and that by privilege of parliament every  member of parliament ought to be free from all arrest action suit and  prosecution unless for treason felony or breach of the peace so that it be not  lawful for any not be a member of parliament to sue out any original against  he Bridgman oh second that neither the say that day of January car nor at any  time after until the that of may Car 2 there be any court of chancery domini  king England out of which a original can be sue out neither to be some domini  king magnum sigillum in quo ankle short catalog sigillari to be able nor any  other court domini king de think over in which he can prosecute by writ or  bill against the defendant until the SbLid that of may car be open and that be  sue out his writ within six year after the that of may car videlicet that of  march car de et super promission et assumption prediction out of the court of  chancery of the king upon this replication and the subsequent plead there be  two thing to be considered the matter set forth whether it free the plaintiff  from be bar by the statute of Limitation and then the manner and form of plead  both of the plaintiff and defendant part for the matter it afford we three  point I the first arise from the replication and be this There be a cause of  action of assumpsit against a member of parliament whether a original may be  sue out against he and keep up by continuances while be remain a member of  parliament without breach of the privilege of parliament for this be the  excuse of the plaintiff for the time from the action accrue in July car till  the death of the king why be sue not out his original against the defendant  for it be not lawful say he during that time to take out a original or to  prosecute any action against he two the second point arise partly upon the  replication and principal upon the rejoinder and surrejoinder and be this The  plaintiff for his excuse why he sue not the defendant from January when the  late king die till after the that of Bridgman oh er p may car set forth that  in that space there be no court of chancery of the king out of which a  original may be sue nor any great seal of the king whereby to seal such writ  nor any court of the king of the king bench common plea or exchequer or other  court of the king of record in which he can prosecute with effect and the  defendant not deny there be no great seal of the king set forth there be a  court of chancery of Upper bench of common plea and exchequer open at  Westminster salary of pastor time during all that space so that the plaintiff  may have free bring his action and set forth the breach of the act of the  continuance of process car Charles ch f h whereby the process of these court  in that time be make good but Bridgman oh affirm not that they be the king  court nor deny not what the plaintiff say that there be no court of chancery  of the king or other court of the king open in the t time so that now it  judicial appear as well by the plead itself as by the Act of parliam mean set  forth in the record that during all this space there be court keep by usurper  under another style or testae and no court of the king keep so that now the  point be whether the plaintiff not sue out his original or prosecute the  defendant during the time of usurpation of the government when a court of  chancery be open and justice between party and party be administer under  usurper but no court of the king wonder as then open whether this shall be  turn to a lachess to the plaintiff that the time of limitation shall incur  during this time of usurpation III and the three point arise upon concession  of the two former point videlicet that the plaintiff ought not to sue during  the time the defendant be a member of the parliament nor be bind to sue in any  court under usurper whether yet there be such impediment as by the law or  equity of the Act of limitation jam ch f h the plaintiff shall have six year  from the time of those impediment remove to bring his action if any one of  these be against the plaintiff he be bar accord to the philosopher rule good  ex causan integran malum ex aliquan part I as to the first point whether sir  John Evelyn the defendant be a member of the Commons house of parliament at  the time of the debt contract and the assumpsit in law create can be sue by  original and that original continue during the sit of parliament without  breach of privilege of ParliamentI shall have be glad not to have have a  occasion to have deliver my opinion in this point for two reason first because  it be a tender thing for a inferior court to judge of the privilege of a  superior court and my Lord coke jurisdiction of court fol say the judge be  assistant to the lord to inform they of the commonlaw but it do not belong to  they but Lord coke add a qualification which be here omit between the word it  do not belong to they and the word to judge of any law or custom or privilege  of parliament he interpose in a parenthesis as have be say so it be in the  first edition of Lord coke four institute which be in and so it be in the four  edition and as I at least presume in the other edition therefore Lord Bridgman  in cite against himself rather overstates Lord coke language as the word be  give by Lord Bridgman they import its be Lord coke own opinion but as Lord  coke own word be in this part they amount to a veto against such a inference f  h see the debate and protest on the right of the house of lord to take notice  of the proceed of the house of Commons in matter of election parliament hist  vol xvi p the committee of the house of Commons upon the proceed relative to  sir Francis Burdett in seem to select their precedent with reference to this  distinction between notice matter in debate in parliament and matter of  parliament which arise in other court incidental your committee think it  proper to state that sir Francis Pemberton and sir Thomas Jones in defend  themselves at the bar of this house for their conduct in overrule the plea to  their jurisdiction in the action of jay v topham defend the judgement they  have give by rest upon the nature of the plead and not by deny the  jurisdiction or authority of this house and sir Francis Pemberton express  admit that for any thing transact in this house no other court have any  jurisdiction to hear and determine it Cobbets parliament debate vol xvii  appendix p d to judge of any law custom or Bridgman oh privilege of parliament  and cite for it particular thorps case h rot parliament No and some other case  which case only extend where the privilege of parliament come in debate in  Bridgman oh er p the house of peer the judge be not to determine there what  the privilege of parliament be in such case for the conusance thereof belong  to the lord of the parliament and not the judge and yet even there the judge  deliver their opinion to the lord as assistant what the course of commonlaw be  in such casesVide yet June journal de parliament contra mon livre deal lord  house that privilege of parliament continue during a adjournment accord to  which opinion the lord give their judgement against privilege in that case  that Thorpe be condemned in trespass in the interval of parliament and in the  fleet pro fine king shall remain in execution for the party but out of  parliament where upon a action at commonlaw a question concern the privilege  of parliament arise nothing have be more frequent than for the judge of the  commonlaw to deliver their opinion concern it and consequent to give their  judgement the king himself daily permit his privilege and prerogative to be  determine between he and his subject in the court at Westminster by the  commonlaw and when in a common action the privilege of parliament do come to  be part of the plea or justification it be of necessity that the privilege  whether there be such and what the extent of it be come also into  consideration for as it be say in the register of the ecclesiastical court  which be inferior to the commonlaw if a commonlaw point come in question there  non be consonant Bridgman oh account quod getting to know accessarii in causan  Christian to entangle where getting to know cause first ad forum Church rites  to get knowledge of to stretch out so I may say here matter of contract and  whether the writ be bring within the time prescribe by the statute of  limitation which be the principal be determinable here the privilege of  parliament come in incidental as part of the case as a consequent must in this  particular case be also debate here and so it be in Trewyniards case h dyer in  a action of debt against a sheriff upon a escape of a member of parliament  take in execution and deliver by privilege of parliament and in Riverss case e  and in other case some of which I shall have occasion to cite anon at large  the next cause why I shall have avoid the present debate about privilege of  parliament be this it be say at the bar that it have be declare by the  committee of the house of Commons of privilege the last session in a case of a  member of Parliament That it be a breach of privilege to sue out and file a  original against a member of Parliamentwhich be the point in question note  that the resolution of the Commons on sir Edward coke motion in June concern  their privilege treat serve any process upon a member or sue he in any court a  breach of privilege note by Mr Hargrave in the manuscript e I have inquire of  some parliament man of great note and learning touch that resolution who have  deny to I that they know of any such so that it be to I as res integran but if  it be so as be allege I shall give all reverence as become I to all opinion  and vote as proceed from so honourable a body but I be under the conscience of  a oath to do equal law accord to the best of my own judgement whatsoever the  authority of other opinion or resolution may be e the judge of assize proceed  accord to law notwithstanding such a resolution and command to surcease and e  voucher in a formedon against a baron and feme the wife be receive vouch her  husband and for cause show that her husband levy a fine sur conusance come Ceo  to Thomas Cranthorn who render to her and her husband and his heir the  demandant counterpleaded the voucher that Thomas have nothing of the gift of  the husband the tenant by receipt say this averment be not reasonable against  the fine and if the court shall award that she ought to answer over she be  ready the demandant sue to the council in parliament and by advice from thence  it be hold that the averment be reasonable and this plea of the tenant  Bridgman oh be a refusal of the averment and thereupon a writ of procedendo  issue out of chancery recite the advice of the council in parliament command  they to go on to judgement but the judge differ in opinion the cause be again  bring into parliament and judgement command for the demandant against the  Bridgman oh er p opinion of Stoner and a writ of error bring thus far appear  in Fitzherbert voucher whereby it appear that notwithstanding those two  resolution of parliament the matter be again bring in judgement before the  judge this case be at large in the parliament roll e rot parliament in a copy  of this roll in the harleian collection No fol it be roll in the cotton  collection Titus e fol the roll be also number the cotton copy be head a  special cause for law and power of parliament the case be very long but the  abridgment here contain the whole matter in law a copy in the lansdown  collection be similar to that in the harleian library to the notice of the  case in hale jurisdiction of the lord house of parliament Mr Hargrave have add  this note I do not perceive that the print roll of parliament include the  subsequent proceed in parliament on this case of sir geoffrey Staunton but see  cotton Abr of parliament Rec g wherein sir geoffrey Staunton the same case be  mention in hale on the jurisdiction of the lord or parliament and in hale ms  discourse or history concern the power of judicature in the king Council and  in parliament chap go and page to f h f be demandant against sir John Staunton  and any his wife and it appear by the roll of parliament that upon petition by  the demandant in parliament e that justice be not delay for the judge differ  in opinion sir John Stoner the chief justice be of a opinion that the averment  can not be receive against the fine it be endorse by the council that by the  law of the land the averment be receivable and judgement peremptory to be give  but there be difference of opinion in the common bench there be a second  petition in parliament and thereupon by command in full parliament the clerk  of parliament be send to the judge of the common plea either to give judgement  or in case they can not agree to come into the parliament and bring the record  with they and thereupon it be accord in parliament that sir geoffrey Staunton  the demandant be a stranger to the fine be receivable to the averment and that  he ought to have judgement and thereupon it be command the judge that they in  the common plea give judgement accord which share do Stoner refuse afterward  as appear by the case in Fitzherbert notwithstanding the resolve in parliament  error be Bridgman oh bring and it give no further in the print but in the  manuscript in the library at Oxford search have be make for the editor without  success in the Bodleian library at Oxford for this manuscript but a copy of  the parliament roll of e be find there contain the case in the same word as  the copy before refer to h e fol S the proceed appear upon that writ of error  it be urge by pole of that defendant counsel the judgement be give by the  assent of parliament and ought not to be reverse say note allocatur for that  judgement be not render in parliament then it be urge that judgement accord to  the new statute be assent unto in parliament that be a statute make the same  parliament e c S whereby in case of delay or difficulty a prelate two earl and  two baron be empower to hear such case and give judgement and in case of great  difficulty to be bring by they into parliament and it be say it be command the  judge to give that judgement and if they have not do it it have be error  apparent Stanford the judge say judgement be not give but in the common bench  and that which be there do may be here redress et Ceo to be avis en council  that be the parliament en absence de party ne poit pass charger and so go on  in examination of the error the use I make of it be this that resolution or  resolve in either house of parliament single in the absence of the party  concern be not so concludent in court of law but we may with due respect  nevertheless have to those resolve and resolution nay we must give our  judgement accord as we upon oath conceive the law to be though our opinion  fall out to be contrary to those resolution or vote of either house and  therefore that I may to set free mind meam as to the first point I be of  opinion that to file a original against a member of parliament to sit  parliament be lawful and not against the privilege of parliament and  consequent that the plaintiff here have neglect to sue out his original within  the six year accrue in the lifetime of the late king be bar by the statute of  limitation Bridgman oh er p to clear this matter of privilege so far as it  concern the case in question we must distinguish between it be from in the  manuscript but the sense require between f h I privilege of parliament ab  intra which concern the parliament or either house of parliament in  coagulation or the member of parliament within their house such as be provide  for by the indemnity of the lord and Commons h No and the statute of Bridgman  oh h c liberty of speech not report see appendix king king nor question see  appendix king king out of the parliament what be say in parliament and the  like which be as it be of the essence of the parliament and not dispensable  withal and of which every man concern ought at his peril to take notice and  personal privilege belong to the respective member as single person and  exercisable without door for themselves or their menial servant such as be to  be free from arrest and from have trial against they for their freehold and  other of like nature for as for these so far as their absence see the case of  Mr Galway hill parliament Deb vol ringtail pp c where p the qualification to  this dispense power in respect of the absence of the arrest member seem not to  have be regard l from parliament be not thereby require the member themselves  may dispense withal and as I shall show by and by they be not heretofore allow  they as privilege necessary belong to they without a writ or supersedeas of  privilege of this latter writ be our question now every privilege be by  prescription as it be say h dyer and the ancient usage of parliament and the  law of the parliament be the same thing I shall therefore consider what the  usage have be as to the matter of the privilege of parliament as to suit  against a member of parliament sit the parliament which be our present  business first as to the sound or commence of a action against he or second as  to the prosecution of a action against he whether bring before or sit the  parliament by arrest of his person or three in respect of other proceed  against he upon action during the sit of parliament to the first the bring of  a action which the mirror say nest auter choose and loyal demand de son law I  can find by any search that I can make any one record or judicial precedent  that make it out to be against the privilege of parliament to demand a man  right by original action where it go not so far as to reach their person or  estate though there be infinite precedent of supersedeas of privilege for  member of parliament and their servant and therefore I must use Littleton  argument fol upon the statute of Merton if any such can have be it shall be  intend it will have be sometime put in use but if the law allow proceed upon  such action against member to sit Bridgman oh parliament a strong it allow the  sue out a original and therefore as touch the arrest of their body and other  proceed upon action I shall take it into consideration what the privilege be  so tar as tend to the prove what I have say that it be no breach of privilege  of parliament to sue out a original against a member of parliament for in show  the extent of the privilege of parliament in these case the right of commence  a action by original will incidental and consequent fall in to ire show first  then as touch arrest it be clear a member of parliament I still mean in all  this debate a member of the house of Commons to sit parliament ought to be  free from arrest at the suit of the party upon mesne process for as to arrest  after a condemnation or judgement I shall take it into distinct consideration  and as to arrest in case of treason or felony or for the peace or at the suit  of the king it be not our present business I say as to arrest the speaker  always desire the first day when he be present to t king and the king giant to  the Commons inter alian freedom from arrest and the reason be well give in  Trewynards case dyer b they be suppose to be accord to their writ of election  de gravioribus et separation man c the wise man in the kingdom and therefore  their personal presence to treat de steep place royal power pain be necessary  and therefore it follow that the person of every such member ought to be  privilege from arrest at the suit of any private person during the time that  he be embusy about the affair of the king and his realm those be the word of  the book die a f h and it be clear law we allow the like privilege to any that  come to the inferior court of Westminster to go to delay et Of persons a  strong in a supereminent manner it be due to the superior Bridgman oh er p  court but as to the apply and make use of this privilege by a ancient course  ancient course Writ of privilege or non molestand out of chancery see form of  one Prynne prerog of parliament or if arrest writ of suprsedeas to discharge  see form of one in Prynne prerog of parliament and Rastals entry if privilege  deny a habeas corpus cum causan see Prynne short catalog parliament Scobell  see f n b c and hatsell saint Edward f h oh the person who will be free from  arrest be to have his writ of privilege or non molestand out of the chancery  under the great seal for thither be his election return of record or if he be  actual arrest he be thence to have his writ of supersedeas whereupon he be  discharge and if the privilege be doubt whether it will lie sometime a habeas  corpus cum causan Bridgman oh and that such writ shall issue before he can be  discharge stand with great reason of law for when he be arrest by virtue of  the king writ it be think reasonable he shall be discharge by the king writ  also which be of as high a nature and not by bare suggestion beside the ground  itself of the privilege or supersedeas may be question by the plaintiff in the  court where the action be bring aswhether he be indeed a person so to be  privilege for that be traversable whether the privilege extend to that case of  which the court be to judge and therefore it be proper that there shall be a  writ in such case as a matter of record to which the party may plead and not  to discharge he be a prisoner of record upon a bare affirmation and further in  such case of supersedeas of privilege when the party be discharge by it the  arrest be not whole void nor be the sheriff who make the arrest ancient punish  for it for he be command by the king writ to take he and be swear to obey the  king writ and this be agreeable to the reason of law in other case a nobleman  have a native privilege to be free from arrest in debt or trespass yet if a  capias issue in such case a officer though be know he to be a nobleman may  execute such a writ without offence   Isabel countess of Rutland case for the  sheriff and his minister be swear to serve the king Bridgman oh writ and ought  not to examine the judicial act of court the distinction which arise upon the  application of this doctrine may be find in the case of brown v Compton t r  where the court of king bench confirm the ancient principle that the order of  even the high court be not necessary to be obey and it be submit that the  expression that the sheriff or his officer ought not to examine writ must be  understand in a qualify sense the responsibility of the immediate actor under  civil command be one of the safeguard by which the subject be protect against  illegal act more recent case be notice in prestige v woodman Barnewall and  Anderson and see win v Boughey in this volume that the same principle govern  those who be under military law even more rigorous than those under mere civil  authority see state trial vol v p vo Edward the case of colonel Axtell before  sir Orlando Bridgman when Lord chief baron the case of captain c in Ventris  debate in the house of Lord Mr lock letter from a person of quality lock work  vol ten p the mutiny Act and the article of war burr Sutton v Johnstone t r  and taunt Charles the second and James the second indeed attempt to introduce  a different principle and for a time succeed see the Act of uniformity pound  car c S and the memoir of James the second by Mr clarke but it be one of the  merit of the revolution to restore the ancient law the statute of W and m sess  c S repeal the passive obedience clause of the Act of uniformity p but ought  to execute the writ and agreeable be h dyer   Com mansel case it be print at  the end of Plowdens commentary f h Q pound h and when the party so arrest be  set free by virtue of his privilege yet he be not set free absolute but make  his attorney Mr hatsell seem to think from the proceed state on the journal of  parliament that the institute of suit against member be successful resist  Hatsells precedent vol I c p and the committee of the house of Commons in the  case of sir Francis Burdett seem to have be of the same opinion first report  on that case parliament debate vol xvii appendix p but see note that in this  case and see the debate in the house of Commons June on the move that whoever  shall presume to commence or prosecute any action indictment or prosecution  against any person for act do in obedience to the order of this house such  person and person and all atorneys solicitor counsellor and sergeant at law  solicit prosecute or plead in any such case be guilty of a high breach of the  privilege of this house this resolution be negative parliament debate vol xvii  p r to answer the action which show the foundation the bring of the action be  still good though the superstructure their proceed by arrest be void in Thomas  thorpes case h rot parliament No the chief justice in the name of all Bridgman  oh er p judge declare to the lord the course of proceed in the court of  Westminster upon supersedeas of privilege that if a member of parliament be  arrest in such case as be not for felony treason or security of the peace or  for a condemnation have before a parliament it be say that all such person  shall be release of all such arrest and make a attorney r so that they may  have the freedom and liberty free to attend the parliament this be so pregnant  a proof of the course and practice of those time be the declaration of all the  judge that I shall not need to make any further proof before that time of the  usage since then the course be accord as appear by m e rot c b Brandon a  burgess of parliament arrest upon a capias discharge upon a supersedeas and  hill t e rot et in Riverss case see post a of the manuscript p of this volume  and Prynne short catalog parliament which be not publish till about two year  after the judgement of c b in this case of Benyon and Evelyn in Prynne short  catalog parliament there be also the privilege case of do v Welsh in e note by  Mr Hargrave in the manuscript S in the exchequer which I shall have occasion  to cite at large and e rot parliament No the case of John atwell burgess for  Exeter by which it appear the law take care to preserve their person from  arrest but not to hinder other proceed upon contract from whence Bridgman oh I  necessary infer that if such proceed in suit may be a ainst a member of  parliament a strong a original may be sue out and continuances enter to sit  parliament but in case of a judgement against a privilege person and he take  in execution thereupon to sit parliament the law seem in former time to have  be more doubtful h rot pi No lark a servant of William Mildred a member of  parliament be take in execution during the parliament upon a judgement before  the parliament in common banc in trespass upon the petition of the Commons the  king by the advice of the lord but with the consent of the plaintiff counsel  enact that the judgement shall stand in force and that after the parliament  end the judge shall make out process of capias ad to give satisfaction and pro  fine as if he have never be imprison and commissioner to be appoint by the  Lord chancellor to take he and deliver he to the warden of the fleet but where  it be further pray that none of the member a thou parliament desore a venire  lour servant you familiar ne soient ascunement arrestes ne en prison detain  durant Le tempt de Apelles parliament sil ne soit pour treason felony you  surety de peace the answer be roy see avisera elsing the earl of arundel case  a strange exposition of this Act what Lord Bridgman here advert to be in p of  the edition of elsing in f h there be a special Act parliament for a new  examination and by a new way against lark upon this case Mr hatsell remark it  seem difficult to ascertain precise what the meaning of the king negative be  perhaps it mean nothing more than that the particular case be provide for the  king will consent to no general law on the subject Vol I p v but the king  refuse to make a general law in it in thorpes case as I have cite it before  the judge seem to be of opinion that if a man be take in execution to sit  parliament for a condemnation before the parliament he shall not be discharge  the principal case there be of a judgement in trespass and the party in  execution pro fine king in the interval and during the adjournment of  parliament and be in execution for the king he be also for the party without  any prayer as   Clarnons case and so need not that resolution and in the  yearbook e the case be that one who ought to have his liberty in the common  bench in the term time be in the vacation time condemned Bridgman oh er p in  London and in the term time take in execution and discharge of the execution  but not of the condemnation and be move in the court it be thereby agree that  be ought not to have be discharge Danby the chief justice say that he himself  see quant tin tiel vie icy pur Ceo quill to be un deal parliament el to be  arrest et mouse en execution sur un condemnation Bridgman oh long temps devant  Le parliament et voit avoir estre dismiss deal execution et Le mesme notify a  council Le roy et a nous c et ill puissoit choke vraiment cest voire but that  opinion as I conceive that a member of parliament take in execution can not be  discharge be not ground upon the point of non privilege in such case for since  it be clear that a person against who a judgement be give be not disable to be  a member of parliament so it follow be ought to have the privilege of immunity  for arrest in respect of the necessity of his personal attendance this  immunity from arrest be a thing grant at the open of every parliament but the  reason of that opinion that a arrest of a member of parliament in execution  can not be avoid be that it be hold a maxim in law if execution be once do if  the party be discharge of execution he can never be take again in execution so  it appear by lark case before cite and so in that case of Thorpe the plaintiff  the duke of York counsel say he be without remedy if the defendant be  discharge and therefore since it be his lachess that he do not sue out his  supersedeas of privilege before he be arrest in which case the arrest perhaps  will be void the justice of the nation think it fit rather to favour the  execution which be the life of the law and it be also of general concernment  than the party who through his own lachess bring the arrest upon himself for  by the way the law be not then take that every man at his peril must take  notice of the person to be a member of parliament as appear h rot parliament  No and by several other act of parliament make on the behalf of several member  and agreeable to the opinion of those judge in thorps case that the law be so  that the party can not be take again in execution after the parliament be do  appear in the note case of Ferrer cite out of Holinshed by Crompton in his  jurisdiction of court wonder wherein it be express agree that the party have  lose his debt and no now execution can be take out against Ferrer William hide  case c rot parliament No William hide burgess of Chippenham be take in  execution for debt and because by discharge he the debt will be lose there be  a special Act to give the chancellor power to issue out writ to bring his body  into the chancery by habeas corpus and there to discharge he and also to  indemnify the Lord chancellor and sheriff and to save the right of the party  that they may take out new execution after the parliament end but as to the  point of privilege Ferrer case determine the law for the privilege against the  execution the case be this see appendix l for this case from Holinshed wonder  Bridgman oh vide Ceo a large Crompton jurisdiction court fol h fol and dier  this case do not only determine the law for the privilege against the  execution but also that the party ought to be discharge without writ when the  sergeant at arm come for he but pasch Elizabeth in more be report more a h  dyer a be mean f h ten and I have see the same in other good report dyer say  that Ferrer ought not to have the privilege of parliament and that it be allow  minus just and indeed in Trewyniards case it appear that the very same  parliament h after that resolution in Ferrer case Trewyniard be a burgess of  parliament and take in execution be free not by the mace or sergeant at arm  but by a writ of supersedeas of privilege which writ be a security to the  sheriff against a escape whether the privilege be Allowable or not and I  observe upon Ferrer case that the sheriff be not send to the tower for arrest  Ferrer but for the contempt in not deliver he when the sergeant at arm come  but the law be now settle in both these point that there may be a new  execution and that he may be discharge without writ by the statute James c  which enact that a new execution may be take forth after the time of the  privilege expire and that no officer shall be Chargeable by any action for  deliver out of execution any such person by such privilege of parliament set  at liberty the word be not set at liberty by writ of privilege but by  privilege of parliament it Bridgman oh er p go farther  That this Act shall  not extend to the diminish of any punishment to be hereafter by censure in  parliament inflict upon any person which hereafter shall make or procure to be  make any such arrest so that this statute reserve to the parliament a power of  punish the person who shall arrest a member but leaves it not to inferior  court which remain still to follow the same rule they do before and therefore  still the discharge upon arrest of privilege person in the ordinary court of  justice ought to be by writ as I conceive in the journal of the house of  Commons of Elizabeth in the case of one Maltby a servant of a member of  parliament it be report for a committee by the then attorney of the duchy that  they find no precedent for set at large by the mace any servant of a member of  parliament but by writ but against that report it be resolve in the house of  Commons that the mace be warrant sufficient for it I desire to be understand  that I speak not any thing to impeach in the least the judgement of parliament  in case of their privilege Bridgman oh they be the only judge when the  question come before they in their house but to show only what rule we ought  to follow out of their wall and in inferior court and the way by which the  privilege ought to be allow by we in these court and not as have be of late do  since the beginning of the long parliament without writ or plea upon a bare  affirmation of the party concern or his servant or a note under the hand of  the clerk of the crown the point as to the necessity of a writ of privilege to  discharge a member of parliament from arrest or debt be solemnly argue in  Michaelmas and easter term Geo in the case of John Pitt esquire member for  Camelford the result be his be discharge by the court of king bench on motion  support by affidavit but this be not do till after petition Lord chancellor  Talbot for a writ of privilege and take the opinion of the twelve judge of who  ten against two hold that the discharge may be on motion the case be report in  Com fort stram barn and Lord Annallys Rep b r tempt Hardwick to the report in  the last book be the full and accord to what be there state Lord Hardwick then  c j treat the point as a very serious one there be another point which be as  to Mr Pitt be within the time of privilege and eleven judge be all present  hold that he shall be discharge in a proper and legal method after state this  Lord Hardwick accord to this report by Lord Annally proceed thus I but the  remain question is What be that proper and legal method whether by writ of  privilege under the great seal upon record or whether it may be do by motion  upon affidavit as to this point the judge be all of opinion that a writ of  privilege be a proper method to be take for the discharge of the defendant  person but there be a great doubt and some variety of opinion among they  whether the court will discharge he in the method now take upon motion or not  no case have be produce from the book wherein any person entitle to privilege  of parliament be discharge after this manner but it be a matter of consequence  and the short time between the argument and the last day of the term be take  up in necessary business the court be of opinion to enlarge the rule till next  term without prejudice to the defendant bring his writ of privilege in the  mean time and if the defendant do not think fit to bring his writ of privilege  in the mean time but insist on the method already take they will then give  their opinion upon the matter after have give it the consideration it will  require it be altogether a new proceed it be proper to add that after have  take the opinion of the twelve judge Lord Hardwick in a very learned speech  which be give by Lord Annally in considerable fullness in his report explain  the chief point on which the ten judge who think Mr Pitt dischargeable on  motion find themselves and that all the judge appear to have hold a writ of  privilege to have be the regular method previous to the statute of W c which  in regulate proceed against member of parliament prohibit arrest they during  the time of privilege and that they even seem to have hold the writ essential  see the case of holiday v Pitt in b if Geo Annal pop tempt Hardwick to f two  see note v in this case that Bridgman oh the use which I make of all this part  of the debate be this that if ancient there be so much doubt whether a arrest  under process of execution can be avoid by privilege of parliament and if it  may yet whether without a writ of supersedeas it be not to be doubt but that  the sue out of a original be then Bridgman oh er p hold lawful without  question which tend not to the disturbance of his person or to binder his  personal attendance but to attach a action and to preserve a right from be  destroy I now come to consider in the next place what the usage have be as to  the proceed upon action against a parliament man other than by arrest ancient  where it concern their freehold or inheritance there go out a general writ  supersedeas direct to the justice of Assize recite that the king have send  summons of parliament as you may see clause e man back command the judge ne  per the dawn absence who be summon to be personal present exhaereditationem  aliquan to hold up quod deception assisarum juratar et certificationum once  prelatorum comrade baron et another trusty our who thou to agree de order our  men prediction ad dictum parliament venire tangenti to sit upon durante  parliament prediction and the like e man back quod ad once assisas that who ad  parliament venire well the dawn once tangent eoden parliament durante too  little to go before upon which writ the party may have have particular writ of  supersedeas that it may to agree as the first writ mention that they be summon  to the parliament which by the way imply the judge be not bind to take notice  of it but I observe two thing on this writ first that it hinder not the bring  the writ of assize but the proceed to the take the assize durante parliament  second that it reach only to such case where the freehold be concern and be ad  exhaereditationem and do not forbid the take of jury in other case for though  the word be assisarum juratar et certificationum yet juratar be not there to  be take for any jury whatsoever that there be a prohibition to take they but  juratar there have reference to the assize as the word certificationum have so  the patent or commission for assize be to put thou justice our men ad all men  assisas jurat et certificationes in person whoever just tam per to visit short  catalog c et therefore thou mandamus quod ad certos die et locos quo thou  Bridgman oh ad hoc to see in advance assisas being under oath et  certificationes that to take in hand c and there be a writ to the sheriff to  bring before the judge of assize in all respects short catalog assisarum  juratar et certificationes Fitzherbert ab title assize pl assize versus job r  Le dit I dit and ill enter par W and and Le pl avec reel a ill par to be c et  sur Ceo fait lassise to be charge et trove pour Le pl bone ascun tiend and  home doit enquer en Ceo case oust Le diss par lassise pour Ceo and Ceo soleit  estre Le lie mass ill nest nemy issint over et ceux deal bank de Westminster  ne voile enquer ouster de diss et si nous fesomus auterment and ceux font Ceo  ne serra bien seant mes ascun gentz quident and en tiel case quant lassise be  change en nature denquest par miss of party and less auters and be nosme en Le  tre be sans jour c et puis advisement de Ceo ill eux do jour a Westminster a  quill jour bone agard and ill rec seize c el jamais enquer oustre deal  desseissin c f h aa but the jury that we take in the country be by virtue of  the writ of nisi prius so that juratar in that writ be take for the jury when  the recognitores who by writ be to be there the first day be return in to  swear falsely and in the writ of certificate upon a assize sue the juror be to  be summon ad certificand justice super a certain point of time contingent the  former assize so that the precedent do not at all warrant the stop of any  trial in any personal action but since a eject strong be a mix action as well  as a assize and possession be thereby recover and it tend ad exhaereditationem  and the eject strong be in lieu of the assize it stand with justice the  privilege shall extend to it so it be grant by writ or appear by plea and not  by claim by parole or by certificate by letter without the great Seal a course  take up since the beginning of the long parliament no precedent or act whereof  shall have any weight with I but such wherein the king and two house concur  but now for proceed upon action against a member of parliament durante  parliament I have already mention some precedent that in debt trespass or  other contract if the person privilege be arrest upon mesne process during the  parliament that upon his discharge he shall make his attorney that the plea  may go on whence the consequence be strong that a strong he may be sue by  original of debt for that be but a summons have less of compulsion in it than  any subsequent process I Bridgman oh er p shall therefore conclude this with  two more precedent which I conceive if well consider be full authority both  for the lawfulness of commence action against person privilege and proceed  against they to judgement so that their person be not restrain durante  parliament Bridgman oh the first be in thorpes case which I cite before p to  another purpose the chief justice in the name of all the judge declare the  course of proceed in the court of Westminster upon writ of supersedeas of  privilege that there be many and diverse supersedeas of privilege of  parliament bring into the court but there be no general supersedeas bring to  surcease all process ante and rot parliament h d there cite f h cc but if  there shall be it shall seem that this high court of parliament that minister  all justice shall let the process of the commonlaw and so it shall put off the  party complainant without remedy forasmuch as action of commonlaw be not  determine in this high court of parliament these be the very word of the judge  whereby they resolve that a general supersedeas to cease all process during  the parliament be against law and the reason there give that if it shall be so  the parliament instead of administer justice by let the process of the law  will leave the party complainant to be without remedy hold much more in our  case of not permit he to sue out a original for first as well in personal as  real action in many case he be bind up by the statute of limitation to a  definite time second if the privilege person be a heir if the party can  commence his action durante parliament in the mean time the heir alien and he  be quite without remedy and other like instance may be cite the next precedent  with which I shall conclude be hill e in scacc rot the judgement of the baron  of the exchequer Riverss case in the exchequer e but it be with the advice of  all the other judge of England that there be such a custom that member of  parliament durante parliament in debt trespass account covenant or other  contract non to withhold implacitari ought not to be subject to be imprison  but that there be no such custom that non to withhold implacitari and  thereupon judgement give against the privilege the record be not long and  because it confirm something else which I have already open I shall read it  this record be print by Prynne in his short catalog parliament which be  publish about two year after Lord Bridgmans judgement in this case of Benyon v  Evelyn note by Mr Hargrave in the manuscript the case be state in Prynne at  great length than in the text he say p ib that be transcribe it with his own  hand out of the plea roll in the exchequer dead London sure Johannes river  fellow citizen el pelliarius land go for sale in person Bridgman oh baron c et  to express grief per billam versus robertum cousin eustod great garderob dom  king nunc alias dict instead of the c the full word as in pry parliament writ  be robertum cousin civen et mercerem London f h thou prsens hic in curian  eoden die super experience his de duty his predicto hic ad hoc scaccarium  reddend per thomam Harrison attorn suum de eastern quod ipse robertus ei debet  et injust to hold off l S d sterling et pro eastern injust c Def to have lib  loq usque pasch c et to have beyond lib loq in crast Tr c et beyond lib loq  ind in octab mich et beyond lib loq usque diern commodity year royal power  speech king tertio Decimus et super hoc idem robertus per attorn suum pillage  to bring away hic breve domini king sub great seal svan enclosed space  Thesaurariis et baron what scacarii direct pron  interrog  indeed short  catalog tenor sequitur in haec word Edward God agreeableness c Thesaurriis et  baron nest de Scaccario health cum secundum experience royal power our men  England as far as this spreading before et to assent to domini magnate et  soldier come fellow citizen et citizen community et burgor ad parliament our  men de summonitione our men to come Elizabeth n the same a delay seu to sit  back ac the dawn to be a servant et of slaves ration alicuj transg debt is  owed drive together assembly seu of one another shrinking cujuseunque dumb  such in parliament our men to delay arrestari too little to withhold  imprisonari seu implacitari Prynne note on this word that this be a new  pretend privilege pry parliament Writ ff et jam ex heavy complaint beloved et  trusty our men Thomas saint leger One soldier come our men Surr to take  without effort quod although ipse ad feel or perceive beforehand parliament  nostrum de summonitione our men to come et in eoden noretur quidam yet  Johannes river eivies et Bridgman oh er p pelliarius London gaze of looking ad  hoc non to have implead in person thou in scaccario prediction per billam sive  breve inter robertum cousin jailer great garderob Nost other dictum robertum  cousin civen et mercat London servient predict thomae who cum eoden Thoma in  feel or perceive beforehand parliament go for sale et to be a servant of  slaves the same thomae to step out prout idem Thomas in person we in cancel  our men of constant sacrament a protector corporal de debt is owed l S d quod  idem Johannes a saying beforehand Roberto to drive out utdicit in Self thomae  saint leger damnum Bridgman oh non modicum et gravamen et contra experience  say in addition to thou mandamus quod si ita be tunc plea that in person thou  of one another tenant to sit upon entirely Self robertum contra experience  prediction non is troublesome in to some place seu gravant testae meipso at  Westminster tertio die Nov year royal power our men tertio Decimus et pillage  Robert cousin jam defend to say quod ipse et pillage robertus cousin in speech  shorten nomin nat are One et eaden mask et non alian nor to visit et quod ipse  be et a speech tertio die Nov et tempore postea to be to be a servant of  slaves prcedicti thomae saint leger et cum eastern ad dictum parliament go for  sale who in all respects et one idem robertus cousin a preparation be verify  prout cur c unde non to stretch out quod ipse ad respondendem say beforehand  advance Johan river ad act svan prediction to turn the war thither to withhold  et petit judgment et breve prediction Himself allocari c Prynne note on this  word that this be a new pretend privilege pry parliament Writ gg et super hoc  pillage rob river per ricardum blisset attornatum suum petit quod ipse  robertus cousin to answer et in to send forward shorten there non to stand  before et quod breve pro eastern quod non to have nec unquan to have ankle  custom quod magnate et soldier comitat ac fellow citizen ac citizen community  et burgor ad parliament de summonitione regius to come ac the dawn of slaves  ration alicuj transgr computation assembly or of one another shrinking pron   interrog  dumb such in parliament palace more too little to withhold  implacitari prout in shorten there specificatur et to read out disallocetur et  super hoc look et above bed shorten prediction per baron c habitoque  avisamento justice domini king de to both places banc in here part because to  see say beforehand advance baron de avisainento justice pillage quod ankle to  have et to have custom quod magnate et soldier come et fellow citizen et  citizen community et burgor ad parliament de summon regius to come ac the dawn  of slaves ration alicuj transgr debt is owed computation assembly contract  pron  interrog  dumb such in parliament king more take hold or arrestari non  to withhold send no one hujusmodi experience before quin implacitari to  withhold prou tin shorten there to put below therefore to look at closely be  per baron prediction quod breve mock disallocetur Bridgman oh et quod  prediction robertus cousin to answer prediction John river ad billam svan  prediction shorten prediction non to stand before et super hoc ad the same  they Mercury Nov speech robertus cousin nil to say c et poster judgment To  give back pro to express grief quod recupere debt is owed suum prediction et  financial loss svan ad S d c which precedent be by the advice of all the judge  of England ought to have its due respect and contain several thing worthy of  observation and among other that there be no such custom or privilege that a  member of parliament can be implead during the parliament and the person who  claim the privilege be put to answer during the parliament and judgement give  against he the resolution of all the judge I can say with satisfactory to all  the member of the Commons house who claim great privilege both as to the  discharge of member or their servant take in execution than be allow either to  the king or Lord in parliament or in Westminster hall by the judge as appear  by the word in the close of Mr hide case e No as it be or in the manuscript f  h hh also by their claim in John Atwells case burgher of Exeter e rot  parliament No both see as to these two case of hide and atwell hatsell saint  Edward to f h two be after this resolution of the judge in Riverss case the  Commons in the latter case the word in the latter case be add by the editor  because what follow be Atwells case only f h kk by their petition set forth  that time out of mind the knight citizen and burgess of parliament among other  liberty and franchise have have and use privilege that any of they shall not  be implead in any action personal nor be attach by their person or good in  their come to any such parliament there abide nor from thence to their proper  home resort which liberty and franchise the king at the commencement of this  parliament gracious have ratify and set forth that Bridgman oh er p John  tailor since the commencement of this parliament by virtue of eight feign  information in the exchequer have condemned the say John atwell citizen for  Exeter in the say John atwell daily attend the parliament and not have notice  of the condition and that several writ of execution some of become facias some  of capias ad to give satisfaction have Bridgman oh issue to several sheriff so  that he can have his free depart from this present parliament to his own home  for doubt that both his body his horse and other good necessary to he have  with he shall be put in execution contrary to the privilege due to the member  of parliament upon this petition the king by the advice of the lord ordain  that the say writ of execution shall not be executory or hurtful to he and  that the chief baron shall have power the judgement be in the exchequer by  virtue of that ordinance to grant writ of supersedeas to surcease all manner  of execution in that behalf to be make and this be thus far agreeable to the  resolution of the judge in river case and thorpes case that no execution ought  to have issue during the parliament but instead of allow the privilege or  franchise as it be demand that he ought not to be implead as aforesaid c  during the parliament there be ail express provision and save in these  words  Saving always to the aforesaid John tailor his foresay judgement and  execution and every of they to he have and serve at his pleasure against the  say John atwell at every time after the end of this present parliament this  present ordinance notwithstanding whereby it appear the judgement of the king  and lord in parliament agree with the judge resolution that the implead a  member of parliament during the parliament without take out execution be not  against the privilege for there be a save of the judgement from all which the  inference be strong that the Act of parliament do allow the foundation and  precedent and judgement execute against atwell a member of parliament during  the parliament though it discharge the execution it have be object out of coke  jurisdiction of court c Jur c I case de subpaena that a citation out of the  ecclesiastical court or a subpoena out of chancery can be serve upon a member  of parliament yet neither of they do arrest or restrain his body and my Lord  coke there cite for it Bogo de Clare case e and John de Thoresbys case e be  the law what it will be in those case which it be not my purpose to determine  yet the resemblance to our case come not home the citation be out of the  ecclesiastical court which be then account forum another and not the king  court and the subpaena issue out of a English court and the original of it and  the manner of the proceed by subpaena grow up since the privilege of  parliament settle neither do my Lord coke say that a bill shall not be put  into chancery or a subpaena take out which be enough to make a suit depend and  come near to our case of sue out a original but that a Bridgman oh subaena  against a member of parliament shall not be serve but the truth be my Lord  coke treatise of the jurisdiction of parliament be a posthumous work and  though I shall attribute as much to his learning in the law as to any of the  sage in the law whatsoever yet there not be that freedom in former time of  have copy of the record at large as have be since yearbooks book write of the  law of England and judgement in parliament be three of the authority and they  be thesauri open Judicial record and precedent be the four and they be  thesauri hidden place   case of the Marshalsea this be the oversight of that  great ornament of our law sir Edward coke who by trust to other man  abridgement and note of record which himself have no vacancy to examine be  often seduce by they and have thereby seduce other by their mistake and  misrecitals publish in his print book of which I have here and elsewhere give  the reader some particular instance to rectify both his and their mistake  without the least intention to detract any thing from his venerable and due  worth and memory  Prynnes preface to his edition of cotton abridgment will  when he come to cite they he be guide by abstract which occasion miserable  mistake and by the modus to hold parliament which as to the time of make it be  most certain a   piece so that there be a multitude of error in his chapter  concern parliament and in particular both these record be gross mistaken See  hatsell mm first in Bogo de Clare case Bridgman oh er p prynne Inst this  reference to Prynne on last must have be considerable subsequent to the  judgement in this case of Benyon and Evelyn for prynne book on the Inst be not  publish till some year after note by Mr Hargrave in the manuscript the  reference be in the handwriting of umfreville nn it be this He and the prior  of saint Trinity be attach to answer to the king steward to the king marshal  Edmund earl of Cornwall and the abbot of Westminster for that the earl come to  the parliament by the king command and pass to the council through Westminster  hall where who de royal power freely to be for sale et pacific venire debet to  prosecute his own business without admit there any citation or summons the  prior at the procure of Bogo de Clare cite he to appear before the archbishop  at a certain day to answer such thing as shall be object against he in the  contempt of the king to the prejudice of the liberty of the abbot of  Westminster and prejudice of the office of steward and marshal whereas it  belong to their office only and not to any other to make summons and  attachment infra palatium domini king thereupon they be commit to the tower  and Bogo pay a fine to the king mark and to the earl mark upon Bridgman oh  which record it appear the ground of the punishment be not a citation tempore  parliament but because it be a citation in the king palace where who de royal  power every man ought to be free ndly the spiritual court at that time be look  upon as not depend upon the king but upon the pope and it be not curian king  and therefore it be a affront at any time to cite any person there rdly if  there be cause of summons or attachment for a civil plea it ought to have be  by the king officer and this privilege of be exempt from serve of process  there be not only in respect of the king palace and in respect of the place of  his residence but also to other inferior court Mr Hatsells conjectural remark  on this case be support by this authority of the chief justice against the  conclusion draw from it by sir Edward coke Hatsells precedent p oh as for John  de thoresby case e the record itself be at large c I where it appear that  Henry de Harrowden and other be convict and imprison for cite John de Thoresby  into the ecclesiastical court he be then in the court of chancery in the  presence of the archbishop then chancellor this John de Thoresby my Lord coke  say in his marginal note be then clerk of the parliament and the writ be quod  in senate our men in who to carry on business royal power our men to lead  ubique to such a degree Proserpine are et removal quod nec aliquan forum  Church rites concernentia in the same senate our men become seu funeral  procession nec in some way easden senate our men ad aliquan forum Church rites  to touch to make well exequend advance to withhold which be mean of the  ordinary court at Westminster and particular of the chancery and do not at all  concern the parliament but those record cariae nosirae against the record  itself in the margin my Lord coke or the publisher say in the court in  parliament though the record itself tell you the fact be in the chancery and  in James my Lord coke cite a record e that a subpoena be serve on the clerk of  the house of Commons and the party be commit for break the privilege of the  house and in Breretons case the case be notice short in the print journal vol  I pp but the editor have not find the entry of thoresby case either there or  in the journal book itself pp James upon this precedent there cite which be  enter in the journal book one who have serve a subpaena on a member of  parliament be commit for breach of privilege the precedent mean be certain  this of John de Thoresby and have these four gross mistake he be not clerk of  the house of Commons but of the parliament Bridgman oh dly the offence be for  serve a citation and not a subpoena rdly it have no relation to the parliament  but for serve it in chancery thly the party who serve it be not commit for it  but after conviction by jury and judgement after indictment in the journal in  the house of Commons Elizabeth as they be cite by Scobell Richard coke Scobell  coke case a member of parliament be serve with a subpoena and thereupon it be  order that the ercorder of London and other member attend by the sergeant  shall repair to the court of chancery and there signify to the Lord chancellor  and master of the roll that by the ancient liberty of the house the member of  the same be privilege from be serve with subpoena Bridgman oh er p and to  require not only the discharge of Mr coke appearance but from thenceforth to  grant privilege for other member upon the request of the house signify under  their speaker hand which the recorder and the rest do accord but return this  answer that the Lord chancellor tell they he know no such privilege touch  subpoena and will not allow it unless the house do prove it have be allow also  in the court of chancery and precedent be direct to be view but short after  the parliament end what the law be in this case of subpoena as I say before it  be not before I to determine I only mention it in reference to the mistake and  misapply of precedent neither my Lord coke nor any other writer that I know of  say that a original can be sue forth I have show many precedent of proceed  durante parliament upon action I have find none to prove that it be against  the privilege of parliament to sue out a original and therefore I shall  conclude that sir George Benyon may have sue out his original in the lifetime  of king Charles the first but it may be object that the original in this  action be a pone per vadios et salvo plegios upon which the sheriff may attach  the defendant good which will be forfeit for nonappearance and it be say c I  that a member of parliament shall have privilege for his horse and other good  distrainable this objection so far as it concern the gist of the action be  easy answerable for the plaintiff may have bring his original of debt which be  but a summons and so have continue his action but then the process in debt be  summons attachment distress and upon a nothing a capias the objection will  still remain for if you can continue the be born Bridgman oh ginal sans breach  of privilege it be to no purpose to sue out a original law non precipit  useless first I conceive there be not authority to warrant the privilege so  general and as my Lord coke put it that the good of a member of parliament be  not in any case distrainable tempore parliament the case which he cite to be  inter candidacy in person lord ring ad parliament post holiday mich year e I  find none such qq but I find the case cite by Mr Elsing that magister soldier  temple petit quod distingat catalla bishop sancli David tempore parliament pro  To give back One house in London king to answer non to see honesty quod that  de council up distringa tem over parliament send elsewhere tempore per ostria  et window prout custom be Prynne also in when he publish part go of his short  catalog parliament have not be able to find the record of case of the the  master of the temple in e cite by Lord coke see part go Prynne short catalog  parliament and but in his animadversion on Inst which do not come out till he  admit have at length find the record and in p of his latter book be give it at  length from the roll of petition of parliament e find in the treasury of the  king receipt in the exchequer the search appear to have cause much trouble to  Mr Prynne and this he angry impute to the defective and erroneous manner in  which both Lord coke and elsing have refer to the record the petition be now  publish in the roll of parliament vol I p and what be there agree with Prynne  Inst and substantial with what Lord Bridgman here state in his argument to  have find in elsing possible Lord Bridgman have a manuscript copy of elsing  more full than the copy from which the print edition be take for not even in  the edition of which be the last and seem the best be the master of the temple  case give so full as in this argument of Lord Bridgman f h qq the record I can  find qq though I have search for it the latter part of it quod to draw asunder  per ostria et window be not law at this day but for the case I conceive it  good law the bishop be call by writ and as one of the king Council be at the  parliament in London and the good which the bishop have in London be to  furnish his house while he attend by command and I think it now a breach of  privilege to distrain the horse or other good of a member of parliament which  he have with he for his use while he attend by command Jon cite to this  purpose in Bacon ab rr but this binder I not but that I may distrain for a  rend or other duty in the country this limitation of the privilege be  recognize in hatsell d edit sacred scripture to get my right upon which if it  be unjust a replevin lie or to distrain his horse damage pheasant if be come  into my ground beside there be a great deal of difference between a distress  of the Bridgman oh party and a process of distringa by command of the king to  the sheriff and in all time the king process Bridgman oh er p out of the  exchequer have go out though the party be privilege the process I say have go  out for the king without breach of privilege though I do not say it have be  always serve but second I answer that it be the fault of the defendant if a  distringa or attachment issue for he may appear by a attorney upon the summons  return and so the plea may be continue by die act of giving et die act of  giving beyond during the time of privilege and it be no reason that he shall  take advantage of his own wrong to discontinue the plea but three it be not as  I have show in the case of a original the sue out of process whereby the plea  be continue in position quo nunc that break a privilege for it neither disturb  his person his land or good but it be the execution of the process which do it  let the return be what it will be either nothing to have or summons or  attachment or trade be file with the custos narrow places without carry it to  the filacer to make process it be depend and of record sufficient to keep it  out of the statute of limitation without entry on the roll or process award  and if after the time of the privilege expire a examine copy be bring to the  filacer under the hand of the secondary to the custos narrow places the  filacer will make process at any time after accord to the return and make a  entry and award upon a roll of the term wherein the original be not returnable  and so in our case a original may be return with a nothing which be by the  course of the court usual do without the sheriff and be a true return if the  action be lie in any county where the defendant have nothing as it may in debt  and other transitory action and then file with the custos narrow places and  after the time of privilege expire the filacer will make a entry and award of  capias upon the roll and continue it from term to term by sheriff non to cause  to go breve unto the return of that process so that nothing be do to the  prejudice or disturbance of the person or estate of the defendant during the  time of privilege of parliament so that in our principal case the plaintiff  may have sue out his original within the time of limitation he may have file  it with the custos narrow places and have continue it from term to term and  not do it he be bar by the Act of limitation accord to the rule of law to  watch et non to sleep jura to come to help the first point as I have argue it  make a end of the case so that I must speak to the next by way of admittance  or suppose there be no fault in the plaintiff in not sue Bridgman oh out his  original in the lifetime of the late king and the point in this the plaintiff  do not sue out his original or prosecute the defendant from the that January  when the late king die till after the that may that be during the time of  usurpation of the government when the court of chancery and other court be  open and justice between party and party be administer under usurper but no  court of the king be then open whether this shall be turn to a laches to the  plaintiff if there be no laches in the plaintiff in this respect yet whether  he shall be bar by the statute of limitation be the next point which fall  under consideration but I hold as to this point that the plaintiff be no more  prejudice by his not sue in those court hold during the time of usurpation  than if there have be no court at all hold in that time for I do conceive that  when there be a unlawful change of government by rebellion or other usurpation  and new court under another government that the proceed of and in those court  be whole void by the king just reassumption of the actual exercise of his  kingly government and this appear by the Act of parliament c c plead by the  defendant himself that all proceed then depend will have be void and quash if  they have not be make good by that Act but more clear by the Act for  confirmation of judicial proceed c cap which provide that those former proceed  in the court at Westminster shall not be avoid for want or defect of any legal  power in the say court or for or by reason of the wrong style or testae which  imply that without a Act of confirmation they have be void by the judgement of  the parliament and whatsoever the law may be in the case where there be  several competitor to the title to the crown and law doubt for act do by he  that de facto have be king in possession as in the case of h and e wherein  there be many consideration and distinction not proper for this place nor  necessary for the argument we have in band that will come nothing to this case  where there be a perfect change of the government as well as of the governor  and Bridgman oh er p of the whole frame of the court and proceed in law and  the time must be look upon in that respect though it be not plead to be so ad  time war for time peace be define   Com out of the record e and e when  cancellar et other curiae king are area free from obstacles who law of facio  whoever prout become to become used which be the definition of time peace it  follow that it be time war when the king court of justice be not open as they  be not during that usurpation but of this Bridgman oh I shall enlarge no more  at this time for I may have occasion to speak of it hereafter upon a case now  depend in the king bench and cite at the bar in biron v Dudley Siderf hill car  tt but second I conceive though the act of c c and c c do confirm and make  good the act and proceed of the court hold during that usurpation yet it be no  good inference that every man be therefore bind to commence suit in those  court or to be tie up to the prejudice which ensue upon not sue in lawful  court during time for the word of the act of parliament of c reach not to make  they lawful court ab beginning but to make the act do in those court good I  will not say that while those court be in be and we who live here be under  that tyrannical power it be simple unlawful to sue in those court the learned  dr sanderson in his five lecture de obligation knowledge sanderson have  otherwise define for though he say that law make by they who have not fixed by  law power be but equivocae law et violence to greater extent how law and so  non abligant in knowledge yet say be it be not only lawful good fellow citizen  to obey such law aliaque ab ii command modus non sit factum repulsively or  unjust quod to command to make yes etian postulant of man a thing condition  eastern need devenir posse adeoque often devenir ut si such to make to  withdraw duty his existimand sit and he instance these in particular pro  defension native land facing outward vim and in case of administration of  justice as sue for debt and upon contract and other act of justice  distributive and commutative but even in those case where I may sue in those  court if it be only my own advantage which be concern it be much better and  more heroic to refuse to sue in those court if rebel come to man house and pro  fear death they give they victual and go along with they et quod to go back  how quickly to be able this be adjudge no treason in sir John oldcastle case  yet to have refuse to have give they victual have be more heroical and so in  our case he that out of detestation of the usurp authority forbear to sue for  his just right till his majesty restoration do not only what be lawful but  what be much better unless in some particular case and in consideration of  some particular circumstance than be that do sue for they and therefore the  law which be in truth the law of the land which do never die though suspend in  the exercise of it by reason of the usurpation not require the Bridgman oh  plaintiff to sue in those new court nor look upon they nor countenance they as  court we ought not to extend the Act concern judicial proceed which be only  for confirm the act do in those court to go any further than to those act and  proceed thereupon and not to the court themselves nor to have any relation to  do another wrong who do that which be commendable in forbear to sue in any  such court hold under usurper III the three point be this take it for grant  there be no lace in the plaintiff in not sue in the court hold during the time  of the usurpation nor in not sue out his original during the life of the late  king while the defendant be member of parliament whether the plaintiff shall  be bar of his action by the statute James c of limitation the six year and  much more after the cause of action be incur or that the plaintiff shall have  six year more to be account from the time of the impediment remove within the  equity of that statute the word of the statute James be that all action of  trespass quare enclosed space to break in pieces all action of trespass  detinue action in trover and replevin all action of account and upon the case  other than such action as concern the trade of merchandise between merchant  and merchant and their factor and servant all action of debt ground upon any  bind or contract without specialty all action of debt for arrearage of rend  and all action of assault menace battery wound and imprisonment shall be  commence and sue within the time and limitation hereafter express and not  after that be to say the say action upon the case other than for slander and  the say Bridgman oh er p action for account and for trespass debt detinue and  replevin and the say action of trespass quare enclosed space to break in  pieces within six year next after the cause of such action or suit and not  after and the say action of assault battery wound imprisonment or any of they  within four year next after the cause of such action or suit and not after and  the say action upon the case for word within two year next after the word  spokenand not after then follow a clause that if a judgement give for the  plaintiff be reverse for error or if verdict for he and matter allege in  arrest of judgement judgement be give against he that he take nothing by his  plaint writ or bill or if upon a action bring by original the defendant be  outlaw and after reverse the outlawry that the plaintiff may commerce a new  action or suit within a year after such judgement reverse or such judgement  give against the plaintiff or outlawry reverse and not after Bridgman oh but  this as it do not in the letter so it can in the equity of it extend to our  case for that it appear the action be not bring till after a year videlicet  may car and all impediment to the bring of the action be remove that may car  and therefore the plaintiff by his replication claim the benefit of six year  time after the that may car ground upon the proviso in the Act the word  whereof be these provide and be it further enact that if any person that shall  be entitle to any such action of trespass detinue action in trover detinue  replevin action of account action of debt action of trespass for assault  menace battery wound or imprisonment action of the case for word shall be at  the time of any such cause of action give or accrue fall or come within the  age of twentyone year feme covert non compos chin imprison or beyond the sea  that then such person shall be at liberty to bring the same action so as they  take the same within such time as be before limit after their come to or be of  full age discovert of sane memory at large return from beyond the sea as other  person have no such impediment shall have do so upon this statute I be of  opinion that the plaintiff in our case shall have no relief I observe that  within this proviso there be no mention of our action here a action upon the  case but only of trespass detinue trover trespass for assault replevin account  debt action upon the case for word but in the body of the Act all action upon  the case other than for word be to be bring within six year next after the  cause of action so that it may be urge that this action here be within the  body and enact part of the Act and out of the proviso but I think that no  advantage can be take of that exception though I must confess that Act be in  many thing very ill frame or very much abuse in the print it be note in the  edition of the statute print at the national expense vol go p that this  proviso be annex to the original Act in a separate schedule but the text  previous publish be not mention to vary from the record vum which be fit to be  examine for it be clear the maker of the Act intend to give the same liberty  to infant prisoner and other in action of the case as in other action restrain  to a time and no reason can be assign why it shall not be so and the word be  sufficient to carry they for action of the case be action of trespass general  and not action of trespass quare enclosed space and the word trespass in this  proviso may as well include action of the case though particular enu Bridgman  oh merated before as the word action of the case in the latter part of the  enact clause that limit the suit to six year sur trover which be otherwise  whole omit though particular and distinct enumerate from action of the case in  the former part of it and accord to this exposition which I make the practice  have always be since the make of the statute both in action of the case and  action of trover so that take it for grant that our action of the case be  within the proviso it have be urge that the plaintiff ought to have six year  after the impediment remove no fault be in he and Ninian Monvilles case   Com    Inst be mean f h ww more be Rep have be cite to prove it the case be this  her husband be seize in fee and after his marriage levy a fine with  proclamation and after be outlaw for treason and die and after five year and  many more after her husband death the heir reverse the outlawry and adjudge  the fine and five year do not bar her of her dower but she have five year  after the reversal this be to be agree for law for she be bar of her dower so  long as the attainder Bridgman oh er p stand in force and so by the reversal  of the attainder her title of dower do first grow unto her and so be she  within the express word of the save in h c which save to all person all such  action right c as shall first grow remain descend or come unto they after the  fine c so that they take their action or pursue their right within five year  next after such action right c to they accrue descend fall or come the  attainder be a impediment which take away and prevent her from any right for  she have no title to dower but by death of her husband before which time the  attainder intervene but it be not a impediment which hinder her from claim her  right which she then have for she have none and in the marge of c pl cor    Inst be mean f h ww it be agree that she be within the word of the save h but  our case be casus to let go quite out of the word of limitation it be a bar  within the body of the Act for the action do accrue fall and come above six  year before the original bring and it be not within the proviso which reach  only to case of infant non compos chin feme covert imprison or beyond the sea  and not to any other impediment by the obstruction of justice or otherwise and  be out of the word of the Act I think there ought not to be any construction  to bring they within the equitv of it Bridgman oh the Act be usher in by a  short preamble but a pithy one for quiet man estate and avoid of suit be it  enact c the same reason be the ground of the statute of h c of fine to tie man  to make claim within five year the king consider that fine ought to be of  great strength to avoid strife and debate and to be a final end and conclusion  and the statute e modus to lift up fine be that a fine conclude not only such  as be party and privy thereunto and their heir but all other people of the  world be of full age out of prison of good memory and within the four sea the  day of the fine levy if they make not their claim of action within a year and  a day by the country the reason there be the same of bar man of their action  if they bring they not within the time appoint by the statute of limitation as  it be for bar they of their action and right by fine and nonclaim that be for  quiet man estate and avoid of suit we may very well take our measure concern  the construction of this Act of James by the construction which have be make  of those act of fine in stowel and Zouches case in the commentary the case  was A seize levy a fine the disseizee die within two year his heir be within  age the great question grow upon the statute of h which have a exception and  several save as we here have a proviso for infant feme covert and the like  whether or not the heir in respect of his infancy not claim within three year  after his father death which make up five year with that incur in his father  lifetime be bind or may be help by the equity of the statute if he be not as  be endeavour to be prove by some within the law of the Act it be there resolve  that the infant shall not be aid by any equity for the Act respect more the  universality than the particularity the peace of all more than the commodity  of a infant or other private person and for that the Act be a positive law for  time which have give certain and diverse time to person in diverse degree to  make any other time be more against the mind of those who make the Act than  with it these be the very word of the book and Catlin chief justice say when a  Act be make to restrain all man to a time for the tranquillity and repose of  the people no time shall be gain by exposition or equity no time shall be gain  beyond the strict word of the Act and dyer chief justice of the common plea  say that common repose be more to be favour than the private commodity of any  single person he be infant lunatic or of any other degree Bridgman oh the  enact part of this Act of limitation be express that all action of trespass  upon the case c shall be commence and sue within six year next after the cause  of such action or suit and not after I take it this bind infant femes covert  and the rest and so do the clause for formedons and there have be no  construction in equity against the law of the Act to help against any  impediment whatsoever if there have not be a proviso and the maker of the Act  do conceive so else there have be no cause to make the proviso or to give the  plaintiff further time after judgement or outlawry reverse and this further  appear by the Bridgman oh er p like resolution upon the statute of h it say  the fine shall be a final end and conclude as well privy as party to the same  if the Act have stay there all person as well infant feme covert as other have  be bind no natural defect or impossibility shall have exempt any so it be  agree in Margaret Podger case   h and it be also agree by the judge in stowel  and Zouches case and there dyer give the reason for it for say be infant feme  covert c be not the great number of the people and the law be reasonable which  provide for the multitude although some especial person have less by it and  Catlin argue it with a sentence out of Cato videlicet any law become to be  able who omnibus convenience send si mayor parti to look forward useful be and  we see the exposition accord upon the statute of fine e for that Act provide  only for infant and those of nonsane memory imprison or beyond the sea feme  covert not be except be bind to make their claim within a year and a day and  that mischief be the cause of the statute which oust nonclaim e c as our book  say and be provide for by h it be true the reason why a feme covert be bind be  by some of the book give because she have a husband who may make claim for her  but that be not the true reason for a infant and a lunatic have guardian and  one imprison or beyond the sea may make atorneys who may claim for they the  reason be that which I say there be not by express word any save or expression  for the feme covert so in our case upon the statute of limitation the word be  express that the action shall be commence and sue within such a time and not  after bind all person whatsoever whatsoever the impediment may be after that  time three if they be not bind within the body of the Act they be I not bind  to any time at all but may bring their action forty year hence that be sir  Thomas Coltons case pasch Elizabeth c b which go under the name of Bridgman oh  syme v inn Cr and be cite   m Ch tenant for life levy a fine he in the  reversion be beyond the sea if he have return he must have bring his action  within five year after the death of the tenant for life but he die his heir be  be except out of the body of the Act for that Act of h except those beyond sea  with a proviso that if they do not take their action within five year after  their return they shall be conclude his heir I say be not tie up to any number  of year upon the premise it follow that if the plaintiff be include in and so  bar by the body of the Act the proviso enumerate the particular impediment  coverture infancy imprisonment nonsane memory and be beyond sea for which they  be not tie up to that time of limitation till the impediment remove it leaves  all other case and cause of impediment out of the letter of the proviso accord  to the reason of law exception let regulan in grammatical case non To take out  many case have be put and more may be upon the stat of h of limitation and  upon the other statute of limitation of case within the law and yet out of the  statute by construction as homage fealty advowson c but no case can be put  where it be within the statute and the time be enlarge beyond the law of the  Act and then as to the equity there be none against the Act for the reason  before mention another reason be this if there be any equity in this case to  relieve against the statute of James for any impediment or defect whatsoever  it must be for such only as those be in the proviso for which there may be  some colour where eaden ratio idem be law but all these be impediment or  defect in the person who have the cause of action as infancy imprisonment be  oustre Le mere lunacy coverture of the party who have the cause of action or  right which shall be bar by his nonclaim this be of another nature there be no  impediment or defect ex part to express grief many such case may be put where  the party be bar where time be material though no fault be in he as tenant for  life remainder in fee a feme bring her writ of dower against tenant for life  be in the remainder levy a fine which fine and nonclaim will bar a disseizee  or a stranger that have right as you may see c c the five year pass the tenant  for life die the writ of dower be abate by his death it have be take for law  that she have no remedy for that the writ do not amount to a claim to avoid  the fine and many like case may be put it appear by this very statute of throw  that if a clause have not be insert to give liberty for a new action upon a  reversal Bridgman oh by error or of arrest of judgement or outlawry reverse  after the time of the statute the plaintiff have have no remedy Bridgman oh er  p three consider the inconvenience if such a liberty shall be give to evade  the statute of limitation because something have happen without my default  that I can not sue within the time a man owe I money to be pay at such a day  before the day be die I have now to sue before administration take shall I  have six year from that time or the will be conceal and keep from the executor  and administration be grant wrongful to another shall I have six year after  probate by the true executor to put our case suppose he against who I have  cause of action have privilege of parliament and that determine within one two  or three year shall I have six year from the determination of his privilege or  the six year shall it be account ab beginning from the first cause of action  if you will make it within the equity of James the six year must be from the  impediment remove as it be in those case and not from the cause of action so  that in all case concern member of parliament we shall not know when the  statute of limitation will be in force in this case if the plaintiff shall  have six year after the privilege be over a member of parliament be in a worse  condition than another for there shall be six year time against he after the  time and suit of another be out and when his witness and those who can clear  it be dead many like case may be put as a m a speak slanderous word of another  who be beyond the sea at the time and so and by some other mean come not to  know of it till after the two year appoint by the statute of James be expire  shall be have a further time the defendant die whereby the writ be abate after  six year without the plaintiff fault shall there be a further time if there  shall what be that time six year or so much of the six year as be not incur a  man have a right of entry to land in the possession of a member of  Parliament shall he have five year after the twenty year give he by the  statute to make his entry a member of parliament commit a offence for which a  information may be bring within a year shall the time be enlarged?An infinite  number of question may be put upon this ground and as to the other impediment  videlicet that there be no court of the king nor seal of the king since till  his majesty return if that keep the action out of the statute of limitation  then all man that have cause of action since and before his majesty return be  they of what party soever Bridgman oh upon this ground may have still six year  to be account from the that of may car to sue in but expedit republic ut sit  Finis a strife and it be better to suffer a particular mischief than a general  inconvenience and such a one must happen if way be give to equitable  construction against the letter of the Act which be that they shall be sue  within six year after the cause of action but it rest not there but add and  not after which negative word be the strong word that can be in a law ill   dr  foster case by another statute of this parliament James c it be enact that  information and other popular action shall be in the proper county and before  justice of assize nisi prius oyer and terminer and gaol delivery and not  elsewhere these negative word exclude the superior court even the king court  which have a universal and unlimited jurisdiction before and so here the  negative word exclude all time for bring the action but that which the statute  do express allow for statute in the negative bind the commonlaw as it be say e  c so that I hold there be a lachess in the plaintiff he may have commence his  suit by original in the lifetime of the late king he may have continue it  since but if he may not yet the six year since the cause of action accrue be  long since elapse the statute of limitation be a bar unto he and so judgement  ought to be give against the plaintiff