Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	ireland_n	king_n	statute_n	2,756	5	8.4949	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59089	John Selden, Of the judicature in parliaments a posthumous treatise, wherein the controveries and precedents belonging to that title are methodically handled.	Selden, John, 1584-1654.	1681 (1681)	Wing S2433; ESTC R10657	68,725	208

said Mortymer having notice thereof withdrew himself among the wild Irish where the same Serjeant nor any other Officer of the King 's durst come for fear of Death Wherefore and for that his Offences are notoriously known both to the Lords and them they prayed Judgment c. The King the Lords and the Procurators of the Clergy considered of the Request of the Commons with good deliberation and then the Lords with the said Procurators by the assent of the King and Commons did award that Proclamation should be made through England and Ireland commanding the said Tho. Mortymer to render himself in proper Person to the King in what place soever it shall be in England within three Months after the 23th Day of December next coming to be at his Answer and they farther awarded That if he came not c. that then he shall be judged Traytor and Convict of of all Treasons whereof he is accused and shall forfeit c. Then the King adjourned the Parliament and the Appellants to the 15th of Hilary next at Shrewsbury on which Day the said Appellants declared to the King That it was awarded that Proclamation should be made c. ut supra The Commons did the like And for that the said Tho. Mortymer came not they had judgment In 7 H. 4. The Lords agreed this Judgment against the E. of North. and the Lord Bardolph who were fled to the Rebels in Wales and Proclamation ut supra throughout England At the day prefixed they examined the Returns of the Proclamations in the presence of the Commons and so the Judgment was agreed on in their presence also and so it ought to be in all Cases of Life and Death And finding a small Error they awarded new Proclamations in London only and the Return thereof was again viewed and considered in the presence of the Commons and then on the next day Judgment was given Eodem Anno 21 R. 2. The Lords Appellants accused also the Duke of Gloucester of Treason and although they knew he was dead they prayed the King that he might be brought to his Answer Whereupon the King sent his Writ to the Council of Calice unto whose Custody he committed the said Duke to bring him into the Parliament to his Answer The Captain returned his Writ That the Duke is dead the which Writ and Return being read the said Appellants prayed Judgment and the Commons shewed That the Dukes Levying War against the King's Person is notoriously known to all the States of Parliament and therefore they desired Judgment also and had it And what may not the whole Parliament do when they joyn in one Yet notwithstanding the King fearing some Error as it seems the Lords Appellants besought the King that if there were any thing on Record be it by Confession or otherwise which concerned their Appeal that it might be openly known and shewn in full Parliament Whereupon by the King's Commandment was read a Commission granted unto William Richal Justice of the Common-Pleas and a Confession of the Duke of Gloucester made before him by vertue of the said Commission yea and Richal himself being commanded did justifie that the Duke did write the Confession with his own hand in his absence and afterwards read it unto him so careful they were to have something to supply an Answer I marvel that Richal was acquitted of his Proceedings herein at the next Parliament of 1 H. 4. where he affirmed that much of this Dukes Confession was altered after he had returned his Commission He well deserved to die in that he spake not of it Yet there is one Precedent directly contrary to all this viz. 11 R. 2. in that Appeal which happened on this occasion The aforenamed Duke of Gloucester and four other Lords went to the King and accused the Duke of Ireland the Archbishop of York Michael de la Poole and others of Treason the King adjourned them to the next Parliament promising them Justice there and in the mean time conveyed away the Parties accused and then by Proclamation Part 8. fol. 603. in the next Parliament 11 R. 2. the Articles of the Appeal being read the Duke and other Appellants offered to make proof thereof and required that the Parties appealed might be brought to their Answers and for default of Appearance demanded Judgment Whereupon the King did deliberate with the Lords and commanded the Justices and other Sages of the Law to give their best Counsel to the Lords how to proceed rightly in this Matter of Appeal who after Consultation therein had answered the Lords That they had seen and considered the Tenor of this Appeal which they said was in no point made and declared according to the Order of the Common or Civil Law But they gave no Answer touching the Demand of Judgment for default of Appearance whereupon the Lords deliberated and after by the Lords assent declared that this Cause committed by the Peers against the Person of the King and State of the Realm shall be determined in the Parliament only and by no other Law than by the Law and Course of the Parliament And that it belongs to the Lords only to judge in such Cases And with the assent of the King they did judge the same Appeal and the Process thereupon depending to be good according to the Law and Course of Parliament Then the Lords Appellants proceeded and desired to have the fault of Appearance recorded and Judgment given and so it was So likewise 21 R. 2. After the King had given the full power of Parliament to determine all Matters begun into the Hands of twelve Lords or six and six Commoners or any three He adjourned the Parliament from Westminster to Shrewsbury in 15 Hil. and there on March 22. It was shewed to the King how that Robert Possington was impeached at the Parliament at Westminster for being with the Duke of Gloucester in levy at Herring An. 11 R. 2. For which the said Duke was adjudged as Traytor and therefore they brought the King to ordain the like Judgment against Robert Possington though he was dead Whereupon our Lord the King by the assent of the Lords and Knights of Counties having power c. awarded the said Robert guilty c. And that he shall forfeit c. But these extraordinary Precedents cannot lead us into the ordinary course of Proceedings and I alledge them only so as their Errors may be avoided § To conclude it is the just and constant Course of Parliament to bring the Party accused to his Answer yea though he fly Justice yet to send out Proclamations into the Countries that he appear at a Day or else such and such Judgments shall be given against him I confess this Course was omitted in the Judgment against Mompesson 18 Jac. and haply it was not then thought upon the Judicature of Parliament being so long out of use and therefore that cannot be alledged as a leading Precedent And in

Thar seeing by Order of the Lords House May 4. the Earl of Bristols cause should be wholly retained in this House how that might now be done in respect of the Stat. of 35 H. 8. By which it was enacted That all Treasons committed beyond the Seas as this Earls were shall be tryed in the Kings Bench or before Commissioners Assigned by the King And an Order of the upper House cannot avoid the Statute Some were of opinion that the Earl was first to be indicted before Commissioners appointed by the King and that Indictment being returned into the Parliament to be tryed thereon by his Peers and vouched that Precedent of 2 H. 6. Of Sir John Mortimers Indictment returned into the Parliament But then the Cause cannot be wholly retained in the Parliament neither can it be inferred out of the Precedent of Sir John Mortimer that the Parliament can try any of Treason unless he be Indicted elsewhere For then the Parliament should not have so much power as hath the Kings Bench and other inferiour Courts wherein Capital Offences may be both enquired of and determined Neither can Sir John Mortimers Indictment thus returned be a leading Case for Tryal of Peers in Parliament for he was but a Commoner and therefore not to have been judged by the Lords unless they had first accused him and the Commons did so by Informing the Indictment to be true before the Lords gave Judgment upon him But their can be no Precedent shewn that a Peer of Parliament hath been tryed in Parliament on an Indictment taken elsewhere To resolve this Question two things are Considerable First The Statute of 35 H. 8. Whether the meaning thereof were to limit the Tryal of a Peer in the time of the Parliament for Forreign Treasons assigned taken in the Kings Bench or before Commissioners Assigned by the King and not elsewhere But I conceive the Statute hath no such meaning The Preamble saith it was doubted whether such Treasons might by the Common-Law of the Land be enquired into heard and determined within this Realm of England For a plain remedy Order and Declaration herein to be had and made Be it enacted c. So that if such Treasons have not been heretofore enquirable by the Common-Law then this Statute provides a Remedy and Order for the same hereafter But this Statute doth not abridg the Parliament of the power it had to enquire of and determine such Treasons in time of Parliament Whereof there are diverse Precedents viz. 1 R. 2. Weston and Gomeniz 50 E. 3. for William Latimer and John Nevil 7 R. 2. for the Bishop of Norwich ibid. Numb 17. for Cressingham and Shipworth ibid. Numb 24. for Sir William Elsingham Sir Thomas Trevet and Sir Henry de Ferrers all Tryed in Parliament for matters done beyond the Seas The second thing to be considered is The Order it self which I conceive to be of force notwithstanding the Statute of 35 H. 8. for that it is neither directly contrary to the Statute nor repugnant to the Common-Law otherwise the Act of one House alone cannot alter a former Statute made by consent of both Houses And this is to be remembred that the Proceeding against a Peer in Parliament is not necessary But thus it was used to be viz. The Peer accused to be brought before the Lords and Commons and then the Lord Steward to sit in the Chancellors place on the Woolsack and the Articles to be read against him by the Clark of the Crown and upon his Answer the Lords do determine of their Judgment which is afterwards pronounced by the same Lord Steward A Question might be whether the Commons have used to sit with their Speaker at these Tryals If they have then the Court of Requests or some such place may be provided for the purpose And thus that whole Cause might be retained in Parliament notwithstanding the Stat. of 35 H. 8. Thus much touching the Accusation ex parte Dom. Regis exhibited in a formal Accusation by the Kings Atturney The Duke of Clarence was arraigned in Parliament 18 E. 4. upon the like Information but the Precedent is not in the Parliament Rolls Therefore I omit it §. 4. The second kind of Accusation on the Kings behalf is ex mandato Dom. Regis upon the Roll and view of any proceedings elsewhere against the Delinquent or upon his Petition The Precedents thereof are these Anno 5 H. 4. The Earl of Northumberland was Tryed in Parliament ex mandato Dom. Regis upon his own Petition The Accusation and manner was thus The said Earl had raised Forces to have joyned with his Son Hotspur in Rebellion against the King Hotspur was slain in the Battel of Shrewsbury 21 July 4. H. 4. before the said Earl could joyn with him Whereupon he dismissed his Forces and retired to Worksworth Castle The King after the Battel came to York and sent for the said Earl and being come pardoned him for his life but abridged him of his Liberty The next Parliament was summoned the 20 of October to begin at Coventry the 3. of December And the Earl had his writ of Summons This Parliament was prorogued till the 23. of November by new Writs as the manner then was returnable Crastino Hillarii then following But the Earl had no new Summons thither But thither he comes a Petitioner Speed saith he was abridg'd of his liberty but the Record saith he came before the King and Lords And not that he was a Prisoner as Gomeniz and Weston 1 R. 2. Nor that he was caused to be brought as a Delinquent sent for as Alice Peirce 1 R. 2. But that he came before the King Lords and Commons of Parliament And then the Chancellor told him that upon Wednesday last past he had been before the King and Lords and Commons in the same Parliament and besought the King as he had done before at his coming before him at York That the King would do him grace for his misprisions against him in not keeping his Laws and Statutes as by one Petition delivered by him in Parliament written in English The tenor whereof followeth To my most dreadful and Soveraign Leige Lord. I your humble Subject beseech your Highness to have in remembrance my coming into your Gracious Presence at York of your free will by your goodly Letters The which Petition per Commandment du Roy was examined by the Justices to have their Counsel and Advice therein But the Lords by Protestation made claimed the Judgment to belong unto them only in such Cases c. And so the Lords Tryed him and acquited him of Treason and Felony but found him guilty of a Trespass only which the King pardoned Here no Information was exhibited against the said Earl yet the Kings Counsel opened his Offences to the Lords else how could they appear Anno 7 H. 4. The King commanded the Lords Temporal in Parliament to advise what manner of Process should be made