APPENDIX. 369

Iir regard to trials of Peers before the House of
Lords upon indictments found by a grand jury, it
perhaps may be inferred, that all the Lords were
present at the trial related in the Year Book of
Henry IV. This circumstance appears to have been
overlooked in the arguments at die confeirence re-
electing the Treason Bill, in which the case -of the
Earl of Huntingdon was the only precedent adduced
by the Commons, to impugn the position of the Lords,
that the form of trial by a select number of Peers was
introduced by Henry VIIL So, in the passage which
has been cited from the Year Book of Edward IV.,
the form of trial described is apparently one before
the House of Lords, {a) And Sir E. Coke ob-
serves, that instances of the arraignment of a Peer
upon an indictment for treason, felony, or misprision,
in the Upper House of Parliament, are frequent in
the Parliament Rolls ; but he supports his assertion
by examples of impeachments, and of other criminal
prosecutions differing m their nature fh)m indict-
ments, {b)

A short time previous to the deliberations respect-
ing the trials of the Popish Lords, Lord Pem-



(a) It has been said,- that there never was but one Par-
liament, in which a Procurator was appointed to repre-
sent the Bishops on a trial in a capital case, viz. that of
the 2l8t Richard II. At that Parliament, it was done
three times. See Lord Hollis's Letter respectipg the right
of the Bishops, p. 28.
