APPENDIX H 749 Roger de Mowbray stands, so far as proof" of that sitting is concerncJ, on the same footing as David dc Strabolgi in tlie present casc-C) The Attorney General had no answer to this attack, and it is clear that the Committee was sufficiently convinced by the evidence of the Crown's adviser to accept the sitting of 131 8. Near the end of the hearing of the case Mr. Cozcns-Hardy produced an alternative "sitting" of no little interest. We have seen that no writ summoning David de Strabolgi to the 13 18 Parliament at York was forth- coming, and that the Crown argued that he did not then possess any lands qualifying him for a writ. We have also seen that he was pardoned, with the other followers of the Earl of Lancaster, when that Parliament met. He appears, however, to have inclined again to t!ie Earl's side, for on 21 Nov. 132 1 the King sent him a mandamus forbidding his attendance at a meeting or rival parliament which Lancaster was summoning. And it Is significant that on 28 Nov., a week later, the King granted him in fee the Chilham estates to which reference has already been made. This seems to have steadied David, tor hereafter he was a King's man, and was summoned to Parliament (for the first time) 14 Mar. 1321/2. No further proof of sitting was attempted for him, but an ingenious argument was advanced by Mr. Cozens-Hardy to prove a sitting for his son, David, in 1332. The second David was summoned 20 Oct. 1332 for the Parliament to be held on 4 Dec. The number who responded to the summonses was insufficient for the business of the meeting, and it was decided to issue further writs to compel the attendance, under heavy penalties, on 20 Jan. following, of those who by their absence had obstructed the work of the Parliament. It was further resolved that those who were present should attend the meeting in January without further summons. Counsel argued that as David's name is not in the list of second summonses (issued 1 1 Dec.) he must have been present in the Parliament which was prorogued. The Attorney General pointed out the risk of accepting such an inference, and though counsel for the petitioners pressed the Committee to give an opinion on this alleged sitting in 1332, with a view to the point arising in other cases, their Lordships declined to commit themselves. On 7 May 19 14 the Committee for Privileges decided in favour of the petitioners, and their Report appeared on the Minutes of the House of Lords on 1 1 May following. Barony of Strabolgi — Report made from the Committee for Privileges: That the Barony of Strabolgi is an ancient Barony in fee; That it is proved that David de Strabolgi sat as a Peer in Parliament in the year 131 8 and that the said David de Strabolgi was from that date entitled to the Barony by Writ descendible to the heirs general of his body; (*) Minutes of Proceedings, p. 156.
