private persons where the party might have his Remedy at the Common Law prout Botheil Cooper Anno 50 E. 3. accused William Ellis for extorting 17 Nobles from certain Merchants at Pruse and also for their wrong Imprisonment by the false Suggestion of William Ellis to the King And the Lords referred the taking of the 17 Nobles to the Common Law But upon the Examination of the Imprisonment it was proved That Ellis did write his Letters to one of the King's Bed-Chamber falsly suggesting against Botheil and Cooper which Letters were shewn to the King his Majesty then commanded them to be Committed This the Lords expounded to be false Suggestion in Ellis The King himself judged him for the same Had that Point been cleared in the Statute of False Suggestions haply the Lords would have referred it to its proper place So also Anno 5. E. 2. The Lords referred the Accusation of Clingdon to be Tried at the Common Law Secondly Touching the Demand That verily belongs to the Party at whose Suit it is To the King's Councel for the King if the Articles were de part le Roy and to the Commons against an Impeached Delinquent By whom Judgment ought to be Rendred It appeareth plainly by many Precedents That all Iudgments for Life and Death are to be rendred by the Steward of England or by the Steward of the King's House and this is the Reason why at every Parliament the King makes a Lord Steward of his House though he hath none out of Parliament And at such Arraignment the Steward is to sit in the Chancellor's place And all Judgments for Misdemeanors by the Chancellor or by him who supplies the Chancellor's place CHAP. VI. The Precedents for Life and Death ANno 10 R. 2. John Lord Gome 〈…〉 and William Weston were brought by the Constable of the Tower before the Lords in Full Parliament sitting in the White Chamber where they were severally Arraigned at the Commandment of the Lords by Richard le Scroop Chief Steward of the House of our Lord the King in manner following Here the Lords commanded the Arraignment of certain Earls Peers of the Realm They did not appoint the Steward to do it It belonged to his Office Anno 20 R. 2. Thomas Haxey was Arraigned of High Treason before the King the Lords and Commons in full Parliament in Alba Camera by the Duke of Lancaster Seneschallum Angliae and the Judgment rendred by him Anno 21 R. 2. All those Judgments on the Appeal were rendred per Seneschallum Angliae The Records of E. 3. and H. 4. are silent herein by whom the Judgment was rendred It may be Objected That Anno 5. H. 4. The Lord Chancellor kept his place at the Trial of the Earl of Northumberland because he did deliver the Opinion of the Lords That could not properly be called a Trial for it was upon the Earl's own Petition And if it were resolved whether it were Felony or Treason it should have been done by the Steward sitting in the Chancellor's place Neither doth it appear by the Record that the Chancellor kept his place though he afterwards delivered the Opinion of the Lords So likewise Anno 1 Car. 1. Febr. 6. The Lord Keeper kept his place when the Articles of Treason were read against the Earl of Bristol but he did not Arraign him Then they were read and his Answer heard by the appointment of the House and some Witnesses examined also to the end they might understand the true Nature of his Offence and then to declare how and in what manner to proceed against him for the same The Spiritualty did not deliver their Opinion therein To conclude All Records that are which mention by whom the Delinquents in Cases Capital were Arraigned do say that it was by the Steward of England or of the King's House And in remembrance of this a Lord Steward is appointed at every Trial of a Peer of Parliament Touching Judgment rendred by the Chancellor in Cases of Misdemeanors it is needless to recite any Precedents only this I will say The Chancellor never gave Judgment on Life and Death and the Steward never on Misdemeanors And though there be Precedents of Judgments given by the Steward of England in Parliament prout 20 21 R. 2. yet I have seen none of the Judgments on the Peers rendred by the Steward of the King's House And the reason may be for that there was anciently a Seneschallus Angliae Quaere tamen whether the Steward of the King's House being a Peer may give Judgment on a Peer or not I think he may if there be no Steward of the House constantly made every Parliament though but during the Sessions The last Considerable Thing in Judicature is CHAP. VII The Execution of the Judgment ANd first in Capital Offences I have seen but two Precedents thereof in the Parliament-Rolls The First is 4 E. 3. Which begun on Monday after the Feast of S. Katherine There were long Articles exhibited against Mortimer for Treason and he was adjudged to die for Treason and thereupon saith the Record Commandment was given to the Earl Marshal to Execute the Judgment and also to the Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of the City of London and to the Constable of the Tower and likewise to them who had the Guard of the said Mortimer to be aiding to the said Earl Marshal to do the said Execution The which Execution was done and performed upon Thursday next after the first Day of the Parliament which was the 29th Day of November Ibidem Num. 2. Judgment was given on Simon de Bereford to be Drawn and Hang'd And thereupon it was Commanded that the Marshal should do Execution near the Tower of London And the said Earl of Arundel was Beheaded ou the same Day The Earl of Nottingham one of the Lords Appellants was Lord Marshall at that time and therefore his Deputy did Execution Item The Earl of Warwick being adjudged to die the King did pardon the Execution and granted him his Life viz. That he should remain in perpetual prison out of England in the Isle of Man c. And that he be at Sea on his passage before the end of one Month. And thereupon he was delivered to Monsieur William le Scroope and to Monsieur Stephen his Brother to bring him safely to the said Isle of Man c. The Earl Marshal was Commanded to Execution on a Peer and the Marshal on a Commoner The Command no doubt issued from the Lords with the King's Assent herein Thus much touching Execution quoad Mortem In Misdemeanors the greatest Corporal punishment hath been Imprisonment I find no other in Ancient Parliament But who was the Officer to carry the Delinquent to prison is not Recorded save he to whose Custody he was Committed prout 42. E. 3. John at Lee was Committed to the Tower Et dit fuit al Monsieur Alley de Buxhill Constable de la Tower que il
King and then at a day the ancient use in such Cases was this The Lords considered of the Complaint and examined the Proofs produced by the Commons Then agreed on their Judgment and caused Proclamation to be made throughout England for the party to appear at a day else Judgment shall be pronounced against him with which the Commons are to be acqnainted before the Proclamations are sent for Then the Return of the Proclamations to be reviewed and examined and if any Errors be therein new Proclamations are to be made in the next Shire only for the party to appear at a short day If they find no Errors in the Return then Judgment is to be pronounced and not before Thus it was in 21 R. 2. in Thomas Mortymors Case c. In 7 H. 4. in the Earl of Northumberlands Case But there needed no Articles to be drawn up Ex parte Dom. Regis out of the Impeachment of the Commons for the Suit is theirs and not the Kings Touching the Lord Treasurer First the Commons did swerve from the Ancient Course in this they delivered not their Accusation in writing he being absent Had it been in the open House an Impeachment by word of mouth had been sufficient and the Suit had been theirs but it being at a Committee how could the Lord Treasurer take notice of their Impeachment wherefore the Lords of necessity did draw up a Charge against him out of their Accusation and then it became the Kings Suit and they were abridged of their power to reply or demand Judgment Prout in Weston Gomeniz Case 1. R. 2. And Alice Peirce ibid. Neither was it now necessary for the Commons to be acquainted with the Delinquent's Answer or any of the Proceedings for that they neither demanded he might be put to his Answer before the Lords and them nor impeached by word in open House nor in Writing One of which is required in an Impeachment And the Lords they varied in this that they did mingle other Complaints with these of the Commons when each should have been apart of it self prout 43 E. 3. Sir Joh. at Lees Case Neither did the Lords anciently use to omit any part of the Commons Complaint and Accusation as they did the Imposition on the French-Wines And the Articles of the Charge they sent to the Lord Treasurer ought to have been examined ex parte Domini Regis prout in the former Precedents of 1 R. 2. The next Precedent is 7 R. 2. upon the Demand of the Commons against the Bishop of Norwich and others §. 5. Of Accusation by Complaint of private Persons I do not remember any Precedent of this manner of Accusation for publick Offences unless the Parties Complainant be particularly interessed therein yet I doubt not but such Complaints have been and may be received and the Parties proceeded against in Parliament or else that High Court should not have so much Authority to receive Information pro Domino Rege from private persons as the Inferiour Courts have But what hath been done shall appear I will omit all Complaints of particular wrongs evcept it be of Bribery Extortion or Oppression in Men of Authority Anno 43. E. 3. William Latimer exhibited his Petition in Parliament unto our Lord the King and to his Council shewing that he had the Wardship and Marriage of the Heir of Robert Latymer by mean Grant from the King and held the same until Monsieur John at Lee then Steward of the King's House sent a Serjeant at Arms to bring them to London and commanded him being come not to depart without his leave upon payment of 1000 l. and afterwards would not give him leave to depart until he had surrendred the Body of the said Heir and the King's Patent unto him the said Monsieur John at Lee and thereupon the said John was put to reason before the Lords c. no. 20 21. and also the said John was put to reason before them for this When he was Steward of the King's House he caused divers to be attached by their Bodies some by Serjeants at Arms and some otherwise as W. Latymer and others to be brought before the King's Council c. n. 22. and also for executing the Authority of Steward out of the Verge n. 23. and also for discharging out of Newgate by his own Authority and against the Judges Commandment Hugh Levenham an Approver who had appealed several men of Felonies c. n. 24. and also that he being sworn by the King's Councel did bargain with Nicholas Levayn for the Mannor of Cainham in Kent which the faid Nicholas claimed to hold during the Minority of John Staynton whereas the said John at Lee knew the same was never holden of the King in Chief of the Castle of Dover n. 25. These be the Particulars wherewith the said John at Lee was Charged It appeareth W. Latymer accused him at the first but not the rest and I imagine that the Commons accused him of the Second and other Particulars for that they are said somewhat generally and are offences against the Liberties of the Commons and also for that divers of the Commons were present at the hearing And for the Fourth and Fifth Particulars I conceive the King's Councel accused him thereof for that one is an Offence against the legal Proceedings of Justice which then was that of the Approver viz. He which accuseth any one of Felony c. should remain in Prison as well as the accused until Trial. Of later times the Accuser puts in Sureties to prosecute and the other Offence is a partiticular wrong done unto the King in his Revenues And had any private person accused him of this their Petitions would have been recorded as well as Latymer's But the Lords proceeded against him upon Latimer's Accusation and then upon the rest severally and they did not mingle one with another Anno 50 E. 3. The Commons accused and impeached W. Ellis n. 31. and afterwards John Botheil and W. Cooper exhibited their Bills against him to this effect To their Thrice Redoubted King and to his Sage Councel sheweth John Botheil of London That the Monday next after the Ascention in the Fortieth Year of our Lord the King that now is a Ship of Scotland in Pruse was chased by Tempest into Likebread whereof the Master's Name is Henry Luce Charged with divers Merchandizes c. and that the same day one William Savage Clerk and Servant to William Ellis by Command of the said William took of the said Ship for the Merchandizes not discharged there 17 Nobles and a Last of c. and because that W. Ellis knew that W. Cooper was to come to the Parliament and shew these and other Grievances in aid of the Merchants and also to shew how the great Prices of Herrings might be amended in aid of the whole Realm the said W. Ellis by false suggestion caused the said W. Cooper to be Arrested and put in Prison in
said unto the said Sir Ralph That forasmuch as the Matter stands so much upon Treason That by the Law he ought not to have Councel in his Case of no earthly Creature but obliged himself to answer at his peril This last Answer was given upon deliberation And 5 R. 2. Numb 44. Sir Richard Cogan Knight being accused by Richard Clevedon Esquire for extorting 200 l. from the Prior of St. John's of Jerusalem in a riotous manner required Councel which was denied him for that the Cause touched Treason 28 H. 6. The Duke of Suffolk being accused of Treason by the Commons desired Copies of the Articles but no Councel and he answered without Councel Primo Car. 1. In the Parliament begun Febr. 6. The King's Attorney exhibited Articles of Treason and misdemeanor against John Earl of Bristol and he had no Councel allowed him which was on this occasion Anno 21 Jac. The Earl of Middlesex was denied to answer by Councel touching Misdemeanors only that Precedent of 10 R. 2. of Michael de la Poole being mistaken as I conceive And afterwards the Lords considering the Inconveniences that might happen thereby did order that Councel should be allowed to all Delinquents in all Cases generally At the Voting of which Order the King and Prince were present and I did expect some Reply thereunto on the King's behalf and especially observed whether the Prince would any ways dislike of it either in Words or Countenance and he shewed none which made me verily believe that he had been acquainted therewith beforehand but he was not as I shall make it appear In this present Parliament upon reading the Articles of Treason and Misdemeanors against the said Earl 6 Maij and upon the Earl's Answer to them on the sudden The Journal is The Lords did answer that he should have Councel allowed him to plead his Cause But on Monday the 8th of May the King sent a Messenger to them That he not suing for a Default in Cases of Treason and Felony It is an ancient fundamental Law of this Kingdom and desired the Lords to proceed with that Caution that ancient fundamental Laws may receive no blemish nor prejudice On the 15th of May the Lords answered this Message That by an Order Dated May 24. 21 Jac. Anno 1624. Counsel was then present and they had allowed the Earl of Bristol Councel before the Message came May 14. His Majesty is content the Earl of Bristol to have Councel although his Majesty knew that by the Law he ought to have none but takes Exceptions to that Order of the 24th of May 1624. That it was occasioned by the Earl of Middlesex whose Cause was only Criminal which never till now extended to Cases Capital And that the Judges were neither advised with therein nor the King's Councel heard for his Majesty and therefore his Majesty is not satisfied about the general Order but will advise c. The Lords thereupon allowed him Councel to plead c. This Parliament of 6 Feb. 1 Car. 1. was dissolved before the Cause of the Earl of Bristol was heard and determined and that the said Earl was sued in the Star-Chamber for the very same Matter contained in the Articles against him in Parliament All which were but Misdemeanors And if it be lawful for me to speak freely I believe the Lords thought they were but Misdemeanors when they allowed him Councel in Parliament But in Cases of Misdemeanors only the Party accused was never denied Councel Anno 10 R. 2. The Commons accused Michael de la Poole of many Misdemeanors in open Parliament before the King Afterwards in the King's Absence the Chancellor said first to the Lords That he was Chancellor of England and for the time represented the King's Person in his absence and demanded whether he ought to answer in the Presence of the King since he was impeached of Acts done whilst he was Chancellor This received no Answer Secondly He said That he had appointed by the Advice of his Councel Monsieur Richard le Scroope his Brother-in-Law should have the words of his Answer to the first Impeachment Whereunto the Lords said That it was Honest for him to speak by his own mouth And thereupon he made Protestation that he might add to and take from that which should be honourable and profitable for him The which things unto him were granted And the said Chancellor declared as well by himself as by the mouth of the said L. Scroop That c. I note here that Councel was not denied him but that it was only told him It was honest for him to answer by his own mouth Anno 7 R. 2. The Bishop of Norwich for Misdemeanors in general Numb 15. was particularly charged by the Chancellor Numb 18. The Bishop said That albeit in this Case he ought to have Counsel yet making Protestation That at all times he might amend his Answer he would answer in person and so he did Numb 19. Anno 1 Car. 1. The Duke of Buckingh being accused by the Commons of Misdemeanors and Copies of the Impeachments and Answered by Councel in this manner viz. Die c. The Duke being in his Place and standing his Councel came to the Bar and then read the Dukes Answer as it was penned in writing Yet sometimes in Cases of Misdemeanors when the Party accused hath demanded the Copies of the Articles and Councel and Time to answer the Parliament hath compelled them to make a present Answer without Councel but this is rare and I have seen but one Precedent of it Anno 5. R. 2. Die Animarum Numb 45. The Mayor Bayliffs and Commonalty of Cambridge were accused by c. For that they in the late Tumults and Wars confederated with other Misdoers did break up the Treasury of the University and compelled the Chancellor and Schollars to release to the Mayor all their Liberties and all Actions c. In Num. 46 47. Several Writs were sent to command them to appear They appearing at the Day and answering to such Articles as were objected by the King's Councel and delivering in the two Releases which were cancell'd Numb 48. Then the Chancellor and Scholars exhibited divers Articles against them by way of Petition Upon the reading whereof it was demanded of the said Mayor and Burgesses what they would say why their Liberties should not be seized into the Kings hands as forfeited And they required Copies of the Articles and Councel and Respite to answer Numb 54 55. To the Copy of the Articles it was answered That inasmuch as they had heard them read it should suffice for by the Law they ought to have no Copy And touching Councel it was said That wherein Councel was to be had they should have it and therefore they were then to answer to no Crime nor Offence but only touching their Liberties Numb 56. After many dilatory Shifts the said Burgesses submitted themselves to the King's Mercy touching their Liberties only saving