Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	john_n	king_n	return_v	6,393	5	8.0935	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91243	A plea for the Lords: or, A short, yet full and necessary vindication of the judiciary and legislative power of the House of Peeres, and the hereditary just right of the lords and barons of this realme, to sit, vote and judge in the high Court of Parliament. Against the late seditious anti-Parliamentary printed petitions, libells and pamphlets of Anabaptists, Levellers, agitators, Lilburne, Overton, and their dangerous confederates, who endeavour the utter subversion both of parliaments, King and peers, to set up an arbitrary polarchy and anarchy of their own new-modelling. / By William Prynne Esquire, a well-wisher to both Houses of Parliament, and the republike; now exceedingly shaken and indangered in their very foundations.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1648 (1648)	Wing P4032; Thomason E430_8; ESTC R204735	72,921	83

said Sommons be he Archbishop Bishop Abbot Prior DUKE LORD BARON Baronet Knight of the Shire Citizen of City Burgesse of Burgh or other singular person or Commonalty do absent himselfe or come not at the said Summons except he may reasonably or honestly excuse himself to our Soveraigne Lord THE KING HE SHALL BE AMERCED and OTHERWAYES PVNISHED ACCORDING AS OF OLD TIME HATH BEEN USED TO BE DONE within the said Realme in the SAID CASE Which relates unto and agrees expresly with that forecited out of Modus tenendi Parliamentum If then all the Judges and Peares in Parliament are bound to attend the Parliament not to depart without the Kings and Houses leave under paine of Amercement and other punishment as this Statute resolves and 3. Ed. 3. 19. Fit 2. C●ron 161. Stamford l 3. c. 1. f. 153. Cooke Instit p. 15. 16. 17. 43 18. E. 3. Mo. 1. 2 8. and 31. H. 6. n. 46. What fine were imposed on absent Lords manifest then questionlesse they ought of right to sit in Parliament else it were the height of Injustice thus to fine them In the tenth yeare of King ● * Graf●o●● Cron. p. ● 〈◊〉 350. 2. this King absented himselfe from his Parliament then sitting at Westminster residing at Eltham about forty dayes and refusing to come to the Parliament and yet demanding from them foure fifteenes for maintenance of his Estate and outward Wars Whereupon the whole body of the Parliament made this answer THAT VNLESSE THE KING WERE PRESENT THEY WOULD MAKE THEREIN NO ALLOWANCE Soone after they sent the Duke of Gloucester and Bishop of Ely Commissioners to the King to Eltham who declared to him among other things in the Lords and Commons behalfe how that by AN OLD ORDINANCE THEY HAVE AN ACT if the King absent himselfe 40. dayes not being sicke but of his owne minde not heeding the charge of his people nor their great paines and will not resort to the Parliament they may then lawfully returne to their Houses And now sir said they you have beene absent a longer time and yet refuse to come amongst us which is greatly to our discontent To which the King answered Well we doe consider that our owne people and Commons goe about to rise against vs wherefore we thinke wee can doe no better then to aske ayd of our Cosen the French King and rather to submit us to him then unto our owne subjects The Lords answered Sir that Counsell is not best but a way rather to bring you into danger c. By whose good perswasions the King was appeased and Promised to come to the Parliament and condiscend to their Petitions and according to his appointment he came and so the Parliament proceeded which else had dissolved by the Lords departure thence in discontent and the Kings wilfull absence Andrew Horne in his Mirrour of Justices in the raigne of King Edward the first writes That our Saxon Kings divided the Realme into 38 Counties over which they set so many Counts or Earles and though the King ought to have no Peers in his land but PARLIAMENTS all Writs and Plaints of the Moneys of the King Queene and their Children and of those especially who otherwise could not have common right of their wrongs These Companions are now called Counts after the latine word Comites For to the Estates of the Realme King Alfred assembled the COVNTS or Earles and ordained by a Perpetuall Law that twice a yeare or oftner they should assemble at London in Parliament to consult of the Government of the people of God Fleta l. 2. c. 2. p. 66. writes thus in the same Kings raigne Habet enim Rex curiam suam in concilio suo in Parliamentis suis PRAESENTIBUS Praelatis COMITIBUS BARONIBUS PROCERIBUS alijs viris peritis vbi terminatae sunt dubitationes judiciorum moris injuriis eversis nova constituuntur remedia And l. 17. c. 17. he writes thus Rex in populo regendo superiores habet Vidilicet legem perfactus est Rex Curiam suam to wit of Parliament videlicet COMITES BARONES Comites enim a Comitia dicuntur qui cum viderint Regem sine froeno Froenum sibi apponere TENENTVR ne clament sabditi Domine Jesu Christe in Chamo froeno maxillas eorum constringe Sir Thomas Smith in his Common-wealth of England * Bracton l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 l. 3. c 9. 〈◊〉 the like in the same words in Henry the 3. his reigne l. 2. c. 1. John Vowel and Ralph Hollinshed vol. 1. c. 6. p. 173. Mr. Cambden in his Britania p. 177. John Minshew in his Dictionary vuell in his Interpreter Title Parliament Powell in his Attornyes Academy and others unanimously conclude That the Parliament consisteth of the KING the LORDS SPIRITVALL and TEMPORALL and the Commons which STATES represent the body of all England which make but one assembly or Court called the Parliament and is of all other the Highest and greatest Authority and hath the most high and absolute power of the Realme And that no Parliament is or can be holden without the King and Lords Mr. Crompton in his Jurisdiction of Courts affirmes particularly of the High Court of Parliament f. 1. c. This Court is the highest Court of England in which the King himself fits in person and comes there at the beginning and end of the Parliament and AT ANY OTHER TIME WHEN HE PLEASETH ORDERING THE PARLIAMENT To this Court come ALL THE LORDS OF PARLIAMENT as well spirituall a● temporall and are severally summoned by the Kings writ at a certaine day and place assigned The Chancellour of England and other great officers or Judges are there likewise present together with the Knights Citizens and Burgesses who all ought to be personally present or else to be amerced and otherwise punished if they come not being summoned unlesse good cause be shewed or in case they depart without the Houses or Kings speciall license after their appearance before the Sessions ended And he resolves that the King Lords and Commons doe all joyntly make up the Parliament and that no Law nor Act of Parliament can be made to binde the subject without all their concurrent assents Sir Edward Cooke not onely in his Epistle before his ninth Report and Institutes on Littleton p. 109. 110. But likewise in his 4. Institutes published by Order of this present Parliament c. 1. p. 1. 2 c writes thus of the high Honorable Court of Parliament This Court consisteth OF THE KINGS MAJESTIE sitting there as in his royall politick capacity and of the three Estates of the Realme viz. Of the Lords Spirituall Archbishops and Bishops being in number 24. who sit there in respect of their Counties or Barronies parcell of their Bishopricks which they hold also in their politick capacity and every one of these when the Parliament is to be holden ought exdebito Justitiae to have a writ of summons The LORDS TEMPORALL Dukes Marquesses Earles

and Parl. 2. R. 2. n. 7 9. they are called the GREAT COUNCEL OF LORDS by waging of their extraordinary wisdome and abilities And therefore most fit to sit vote and judge in Parliament Secondly The Lords and great Officers of the Realme as such were ever reputed persons of greatest Valour Courage Power in regard of their great interests Estates allies and retainers and so best able to withstand and redresse all publike grievances and enchroachments of the King upon their owne and the peoples Liberties in defence whereof they have in ancient times been alwayes most ready and active to spend not only their estates but blood and lives for wherewith they have redeemed and preserved those Liberties and Freedomes we now enjoy and contend for And in this regard our ancesters in point of wisdome policy and right thought meet that they should alwayes be sommoned to and bear chief sway in our Parliaments in respect of their Peerage Power and Nobility only without the peoples election This reason of their sitting in Parliament we find expresly recorded in Bracton l. 2. c. 16. fol. 34. and in Fleta l. 1. c. 17. The King say they hath a Superiour namely God also the Law by which He is made a King likewise His Count to wit THE EARLS BARONS because they are called Counts as being the KINGS FELLOWS and he who hath a Fellow hath A MASTER And therefore if the King shal be without a bridle that is without a Law debent ei fraenum imponere THEY OUGHT TO IMPOSE A BRIDLE ON HIM c. which the Commons being persons of lesse power and interest were unable to do Andrew Horn in his Mirrour of Justice ch 1. § 2 3. renders the like reason In all the contest and Wars between K. John Hen. 3. Edw. 2. Rich. 2. concerning Magna Charta and the Liberties of the Subjects the Lords Barons were the Ring-leaders and chief Opposers of these Kings Usurpations and Encroachments on the people as all our g See Mat. Paris Matthew Westminster Walsingham Huntingdon Holings head Polythronicon Coxton Grims●on Stow Speed Trussell Baker Martin Daniel How and the Soveraign Power of Parliaments Kingdomes part 1 2. 3. 10 R. 2. c. 1 2. 11 R. 2. c. 1. to 7. 21 R. 4. c. 7. to 13. ● H. 4. c. 2. for proof hereof Histories and Records relate whence they stile the Wars in their times THE BARONS WARS and before this the Nobles were the principall Actors in resisting the Tyranny of K. Sigebert and K. Bernard and disthroning them for their misdemeanors as is clear by Mat. Westminster in his Flores Historiarum an 756. 758. To give some brief hints to clear this truth An. Dom. 1214. In the 16. year of h Mat. Paris Hist Angl. p. 233. to 282. Daniel p. 140. to 144. Speed p. 558. to 567. K. John a Parliament held at Pauls July 16. the Charter of Liberties granted to the people by K. Hen. 1. being read and confirmed THE BARONS swore in the Arch-bishops presence that if need were they would spend thier blood And afterwards at St. Edmonds Bury the BARONS swore upon the High Altar That if K. John refused to confirm and restore to them those Liberties the Rights of the Kingdom they would make War upon Him and withdraw themselves from His allegiance till he had ratified them all by His Charter under Seal Which they accordingly performed Tota Angliae Nobilitas in unum collecta all the NOBILITY OF ENGLAND COLLECTED INTO ONE appeared in this defence of their own and the peoples Rights and Liberties against the King whereupon it was afterwards enacted That there should be 25 BARONS chosen by the LORDS not Commons who should to their utmost power cause the Great Charter confirmed by K. John to be duly observed That if either the King or His Justicier should transgresse the same or offend in any one Article 4. of the said BARONS should immediately repaire to Him and require redresse of the same without delay which if not done within forty daies after that then the said 4. BARONS and the rest should distrain and seize upon the Kings Castles Lands and Goods till amends was made according to their arbitration Such confidence and power was then reposed in the BARONS alone i Hist Angl. p. 233. Mat. Paris speaking of the death of Geoffry Fitz-Peeter one of the greatest Peers of that age writes thus of him This year an 1214. Geoffry Fitz-Peeter Justiciary of all England a man of great power and authority TO THE GREATEST DETRIMENT OF THE KINGDOM ended his daies the 2 day of Octob. ERAT autem FIRMISSIMA REGNI COLVMNA for he was the most firm pillar of the Kingdom as being a Nobleman expert in the Laws furnished with treasures rents and all sort of goods and confederated to all the great men of England by blood or friendship whence the King without love did fear him above all men for he governed the raynes of the Kingdom Whereupon after his death England was become like a ship in a storm without an helm The beginning of which tempest was the death of Herbert Arch-bishop of Canterbury a magnificent and faithfull man neither could England breath again after the death of these two When K. John heard of Fitz-Peeters death turning to those who sate about him He said By Gods feet now am I first King and Lord of England He had therefore from thenceforth more free power to break His Oaths and Covenants which He had made with the said Geoffry for the peoples Liberty and Kingdoms peace Such Pillars and Staies are great and stout Peers to a Kingdom Curb to tyrannicall Kings and therefore of mee● Right ought to have a place and voice in Parliaments for the very Kingdoms safety and welfare without the peoples election In the 43 year of K. Hen. 3. his reign k Mat. Paris p. 952. 953. Speed p. 636. Daniel p. 178. The Barons of England entred into a solemn Oath of Association upon the Evangelist to be faithful and diligent to reform the Kingdom of England hitherto by the counsel of wicked persons overmuch disordered and eff ectually to expel the Rebels and disturbers of the same which Oath they made Richard Earl of Cornwall to take as wel as others In these Barons wars for the Subjects Liberties many hundred Lords and Barons spent both their blood lives and estates and among others Simon Mulford Earl of Leicester the greatest Pillar of the Barons slain in the batail of Eusham of who● l In his Continuation of Mat. Paris p. 968. Daniel p. 178. R●shing ●r thus writes Thus this magnificent Earl Simon ended his daies who not only bestowed his estate but his person and life also for relief of oppression of the poor for the asserting of Justice and the Right of the Realm In the 3 4 14 15. of K. Edw. 2. his raign the Barons were the chief Sticklers against Gaveston and the

to make such Knights Citizens and Burgesses lawfull Members of Parliament and to represent the Commons of England without any election of the people the Laws made by our Ancestors in Parliament See Littleton Fitz-Herbert Brut. Ashly Tit. VVarranty Obligat Covenant c. obliging their posterity whiles unrepealed as well as their Warranties Obligations Statutes Feofements Morgages and alienations of their Lands as the Objectors must acknowledge therefore they must of necessity grant their present sitting voting and judging too in Parliament to be lawfull because thus warranted by the Lawes and Customes of the Realme 4. If all Power in Government and right of sitting judging and making Lawes or Ordinances in Parliament be founded upon the immediate free election of all those that are to be Governed and of necessity that all those who are to be subject and they ought to be represented by those who have power in Government the Summe of f See M. Edwards his Gangraena part 3. p. 142. to 162. Lilburnes Overtons and the Levellers reasons against the Lords Iurisdiction then it will of necessity follow that the orders Votes Ordinances and Lawes made by or consented to by the Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament ought not to bind any Ministers Women Children Infants Servants Strangers Freeholders Citizens Burgesses Artificers or others who cannot well or properly be represented but by persons of their owne sex degrees trades and callings and so every sex trade calling in each County and Corporation in England should send Members of their own to Parliament to represent them but only such Freeholders and Burgesses who had voices in and gave free consent to their Elections not any who have no voyces by Law or dissented from those elected and returned yea then it will necessarly follow that those Counties Cities and Burroughs whose Members have been injuriously impeached suspended driven away or thrust out of the House of Commons by the objectors and the Armies practise and violence contrary to all former presidents are absolutely free exempted and not bound by any Votes or Ordinances made or taxes imposed by the Commons House because they have no Members to represent them residing in Parliament and that those Counties and Burroughs whose Knights and Burgesses are dead or absent are no wayes obliged by any Votes Ordinances or Grants in Parliament And then how few in the Kingdome will or ought to yeeld obedience to any the Acts Ordinances or Votes of this present Parliament or to any Mayors Sheriffes Aldermen or Heads of Houses made by their Votes and Authority usually made by election heretofore or to any Iudges Justices Governours Generalls Captains or other Military Officers made by their Commission or appointment without the generality of the peoples Votes or consent especially when above halfe or three full parts of the Members were absent or driven from both Houses by the Objectors violence and menaces These Answers premised I shall now proceed to the proofe of the Lords undeniable Right and Authority to sit Vote and give Judgement in Parliament though not actually elected and called by the people as Knights and Burgesses are 1. It is evident by the Histories Republikes of most ancient and modern Kingdomes and Republikes in the world that their Princes Nobles Peers and great Officers of State have by the Originall Fundamentall Lawes and Institutions by right of their very g 31. H. 8 c. 10 See M. Seldens Titles of Honor Cassanaeus Catalogus Gloriae Mundi Alanso Lopez in Nobiliario and others who write of Nobility Cambd. Brit. of the No●●lity and Courts of Iustice in England Nobility Peerage and great Offices without any particular election of the people a just right and title to sit consult Vote enact Lawes and give Iudgement in all their Generall Assemblies of State Parliaments Senates Diets Councells as might be mainfested by particular instances in the Kingdomes Republikes Parliaments Diets and Generall Assemblies of the Iewes Egyptians Grecians Romans Persians Ethiopians Germans French Goths Vandalls Hungarians Bohemians Polonians Russians Swedes Scythians Tartars Moores Indians Spaniards Portugalls Danes Saxons Scots Irish and many others And to deny the like priviledge to our English Peers and Nobles which all Nobles Peers in all other Kingdomes Nations Republikes anciently have done and yet doe constantly enjoy without exceptions or dispute is a grosse unjury injustice and over-sight yea a great dishonor both to our Nobility and Nation Secondly By and in the very primitive constitution of our English Parliaments it was unanimously agreed by the Kingdomes and peoples generall consents that our Parliaments should be constituted and made up not of Knights and Burgisses onely elected by * E. H 6. c. 7. 10. H. 6. c. 2. 32 H. 6 c. 15. Crumpton Jurisdict p. 1. 2. 3. Cooke 4 Instit c. 1. Freeholders and Burgesses not by the generality of the vulgar people who would now claime and usurpe this right of election but likewise of the King the Supream Member by whose h Cooke Instit c. 1. n. 1. 10. Modus Tenendi Parliamentum Crompton Jurisdiction of Courts Tit. Parliament M. Seldens Tit. of Honour par 2. c. 5. writs the Parliaments were to be sommoned and by the Lords Peers Barons ecclesiasticall and civill and great Officers of the Realme who ought of right to sit vote make Lawes and give Judgement in Parliament by vertue of their Peerage Baronries and Offices without any election of the people the Commons themselves being no Parliament judicatory or Law-givers alone without the King and Lords as Modus tenendi Parliamentorum Sir Edward Cooke in his 4. Institutes ch 1. Mr. Seldens Titles of Honor part 2. ch 5. Vowell Camden Sir Thomas Smith Cowell Minshaw Crompton with others who have written of our English Parliaments assert and all our Parliament Rolls Statutes and i 33. H. 6. 16. Br. Parliam 4. 39. E 3. 7. 35. 11. H. 7 27. Br Parl. 107. 4. H. 7. 18. 7 H. 7. 14 Crumptons Iurisd f. 9. Co. 4. Institutes n 15 35. Fit f. 20. Dyer 92. Iudge Huttons Argument of Mr. Hamdens case p 32. 33. Law-bookes resolve without whose threefold concurrent assents there is or can be no Act of Parliament made Thirdly This right of theirs is confirmed by prescription and custome from the very first beginning of Parliaments in this Kingdome till this present their being no one president to be found in History or Record of any one Parliament held in this Island since it was a Kingdome without the King personally or representatively present by a Protector Custos or Regni Commissioners as he ought to be or without Lords and Peeres anciently stiled Aldermen Heretockes Senators Wisemen Nobles Princes Earles Counts Dukes c. by our Historians who make mention of their resorting to fitting voting and judging in our Parliaments Generall Assemblies and Councels under those Titles without the peoples Election long before the Conquerors time in the anciented Parliaments and Councels we read of

Domino Rege in Parliamente sue at the end of each Parliam Roll wherein the King and Lords or only the King and Lords alone generally gave Iudgement of imprisonment fine banishment and death it self even against Cōmoners themselves without the Commons the thing now principally controverted and denied for proof whereof I shall cite some few punctuall presidents and records in stead of many which might be insisted on In the famous Parl held at Claredon x Mat. Paris p. 6 97. M. Seldens Titles of Honor part 2. c 5 p. 703. 705 under K. Hen. 2. 〈◊〉 D. 1164. there was a recognition made of all the ancient Customs of the Realm which all the Prelats Abbots Earls Barons and Nobles swore firmly to observe to the King and his Successors whereof this was one That the Arch-b Bishops and other Clergy men who held of the King in Capite by Barony Sicut caeteri Barones debent interesse JVDCIIS CVRIAE REGIS CVM BARONIBVS * Petrus Bles●sis De Instit Episcopi Bibl Patrum tom 12. par 2. p. 447 quousque perveniatur AD DIMINVTIONEM MEMBRORVM VEL AD MORTEM which proves the power and right of Iudicature even in those times and long before to be setled in the Barons as well in Parliament as in the Sheriffs Tourne and that in case of Commoners as Peers In the Parliament of 4. E. 3. num 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Roger Mortimer Earle of March a Peer Sir Simon Bereford Knight of Councell and assistant to the said Earle John Mautravers Bose de Bayous and Iohn Deverall for being guilty of the death of Edward Earle of Kent Thomas Gournay VVilliam of Ocle for murthering King Edward the second after his deposition were attainted and condemned of High treason and some of them then in cu●●odie accordingly executed by Iudgement of the Lords and Peeres alone who AS JUDGES OF THE LAW by the Kings consent gave judgement of death against them as the Parliament Rolls more largely relate It is true indeed that after these Judgements given the LORDS the same Parliament num 6. entred this Protestation * See Cooke 2. Instit p. 50. That alboit the Lords and Peers of the Realme AS JUDGES OF THE PARLIAMENT in the presence of the King had taken upon them to give Judgement of such who were NO PEERS OF THE REALM that he eafter NO PEERS should be compelled to give Judgement ON ANY OTHERS WHO WERE NOT THEIR PEERS according to the Law From this Protestation of the Lord which Lilburne principally insists on hee and * Cooke 2. Instit p. 50. some others conolude that the Peers in Parliament have no right at all to imprison fine judge or passe sentence of death against any Commoner for any offence no not for breach of their own Priviledges but only the Commons To which objection I answer First that this is no Act of Parliament as Sir Edwards Cooke mistakes but a bare Protestation of the Lords without Kings or Common● assent and that neither the House of Commons nor the Commoners then attainted of Treason and judged to death by the Lords ever demurred or excepted against their Jurisdiction as Lilburne and Overton doe but acknowledged and submitted to it Secondly That in this very Protestation the Lords professe and justifie their right of BEING JVDGES in Parliament without admitting or acknowledging any joynt or sole right of Judicature with them in Parliament in the Commons Thirdly That this Protestation was meerly voluntary not in derogation but preservation of their own Honour and Peerage and the Parliaments too and the substance of it no more then this That the Lords in Parliament should not bee constrained against their wills by the Kings command and in his presence to give judgement of death in ordinary cases of treason or Felony in the high Court of Parliament against such who were no Peers who in such case● * Magn. Ch. c. 29. 25. E. 3. c. 2. 4. 28. E. 3. c. 3. 37. E. 3. c. 8. 42. E. 3. c. 3. Cooke 2. Instit p. 50 51. by the Law might and ought to be tried in the Kings Courts at VVestminster or before the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer by a Iury of their equalls but onely in such cases which could not well be tried else-where and were proper for their Judgement in Parliament This is the whole summe and sence of their protestation To argue therefore from hence That they cannot passe sentence or judgement against any Commoners in any case proper for their Judicature in Parliament because they protested only against being COMPELLED to g●ve Judgement against such as were no Peers in cases triable else-where and not proper for their tribunall as the Objectors hence conclude is quite to mistake their meaning and to speak rather non-sence then reason or Law Fourthly This Protestation was made only against the Lords giving sentence in Felony and Treason and that in the Kings own presence in Parliament who usually pronounced the Judgement himself with the Lords assent and did not charge the Lords to pronounce it as here hee did not against sentencing fining and imprisoning any Commoner for rayling and Lybelling against their Persons Jurisdiction and proceedings refusing to answer and contemning their Authority to their faces at the Barre and appealing from their Judicature in case of breach of Priviledge of which themselves alone and no others are or can be Judges the case of Lilburne and Overton whose commitments are warranted by hundreds of Presidents in this and former Parliaments Therefore for them to apply this Protestation to their cases with which it hath no Analogy is a manifestation of their injudiciousnesse and folly rather then a justification of their Libellous Invectives against the Lords injustice Lastly this Protestation did not foreclose the Lords in this or future Parliaments to give Judgement against Commoners in other cases of Felony and Treason even without the Commons To prove this by some instances In the Parliament of 1. H. 4. Placita Coronae num 11. to 17. Iohn Hall being in custody of the Marshall of England and brought by him before the Lords in Parliament and there charged by him by VValter Cl●pton Lord chiefe Justice by the Kings command with having a hand in the murther of the Duke of Glocester who was smothered to death with a featherbed at Calayes by King Richard the seconds command the whole relation whereof he confessed at large and put in writing before James Billing ford Clerk of the Crown which was read before the Lords upon reading whereof the King and ALL THE TEMPORALL LORDS IN PARLIAM●NT resolved that the said Iohn Hall by his own confession deserved to have as hard a death as they could adjudge him to because the Duke of Glocester was so high a Person and thereupon TOVTE LES SEIGNEIURS TEMPORELZ per assent du ROY ADJVGGER●N● all the temporall Lords by assent of the King AJVDGED that the said Joh. Hall should be drawn from Tower

hill unto the Gallows at Tiburn there kenelled his bowels laid before him and after he should be hanged beheaded and quartered and his head sent to Calayes where the murther was committed and his quarters sent to other places where the King should please and thereupon command was given to the Marshall of England to make execution accordingly and it was so done the same day Lo here the Lords in Parliament g●ve judgement against a Commoner in case of a murther done at Calayes and so not triable at the Kings Bench but in Parliament and passe a judgement of High treason on him for murthering of a great Peere only And which is most remarkable all the Commons In this very Parliaments of 1 H. 4. nu 70. Nov 3. made their Protestation and further remonstrated to the King Nota. Com LES JVGGEMENTS DV PARLEMENT APEIRTEIGNENT SOVLEMENT AV ROY ET AS SEIGNEIVRS ET NIENT AS COMMVNES how the judgement of the Parl. appertained ONLY TO THE KING and TO THE LORDS and NOT VNTO THE COMMONS except in case it should please the King OF HIS SPECIALL GRACE to shew unto them the said JVDGEMENTS purcase de eux que null record soit fait in Parlement encoutreles ditz Communes quill soit ou serront parties ascunes juggements donez ouadoues en Apres in Parlement Whereunto it was answered by the Archbish of Canterbury by the Kings command how the said Commoners are petitioners and demanders and that THE KING THE LORDS de tont temps ont eves et aueront DE DROIT LES JVGGEMENT EN PARLEMENT en manere come me me les communes ount monstres HAVE ALVVAYES HAD AND SHALL HAVE OF RIGHT THE JVDGEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT in manner as the Commons themselves have declared except in making Statutes or in making Grants and Subsidies or such things for the common profit of the Realm wherein the King will have especially their advice and assent and that this order of proceeding shall be held and kept IN ALL TIMES TO COME By which record in Parliament it is apparent by the House of Commons own confession First that the Judgements in Parliament even in cases of Commoners appertain ONLY TO THE KING and LORDS in the affirmative Secondly that they appertain NOT TO THE COMMONS in the negative Thirdly that the King and LORDS HAVE ALWAYES HAD and ENJOYED THE RIGHT of Judgements in Parliament Fourthly that they should alwayes hold and enjoy this Right IN ALL TIMES TO COME Fifthly that the Commons speciall advise and assent was and is required by the King in Parliament only in making of Statutes Grants and Subsidies and such like things for the common profit of the Realm So full and punctuall a Parliamentary decision of the present controversie as is uncapable of any answer or evasion In the Parliament Roll of 17. y See Cook 3. Instit c. 2. p. 22. R. 2. num 20. 21. John Duke of Gayen and of Lancaster Steward of England and Thomas Duke of Glocester Constable of England the Kings Uncles complained to the King that Thomas Talbot Knight a Commoner and no Peere with other his adherents conspired the death of the said Duke in divers parts of Cheshire as the same was confessed and well known and prayed that the Parliament might judge of the faul● to wit whether it were treason according to the clause of the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. It is accorded that if any other case supposed Treason which is not above specified doth happen before any Justices the Justices shall tarry without any going to judgement of the Treason till the cause be shewed and declared before the King and His Parliament whether it ought to be judged Treason or Felony whereupon the KING and THE LORDS IN THE PARLIAMEN● without the Commons though in case of a Commoner ADJVDGED THE SAME FACT TO BE OPEN and HIGH TREASON and thereupon they award two writs the one to the Sheriffes of Darby to take the body of the said Sir Thomas retornable in the Kings Bench in the moneth of Easter then next following and open Proclamation was made in Westminster Hall upon the Sheriffes return and the next coming in of the said Sir Thomas that the same Thomas SHOVLD BE CONVICTED OF TREASON and incurre the losse and pain of the same and that all such as should receive him after the same Proclamation should incurre the same losse and paine Sir z 3. Instit p. 22. Edward Cooke relating this Judgement addes his own opinion at the end That this judgement wanting the assent of the Commons was no Declaration of Treason within the Act of 25. E. ● because it was not by the King and his Parliament according to this Act but by the King and Lords ONLY But the record of Parliament and the Judges and Commons then admitted it to be good and processe issued out and judgement was given accordingly the parties concerned taking no such exceptions to it See 21. R. 2. n. 15. 16. So that this Record is a pregnant evidence That the King and Lords are the sole Judges in Parliament in the case of Commoners even in declaring and judging what is or what is not treason within the Statute of 25. E. 3. because the Commons are no Iudges in Parliament and so cannot Iudge or declare unles in a legislative way by Act of Parliament what is Treason or Pelony but the King and Lords alone To put this out of question I shall cite one notable record more to this purpose a Cooke 3. Instit p. 22. c. 1. p. 10. In the Parliament of 5. H. 4. 11. 12. on the 8. of February the Earle of Northumberland came before the King Lords and Commons in Parliament and by his Petition to the King acknowledged that he had done against his Lawes and alegiance and especially for gather of power and giving of Liveries for which he put himselfe upon the Kings grace and prayed pardon the rather for that upon the Kings Letters he yielded himselfe and came to the King at Yorke whereas he might have kept himselfe away Which Petition by the Kings command was delivered to the Justices to be examined and to have their counsell and advice therein Whereupon the LORDS made a Protestation que le Juggement appertient aeux tout soulement THAT THE JUDGEMENT APPERTAINED ONLY TO THEM And after the said Petition being read and considered before the King and the said Lords as Peers of Parliament a queux tells ●uggementz apperteignent DE DROIT TO WHOM SUCH JUDGEMENT APPERTAINED OF RIGHT having had by the Kings command competent deliberation thereupon and having also heard and considered as well the Statute made in the 25. yeare of King Edward the Kings Grand-father that now is concerning the Declaration of treason as the Statutes of Liveries made in this Kings raigne ADJUDGED that that which was done by the said Earle contained within his Petition was neither Treason nor Felony but Trespas for which

right to award Judgement in these cases without the King or them then which a fuller and clearer proofe cannot be desired In the self-same Parliament 1. R. ● num 41 42 43. Dame Alice Piers was brought before THE LORDS and charged by Sir Richard le Scrope with sundry misdemeanors which she denied hereupon divers Witnesses were examined against her Whereupon JVDGEMENT WAS GIVEN BY THE LORDS AGAINST HER that she should be banished and forfeit all her lands goods and tenements whatsoevèr To this Judgement neither King nor Commons were parties but the Lords only To these I might adde the cases of c See the doom of 〈◊〉 and treachery 〈◊〉 14 15. where the record is transcribed Sir William de Eleuham Sir Thomas Trivet Sir Henry de Ferriers and Sir William Farnden Knights and Robert Fitz Ralph Esquire Rot. Parl. 7. R. 2. num 24. sentenced and condemned by judgement of the Lords in Parliament pronounced by the Chancellour for selling the Castle of Burbugh with the armes and amm●nition in it to the Kings enemies without the Kings license 21. R. 2. Parl. Rot. Plac. Coronae num 27. where Sir Robert Pleasington is adjudged a Traytor after his death by the King by ●SSENT OF THE LORDS and num 15. 16. Sir Thomas Mortimers case num 17. Sir John Cobhams case * 31. H. 6. n. 45. 64. 65. ● 3. n. 16. to ●8 and num 28. Henry Bonoits case condemned in like manner of treason by the Lords with hundreds of Presidents more I shall only cite three more at large which are punctuall In the Parliament of 8. R. 2. n. 12. Walter Sybell of London was arrested and brought into the Parliament before the Lords at the suit of Robert de Veer Earl of Oxford for slandering him to the Duke of Lancaster and other Nobles for maintenance Walter denied not but that he said that certain there named recovered against him the said Walter and that by maintenance of the said Earl as he thought The Earl there present protested himself to be innocent and put himself upon the triall Walter thereupon was committed to Prison by the Lords and the next day he submitted himself and desired the Lords to be a mean for him saying he could not accuse him whereupon THE LORDS CONVICTED and FINED HIM FIVE HVNDRED MARKS TO THE SAID EARL for the which and for his fine and ransome he was committed to prison BY THE LORDS A direct case in point In the second Parliament in 7. R. 2. num 13. to 19. Iohn Cavendish a Fishmonger of London accused Michael de la Pool Knight Lord Cha●cellour of England first before the Commons and afterward before the Lords for bribery and injustice and that he entere●●●nto a Bond of x. l. to Iohn Ottard a Clerk to the said Chancellour which he was to give for his good successe in the businesse in part of payment w●●●eof he br●ught Herring and Sturgeon to Ottard and ye was delayed a●d could have no justice at the Chancellours h●nds and upon hearing he cause and examining wi●● o●fes upon Oath before THE LORDS the Chancellour was cleared The Chancellour thereupon required reparation for so great a slander the Lords being then troubled with other weighty matters let the Fish-monger to Bail and referred the matter to be ordered by the Judges who upon hearing the whole matter condemned Cavendish in three thousand marks for his slanderous complaint against the said Chancellour and adjudged him to prison till he had paid the same to the Chancellour and made fine and ransome to the King also which the Lords confirmed In the Parliament of 15. R. 2. nu 21. Iohn Stradwell of Begsteed in the County of Sussex was committed to the fleet by JVDGEMENT OF THE LORDS there to remain during the Kings pleasure for that he informed the Parliament that the Archbishop of Canterbury had excommunicated him and his neighbours wrongfully for a temporall cause appertaining to the Crown and Common Law wh●ch was ADIVDGED BY THE LORDS upon examination and hearing to BE VNTRVE These three eminent Presidents to which many more might be added of the Lords fining and imprisoning meere Commons only for slandering Peeres of Parliament even by false accusations against them in Parliament by way of complaint will ●●stify the Lords proceedings against Lilburn and Ov●rton for their professed Libells both against their Persons and Jurisdictions too To proceed to latter times in Parliaments of 18. and 21. Jacobi and 3. Car. not only the Lord * Cook 4. Instit p. 23. Chancellour Bacon and the Earl of Middlesex Lord Treasurer upon complaint of the Commons were censured and judged by the Lords alone but likewise Sir Giles Mompesson Sir Iohn Michell and Dr Manwering all Commoners JUDICIALLY SENTENCED Doctor Pocklinton and Doctor Bray even for erroneous Books and Sermons were sentenced this Parliament by the Lords alone since these Master Clement Walker Esquire was imprisoned in the Tower and fined by the Lords for some words pretended to be spoken against the Lord Say and within these few moneths on● Morrice and foure or five more of his confederates were censured fined and impr●soned by the Lords alone for forging an Act of Parliament upon Sir Adam Littletons complaint with all the Commons privity or consents and above one hundred Commoner more have been imprisoned by them or fined this very Session of Parliament for breach of Priviledge contempts or misdemeanours by the Lords alone without the Commons yet no demurrer nor exceptions were taken by them or the Commons to their Iurisdiction who applauded this their Justice in some of these cases From all these cleare confessions of the Commons themselves in Parliament and punctuall presidents in print in former late Parliaments and in this now sitting it is undeniable That the King and Lords joyntly and the Lords severally without the King have an indubitable right of Judicature without the Common● vested in them not only of Peers themselves but likewise of C●mmoners in all extraordinary cases of Treason Felony Trespasse and other Misdemeanors triable only in Parliament which hath been constantly acknowledged practised and submitted to without dispute much more then have they such a just and rightfull power in case of breach of their owne priviledges of d Cooke 4 Instit p. 15. which none are or can be Judges but themselves alone And to deny them such a power is to make the Highest Court of Iudicature in the Realme inferiour to the Kings Bench and all other Courts of Justice who have power to judge and try the persons and causes of Commoners and to commit and fine them for contempts and breaches of Priviledges as our e See Brooke and Ashes Tables Tit. Contempts Fines pur Contempt Imprisonment Law bookes resolve and every mans experience can testifie The Lords right of Judicature being thus fully evicted against the false and ignorant pretences of illiterate Sectaries altogether unacquainted with our Histories and Records of Parliament

which they never yet read nor understood there remaines nothing but to answer some Presidents and Objections The Principall president insisted on by Lilburne Object 1. is the Protestation of the Lords in the case of * Cooke 2. Instit p. 50. Sir Simon Beresford 4. E. 3. nu 6. which I have already fully answered retorted and shall therefore here pretermit The second is Sir Edward Cookes Authority Object 2. and the presidents cited by him in his 4. Institutes p. 23. 24. of Judicature in Parliament where thus he writes It is to be knowne THAT THE LORDS IN THEIR HOUSE HAVE POWER OF JUDICATURE And the Commons in their House have power of Judicature and both Houses together have power of Judicature But the handling thereof according to the weight and worth of the matter would require a whole Treatise of it selfe and to say the truth it is best understood by reading the Judgements and Records of Parliament at large and the Journalls of the House of the Lords and the Booke of the Clerke of the House of Commons which is a Record as it is affirmed by Act of Parliament in An. 6. H. 8. c. 16. To which he addes these marginall Notes Vide Placita in Parlians Anno 33. E. 1. rot 33. Nicholas Seagrave adjudg● Par Praelatos COMITES BARONES ET ALIOS DE CONCILIO At the Parliament at Yorke Ap. 12. E. 3. Consideratum est per Praelatos Comites BARONES ET COMMVNITATEM ANGLIAE the Lord Audleys care At the Parliament at Westm 15. E. 2 Hugh le pier adjuge per les SEIGNIEURS COMMONS Rot. Parl. 50. E. 3. n. 34. Lord Nevils case Then he a●des See Rot. Claus 1 R. 2. n. 5. 8. 38. ●0 A tresage Councell le Roy Les SEIGNIORS COMMONS c. Rot. Parl. 2. H. 5. nu 1● Err●ra sinned THAT THE LORDS gave Judgement WIT●OVT PETITION OR AS●●NT OF THE COMMONS Rot. Parl. 28. H. 6. nu 10. and many others in the Reigne of King H. 6. and Kin E. 4. And of later times see divers notable Judgements at the prosecution of the Commons By THE LORDS at the Parliaments ●●●den 18. and 21. Iac. Regis against Sir Giles Mompesson Sir Iohn Michell Viscount St. Albon Lord Chancellor of England the Earle of Middlesex Lord Treasurer of England whereby the due proceedings of Iudicature in such Caces doth appeare Then hee cites the cases of * 8. Eliz. Thomas Long * 23 Eliz. Arthur Hall * 2. A●●●l 1. Ma●●● and Muncton censured by the House of Commons only and by them fined and imprisoned without the Lords A●d concludes thus If any Lord of Parliament spirituall or temporall have committed any Oppression Bribery extortion or the like the HOUSE OF COMMONS BEING THE GENERALL INQUISITORS OF THE REALME comming out of all parts thereof may examine the same and if they find by the Vote of the House the charge to be true then they TRANSMIT THE SAME TO THE LORDS WITH THE WITNESSES and PROOFES From which passages of his some ignorantly have concluded That the Lords have no power of Judicature without but only joyntly with the Commons That all Commoners ought to be judged only by the Commons not by the Lords and That the Commons have a sole power of Judicature in cases of Commoners and the Lords no power but joyntly with them or upon their preceding Petitions and impeachments neither in case of Commoners nor Peers I answer that Sir Edward Cookes words are much mistaken and rightly understood warrant no such inferences but the contrary For first he clearely confesseth in direct termes That the Lords in their House have a power of judicature even without the Commons ha he de●med particularly in whose and in what cases out of the Judgements Records and Journals of Parliament at large to which he refers the Reader a being best understood by reading them which warrant the Lords judging fining imprisoning and condemning to death not only of Peers but of Commoners themselves without the Commons as I have fully manifested their could no such inference have been made Secondly ●e adde● That the Commons in their House have a power of Judicature From whence Lilburne and others inferre That they are and ought to be the sole Judges of all Commoners and not the Lords in all cases triable in Parliament But this is a most grosse mistake Sir Edward Cooke confining this Judicature of theirs only to these three c●ses First to matters and abuse concerning elections of Knights Citizens and Burgesses being Members of the Commons House the judgment and determination whereof the Commons alone of late times only have usually taken upon them without the Lords which he proves by Thomas Longs case 8. Eliz. and no greater antiquities of which elections the King and Lords in former times have been sole Judges for which I shall cite some memorable records worthy the Lords and ●●mmons consideration who now take upon them to suspend eje●● Judge their own Members elections without the Kings or Lords concurrence or privity a practice not heard of in former ages and of late originall In the Parliament holden at Westminster 5. H. 4. Rot. Parl. num 38. Thomas Thorpe his case Item because that the writ of summons of Parliament returned by the Sheriffe of Roteland was not sufficiently nor duely returned as the Commons conceived the said Commons prayed our Lord THE KING and THE LORDS IN PARLIAMENT that this matter might be duly examined in Parliament and that in case their shall be default found in this matter that such a punishment might be inflicted which might become exemplary to others to offend againe in the like manner Whereupon our said Lord the King IN FULL PARLIAMENT commanded THE LORDS IN PARLIAMENT TO EXAMINE THE SAID MATTER and to doe therein AS TO THEM SHOULD SEEME BEST IN THEIR DISCRETIONS And thereupon the SAID LORDS caused to come BEFORE THEM IN PARLIAMENT as well the said Sheriffe as William One by who was returned by the said Sheriffe for one of the Knights of the said County and Thomas Thorpe who was elected in full Countie to be one of the Knights of the said Shire for the said Parliament and not returned by the said Sheriffe And the said parties being duely examined and their reasons well considered in the said Parliament IT WAS AGREED BY THE SAID LORDS that because the said Sheriffe had not made a sufficient returne of the said writ THAT HE SHALL AMEND THE SAID RETURN and THAT HE SHALL RETURN THE SAID THOMAS FOR ONE OF THE SAID KNIGHTS as he was elected in the said Countie for the Parliament and moreover that the said Sheriffe for this default SHALL BE DISCHARGED OF HIS OFFICE and COMMITTED PRISONER TO THE FLEET and that he should MAKE FINE and RANSOME AT THE KINGS PLEASURE Loe here the Lords in Parliament at the Commons request and by the Kings command examining and giving judgement in case of undue election even without the