bridge and henly the plaintiff have file a bill in this court in Hillaryterm  be twelvemonth but the defendant be a member of parliament can not be make to  appear till Hillaryterm last though the plaintiff have take out a special  summons against he and three distringass and then the plaintiff can not  declare against he because the parliament be sit but upon the parliament be  prorogue the that of may the defendant be serve with a declaration the that  which be four day before the end of easterterm and in easter vacation the  plaintiff sign his judgement for want of a plea Mr fazakerly bad obtain a rule  for show cause why this judgement shall not be set aside for there not have be  a imparlance allow the defendant Mr reeves now say that he think the judgement  be regular for the present proceed be upon the statute of will cap and this  Act have provide a new way of proceed against member of parliament during  their time of privilege and he observe that be by way of bill in the same  manner as against officer of the court and he say that where the proceed be by  way of bill against a officer he have not a imparlance if the declaration be  deliver before four day of the end of a term he observe this be the constant  practice in the common plea and where you proceed by venire it have be the  constant practice in the exchequer he Barnardiston king b er p say too that  since the late rule make for regulate the proceed by special Barnardiston king  b latitat in this court in the same manner as the proceed be by special  enclosed space to break in pieces in the common plea he think it almost  unquestionable that the proceed here against member of parliament must be the  same as they be in the common plea for a special summons equal set forth the  cause of action as a special latitat and therefore there be the same reason  there shall be equal privilege but the court say as to the proceed in the  exchequer by venire that be a old method of proceed peculiar to that court and  no argument can be draw from that they say too that till this chancellor time  when he be chief justice of the common plea it be always take for grant that  imparlances be to be allow in these proceed in that court because the generaI  practice of that court be to grant they and this be the reason why till that  time the constant method be to proceed in the exchequer but the chancellor  observe that they have a way of proceed in that court against their own  officer by bill and in those proceed no imparlance be allow the court there  think it a natural construction upon the Act that there shall be no imparlance  in these proceed neither and by this mean business of this sort come into that  court as it be whole almost in the exchequer before the court then begin to  speak of these proceed in the king bench but they only say in general that  till this new rule they think a imparlance be always necessary then as to the  new rule the court say it clear can not extend to the present case because the  bill be file before it be make and the intention of it be only to concern bill  that shall be file from that time however they say that if this case have  happen since the new rule it will have be exact as it be in the common plea  upon this the court set aside the judgement