The upper house deeply resented the accusation.

They declared, that by the known laws and customs of parliament, they had an undoubted right to take examinations of persons charged with criminal matters, whether those persons were or were not in custody.

They resolved, That the address of the commons was unparliamentary, groundless, without precedent, highly injurious to the house of peers, tending to interrupt the good correspondence between the two houses, to create an ill opinion in her majesty of the house of peers, of dangerous consequence to the liberties of the people, the constitution of the kingdom, and privileges of parliament.

They presented a long remonstrance to the queen, justifying their own conduct, explaining the steps they had taken, recriminating upon the commons, and expressing the most fervent zeal, duty, and affection to her majesty.

In her answer to this representation, which was drawn up with elegance, propriety, and precision, she professed her sorrow for the misunderstanding which had happened between the two houses of parliament, and thanked them for the concern they had expressed for the rights of the crown and the prerogative; which she should never exert so willingly as for the good of her subjects, and the protection of their liberties.
Among other persons seized on the coast of Sussex on their landing from France, was one Boucher, who had been aidecamp to the duke of Berwick.
This man, when examined, denied all knowledge of any conspiracy: he said, that being weary of living so long abroad, and having made some unsuccessful attempts to obtain a pass, he had chosen rather to cast himself on the queen's mercy than to remain longer in exile from his native country.