inform us In the Parliament of 2. Caroli the Duke of Buckingham impeached the Earl of Bristol and the Earl of Bristol impeached this Duke before the Lords in sundry Articles for divers misdemeanours touching the Spanish match King Prince to seduce him in his religion praying judgment of the Lords thereupon against each other In the Parliament of 3. Caroli the Duke of Buckingham was accused and Impeached by the Commons before the Lords for sundry high Misdemeanors and the Parliament thereupon dissolved to prevent his censure In this very Parliament of King Charls now sitting Thomas Earl of Strafford was accused and impeached by the House of Commons of High Treason and other misdemeanors comprised in sundry Articles which they transmitted â—o the House of Lords desiring that he might be put to answer them and such proceedings examination trial and judgement thereupon had and given against him by the Lords as is agreeable to Law and Justice Hereupon he was openly tried in Westminster Hall before the House of Lords there sitting as his Judges where the House of Commons prosecuted and gave in Evidence against him sundry dayes and in conclusion demanded the Lords to give Iudgement against him in the Iudicial way After which they proceeded against him by way of Bill not to decline their Lordships Iustice in a Iudicial way but to husband time by preventing some doubts and as the speediest and soonest way Upon the passing of which Bill he was beheaded and executed as a Traytor On the 26 of February 1640. William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury was accused and impeached of High Treason by the House of Commons of 14. Articles then transmitted by them to the House of Lord The first whereof was this That he had trayterously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental Laws and Government of the Realm and instead thereof to introduce an Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law And the last of them this That he had laboured to subvert the rights of Parliament and the ancient Course of Parliamentary proceeding which the New-modellers of our Parliaments more guilty hereof by many degrees than he may do well to consider Upon which they prayed from the Lords such proceedings examination trial and Iudgement against him as is agreeable to Law and Justice Upon these Articles he was brought to a publike Trial in the Lords House the 12. of March 1643. and after 17. whole dayes spent in his meer Trial and proof of the Charge against him and his defence thereto morning and evening and several other dayes spent in the hearing of him and his Council and the Commons Reply touching his Charge and the matters of Law whether the Charge prâ— against him amounted to High Treason the Lords upon most mature deliberation voted him Guilty of all the Articles and matters of fact charged against him and also of High Treason and thereupon passed an Ordinance for his Attainder by vertue whereof he was beheaded as a Traytor on Tower-Hill January 10. 1644. To these I might add the seveeal Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House of Commons this Parliament to the Lords against Matthew Wren Bishop of Norwich the 20. of July 1641. against William Pierce Bishop of Bath and Wells and against the Bishops of Winchester Coventry and Litchfield Glocester Chichester Exeter St. Asaph Hereford Ely Bangor Bristol Rochester Peterborough and Landaffe August 4. 1641. requiring such proceedings from the Lords against them as to Law and Justice shall appertain All which are a superabundant impregnable Evidence of the Lords inherent Judicial power and right of Judicature in our English Parliaments even by the Commons House own Impeachments and acknowledgements against the Levellers pretences to the contrary By all these forecited presidents it is most apparent 1. That the King and Lords in our Parliaments in all ages both before and since the Commons admission to sit and vote in Parliaments have been the sole Judges of Ecclesiastical Peers and Lords in all criminal cases without the Commons 2ly That the Lords and Peers of the Realm except only in case of appealâ— both in and out of Parliament are triable only by their Peers And therefore the Trial condemnation and execution of any of them by Marshal Law or now misnamed High Courts of Justice by Commoners and others who are not their Peers is most illegal unjust and nought else but murther as the Parliaments of 1 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 45. of 1 E. 4. rot Parl. n. 18. resolve and as it was adjudged in the case of Thomas Earl of Lancaster Paâ—ch 39 E. 3. Coram Rege Rot. 92. Wiâ— Cooks 3. Institutes p. 52 53. Secondly The next and main question now conâ—roverted will be Whether the King House of Peers have any lawfull or sole power of Judicature in and over the persons of the Commons of England as well as over Peers in criminal causes misdemeanours offences or breaches of their Parliamentary privileges so farr as to fine imprison censure judge or condemn them in any kind without the House of Commons concurrent vote or judicature This the ignorant sottish Levellers Sectaries seduced by their blind guides John Lilburn and Overton peremptorily deny the contrary whereof I shall here infallibly make good to their perpetual shame and refutation by unanswerable Reasons and presidents in all ages 1. I have already manifested That the Parliament being the supremest Court of Judicature in the Realm must consequently have a lawfull Jurisdiction over all persons and members of the Realm whether Spiritual or Temporal Lords or Commons in all criminal and civil Causes proper for Parliaments to judge or punish That this power of judicature was originally and primitively vested in the King and Lords alone before there were any Knights Citizens Burgesses or Commons summoned to our Parliaments as is evident by the antient writers Glanvil Bracton Fleta Horn the Parliament of Clarindon Anno. 1164. and other forecited authorities and never transferred by them to the House of Commons upon or after their admission into our Parliaments but remaining intirely in the King and Lords as at first as the whole House of Commons acknowledge upon record 1 H. 4. rot parl n. 79. Therefore they may lawfully exercise this their judicial power and jurisdiction over the Commoners of England in all such causes now and hereafter and that of right as this record resolves they may do in positive terms 2ly Our Histories Law-books and Records agree that in ancient times our Earls who were called Comites or Counts from the word County had the chief Government and Rule of most of the Counties of this Realm under our King and that they and the Barons were the proper Judges of the Common people both in criminal and civil Causes in the Tourns County-Courts even by vertue of their Dignities and Offices as our Sheriffs are now in which Courts they did instruct the people in the Laws of the Land and administer Justice
to them in all ordinary Civil and criminal causes For prooâ— whereof you may peruse at leisure M. Seldens Titles of Honour Part 2. c 5. Sect. 5. Sir Edw. Cooks Institutes on Magna Charta c. 35. His 4. Institutes c. 53. the Laws of King Edgar and Edward there cited Spelmanni Glossarium Tit. Comites Mr. Lambards Archaion f. 135. Horns Mirrour of Justices c. 1. Sect. 2 3. If then they were Judges of the Commons and people in every County by reason of their Honours Dignities even in antientest times in ordinary Causes there is great right and reason too they should be their Judges also in all their extraordinary causes as well criminal as civil even in Parliament 3ly The Lords Peers and great Officers of State in respect of their education learning experience in all proceedings of Justice and Law are more able fit to be Iudges of Commons in Parliament than ordinary Citizens and Burgesses especially if chosen out of the Cities and Boroughs themselves for which they serve as antiently they were and still ought to be by the Statutes of 1 H. 5. c. 1. 32 H. 6. c. 15. and by the very purports of the writs for their election at this very day de qualibet Civitate Com. praedict DVOS CIVES de quolibet Burgo DUOS BVRGENSES who have better knowledg skill in Merchandise and their several Trades than in matters of Judicature or Law Therefore the Right of Judicature was thought meet even after the Commons admission to our Parliaments to be still lodged and vested in the House of Peers as before who are the ablest and fittest of the two rather than in the Commons House 4ly Since the division of the Houses one from another if ever they sate together which cannot be proved the House of Peers are dis-ingaged and indifferent parties between the King and Commons and so fittest of all to he Judges between them as the Mirrour of Justices c. 1. resolves so it hath been stil furnished with the ablest Temporal and Spiritual persons for their Assistants in judgement and advice to wit with all the Judges of the Realm Barons of the Exchequer of the Coyâ— the Kings learned Counsel the Masters of the Chancery who are Civilians or Lawyers the Master of the Rolls the Principal Secretaries of State with other eminent persons for parts and learning and the Procuratores Gleri all which are called by Writ to assist and give their attendance in the upper House of Parliament where they have no voices but are to give their counsel and advice only to the Lords when they require their assistance especially in cases of Law and Judicature For proof whereof you may consult the Statutes of 31 H. 8. c. 10. The Register of Writs f. 261. Fitz. Nat. Brev. f. 229. a. b. M. Seldens Titles of Honor part 2. c. 5. Sir Edw. Cooks 4 Instit p. 4 5 6 44 45 46. and the Parliament Rolls and Authorities there cited by them seconded by our present experience Now the House of Peers being thus assisted with the advice of all the Judges of England the Kings learned Counsel and others ablest to advise them in all Criminal Civil or Ecclesiastical matters cases that come before them were in this regard thought fittest by our Ancestors and the Commons themselves who have no such assistants to have the principal and sole power of Judicature in all civil and criminal causes as well of Commoners as Peers that are proper for the Parliaments Judicature by way of censure or redress 5ly There can be no judgement given in any of the Kings Courts in Criminal causes but where the King is personally or representatively present sitting upon the Tribunal and where the proceedings are Coram Rege And therefore in the end of most antient Parliament Rolls we find the Title of Placita Coronae CORAM DOMINO REGE IN PARLIAMENTO SUO c. as in 4 E. 3. 21 R. 2. 1 H. 4. and other Parliaments Now as the Kings person is represented Judgements given Justice executed in all Criminal and Civil cases in the Kings Bench Eyres Goal Deliveries Oyers and Terminers and all his other Courts by his Judges and Justices in his absence So is it represented in our Parl. in the Lords house by his Commissioners and the Lords and Judgements given Justice executed by them in al criminal civil causes and no ways by the Commons who neither sit nor judge in the House of Peers Therefore the House of Peers only noâ— the Commons are the true and proper judicatoâ—y where the King the supream judge fits usually in Person and alwayes in representation in his absence 6ly There can be no legal trial or Judgement given in Parliament in Criminal causes or others without examination of witnesses upon Oath as in all other Courts of justice But the House of Peers alone have power to give and examine witnesses upon Oath and the whole House of Commons no such power but to take Informations without Oath which neither they nor their Committees can administer unless by special Order and Commission from the King or Lords Therefore the power of judicature in Parliament even in Commoners cases is inherent only in the House of Peers and not in the Commons House 7ly It is a rule both of Law and justice that no man can be an informer prosecutor and judge too of the persons prosecuted informed against it being contrary to all grounds of justice therefore he ought to complain and petition to others for Justice But the Commons in all ancient Parliaments and in this present have been informers and prosecutors in nature of a Grand Inquest to which some compare them being summoned from all parts of the kingdom to present publike Grievances and Delinquents to the King and Peers for their redress and thereupon have alwayes petitioned complained to the King and Lords for Iustice against all other Delinquents and offenders in Parliament not judged them themselves witness their many impeachments accusations complaints sent up and prosecuted by them in former Parliaments and this to the Lords not only against Peers but Commoners of which there are hundreds of presidents this very Parliament Therefore the House of Lords hath the proper right of judicatory vested in them even in Cases of Commoners not the Commons who are rather Informers Prosecutors and Grand Jury men to inform impeach than Judges to hear censure determine and give judgement as is resolved in 1 H. 4. n. 79. 8ly Those who are proper Judges in any Court of Justice whiles the cause is judging sit in their Robes and that covered on the Bench not stand bare at the bar sweat and examine the witnesses in the cause not produce them or manage the evidence and when the cause is fully heard argue and debate the businesse between themselves and then give the definitive sentence But in all cases that are to be tried and judged in Parl. the
fined a 1000 l. to Edmond Earl of Cornwal and 2000 marks to the Abbot of Westminster and committed to the Tower of London by JUDGEMENT of the King Earls Barons and Iustices in full Parliament for citing and attaching the said Earl of Cornwal in Westminster hall to appear before the Archbishop sitting the Parliament whereof he was a Peer against his Privilege and the privilege of Sanctuary granted to the Abbot of Westminst and remained prisoners there till they put in Sureties and paid the 1000 l. fine to the Earl notwithstanding their plea of ignorance of these their Privileges In the Parliament of 4 E. 3. n. 2 3 4 5 6. Sir Simon Bereford knight John Mautravers Boso de Bayons John Deverall Thomas de Gournay and William of Ocle confederates with Roger Mortimer Earl of March in all his Treasons and misdoings for which he was then impeached and condemned and guilty of the murders of King Edward the 2. after his deposition in Berkley Castle and of the Earl of Kent his Brother were attainted and condemned of High Treason by the Lords Barons Péers in Parliament as Iudges of Parliament though they were Commoners and not their Péers whom they were not at all obliged to judge as Péers adjudging them by the Kings assent as Traytors and Enemies of the King and his Realm to be drawn and hanged Whereupon Sir Simon being in Custody was executed by the Marshal and Proclamation made by the Kings writs by the Lords order to apprehend the others with promise of great rewards to those who should apprehend them that they might be executed and if they could not take them alive to bring in their heads for which thty should receive the reward of 500 l. from the King It is true indeed that after these Judgements given the Lords the same Parliament entred this special Protestation in the Parliament Roll n. 6. against being forced to give Judgement in such cases against those who were not their Peers which Sir Edward Cook stiles an Act of Parliament though it be no such thing but a voluntary Protestation of the Lords with the Kings assent It is assented and agreed by our Lord the King and all the Great men in full Parliament that albeit the said Péers as Iudges of Parliament took upon them in the presence of our Lord the King to make and render the said Judgements by assent of the King upon some of those who were not at all their Peers and that by reason of the murder of our Leige Lord and destruction of him who was so near of the bloud royal and son of a King that thereby the PEERS which now are o◠the Péers which shall be in time to come shall not be bound or charged to render Iudgements upon others who are not their Péers nor yet to doe it but upon the Péers of the Land but that they shall from henceforth be for ever acquitted thereof And that the said Iudgements now rendered shall not be drawn into example nor consequence for time to come whereby the said Peers may be charged hereafter to adjudge others than their Peers against the Law of the Land if such another case should happen which God defend From this Protestation of the Lords which Lilburn principally insists on he and some others conclude that the Peers in Parliament have no right at all to imprison fine judge or pass sentence of death against any Commoner for any offence no not for breach of their own Privileges but only the Commons To which Objection I answer First that this is no Act of Parliam as Sir E. Cook mistakes but a bare Protestation of the Lords alone assented to by the King without the Commons assent which no wayes impeacheth the Lords right of judicature Secondly that neither the House of Commons nor the Commoners then attainted of Treason and adjudged to death by the Lords ever demurred or excepted against their Jurisdiction as Lilburn and Overton doe but acknowledged and submitted to it Thirdly That in this very Protestation the Lords profess and justifie their right of BEING JVDGES in Parliament without admitting or acknowledging any Joynt or sole right of Judicature with them in the Commons Fourthly That this Protestation was meerly voluntary not in derogation but preservation of their own Honour Right Peerage and the Parliaments privileges too The substance of it is no more than this That the Lords should not be 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 or elsewhere out of it against such who were no Peers who in such cases by the Law might and ought to be tried in the Kings Courts at Westminster or before the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer by a Iury of their equals but only in cases which could not well be tried elsewhere and were proper for their Judgement in Parliament they fearing that by this president in Parliament they might be sworn and impannelled on Juries in cases of Treason committed by Commoners against the Great Charter c. 29. and the Privilege of their Peerage which exempted them being sworn or put into Juries as Fitz. Nat. brev f. 165.48 E. 3. f. 30. Exemption 6.48 Ass 6.27 H. 8. f. 22. b. This is the whole summ and sence of their protestation To argue therefore from hence That they cannot pass sentence or judgement against any Commoners in any case proper for their Judicature in Parliament because they protested only against being COMPELLED to give Iudgement against such as were no Peers in cases triable elsewhere and not proper for their tribunal as the Objectors hence conclude is quite to mistake their meaning end to speak rather non-sence than reason or Law Fifthly This Protestation was made only against the Lords giving sentence in Felony and Treason and that in the Kings own presence in Parliam who usually pronounced the judgment himself or by some other with the Lords assent did not charge the Lords to pronounce it as here not against sentencing fining imprisoning any Commoner for rayling and libelling against their Persons Jurisdiction and procedings or refusing to answer and contemning their Authority to their faces at the barr or appealing from their Judicature in case of breach of Privilege of which themselves alone and no others are or can be Judges the cases of Lilburn 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 injudiciousness and folly rather than a justification of their Libellous Invectives against the Lords injustice Sixthly The Lords gave judgement against all these persons by the Kings command in their absence without any Indictment hearing Trial witnesses heard or examined against them face to face or due process or Law against the Great Charter
diu consultati sed inconsulti Equidem meum est posse et velle conferre gratiam cui voluero miserebor Nec propter vos amplius quam pro cane Quis in gratiam meam se submisit repulsam passus est Veruntamen vestrum judicium in scriptura redigatur et pro lege amodo teneatur Proinde dictus miles ad carcerem ducebatur ne impunitas armareâ— audaciam et rigor caeteris timorem incuteret contemnendi Et post paucos dies elaborantibus multis nobilioâ—ibus regni et ostendentibus se 30 suis paribus cinctis gladiis corpus pro corpore et bona pro bonis una in solidum quoquo die Rex eum vocaverit nec adesset liberatus est et per regem cunctis facultatibus suis restitutus So this Historian which compared with the Record infallibly proves that this resolution was given by the Earls Barons Lords and Judges advice who were the only aliorum de Concilio as assistants to the Lords then in all matters of Law as now they are not the Commons of which there is no mention in the records or this Historian that they were parties to it And this is likewise evident by the case of Margery the Wife of Thomas Weyland an abjured Judge in the Parliament of 19 E. 1. Cooks 1. Institutes f. 133. n. Where the Barons of the Exchequer and Justices of the Kings Courts were called to advise and assist the King and his Council of Lords in Parliament in a difficulty of Law therein to be resolved by their advice And therfore it follows that the LORDS ONLY IN THAT AGE were the Judges even of Commoners cases Thirdly Admit the Commons were included yet it proves only a right of advising and delivering their opinions with the Lords when required by the King not of judging or pronouncing sentence Fourthly Sir Edward Cook citing this president to prove That both Houses together have power of judicature must grant that even in 33 E. 1. there were two distinct Houses of Parliament who upon special occasions as now at conferences c. met and advised together and therefore the division of the Houses was before Edward the third his reign and very probable as antient as the summoning of Knights Citizens and Burgesses to the Parliament which some make as antient as King Henry the first or King Henry the 2. others not before King Henry the third in the 49 year his reign Father to King Edward the first So as this president makes quite against the Levellers and Lilburnians designs and opinions The 3 and 4. Presidents are those of Hugh Audley his Wife Claus 12 E. 2. m. 5. of Gaverston and the two Spencers Exiles 15 E. 2. forecited wherein the Commons gave their assents to the attainders and exiles of Gaverston and the Spencers and to the reversal of them But this I have already proved to be only by way of Bills not judicature by the legislative not judicial power of Parliament and that they were judicially condemned only by the Lords therefore these are nothing to the purpose and against the Objectors The 5. and 6. are the depositions of King Ed. the 2. and Richard the 2. for their mis-government wherin the Commons had a joynt vote and concurrence with the Lords which I shall hereafter answer in the supplement p. 429. to 460. The seventh President is that of Eliz. Burgh Widow in the Parliament of 1 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 11. who complained by Petition to the King that in the reign of King Edward the 2. she was by his Writ commanded to come unto him to Yorke and there by Hugh Spencer the younger and Robert Baldock and William Cliff his instruments inforced by duresse to enter into an Obligation to this effect that if she received any who were contrary to the King or maried any man without the Kings consent or if she gave any lands or tenements which she held in fee or in dower to any man living without the Kings license that for any of these she should forfeit all her Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels to the King as appeared by the transcript of the Bond annexed to her Bill whereupon she prayed Grace and remedy against this duresse and acquittance of our Lord the King from this Obligation Hereupon a Writ was sent to the Clerk of the Privy Seal in whose custody the Obligation was to bring it without delay Coram Concilio nostro in Parliamento ad faciendum inde ulteriut quod per idem Concilium nostrum contige it ordinari which being brought and delivered accordingly the 5 of March and deliberately read in full Parliament and agreeing with the transcript annexed to her Petition in all things Pur ceo que avys est as Archievesques Evesques Counts BARONS auires Grandes et a TOVTELA COMMONALTIE de la terre que lo dit escrit est fait contre ley de la terre enconter tout manere de reason si fuist le dit escrit PER AGARD DEL PARLIAMENT dampne illeoques livera ala dit Elizabeth I answer 1. That this judgement was given only in a civil case touching an Obligation made by duress not in a criminal 2ly That this Petition was directed only to the King and his Council not to the Commons in Parliament and the businesse heard before them 3ly That this being a Common case there being then many Petitions and complaints that Parliament of bonds of this nature the Commons joyning with the King and Lords in this judgement of Parliament in her case was only by way of Bill not in an ordinary way of judgement they exhibiting passing a Bill for that purpose as well as a Petition as is clear by the words of the Roll and by the printed Statute of 1 E. 3. c. 3. That fines sales and gifts of land and recognizances of debt made by force and duress to this Sir Hugh Spencer Robert Baldocke c. or to any of them be defeated And Parl. 2. ch 15. Whereas many of the Realm in the time of the Kings Father that now is by means of his false and evil Counsellors have been excited by divers to bind themselves to come to the K. with force and arms whensoever they should be sent for upon pain of life and limb and to forfeit all that ever they might forfeit by vertue of which writings divers of his land have been often destroyed The King considering that such writings were made to the Kings dishonour sithence that every man is bound to doe to the King as to his Liege Lord all that pertaineth to him without any manner of writing will that from henceforth no such writing be made And that such as be made by the sight of the Chancellor and Treasurer shall be shewed to the King and the K. shall cause all such as be made against right reason to be cancelled So that this main president meerly falls to the ground being
or jurisdiction to enlarge him or to fine or imprison those who took him in Execution as of late times they have done And in this Parliament upon the petition and supplication of the Prelates and Clergy n. 32. the King by the assent and advice of the Lords enacted the Statute of 8 H. 6. c. 1. That the Clergy and their Attendants called to the Convocation by the Kings writ should have and enjoy for ever hereafter the same liberty and immunity in going coming and tarrying as the Great men and Commonalty of England called or to be called to the Kings Parliaments have used and enjoyed they complaining to the king that they and their servants coming to the Convocation were oftentimes and commonly arrested molested and inquieted Which they had no power to redress but only the King and Lords upon their complaints thereof In the Parliament of 18 H. 6. n. 13. It was shewed to the King and the Lords Spiritual Temporal that Gilbert Hore Sherif of the County of Cambridge upon the kings writ directed to him to chuse 2. knights for that shire had made no return of any knights for that County for certain reasons therein expressed Whereupon the King by advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal not the Commons house alone as now nor yet joyntly with them ordered that a New writ for electing 2. knights for that County should be directed to him and that he should make proclamation that no person should come to the election with arms or arrayed in warlike manner in disturbance of the said election and breach of the kings peace A memorable president of the Kings and Lords Jurisdiction even in point of elections In the Parliament of 23 H. 6. n. 41. The Commons petitioned the king that by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and at their special request it might be enacted that every Member of the Lords and Commons house who should have any assault or affray made upon him being at the Parliament or going to or coming from thence might have the like remedy at Sir Thomas Parr knight had given him in this Parliament to wit upon petition of the Commons in his behalf to the King and Lords being the same as was enacted in Chedders case 11 H. 6. c. 11. before Whereunto the king answered The Statutes therefore made shall be observed In the Parliament of 31 H. 6. rot parl n. 25 26 27 28. we have this memorable famous case touching privilege of Parliament in their very Speakers own case resolved by the Lords Thomas Thorp chief Baron was chosen Speaker of the Parliament after his election and before the Parliament which was prorogued sat he was arrested and taken in execution at the sute of the Duke of York whereupon some of the Commons were sent up by the House to the king and Lords spiritual and temporal sitting in Parliament desiring that they might enjoy all their ancient and accustomed privileges in being free from arrests and propounded the case of Thomas Thorp their Speaker to them desiring his inlargement whereupon the said Lords spiritual aad temporal not intending to hurt or impeach the privilege of the Commons but equally after the course of Law to administer Justice and to have knowledge what the Law will weigh in that behalf declared to the Justices the premises and asked of them whether the said Thomas ought to be delivered from prison by force and vertue of the said privilege of Parliament or not To the which question the chief Justices in the name of all the Justices aforesaid communication and mature deliberation had among them answered and said That they ought not to answer that question for it hath not been used aforetime that the Justices should in any wise determine the privilege of this high Court of Parliament for it is so high and mighty in his nature that it may make that Law which is not and that that is Law it may make no Law and the determination and knowledge of their privilege belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as for declaration of proceedings in the lower Courts in such cases as writs of Supersedoas of Privilege of Parliament be brought and delivered the said chief Justice said that there be many and divers Supersedeas of privileges of Parliament brought into the Courts but there is no general Supersedeas brought to furcease all Processes for if there should be it should seem that this high Court of Parliament that ministreth all Justice and equity should let the process of the common Laws and so it should put the party plainant without remedy for so much as actions at Common Law be not determined in this high Court of Parliament And if any person that is a Member of this high Court of Parliament be arrested in such cases as be not for Treason or Felony or surety of the Peace or for condemnation before the Parliament it is used that all such persons should be released of all such arrests and make an Attorney so that they may have the freedom and Liberty freely to attend upon the Parliament After which answer and Declaration it was throughly agréed assented and concluded by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal that the said Thomas according to the Law should remain still in prison for the causes abovesaid the privilege of the Parliament or that the same Sir Thomas was Speaker of the Parliament notwithstanding And that the premises should be opened and declared to them that were comen for the Commons of this land and they should be charged and commanded in the kings name that they with all goodly hast and speed proceed to the election of another Speaker The which premiâ—es for as much as they were matters of Law by the commandement of the Lords were opened and declared to the Commons by the mouth of Walter Moyle one of the kings Sergeants at Law in the presence of the Bishop of Ely accompanyed with other Lords in notable number and there it was commanded and charged to the said Commons by the said Bishop of Ely in the kings name that they should proceed to the election of another Speaker with all goodly hast and speed so that the matters for which the king called this his Parliament might be proceeded in and this Parliament take good and effectual conclusion and end Whereupon the Commons accordingly elected Thomas Charlton knight for their Speaker the next day and acquainted the Lords therewith and desired the kings approbation of their choice which was accorded unto by the king by assent of the Lords Lo here 1. the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are the sole Judges of the privilege of the very Speaker of the House of Commons who is here adjudged to remain in execution notwithstanding their petition for his enlargement 2ly The whole House of Commons could not then send for nor yet enlarge their own Speaker when imprisoned
Lords only sit upon the Bench and that covered and in their Parliamentary Robes the badges of Judicature but the Commons stand and that bare at the Bar without any robes at all the Lords only swear examine the witnesses and judge of their testimony the Commons only produce the witnesses presse and manage the evidence and when the buâ—nesse is fully heard the Lords only debate the cause among themselves and give the final Sentence Judgement without the Commons though sometimes in their presence and that both in cases of Commoners and Peers Therefore the Lords and House of Peers are sole Judges in Parliament not the Commons 9ly The Commons themselves in all ages since admitted into our Parliaments have always presented their Petitions in Parliament to the King and Lords alone for redress of all Grievances wrongs misdemeanours abuses whatsoever publike or private criminal or civil ecclesiastical marine or military And the Lords House alone have in all antient Parlaments appointed particular persons of their House to receive al Petitions Triers of them to hear and answer them by their advice and the kings assent when necessary which Triers of Petitions had power given to call the Lord Chancellor Treasurer Chamberlain Judges kings Servants and others to this assistance prescribing where when their Petitions should be presented examined redressed at all our Parliament Rolls aâ—est and Sir Edward Cook himself relates There being few or no Petitions at all presented by any to the Commons before â—â— H. 7. c. 19. 4 H. 7. c. 6. These Petitions then presented to them and all ever since with all in this present Parliament being only to this end that they upon the examination of the truth matters complaints grievances mentioned in them might transmit and represent them in the name of the Commons House to the Lords House for to give full redress relief and judgement on them to the Petitioners not for the Commons themselves to judge finally determine them or give relief upon them without the Lords as all the transmissions of private and publike Petitions by the Commons to the Lords heretofore and in this Parliment in the cases of Dr. Layton Dr. Bastwick Mr. Burton Mr. Walker my self and of Lilburns own Petition against his censure attest Therefore the Judicature of our Parliaments must wholy rest and intirely reside in the Lords House as well in all Criminal as civil cases both of Commoners and Lords 10ly The surest badge and highest evidence of the right and exercise of Juridical and Judicial Authority in Parliament is the examination affirmation control repeal nulling adjudging and finall determining all Errors in Judgements Decrees Proceedings all Misprisions Abuses Corruptions grievances whatsoever of Judges Justices in all other Courts of Justice Civil Ecclesiastical Marine or military Now the Lords-alone in Parliament upon Wtits of Error Appeals Complaints Petitions c examine confirm repeal null redresse and finally determine all Errors misprisions in Judgements Decrees Proceedings and all Abuses Corruptions Grievances whatsoever in all other Courts of Justice whether Civil as the Kings Bench Chancery Exchequer Chamber Common Pleas Exchequer Court of Wards Courts of Requests Stanneries c. or Ecclesiastical as the High Commission Archbishops Consistories the Convocation and the Admiralty Court Marshal Council Table Star-chamber and in former Parliaments as is evident by sundry presidents in former ages and in this present Parliament of King CHARLS in the cases of Dr. Layton Dr. Bastwick Mr. Burton Lilburn himself Mr. Grafton Alderman Chambers Mr. Rolls Sir Rob Howard Alderman Langham and Limry Mr. Johns and le Gay with sundry others But more especially in cases of Writs of Error brought in Parliament by Peers or Commoners upon any Erronious judgements touching their real or personal estates lives limbs liberties persons upon Indictments or Attainders In all which writs the King and Lords only are sole judges without the Commoners and the returns of the proceedings upon such Writs are only before the Lords in the Vpper House secundum legem et consuetudinem Parliaments So Sir Edward Cook himself expresly resolves in direct terms in his 4 Institutes p. 21 22 23. And 22 E. 3.3 Fitz Error 8 Br. 3.1 H. 7.20 21 22. Br. Error 137. Old Book of Entries p. 302.16 E. 3. Fitz. Brev. 651.21 E. 3.46 Br. Error 65.29 E. 3.24.39 Ass 18.42 Ass 22.7 H. 6.28 8 H. 5. Fitz. Error 88.19 H. 6.12.35 H. 6.19.37 H. 6.16.11 H. 4.65.9 E. 4.3.2 R. 3.22.37 H. 8.14 15 25. Dyer f. 62.196 201 315 375. intimate as much This is most clear by the Writs of Error Judgements and Proceedings on them in the Parliament House before and by the Lords alone mentioned in the Parliament Rolls themselves as 14 E. 1. roâ— Parl. 1.4 E. 3. n. 13 14.21 E. 3. n. 65 66.28 E. 3. n. 8. to 14.50 E. 3. n. 38.1 R. 2. n. 28 29 105.2 R. 2. n. 31 32 33 37 38. Parl. 2. and Parl. 1. n. 21. to 27.3 R. 2. n. 19.20 21 22.6 R. 2. n. 17.7 R. 2. n. 20 21.8 R. 2. n. 13 14 15 16.13 R. 2. n. 16 17 15 R. 2. n. 22 23 24.16 R. 2. n. 17 18.17 R. 2. n. 17.19 â—8 R. 2. n. 11 12 13.20 R. 2. n. â—6 21 R. 2. n. 25 55. to 66 71.1 H. 4. n. 91 92.2 H. 4. n. 38 39 40.4 H. 4. n. 26.5 H. 4. n. 40.6 H. 4. n. 31.1 H. 5. n. 19.2 H. 5. n. 13 14.3 H. 5. n. 19. with sundry Writs of Error in succeeding Parliaments and this now sitting adjudged determined by the King and Lords alone without the privity or interposition of the Commons A truth so clear that Lilburn himself in his Argument against the Lords jurisdiction confesseth iâ— If then the Lords House be the soâ—e Judges in all Writs of Error and Appeals from all other Courts of Justice concerning the Lands Tenements Goods Estates Liberties Members Lines Attainders of all English Freeholders and Commoners whatsoever notwithstanding the Statute of Magna Charta ch 29. No Freeman shall be â—aken or imprisoned c. neither will we pass upon him nor condemn him but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers c. the grand and principal objection against the Lords Judicature in Cases of Commoners then by the self same reason they are their lawfull Judges and may regally proceed against them in all other criminal or Civil causes especially in cases of breach of their own Privileges wherein they are the sole and only Judges since no other Court can judge of nor yet punish them as Sir Ed. Cook resolves being properly triable only in Paâ—liament as contempt against all other Courts are punishable and triable by themselves alone the present cases of Lilburne and Overton Now that they are and alwayes have been so de facto unless by way of Bill of Attainder or in such extraordinary cases when their concurrence hath been desired even in criminal cases misdemeanors and offences of Commons as well as Peers I
by their Speaker acknowledge the right of judicature in the case of a Commoner to be only and wholly in the Lords even in a criminal cause and thereupon pray the Lords to give judgement against him upon their Impeachment which they did accordingly in their robes as Judges by the mouth of the Lord Keeper their Speaker In this very Parliament now sitting Decemb. 21. Jan. 14. Febr. 11. 1640. and July 6. 1641. The Commons House by their Members impeached Sir John Bramston Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir John Finch Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Humphry Davenport Chief Baron Judge Berkly Judge Crawly Baron Weston and Baron Trever of high Treason and other misdemeanors for that they had trayterously and wickedly endeavoured to subvert the fundamental Laws and established Government of the Realm of England and instead thereof to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical Government against Law which they had declared by trayterous words opinions and judgement in the point of SHIP MONY by their subscriptions and judgement given against them in the case of Mr. Hamden in the Exchequer Chamber Which Impeachments they transmitted to the Lords House praying THE LORDS to put them to answer the premises and upon their examinations and trial to give such judgement upon every of them as is agreeable to Law and Justice To avoid which judgement Sir John Finch fled the Realm and the rest of them made fines and compositions to the publike and were most of them removed from their Judges places After this the Lords themselves as Judges in Parliament passed several judgements and censures against Dr. John Pocklington for his Sunday no Sabbath and other Books and against Dr. Bray for licensing them In October 1643. The Lords fined and imprisoned Clement Walker Esq in the Tower for some scandalous words against the Lord Viscount Say a Member of he House of Peers After that the Lords alone without any Impeachment of the Commons on their privity imprisoned fined and censured one Morrice upon complaint of Sir Adam Littleton after a full hearing at which I was present for forging an Act of Parliament with four or five more of his confederates therein which was most clearly proved by Witnesses upon Oath whereby he would have defrauded Sir Adam of some Lands in Essex And at least one hundred more Commoners have been committed by THE LORDS this Parliament and fined by them for several offences Misdemeanors and Breaches of their Privileges as well as Lilburn and Overton yet none of them ever excepted against or demurred to their Jurisdiction nor did the Commons House ever yet except against them for these their proceedings as injurious or illegal but approved and applauded this their Justice Finally John Lilburn himself in his printed Pamphlet intituled Innocency and Truth justified p. 74 75. relates that on May 4. 1641. himself was accused of High Treason and brought before the Lords Barr for his life where one Littleton swore point-blank against him But he having Liberty given to speak for himself without any demurring to their Jurisdiction because we was a Commoner desired that his Witnesses might be heard to clear him was upon Mr. Andrews Oath acquitted at the Barr of the whole house And thereupon concludes I am resolved to speak well of those who have done me JUSTICE From all these punctual successive presidents impeachments and clear confessions of the Commons House themselves in many former and late Parliam 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 Iudicature without the Commons vested in them not only over Peers themselves but likewise Commoners in all extraordinary criminal cases of Treason Felony Trespass and other Misdemeanors triable only in Parliament which hath been constantly acknowledged practised submitted to in all ages without dispute much more then have they such a just judicial rightfull power in cases of breach of their own privileges of which none are or can be Judges but themselves alone as Sir Edw. Cook resolves they being the supremest Court. And to deny them such a power is to make the Highest Court of Judicature in the Realm inferiour to the Kings Bench and all other Courts of Justice who have power to judge and try the persons causes of Commoners yea to commit and fine them for contempts and breaches of their Privileges as our Law books resolve and every mans experience can testifie The Lords right of Iudicature both over Peers and Commoners in criminal causes being thus fully evicted against the falseâ— ignorant pretences of illiterate Sectaries altogether unacquainted with our Histories and Records of Parliament which they never yet read nor understood there remains nothing but to answer some Authorities Presidents and Objections produced against it These presidents in Sir Edward Cooke Sir Robert Cotton and others are of 3 Sores 1. Such as are produced by them only to prove that the Commons have a Copartnership and joynt Authority with the King and Lords in the power and right of Judicature in our Parliaments 2ly Such as are objected to evidence they have a sole power of Judicature in themselves in some cases without the K. and Lords 3ly Such as are urged to prove they have no right of Judicature in Parliament in the cases of Commoners that are capital or criminal I shall propose and answer them all in order 1. Sir Edward Cook and Sir Robert Cotton produce these presidents to prove That the Commons have a Joint inâ—erest right and share with the King and Lords in the Iudicatory or Judicial power of Parliaments which I shall propound according to their Antiquity The 1. President alleged for it is that of Adomar Bishop of Winchester elect cited by Sir Robert Cotton in his Post-humous Discourse concerning the Power of the Peers Commons in Parliament in point of Iudicature who An. 44 H. 3. as affirms he was then exiled by the Ioint Sentence of the King Lords and COMMONS as appears by the Letter sent to Pope Alexander the 4th Si Dominus Rex et Regni Majores hoc vellent meaning Adomars revocation COMMUNITAS tamen ipsius ingressum jam nullatenus sustineret The Peers subsign this answer with their names and Peter de Moâ—tfort vice totius COMMUNITATIS as Speaker or Proctor of the Commons I answer under the favour of this renowned learned Antiquary that this president is full of gross mistakes For 1. Bishop Adomar was not banished the Realm at all either by King Lords or Commons but fled out of it voluntarily for fear to avoid the Barons who purâ—iâ—ed him with forces as Mat. Paris with others relate which the Nobles and Generality of the Barons in direct terms inform this Pope in another Letter sent together with this objected Maxime cum ipse a regno expuisus non extiterit sed sponte cesserit non ausus exhibitionem justiâ—iae quae
E. 2. dors 17. 17 E. 3. n. 24.21 E. 3. n. 60.40 E. 3. n. 14 15.14 E. 3. n. 30 31.1 R. 2. n. 95.1 E. 3. f. 6 7.39 E. 3.21 a. 40 E. 3.34 b. Cook 8 Rep. f. 158.3 Instit p. 6 7.4 Instit p. 67 c. 2 Instit p. 408. West 2. c 24. and Bracton l. 2. c. 16 l. 3. c. 9. Fletae l. 2. c. 6. resolving that all difficult causes are to be declared to and determined in and by Parliaments This case being examined and debated by and between the Lords and Commons was afterwards there declared bâ—fore the King and determined and agreed That this fact and murder is Treason and a crime against the Kings Majesty in which case no privilege of Clergy ought to be allowed to any man Whereupon 7 R. 2. rot 8. Kirby and Algar were attainted of High Treason in the Kings Bench and executed as Traitors Walsingham writes this Parliament was held at Northampton against the consent of most of the Realm but especially against the will of the Londoners that so revenge might be taken upon Kirkeby for this murder they fearing that if the Parliament were held at London the Londoners would not suffer him to be executed without some danger to those who condemned him whereupon he was condemned drawn and executed at Northampton To this I answer first That Kirby and Algar were not impeached arraigned tried or condemned in Parliament for this Treason but in the Kings Bench for if they had the Lords only had judged and given sentence against rhem as in all the premised cases 2ly Their case being new was thought fit to be propounded to the Commons by the Kings direction as well as to the Lords who upon debate agreed it to be Treason 3ly When it had been debated it was declared and finally resolved and agreed before the King in full Parliament and that by Bill and the Legislative not Judicial power as Mr. Sâ— John informs us Therefore it makes nothing for the Commons right and power of Judicature which after all these presidents all the Commons in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 79. confess to have been alwayes of right in the King and Lords and not in them which sways away all the forecited presidents at once as impertinent and misapplied For the presidents of 21 R. 2. n. 29. 2 H. 5. n. 13 28 H. 6 n. 19. misrecited by Sir E. Cook 4 Instit p. 23. 3 Inst p. 22. they are already answered p. 296 297 299 344. And for those of Sir Giles Mompesson Sir Iohn Michel Viscount St. Alban and the Earl of Middlesex himself confesseth and I have here cleared p. 303 304. that the notable Iudgements against them were given by the Lords at the prosecution of the Commons who were only their prosecutors not Iudges These are all the Presidents I finde that are objected to give the Commons a share with the King and Lords in the Judicature in our Parliaments which evince it not but clearly disprove it The 2. sort of Presidents insisted on by Sir Ed. Cook are to prove a Judicial Authority in the House of Commons alone without the Lords in cases of their own Members and Servants in matters of elections breach of Privilege or misdemeanors in the Commons house for which they have imprisoned and sometimes fined Serjeants Baylifs Sherifs committed their own Members adjudged their elections void suspended excluded ejected them the house The 1. ease is that of Muncton 2 Aprilis 1 Mariae committed by the Commons to the Tower for striking William Iohnson a Burgess The 2. of Thomas Lucy 8 Eliz. removed out of the House for giving 4 l. to the Mayor of Westbury to be chosen a Burgess and the Maior fined and imprisoned The 3 of Arthur Hall 23. Eliz. who for discovering and publishing the Conferences of the House and writing a Book to the dishonour of the house was committed to prison These matters were examined and adjudged in the House of Commons Secundum legâ—m Consuetudinem Parliamenti and he thereupon committed to the Tower for 6. Moneths fined 500 marks and expelled the House And in that Parliament 18 Martii a fine was assesâ—ed by the House on every Member that was absent without leave To these alleged by Sir Edw. Cooke I shall superadd the ensuing Sir Robert Brandling was committed to the Tower 27 Eliz. for striking Witheâ—ington a Burgess 3 Jacobi one was fined for causing a Members Servant to be arrested though he claimed his privilege 12 Jacobi Locke and More were ordered by the Commons to ride both on one horse with their faces to the horses tail for arresting a Servant of Mr. Whitlocks then a Member against his privilege which was accordingly executed In 2 Caroli Sir George Hastings being elected knight for Leicestershire and he then being arrested his witnesses had their charges given them against the Sherif and he fined In the Parliament of 3. Caroli Sir Thomas Savils case 29. April 1628. Thomson Sherif and Henloe Alderman of York for abuses in the election were ordered to be committed to the Serjeant of the House during the pleasure of the Commons House to acknowledge their offences at the Barr on their knees and pay all due fees and to make a submission in York In 3. Caroli Mr. John Baber was suspended the house about billetting Souldiers In 3. Car. the Commons house committed Mr. Laughton and Mr. Trelawny to the Tower during pleasure and Sir William Wray and Mr. Edward Trelawny to the Serjeant at Arms and ordered them to make a submission acknowledgement of their offences in the House at the Bar and in the County at the Assises they kneeling at the Barr all the while the Speaker pronounced the Judgement against them for writing menacing Letters to Sir John Elliot and Mr. Coriton and to others of the County of Cornwall disturbing their election and contemning the warrant of the House when sent for In this Parliament of 17 Caroli now sitting the Commons house turned out sundry Members who were Projectors and voted out many others for Delinquency ordering New elections in their places without the King or Lord. I answer 1. That all these objected presidents are of very puny date within time of memory therefore unable to create a Law or custom of Parliament or any right of sole Judicature in the Commons House 2ly They were all made by the Commons themselves unfit Judges in their own cases much less over one another being all of equal Authority and so unable to seclude imprison or fine one another no more than one Judge or Justice to fine imprison or uncommission another since Par in parem non habet imperium 3ly They are all against Law because coram non Judice the Commons House having no right or power of Judicature much less of sole Judicature in our Parliaments but only the King and Lords as I have formerly proved by reasons and presidents in all ages 4ly These
House it self without any report at all of their proceedings to the House authorizing Committees to secure imprison close imprison cashire banish condemn execute many persons sequester confiscate sell dispose their Inheritances Offices Lands Tenements Benefices real and personal estates to deprive them of their callings professions to search and break up their houses by Soldiers and others without any legal sworn Officers day and night to seize their Letters Papers Horses Arms Plate Money yea debts in other mens hands at pleasure to indemnifie and stay their legal actions sutes Judgements at Law and null their executions at their pleasures yea to commit them till they released all sutes actions Judgements and paid costs and damages to those they justly sued and recovered against to adde affliction to affliction and cruelty oppression to injustice These are the bitter fruits of Commons usurped judicature whereof there are thousands of most sad presidents which may hereafter be objected to prove the sole Power of Judicature to reside of right not in the K. or House of Lords but in the Commons House alone and every of their Committees especially for Examinations Plundered Ministers Sequestrations Indempnity Haberdashers and Goldsmiths Halls Privileges sales of Delinquents the Kings Queens Princes Lands and Estates Excise the Army Navy and the like yea in their new created High Courts of Justice who have acted as absolute arbitrary unlimited lawlesse Courts of justice in the highest degree to the subversion destruction of the antient Liberties Freeholds Properties Great Charters and fundamental Laws of the Nation in general and of thousands of the highest lowest degree of English Freemen in particular with as much ground of reason Warrant from the many late Presidents of this Nature as these here objected to prove a soâ—e right of â—udicature in the Commons House in cases of undue elections retorns misdemeanors privileges relating to their Members and their seruants Which strang exorbitant Presidents and Proceedings if they should be made Patterns for future Parliaments and Committees I shall desire all sober minded men to consider of the dangerous consequences of them thus notably expressed by the late King in his Answer concerning the Ordinance for imposing and levying the 20th part of mens estutes 29 November 1642. After this Ordinance and Declaration t is not in any sober mans power to believe himself worth any thing or that there is such a thing as Law Liberty Property left in England under the jurisdiction of these men and the same power that robs them now of the twentieth part of their estates hath by that but made a claim and entituled it self to the other nineteen whne it shall be thought fit to hasten the general ruine Sure if the minds of all men be not stubbornly prepared for servitude they will look on this Ordinance as the greatest prodigie of Arbitrary power and tyranny that any age hath brought forth in any Kingdom other grievances and the greatest have been conceived intollerable rather by the logick and consequence than by the pressure it self this at once sweeps away all that the wisdom and justice of Parliaments have provided for them Is their property in their estates so carefully looked to by their ancestors and so amply established by Us against any possibility of Invasion from the Crown which makes the meanest Subject as much a Lord of his own as the greatest Peer to be valued or considered here is a twentieth part of every mans estate or so much more as four men will please to call the twentieth part taken away at once and yet a power left to take a twentieth still of that which remains and this to be levied by such circumstances of severity as no Act of Parliament ever consented too Is their liberty which distinguishes subjects from slaves and in which this freeborn Nation hath the advantage of all Christendom dear to them they shall not only be imprisoned in such places of this kingdom a latitude of judgement no Court can challenge to it self in any cases but for so long time as the Committee of the House of Commons for Examination shall appoint and Order the House of Commons it self having never assumed or in the least degree pretended to a power of Judicature having no more authority to administer an Oath the only way to discover and find out the truth of facts than to cut off the heads of any our Subjects and this Committee being so far from being a part of the Parliament that it is destructive to the whole by usurping to it self all the power of King Lords and Commons All who know any thing of Parliament know that a Committee of either House ought not by Law to publish their own results neither are their conclusions of any force without the confirmation of the House which hath the same power of controling them as if the matter had never been debated but that any Committee should be so contracted as this of examination a stile no Committee ever bore before this Parliament as to exclude the Members of the House who are equally trusted by their Country from being present at the Counsels is so monstrous to the privileges of Parliament that it is no more in the power of any man to give up that freedom than of himself to order that from that time the place for which he serves shall never more send a Knight or Burgesse to the Parliament and in truth is no lesse than to alter the whole frame of government to pull up Parliaments by the roots and to commit the lives liberties and estates of all the people of England to the arbitrary power of a few unqualified persons who shall dispose thereof according to their discretion without account to any rule or authority whatsoever Are their friends their wives and children the greatest blessings of peace and comforts of life pretious to them would their penury and imprisonments be lesse grievous by those cordials they shall be divorced from them banished and shall no longer remain within the Cities of London and Westminster the Suburbs and the Counties adjacent and how far those adjacent Counties shall extend no man knows The 3 sort of Presidents and Objections are such as Lilburn and Overton insist on to prove That the King and Lords have no power at all to judge or censure Commoners in our Parliament The only Record they insist on is the Lords own Protestation in 4 E. 3. n. 2. 6. in the case of Sir Simon Bareford which because I have already fully answered p. 323 324 325. and cleared by sundry subsequent presidents and there being no one president in any Parliament since to contradict it I shall wholly pretermit and proceed to their objections which are only two The first and principall objections whereon they most insist and rely is the Statute of Magna Charta chap. 29. That no Free-man shall be imprisoned outlawed exiled or any other may destroyed Nor we shall not passe
Citizens Burgesses and Knights for the Parliament only by our Kings Letters and Charters not by the Peoples inherent Right of Election since none of them doe or can choose or send Knights Citizens or Burgesses to Parliament without the Kings Charters authorizing them and his Wrâ— to elect them first directed to them but only by power and vertue of them Therefore if the Lords sitting in Parliament be illegal unwarrantable because they sit only by Patents and Writs from the King the sitting of Knights Citizens Burgesses must be so too because they are elected only by the Kings Writ and the people enabled to elect them only by his Patents the power of creating Counties Cities Boroughs Knights being originally in the King as well as the power of creating Lords and Barons 3 Thirdly that the general election of the people is not absolutely necessary nor essential to the making of a Lawfull King Magistrate Counseller of State Peer Member of Parliament nor yet of a Minister as the Objectors falsly pretend who take it for granted as an infallible truth and Maxim of State For then it will necessarily ensue from hence 1. That God himself is no lawfull King or Governour over all the World and creatures in it because not chosen or elected by the General Voice of the Creatures and Mankind to be King over them and because the greatest part of men reject his Yoak Laws Government Exod. 5.2 Psal 2.1 2 3 4. Lu. 1.14.27 yet the Lord still reigneth as a Lawfull King over them by his own Right of Creatorship and Godhead Psal 95.3.5 Ps 96.10 Ps 97.1 Ps 99.1 Ps 100.3 Ps 103.15 Jer. 10.7 Dan. 4.32.34 Ps 10.16 Psal 22.28 Ps 48.7 2ly That Jesus Christ himself who is a King by birth-right Sonship and inheritance only being born King of the Jews sitting upon the throne of David his Father and reigning over the house of Jacob for ever by vertue of his Sonship only as Mat. 2.2 Lu. 1.32 33. Ps 2.6 7 8. Heb. 1.5 8 9. Acts 13.22 23 33. Ezech. 34.23 24. c. 37.24 25. Mar. 11.9.10 Isa 3.6 7. c. 11.1 2 c. Jer. 33. 15 17 20 21. c. 23.5 6. c. 30.4 Hos 3.5 Rev. 2.2 c. resolve was not chosen King â—is Saints Church Subjects people but chuseth them to be his Leiges John 15.16 Eph. 1.4 1 Pet. 2.9 Rev. 17.14 Deut. 14.2 Ps 132.13 Psal 135.4 shall upon this account be no lawfull King or Governor over his Saints Church and Subjects but a meer Usurper Intruder Tyrant over them as they stile Kings by Birthright not popular Election which is the highest blasphemy to affirm 3ly Then it will likewise inevitably follow That neither Moses Joshua Nehemiah Saul David Solomon nor any of the pious Kings of Juda nor Christ himself and other Kings who came to the Crown by Gods immediate designation or by descent birth-right and lineal succession were just lawfull Governors or Kings which none dare averr That the 70. Elders the Princes Nobles chief Captains Judges and Rulers under Moses and their Kings with other Governours and the Jewish Sanhedrim were no lawfull Judges Magistrates Counsellers of State or Members of their general Congregations Parliaments assemblies since we read of none of them chosen by the people but only designed by God himself or made created such by their Kings Governours who both called and summoned them to their general congregations assemblies judicatures as the premised texts and others evidence That Joseph Mordecai Daniel Shadrac Mesec Abednego were no lawfull Rulers or Magistrates because made such even by Heathen Kings not by the peoples choice And that none of the Levites Priests High Priests or Prophets under the Law were lawfull because none of them that we read of were made Levites Priests High Priests or Prophets by the peoples own choice but by descent and succession in the selfsame Tribe or by Gods own immediate call and appointment as John Baptist Christ himself the Apostles the 70 Disciples and others under the Gospel were made Ministers Apostles Evangelists preaching Elders without the peoples call yet our opposites dare not deny their Ministry and Apostleship to be lawfull being not of men but by Gods and Christs own call without the peoples Fourthly then it will from hence also follow that all Hereditarie Kingdoms which Politicians and Divines generally hold the best of Governments being the title of Christ himself to his kingdom all Patents Commissions in all Empires Kingdoms States of the world creating Princes Dukes Earls Lords and such like Titles of Honour whereby they are inabled in all Christian kingdoms to sit vote in their Parliaments and Assemblies of State for making Privy Counsellers Judges Justices and other Magistrates are void null illegal and so all the Laws Orders Ordinances made Acts done and Judgments given by them are void or erroneous because they were not chosen called to these publike places Counsels Judicatures by the people but by Emperors Kings and Supreme Governours of 〈◊〉 and what a confusion such a Paradox as this would â—â—eed in all our Realms in all States Kingdoms of the world let wise men consider and those fools too who make this Objection 5. Fifthly if there be no lawfull Authority in any State but from the Peoples immediate election then it will necessarily follow that Sir Thomas Fairfax is no lawfull General his Officers Councell of Warr no lawfull Officers or Councel yea Colonell and Lieutenant Colonell Lilburn no lawfull Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel and ought not to use or retain these titles as they doe because none of them were called chosen to those places by the People or common Souldiers but made such by Commission from the Parliament General or Lords alone 6. Sixthly This paradox of theirs touching the peoples choice call to inable Peers to sit in Parliament or bear any office of Magistracy or Judicature is warranted by no law of God in old or new Testament both which contradict it by no Laws or Statutes of these Kingdoms Nations which absolutely disclaim it and enact the contrarie by no Original Law of Nature which as all Polititians and Divines assert and the Scripture manifests at first gave everie Father a Magistratical and Judicial rule power over his children progeny Family and made him a King Prince Lord over them without either their choice or call the Father and first-born of the family being both the King Prince Lord over it and Priest to it from the Creation till the Law was given as is generally acknowledged by all Divines as God himself is King over all the earth world as Creator and Father thereof 7ly It is very observable that God himself expresly denied to his own people Israel the free election of their Kings and Supreme Governors reserving the choice of them only to himself as his own Prerogative witness that notable text of
and otherwise punished for their contempt because bound therto by their voluntary acceptance of such a special Patent and dignity But if they be summoned only by a general Writ against their wills being no Lords of Parl. by special Patent or Writ before this doth neither make the one nor other Barons nor ennâ—ble their heirs males or successors nor oblige them to serne nor subject them to any fine for contempt for then the King by his Writ might summon all the Knights Esquires Gentlemen and any other Commoner Freeman Lawyer Clergy man of the Realm to the Lords House as a Member at his pleasure and fine them for a contempt in not appearing and thereby increase that House in infinitum and make it a mungril House of all sorts of degrees and professions of men instead of aâ— House of Lords to its utter subversion against the fundamental constitution and privilege of that House Therefore such Writs of summons must be void and null in Law as well as the Patent to Abbot Banham as Sir Ed. Cook asserts it for that he was neither Baro nor held per Baroniam Now whereas he asserts That Knights and Esquires who hold not by Barony cannot refuse when summoned by Writ to serve the King in Parliament but yet Abbots and other regular Prelates that hold not by Barony may because they are dead in Law as to secular affairs and therefore not capable to have voice in Parliament unless they hold by Barony and were called by Writ This reason of the difference is most absurd and unreasonable For 1. They are both Subjects to the king alike and so both equally obliged to serve and counsel him in Parliament 2ly If their tenures by Barony could make them capable to have place and voice in Parliament though dead in Law quoad secularia then much more the kings and the kingdoms need of their presence counsel and advice in Parliament touching the weighty affairs concerning himself and the defence and preservation of the Realm and Church of England when specially summoned by his writ to Parliament 3ly Though they were dead in some sence only in respect of their natural capacities to the world yet in their politick capacities they were not so but secular still to sue purchase advise c. as well as Laymen in the right of their Houses 4ly Parliaments being always summoned as well to advise of Ecclesiastical things touching the Church as of temporal things concerning the Realm of England their being dead to the world quoad secularia could no more enable them to refuse to serve in Parliament then Laymen quoad Ecclesiastica negotia therein treated of which concerned the Church and Laymen according to the doctrine in Popish times might as well refuse to serve in Parliament when summoned because they were no Ecclesiastical or religious persons who were properly to consult of the affairs of the Church of England as religious persons be exempted from and refuse to serve therein because dead to the world quoad secularia negotia concerning the King and Realm of England there debated and consulted of 4ly The true and only ground then why such Abbots Priors and all other Clergy men who held not by Barony might refuse to serve in the Lords House of Parliament when summoned by Writ was this that they held not of the King by Barony and upon this ground alone the Abbot of St. James without Northampton summoned to Parliament by Writ Anno 12 Ed. 2. upon his Proctors appearance and Petitions for him in Parliament recorded at large by Mr. Selden out of the Leger-book of the Abby worthy perusal being most full in point was discharged from his attendance his name struck out of the Roll and Register of the Chancery by the Chancellor and his Council as not one of the list of those who ought to be summoned for this very reason because NON TE NET PER BARONIAM nec de Rege in capite sed tantum in puram perpetuam Eleemosynam nec ipse Abbas nec Predecessores sui unquam in Cancellaria irrotulari fuerunt except only in 49 H. 3. m. 10. Schedula voluntarie nec ad Parliamentum citati hucusque VNDE PETIT habuit remedium And upon the self same reason the Abbot of Leicester and his successors were by special Patent in 26 E. 3. de veniendo ad Parliam Consilia nostra et haeredâ—m nostrorum de caetero quieti sint et exempti in perpetuum hough this Abbots predecessors had formerly been summoned to and sate in Parliaments interpolatis vicibus but noâ— continuè because idem Abbas aliquas terras senteâ—ementa de Nobis per Baroniam seis aâ—o modo non tenet per quod ad Parliamenta seu Consilia nostra venire teneatur The King reciting this as the only ground of his exemption and thereupon Nolentes Abbatâ—m indebite sic vexari granted him and his successors this Patent of Exemption upon which his name was cancelled in the Clause Roll of 25 E. 3. part 1. m. 5. dorso and this written in the margin against it Abbas Leicestriae cancellatur quia habet cartam Regis quod non compellatur venire ad Parliamentum And that of Dors Claus 11 E. 3. par 2. m. 11. 13 E. 3. par 2. m. 28. 1. cited by Mr. Selden Sir Edw. Coke in his Margin mentioned in a Bill in Parliament Que toutes les religioses que teignont per Barony sayent tenus de venier au Parlament is also direct iâ— point That those who hold not by Barony are not bound to serve in Parl. be they Religious persons or Lay persons who are not Peers or Lords of Parliament upon general writs of summons such Summons of them being AN UNDUE VEXATION OF THEM as King Edward stiles it in his Patent unless they voluntarily appear upon such a Summons as this Patent informs us those who were summoned in 49 H. 3. all did This reason therefore exempting all Abbots Peers and religious persons from service and attendance in the Lords House in Parliaments though summoned thereto by writ must necessarily exempt all Knights and Laymen from it there being the self same ground justice equity for it in both yea the selfsame unjustice vexation mischief to both and by consequence the selfsame Law And if this be Law as these Presidents Judgements Records expresly resolve it to be beyond contradiction Then it inevitably follows that the General writ of Summons to Parliament alone doth neither create the persons summoned to it nor their heirs or successors Barons Lords or Peers of the Realm unless they hold by Barony no although they sit once or twice in Parliaments by vertue of them or interpolatis vicibus but not continue as the Abbots of Leicester did for then they could not allege or plead their not holding Lands of the King in Barony or any other tenure binding them to sit and serve in Parliament
shall prove by most clear and infallible evidences and presidents as well antient as modern Our Noble King Alfred as he ordained for the good estate of the Realm that the Earls and Noble thereof by a perpetual custom should twice every year or oftner in times of Peace assemble together in Parliament at London to govern the people of England and keep them from sinne as Andr. Horn informs us in his Mirrour of Justices c. 1. p. 10. So the same Author records c. 5. p. 296 297 c. That this royal Justiciary who took a short account each year of all his Judges proceedings in his Parliaments condemned and hanged up in one year about An. 890 as I conjecture no lesse than 44 of his Judges and Justices as Murderers for executing his Subjects and putting them to death against Law without any legal cause or sufficient evidence or tryal by a Jury of their Peers and imprisoned fined punished others of them in the self same kind as they had injuriously imprisoned fined and punished his Subjects against Law and that no doubt by the advise and assent of his Nobles in Parliament upon complaint of their injustice and corruption the proper Court for punishment of such Offenders whose names and causes recorded at large by this Author shew them to be all Commoners and no Peers of the Realm Anno 1096. William de Anco and William de Alderi were hanged for Treason against William Rufus by judgment of the Lords in a Parliament at Salisbury King Henry the 2. Anno 1166. holding a Council at Oxfâ—quidam pravi dogmatis seminatores tracti sunt IN JUDICIUM praesente Rege et Episcopis Regni quos à fide Catholica devios et in examine superatos facies cauteriata notabiles cunctis exposuit qui expulsi sunt à regno These Hereticks thus branded in the face and banished the Realm by the judgement of the King and this Council ae Nubrigensis informs us were above 30. men and women who came out of Germany into England under one Gerard their Captain stiled Publicans who went about the Country to spread their errors but at last being detected they were apprehended and cast into prison and then brought before the King and a Council of his Bishops where being convicted of Heresie they were adjudged by the K. to be publikely whipped branded in the face and then banished the Realm Hujus severitatis pius rigor non peste illa quae jam irrepserat Angliae regnum purgavit verum etiam ne ulterius irreperet incusso haereticis terrore praecavit as Nubrigensis observes In the year 1224. the 8. of King Henry the 3. his reign the King requiring a restitution and resumption of his Castles and Lords detained from him by some Nobles and others who at last for fear of the Bishops excommunication against such as detained them and disturbed the peace of the Realm and also of the Kings power and justice much against their wills reddiderunt singuli Castella et municipia et honores et custodias Regi quae ad coronam spectare videbantur Thereupon Falcatius de Breut a Norman born a Soldier under King John in the Barons wars trusting on the Kings and other great mens favors fortified the Castle of Bedford situated on another mans ground and presuming on his friends and his own military power and wealth gained in the wars he feared not violently and unjustly to take away the Freeholds lands and possessions of divers of his neighbours and more epecially he disseised 52. Freemen in the Manor of Luiton of their Freeholds and Tenements without judgement and appropriated their Common pastures to himself Whereof complaint bing afterwards made to King Henry the 3. Anno 1224. the King assigned Martin de Pateshulle Thomas de Multon Henry de Braibroc and certain other Justices to take the recognition of the parties complaining of these disseisins by an Assise of Novel disseisin and to do them Justice Who having received their recognitions according to custom the said Falcatius was condemned to pay them costs and damages for the spoils done in the said Tenements to which the Plaintifs were judicially restored Which Falcatius taking very impatiently being likewise amerced one hundred pounds to the King for every of the said Tenements for his forcible entry into them he in a great fury commanded his Garison souldiers in the Castle of Bedford to march armed to Dunstaple where the Justices Itinerant sate and gave judgement against him and to take and bind them in chains and carry them to Bedford Castle and there detain them close prisoners in the Dungeon The Justices having notice thereof fled thence with all speed some one way some another but Henry de Braibroc flying was at unwares taken by the Souldiers who used him very inhumanly then carryed him prisoner to Bedford Castle and there kept him prisoner King Henry at that time was at Northampton where he held a Parliamentary Council Cum Archiepiscopis Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus et aliis multis de regni negotiis tractaturi voluit erim Rex uti consilio MAGNATUM SUORUM de terris transmarinis quas Rex Francorum paulatim occupaverat but it hapned otherwise than he hoped For the rumor of this act of Falcatius being divulged the wife of the said Henry Braibroc came to the King at Northampton et audiente univerâ—o Concilio de viro suo cum lachrymis querulans deposuit Quod Rex factum minus indigne ferens quaesi vit Consilium a Clero simul et Populo to wit the Spiritual and Temporal Lords Clerus Regni Populus when single being frequently used for the Lords Spiritual and Temporal both in Matthew Paris Hoveden Bromton and others not for the inferiour Clergy and Commons house not then in being as some Antiquaries mistake quid sibi super tanta injuria foret agendum At omnes una voce concilium Regi dederunt quatenus sine mora et omnibus aliis praetermissis negotiis in manâ— valida et armata ad Castrum praedictum procedens tantam temeritatem studeat vindicare Cumque Domino Regi placuisset SENTENTIA ipso jubente omnes ad arma quam citius convolantes ad castellum praedictum de Bedeford tam Clorus quam Populus pervenerunt The whole Parliament marching in person to execute this their Sentence upon these transcendent military Malefactors Hereupon the King sending Messengers to the Commanders of the Castle required entrance to be given to him and commanded Henry Braibroc his Justice to be rendered But William de Brent Brother of Falcatius and the rest within it answered the Messengers that they would not render the Castle nor Justice unless they had a command from their Lord Falcatius and especially for this reason quod Regi de Homagio vel fidelitate non tenebantur astricti With which answer the King being much incensed commanded the Castle to be presently encompassed with military
trenches and those within prepared to defend their walls and Bulwarks Then the Archbishop and all the Bishops with burning Papers smote Falcatius himself and all within the Castle with the sword of Excommunication The King commanded all warlike engines to be brought and gave many assaults to the Castle to win it by force since they refused to render it many were slain and wounded on both sides At last after many weeks siege the Kings soldiers entring the Castle by force those within it being unable to hold out any longer rendred themselves to the Kings mercy who putting them in close custody and chains commanded 24 of the Knights and Souldiers who stouted it most against him even when the siege was ended QVI OMNES SVSPENDIO ADJUDICATI SVNT to be hanged that day Matthew Westminster writes there were near one hundred of them hanged up Henry Braibroc being then restored to the King safe and sound rendred him many thanks In the mean time the King sent an armed Troop to seek out and apprehend Falcatius and bring him prisoner to him who having notice thereof fled into Wales for shelter The K. thereupon swore that if he took the Castle by force he would hang up all who were within it And withall seised upon all Falcatius his Manors Lands Corn goods and chattels throughout England as confiscated At last Falcatius hearing that the Castle was taken and his Brother and souldiers hanged came to the King to Bedford under the conâ—uct of Alexander Bishop of Coventry and there casting himself at the Kings feet humbly implored his mercy in respect of the many great and costly services he had done in his father and himself in time of warr Tum Rex per Consilium of his Nobles and Barons tradidit illum Casteliis Terris et rebus omnibus spoliatum sub custodia Euâ—châ— Londoni 〈◊〉 Eâ—iscopi donec quid de illo ageret esset sententialiter deâ—nitum Et sic quasi in momento idim Falcatius de duissimo pauperimus effectus multis et maxime nocentibus poterit fieri in exemplum Regi autem pro maximis laboribus et expensis in the siege of this Castle tam à Clericis quam à â—nicis concessum est per totam Angliam Carucagium de qualibet caruca duo solidi argenti MAGNATIBUS item concessit Rex scutagium scilicet de scuto quolibet duas marcas sterlingorum et sic omnes ad propria recesserunt Castellum quoque illud fecit Rex complanari et redigi in acervos A most memorable example of regal and Parliamentary Justice upon insolent contemners of Law Justice and Justices the whole Parliament turning Souldiers and continuing together at the Siege of this Castle above two Months space till they had taken the Castle and Malefactors by force and done execution on both And an eminent president of the Ks. Lords Jurisdiction in causes both of Commoners and Souldiers as well as Peers and Nobles Henry de Bathonia a learned Knight most skilfull in the Laws of the Realm one of the Kings Justices and special Counsellors in the year 1251 the 35 of Henry the 3. was most grievously defamed and accused of bribery and corruption in the Office of his Justiceship wherein he feared not treacherously to empty other mens purses to fill his own growing thereby in a short time extraordinary rich in Rents Monies Gold and Silver being instigated thereunto by his wife whereby adeo turpibus per fas et nefas emolumentis inhiabat ut in una sola itinaratione Justiciaria dicebatur plusquam ducentas libratas terrae sibi appropriare Whereupon appellatus est de infidelitate et proditione by Philip de Arci Knight coram Rege et Curia Regis And attached for to answer it John Mansell the Kings Chief Justice profered to bayl him and to be his Manucaptor ut staret Justitiae but he could not be heard the King being so incensed that he answered he would take no Clergy-man for his bayl in such a case reputing it to be HIGH TREASON at last by the Bishop of Londons others mediation intercession he was bayled by 24 Knights and delivered to their custody pro ipso Hen. responsionem justificationem rite et judicialiter statuto termino facturum After which by gifts and large promises he earnestly sollicited his friends to intercede for him with the King â—nd procure his pardon or else if they could not effect it to stand constantly for him in the day of peril armis si necesse sicut et equis communiti which they by unanimous consent promised to doe The King being privily informed thereof majori iracundia accensus omnia munera et verba reconciliationis praecise refutabat jurans quod per medium judicii districti necessario fuerat transiturus Upon this he by intreaties and gifts procured Earl Richard to mediate to the King for him adjungens sub tremendi judicii attestatione quod si Dominus Rex mortem suam imo etiam exhaeredationem procuraret totum regnum in ipsum Regem insurgeret tota perturbaretur quod si fieret cum sub sint aliae causae maxime alienigenarum injustae dominationes Anglorum oppressiones non sedaretur schisma ventilatum The Earl hereupon most effectually interceded for him and the peace of the Realm but could not mitigate the Kings wrath and indignation In March there was a great Parliament held at London where Henry was appointed to appear and answer who came thither guarded with a great multitude of Souldiers of his Wives and his own kinred and friends Whereupon the King being highly incensed he was on every side grievously assaulted and accused by his adversaries and by the King more heavily than the rest imponens eidem inter caetera quod totum regnum perturbavit et Barnagium universum contra ipsum Regem exasperavit unde seditio generalis imminebat Fecit igitur acclamari voce praeconia Londini et in curia ut si quis aliquid habere actionis vel querelae adversus Henricam de Bathonia veniret ad curiam ante Regis praesentiam ubi plene exaudiretur Insurrexerunt igitur multi queruli contra eum ita quod unus etiam sociorum suorum scilicet Justitiarius palam protestaretur quod unum facinerosum convictum incarceratum abirâ— permisit impunitum sine judicio opimis respectus muneribus quod factum est in Regis praejudicium Justitiariorum comitum suorum periculum et discrimen Rex igitur magis inde provocatus ascendit superius exclamavitque dicens Si quis Henricum de Bathonia acciderit quietus sit a morte ejus quietum eum protestor sic propere recessit Rex Et fuerunt ibi multi qui in ipsum Henricum hostiliter irruissent nisi Domini Johannis Mansel prudentia eorum impetum temperans refranasset Dixit enim Domini mei et amici non est necesse quod in iuâ—a praprepere dicitur prosequamur Poenitebit forte
against Judge Thorp should be brought into the Parliament and there read openly BEFORE THE LORDS to have every of their advice concerning it whether this Iudgement were legal or not et nullo contradicente all the Lords affirmed the judgement to be legal and good considering that he against his Oath received Bribes And therefore it was agreed by all the Lords that if the like case should hereafter happen the King might take to him such Nobles as he should think meet and therein do according to his pleasure Provided this judgement should not be drawn into example against any other Officers who should break their Oaths but only against those qui praedictum Sacramentum fecerunt of Justices et fregerunt et habent leges Regales Angl. ad custod Here the Lords were sole Judges of the Judge who was a Commoner and gave judgement against him without the Commons yea declare the Law in this new case both in and out of Parliament In the Parliament of 21 E. 3. n. 68. The Commons by divers Bills complained to the Lords of divers extortions grievances prejudices done to the King and Commons by John Wattenham and Walter de Cheriton Merchants who desired the King would command them to come before THE COUNCIL LORDS in Parliament to answer what should be objected and clear themselves In the Parliament of 50 E. 3. n. 17 18 19 20. The Commons accused Richard Lyons Merchant of London of divers deceits extortions and misdemeanors whiles he was farmer of the Customs and last subsidy for transporting wools and staple Commodities procuring new Impositions on staple ware for buying debts from the Kings Creditors at under rates and making the King to pay the whole for taking of bribes and defrauding the King To some of which charges he answered and to the rest submitted himself to the King touching Body Lands and Goods Whereupon THE LORDS adjudged him to prison during the Kings will that his lands tenements and goods should be seised to the Kings use that Commissions should issue throughout all England to inquire of his Extortions whiles farmer of the subsidies and that he should be disfranchised Upon this Judgement in the Fine Roll of 50 E. 3. m. 19 21 22. there issued out writs for the arresting and selling the goods of Richard Lyons to the Kings use which were his on the 19 of March certis de causis coram Nobis et Concilio nostro in praesenti Parliamento nostro propositis c. per Concilium in Parliamento The same Parliament 50 E. 3. n. 31 32. William Ellis of great Yarmouth was accused by the Commons of sundry extortions whiles he was Deputy Farmer of the kings subsidie to Richard Lyons To which he seemed sufficiently to answet yet was BY THE LORDS adjudged to prison and to make a fine at the Kings pleasure Ibidem Num. 33. Iohn Peach of London was impeached by the Commons for procuring a license under the Great Seal that he only might sell sweet wines in London by colour whereof he took 4 s. 4 d. of every man for every Tun thereof sold which he justified he lawfully might doe Notwithstanding JUDGEMENT was given against him by THE LORDS that he should be committed during the Kings pleasure and make recompense to all parties grieved Num 37. Adam de Bury was accused of divers deceits and wrongs done by him whiles Mayor of Callice and Captain of Bellingham Being sent for to come to the Parliament he came not nor could he be found Thereupon the Lords agreed that all his goods and chattels should be arrested and so they were All these Commons were first impeached by the Commons and thus judged and censured by THE LORDS in this GOOD PARLIAMENT as Historians and others stile it And in the Commons petitions therein there are divers Petitions of Grievances from sundry Counties Towns persons complaining of wrongs and grievances presented to the King and Lords for redresse of oppressions extortions Monolies c. In the Parliament of 1 R. 2. n. 41 42 43. Dame Alice Pâ—etrees was brought before THE LORDS by Sir Richard Scroop Knight and there charged for pursuing matters at the Court contrary to an Order made in the Parliament of 50 E. 3. n. 35. and procuring King Edward to restore Richard Lyons to his lands and goods c. she denied she pursued any such thing for singular gain against that Ordinance whereupon diverse Officers Counsellers and Secretaries of king Edward 3. were examined against her who proved she made such pursutes and that for private gain in their conceits Whereupon the Lords alone without the Commons gave Iudgement against her that she should be banished according to the order aforesaid and forfeit all her Lands Goods and Tenements to the King The same Parliament 1 R 2. n. 32 33. The Lords committed William Fitz-Hugh Goldfiner and Citizen of London to the Tower for refusing to averr a Petition exhibited by him in the name of the poor Commonalty of that mystery complaining against John Chichester and John Bolcham of the same mystery of divers oppressions done by them to the said Commonalty In this very Parliament of 1 R. 2. n. 38 39 40. The Commons prayed that all those Captains who had rendred or lost Castles or Towns through default might be put to answer it in this Parliament and severely punished according to their deserts BY AWARD or Judgement OF THE LORDS and BARONS to eschew the evil examples they had given to other Governors of Towns and Castles Whereupon Sir Alexander de Buxton Constable of the Tower was commanded to bring BEFORE THE LORDS IN PARLIAMENT William de Weston and Lord of Gomynes both of them Commoners on Friday the 27 of November to answer such Articles as should be surmised against them on the Kings behalf Being brought BEFORE THE LORDS in full Parliament they were severally articled against at the command of THE LORDS by Sir Richard le Scrop Knight Steward of the Kings House and their several Articles and answers to them in writing read before THE LORDS Which done the Constable was commanded to bring them again before THE LORDS on Saturday next ensuing being the 20 of November on which day it was shewed unto them severally by the said Steward by THE LORDS COMMAND That THE LORDS OF THE PARLIAMENT whose names are particularly mentioned in the Roll had met together and considered of their respective answers and that IT SEEMED TO THE LORDS AFORESAID that the said William had delivered up the Castle of Onâ—herwycke to the Kings enemies without any duress or want of victuals contrary to his allegiance and undertaking safely to keep it and therefore the Lords above-named sitting in full Parliament adjudge you to death that you shall be drawn hanged But because our Lord the King is not informed of the manner of the Judgement the execution of it shall be respited till the king be thereof informed After which Judgement given
the King wherein he accused Sir William Cogan knight for extorting 300 l. by menaces from the Prior of St. Iohns Sir William appearing upon Summons prayed Counsel which was denied for that it concerned Treason whereupon he pleaded Not Guilty After which the same Parliament n. 46. to 61. The Mayor Baylifs and Commonalty of Cambridge were accused before the King and Lords that in the late insurrection they confederating with other Malefactors did break open the Treasury of the University of Cambridge burn sundry Charters of the University and compel the Chancellor and Scholars under their common Seal to release to the said Mayor and Burgesses all manner of Liberties real and personal actions and also to become bound to them in great sums of money Whereupon special writs were directed to the Mayor Baylifs and Commonalty to appear in Parliament to answer the premises The Mayor and Baylifs appear in person and plead that they 〈◊〉 not privy to any such act but if any thing was done it was by compulsion by others which the Kings learned Counsel disproved whereupon they pleaded Not Guilty The Commonalty appeared by Attorney and delivered in the Release and Bond of the University complained of under their Seal which were ordered to be cancelled After which the Chancellor and Scholars of the University exhibited Articles against the Mayor and Baylifs shewing their whole carriage and discourse in this tumult Upon reading whereof it was demanded of them in the Kings behalf What they could say why their Liberties lately confirmed should not be seised into the Kings hands as forfeited They thereupon required a Copy of the Articles Councel and respite to answer To the Copy of the Bill it was answered by the Lords that seeing they had heard it read it should suffice for by Law they ought to have no Copy For Councel it was said That to such articles if any were wherein Councel was to be had they should have it otherwise not Wherfore they were then appointed to answer to no crime or offence but only to their Liberties To which they answered by their Council That this Court ought not to have any Conusance or Jurisdiction of them for certain causes then alleged But at last they were ordered to say what they could otherwise they would give Iudgement against them as those who had nothing to say Whereupon they pleaded they did nothing but by Duress and constraint of the Rebels At last after many dilatory shifts touching their Liberties they wholly submitted themselves to the Kings mercy and grace saving their answer to other matters The KING therefore by the assent of the Prelates and Lords in Parliament â—o is the Rolâ— seised their Liberties into his hands as forfeited and by assent of the Lords and Prelates in Parliament granted to the Chancellor and Scholars the Assise and correction of bread weights measures and forestallers and fines thereof within the Town and Subâ—rbs of Cambridge which the Townsmen had before The King Lords and Prelates being Judges and giving the Judgement in this case of Commoners as the record a â—ge attests Walsingham relates that in a Parliament holden at London this year about the feast of St. John upon the Petition of the knights of Shires John Straw Captain of those in the insurrection at Bury and Myldenhale tractationi et suspentioni ADJUDICATUR to wit by the King and Lords licet multi putassent eum fuisse pecunia redimendum In the 7. year of R. 2. Rege vocante congregati sunt multi de Nobilibus Regni apud Rading to restrain the seditious motions of John de Northampton late Mayor of London qui ingenia facinora nisus est de quibus et convictus est ibidem his familiar Clerk accusing him both of divers practises and designes projected by him as well to the prejudice of the King as of the whole City of London and objecting them against him When Judgement was to be given against him in the Kings presence he pleaded that such a Judgement ought not to be given against him in the absence of the Duke his Lord whereby he raised a sinister suspition as well in the people AS NOBLES against the Duke of Lancaster The Justice who was to pronounce the Judgement told him He ought to refute his charge by Duel or by the Laws of the Realm to submit himself to drawing hanging and quartering At which when he stood mute and said nothing DECRETVM EST ut perpetuo carceri tradiretur et eâ—us bona regis usibus confisâ—arentur ut Londonias non appropinquaret per centum miliaria in vita sua whereupon he was sent prisoner to Tyntagel Castle in Cornwall and his goods seised on by the Kings Officers In the Parliament of 7 R. 2. holden at Westminster the Monday next before the feast of All Saints num 17. Bryers Cressingham and Iohn Spicâ—worth Esquires were accused before the LORDS for surrendring the Castle of Drinkham in Flanders to the kings enemies for money without consent of the kings Lieutenant Spickworth proved that the same was not in his custody and thereupon he was discharged Cressingham pleaded that he yeelded the same upon necessity without money and submitted himself to the Lords order who thought this no good cause and therefore committed him to prison The same Parliament n. 24 25. Sir William de Elinsham Sir Thomas Trivet Sir Henry de Ferriers and Sir William Farnden knights and Robert Fitz-Ralph Esquire were accused before the Lords in Parliament for selling the Castle of Burburgh with all the arms ammunition and provisions therein to the French the kings enemies for sundry summs of gold received by them of the French without authority from the king or his Lieutenant who pleaded they surrendred it for salvation of themselves and their people c. After all their excuses made they were upon consideration adjudged insufficient by the Lords and the Chancellor by their order pronounced this Judgement against them That they should repay all the monies they received from the Enemy to the King be committed to prison ransomed at the Kings will and moreover that Sir Will. de Farnden being the greatest Offender should be at the Kings mercy both for body and goods to do with them as he pleaseth In this Parliament there was a Duel fought between John Walsh an English Esquire and one of Navarr who accoused him of Treason against the King and Realm effectually but yet falsly out of envy Walsh having layen with his wife whiles he was under Captain of Cherburgh as he afterwards confessed This Dueâ— was fought within the lists in the presence of the King and Nobles of the Realm where this Navarrois being vanquished by Walsh REGALI JVDICIO tractus et suspensus est quanquam Regina et plures alii pro eo preces sedulas porrexissent In the 2. of Parliament of 7 R. 2. n. 13.10 19. John Cavendish a Fishmonger of London praying Surety of the peace
every temporal Lord being in full Parliament examined touching the answer of the said Sir William and the matters and evidences which they had examined said severally that the said William had done his message well and legally and that in the person of the said William there was no fault nor evil touching the said message nor any thing that he did to the person of the said Duke Whereupon Walter Clapton Chief Justice of the Kings Bench by command of the king adjudged and declared that the said William should be fully excused and acquitted for ever in time to come touching this matter 3ly The last day of this Parliament it was agreed by the King and Lords that all the remembrances called Raggemans or Blantâ—es Charters lately sealed in the City of London and divers Counties Cities and Burroughs of England should be sent to the City of London and from every County City and Burrough from whence they came and Writs sent to every of them rehearsing That the king held all the resiants and Inhabitants in them for his good and loyal Subjects and that no confession by them made comprised in the said remembrances are nor shall be in derogation of the estate of any such person and that the same remembrances shall be burnt and destroyed in the most open place of the said Counties Cities and Burroughs and if any thing remain of record in any Court or place the king wills that it shall be cancelled and totally adnulled revoked and repealed and held for no record and of no force nor value for time to come 4ly The 19th of November in the said Parliament Placita Coronae coram Domino Rege in Parliamento suo c. Anno regni Regis Henrici quarti post Conquestum primo n. 17. The Commons prayed she King that rhe pursute arrest and judgements made against Sir William le Scropâ— knight Henry Green knight and John Bassy knight might be affirmed and held good Whereupon Sir Richard Scroop humbly prayed the King that nothing which should be done in this Parliament might turn to his or his Childrens dis-inherison Of which Sir Richard it was demanded whether the said pursute arrest and judgements were good or not who answered that he feared not to say and must confesse that when they were made thâ—y were good and profitable for the King and Realm and that his Son was one of them for which he was very sorrowfull Whereupon the king rehearsed that he claimed the Realm and Crown of England with all their members and appurietenances as heir of the bloud by the right line of king Henry the 3d. and although through the right which God had sent him by the aid of his Parents and friends he recovered the said Realm which was at the point to be undone by default of government and defesance of the Laws and customs of the Realm yet it was not his will that any should think that by way of Conquest he would disinherit any man of his heritage franchise or other right which he ought to have nor out any man of that which he had or should have by the good Laws or Customs of the Realm except these who had been against the good purpose and common profit of the Realm of which only the King held the said Sir William Henry and John for such and guilty of all the evil which had come upon the Realm and therefore he would have and hold all the Lands and Tenements they had within the Realm of England or elsewhere by conquest Whereupon fuist demande de touts les Seigniors temporellez lour advys de les pursuite arreste juggem 〈◊〉 suiâ—diâ—z Les queux Seigniors touz de â—ne accorde disorent que mesmes les pursuite arreste juggement quinâ—que fuist fait come defuist dit uist bons et les affirmente Piur bons et profitables 5ly In the case of John Hall 1 H. 4. Placita Coronae n. 11 to 17. who being in custody of the Marshal of Englana was brought by him before the Lords in Parliament and there charged before them by Walter Clapton Lord Chief Justice by the King command with having a hand in the murther of the Duke of Glocester who was smothered to death with a Featherbed at Calues by king Richard the seconds command the whole transaction whereof he confessed at large and put in writing before James Billingford Clerk of the Crown which was read before the Lords upon reading thereof the King and all the temporal Lords in Parliament resolved that the said John 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 toutes les Seigneiors temporelz per assent du Roy adjuggerent all the temporal Lords by assent of the King ADJVDGED that the said Jo. Hall should be drawn from Tower hill unto the Gallows at Tiburn and there bowelled and his bowels laid before him and after he should be hanged beheaded and quartered and his head sent to Calice where the murther was committed and his quarters sent to other places where the king should please and thereupon command was given to the Marshal of England to make execution accordingly and it was so done the same day Lo here the Lords in Parliament gave judgement against a Commoner in case of a murther done at Calice and so not â—riable in the Kings Bench but in Parliament and passe a Judgement of High Treason on him for murthering of a great Peer only In the Parliament of 2 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 23 24. The Commons shewed to the King that William Bagot had been impeached of many horrible deeds and misprisions the which if they had been true the Commons supposed the the King aad ths Lords would have had good notice thereof for that they had made many examinations thereof whiles the said William was in distress And therefore the said Commons prayed the King that the said Sir William being in Flanders and no offence found in his person upon the slanders in his impeachment aforesaid that he would be pleased to restore him to his lands To which prayer was answered in the Kings behalf that although the said Sir William upon the said impeachment made the last Parliament was put to his answer before the King and the Lords and there pleaded a general Charter of pardon against which Charter it seemed to all the Lords then present that the said Sir William ought not to be impeached nor put to answer by the King on his part for that the said Sir William was not attainted of any impeachment suggested against him and that the King had done him justice in this behalf therefore he would in the same manner doe him justice in the residue at the Commons request A most full proof of the Kings and Lords judicial power in Parliaments even in case of a Commoner The same Parliament 2. H. 4. num 29. William
upon him nor condemn him but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers or by the Law of the Land Whence thus they argue The Lords in Parliament are not Commoners Peers but the Commons only therefore they cannot be judged in Parliament by the Lords but by the Commons alone and if Peers there judge Commoners it is a tyranny and usurpation even against Magna Charta it self though it be in case of privilege To take away this grand seeming Objection and give it a satisfactory answer I say First in general that there is scarce one Parliament ever since Magna Charta was first confirmed but the Lords have sentenced and given Judgement against some Commoners capitally or penally in body purse or both without the Commons and did so doubtlesse before Magna Charta was made as I have already manifested yet never did the Commons in any one of those Parliaments till this present complain of it as a violation of Magna Charta or a tyrannical usurpation as Lilburn and Overton stile it but acknowledged ir as a just right in the Lords even in 3 Caroli it self when the Petition of Right was passed in the Lords Judgement and Sentence against Dr Manwaring a Commoner impeached by the Commons in Parliament And therfore for this Ignoramus alone against the judgment of the Commons in Parl. in all ages to averr this a breach of Magna Charta for imprisoning and sining him for the highest affront and breach of privilege ever offered to any Parl. is the extremity of ignorance malice singularity Secondly I answer That the Statute of Magna Charta extendeth not to nor was ever intended of the high Court of Parliaments Judgements Proceedings but only to and of the Proceedings Judgements in the Kings great Courts of Justice at Westminster Hall the Exchequer his Privy Council and other inferior Courts held before Judges Justices of Assise and other Officers as is evident by comparing this objected Chapter with c. 11 12 13 14 18 28 30 34 37. by the Statutes of 25 E. 3. Stat. 5. c. 4. 28 E. 3. c. 3. 37 E. 3. c. 18. 38 E. 3. c. 9. 42 E. 3. c. 2. 17 R. 2. c. 6. and the Petition of Right it self 3. Caroli which so expound it there being never any complaint against the Parliament it self or House of Peers in any age for breach of Magna Charta in censuring or imprisoning Commoners till now Therefore this misapplying of this Law to the Parl. and House of Peers is a gross oversight Thirdly the very literal sence of this Law is much mistaken by the Objectors The main scope whereof is this That no man should be deprived of his Freehold Liberties Limbs life or outlawed exiled or otherwise destroyed without legal process in due form of Law in Courts of Justice not by meer force violence injustice arbitrary and tyrannical power or martial Law nor being brought to his legal trial or answer And that none should pass upon them in any trials for freehold or life but only English Freemen Now in respect of Freedom any every Freeman of England is a Peer to another Freeman quatenus such a one within this Law though of an higher degree in point of honour dignity office estate as Knights Esquires Gentlemen Yeomen Citizens Merchants these as Freemen are all Peers one to another and may pass upon each other in Juries both in civil and criminal causes and this clause No Freemâ—n shall be imprisoned c. but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers extends only to villains and those who are not Freeholders from being Iudges of Freemen and Freeholders in trials by Jury whence the Writs to the Sherifs to summon Jurors require them alwayes to return Liberos Legales homines not to exclude Lords or Peers who are Freemen in the highest degree to be Judges of Commoners who are Freemen So as the Argument from the true meaning of this Law can be but this in respect of the persons quality who are to give judgement Villains and those who are no Freemen are not to be Judges of or impannelled in Juries to condemn Freemen because they are not their Peers nor Freemen as well as they Therefore Lords who are Freemen of the highest degree may not give judgement against Commoners who are Freemen Very learned nonsence We all know that the Lord Chancellor of England Lord Keeper Lord Treasurer Master of the Court of Wards and some of the Judges of the Kings Courts in Westminster Hall in former times with the Chief Justiciar and Justices in Eyre were antiently and of late too as the Earl of Holland and others Peers of the Realm not Commoners and that all the Peers of the Realm are in Commissions of Oyer and Terminer and of the Peace yet did we never hear of any Commoner demurring or pleading thus to any of their Jurisdictions in Chancery Kings Bench the Exchequer Chamber Eyres Assises or Sessions Sir I am a Commoner and you are a Peer of the Realm but no Commoner as I am besides you sit here only in the Kings right doing all in his name and representing his person who is not my Peer but Sovereign Therefore you ought not to judge my cause condemn my person nor give any sentence for or against me it being contrary to Magna Charta which enacts That no freeman should be judged or passed upon or condemned but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers Certainly no person was ever yet so mad or sottish to make such a Plea before Ignoramus Lilburn And if Lords Peers may judge the persons causes of Commoners in the Chancery Kings Bench Exchequer Court of Wards Eyres and at Assises Sessions without any violation of this clause in Magna Charta though they are exempted to be impannelled or serve in Juries in cases of Commoners as Commoners in Juries to try them much more may the House of Peers in Parliament doe it who are certainly Peers to Commoners as Freemen though Commoners be not Peers to them as Lords within the meaning of Magna Charta chap. 29. Fourthly If the Lords in Parliament cannot meddle with or give judgement in Commoners causes without breach of this clause in Magna Charta then why did Lilburn himself sue and petition to the Lords as the only competent Judges to reverse his sentence in Star Chamber and give him damages because it was against this very Chapter of Magna Charta If Lords cannot give judgement in the case of Commoners as now he holds without express violation of this Law then himself in petitioning the Lords to relieve him against the Star-Chamber sentence because contrary to this very Law and Chapter of Magna Charta was a great a violator of it as his Star-Chamber censurers and his sentence in Star-chamber remains still unreversed because the Lords examining reversing of it they being no Commoners as he is but Peers was Coram non judice and meerly void by the Statute of 25 E.
3. Stat. 5. c. 4. because contrary to Magna Charta it self as he now expounds it Let him therefore unriddle assoyl this his own Dilemma or for ever hold his tongue and pen from publishing such absurdities to seduce poor people as he hath done to exasperate them to clamour against the Lords for being more favourable in their censure of him than his transcendent Libels and contempts against them deserved Fifthly This Statute is in the disjunctive by the Lawfull Judgement of his Peers OR BY THE LAW OF THE LAND which this Ignoramus observes not Now by the Law of the Land every inferiour Court of Justice may fine and imprison men for contempts or misdemeanors against them and their authority therefore the Lords in Parliament being the highest Tribunal may much more do it and have ever done it even by this express clause of Magna Charta and the Law and Custom of Parliament as well as they may give judgements in writs of Error against or for Commons without the Commons consent as himself doth grant yea and by the Kings concurrent assent declare what is Treason and what not within the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 20. in the cases of Commoners as well as Lords without the Commons as they did in the forecited cases of William de Weston and Lord of Gomines 1 R. 2. n. 38 39 40. Of William Thorp 25 E. 3. n. 10. Of Thomas Haxey 20 R. 2. n. 15 16.23 Of Sir Thomas Talbot 13 R. 2. n. 20 21. Of Sir Robert Plesington and Henry Bowhert 22 R. 2. Plac. Coronae in Parliamento n. 27 28. Of John Hall 1 H. 4. Plac. Coronae in Parl. n. 11. to 17. Of Sir Ralph Lumley and others 4 H. 4. n. 15. 19 20 21. Of Sir John Oldcastle 5 H. 5. n. 11. and of Sir John Mortymer 2 H. 6. n. 18. as the Commons and Judges in all those Parliaments agreed without contradiction against the erronious opinion of Sir Edward Cooke to the contrary in his 3. Institutes p. 22. Sixthly It is granted by Lilburn that by this express Law No Freeman of England ought to be judged or censured but only by his Peers and that Commoners are no Peers to Nobles nor Noblemen Peers to Commoners Then by what Law or reason dared he to publish to the world That the House of Commons are the Supreme Power within this Realm and THAT BY RIGHT THEY ARE THE LORDS JUDGES certainly this is a Note beyond Ela a direct contradiction to Magna Charta in this very clause wherein he placeth his strength and subverts his very ground-work against the Lords Jurisdiction in their censure of him For if the House of Commons be by right the Lords Iudges then by Magna Charta c. 29. they are and ought to be their Peers and if the Commons be the Lords Peers then the Lords must be the Commons Peers too and if so then they may lawfully be his Judges even by Magna Charta because here he grants them to be no other than his Peers Lo the head of this great Goliah of the Philistin Levellers cut off with his own sword and Magna Charta for ever vindicated from his ignorant and sottish contradictory Glosses on it Now to convict him of his Errour in affirming the House of Commons to be by right the Lords Judges I might inform him as I have formerly proved at large that Magna Charta it self c. 14. 29. and Sir Edward Cook his chief Author in his commentary on them are express against him that in the Parliament of 15 E. 3. ch 2. in print it was enacted That whereas before this time the Peers of the Land have been arrested and imprisoned and their Temporalties Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels seised into the Kings hands and some put to death without Iudgement of their Péers that no Peer of the Land Officer or other by reason of his office nor of things touching his office nor by other cause shall be brought in judgement to lose his Temporalties Lands Tenements Goods Chattels nor to be arrested or imprisoned outlawed exiled nor forejudged nor put to answer nor to be judged but by award of the said Péers in Parliament which privilege of theirs was both enjoyed and claimed in Parliament 4 E. 3. n. 14 15 E. 3. n. 6 8 44 49 51. 17 E. 3. n. 22. 18 E. 3. n. 7. to 16. 10 R. 2. n. 7 8. 11 R. 2. n. 7 c. and sundry other Parliament Rolls See Cook 4. Instit p. 15. 17 E. 3. 19. Cromptons Jurisdiction of Courts f. 4. 12 13. Stamford f. 151 152. This Paradox therefore of his is against all Statutes Law-Books Presidents whatsoever and Magna Charta it self And as false an assertion as that the Subjects are the Judges of their Soveraign the Servants of their Masters the children of their Parents the Wiâ—es of their Husbands the Soldiers of their General and the feet and lower members of the Head The second only Objection more of moment is this If the House of Peers may without the Commons fine and imprison Commoners then if their fine and imprisonment be unjust and illegal they shall be remediless there being no superior Court to appeal unto which will be an intollerable slavery and grievance not to be indured among free-born people I answer first That no injustice shall or ought to be presumed in the highest Court of Justice till it be apparently manifested Secondly If any such censure be given the party as in Chancery upon just grounds shewed may Petition the House of Peers for a review and new hearing of the cause which they in justice neither will nor can deny and if they do then the party grieved may petition the house of Commons to intercede in his behalf to the Peers for a rehearing but for them to discharge free any Commoner judicially censured by the Lords I have hitherto met with no president in former Parliaments nor power in the house of Commons to doe it who cannot reverse Erronious judgements in any inferiour Courts by writ of Error but the Lords alone much less then the judgements of the Higher House of Peers which is paramount them Thirdly I conceive the House of Peers being the Superior Authority and only Judicatory in Parliament may relieve or release any Commoners unjustly imprisoned or censured by the Commons house or any of their Committees and ought in justice to doe it or else there will be the same mischief or a greater in admitting the house of Commons to be Judges of Commoners if there be no appeal from them to the Lords in case their sentences be illegal or unjust Thirdly This mischief is but rare and you may object the same against a sentence given or Law made in Parliament by the King and both Houses because there is no appeal from it but only to the next or some other Parliament that shall be summoned by petition in the nature of a Writ of
was again resolved in another Parliamentary Assembly held that year by King Henry the first the Bishops Abbots Great men and Nobles of the Realme as you read before p. 173. Anno 1109. there sprung up another â—ot contest between Arch-Bishop Anselme and Thomas Elect of York about the oath of subjection and canonical obedience which was again debated and after Anselmes death again debated and finally setled in another Parliamentary Council by the King Bishops Nobles and Barons of the Realme of which at large before p. 174 175 176 177. The same Debate coming again between Ralph Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Thurstan of York after his returne from Exile Anno 1121. was again concluded omnium Concilio Episcoporum Principum Procerum Regni p. 180. After many years intestine bloody wars between the perjured Usurper King Stephen Mawde and Duke Henry her Son for the Crown of England Anno 1153. apud Walingford in conventu Episcoporum et aliorum Regni Optimatum there was a final accord made between Stephen and Henry touching the inheritance and descent of the Crown that Stephen should adopt and constitute Henry for his son heir and successor to the Crown of England immediately after his death which Stephen should enjoy during his life yet so as that Henry should bee chief Justice and Ruler of the Kingdome under him This accord made between them by the Prelates Earles and Barons of the Realme was ratified by King Stephens Charter and subscribed by all the Bishops Earles and Barons in their Parliamentary Council at Walingford The difference and suit between King Henry the 2d and Roderic King of Conact in Ireland touching his Kingship Royalties Dominions Services Homage Loyalty and Tribute to King Henry were heard decided and a final agreement made between them in a great Parliamentary COUNCIL held at Windeshores Anno 1175. wherein King Henry the 2d and his Son with the Arch-bishops Bishops Earles and Barons of England without any Commons were present who made and subscribed this agreement recorded at large in Houeden where you may peruse it King Henry the 2d Anno 1177. Celebrato generali CONCILIO apud Northampton after the feast of St. Hilary by the advice of his Nobles restored to Robert Earl of Leicester all his Lands on this side and beyond the Sea as hee had them fifteen daies before the Warre except the Castles of Mounsorel and Pasci Hee likewise therein restored to Hugh Earle of Chester all the lands which hee had fifteen daies before the warre and gave to William de Abbine Son of William Earle of Arundel in the County of Southsex And in the same Council Deane Guido resigned into the hand of Richard Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the deanery of Walteham and all his right which hee had in the Church of Walteham quietum clamavit simpliciter absolute similiter fecerunt canonici seculares de Walteham de praebendis suis resignantes eas in manis Archiepiscopi sed Dominus Rex dedit eis inde plenariam recompensationem ad Domini Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi aestimationem Deinde Dominus Rex authoritate Papae Domini instituit in eadem Ecclesia de Walteham canonicos regulares de diversis domibus Angliae sumptos constituit Walterum de Garent canonicum sumptum de Ecclesia de Osencie Abbatem primum super congregationem illam magnis redditibus domibus pulcherrimis dotavit illos And then hee expelled the Nunnes out of the Monastery of Ambresbury for their incontinency and distributed them into other Nunneries there to bee kept more strictly under restraint and gave the Abby of Ambresbury to the Abbesse and house of Frum Everoit to hold it for ever Sanctius King of Navar and Alfonso King of Castile in the year 1177. submitted the differences between them concerning certain Lands Territories Towns and Castles to the determination of King Henry the 2d who thereupon summoned a Parliamentary Council of his Bishops Earles Nobles and Barons to hear and decide it by their advice Wherein the case being propounded debated and opened before them by the Ambassadours and Advocates of both Kings appeared to be this That King Sanctius during the minority of King Alphonsus an Orphant his Nephew Pupil and innocent from any crime unjustly and forcedly took from him without any demand hearing or Title divers Territories Towns and Lands there specified which his Ancestors had enjoyed and of right descended to him which hee forcibly detained Whereof hee demanded restitution and dammages On the other side Sanctius complained that Alphonsus the Emperour Father of this Alphonsus had by force of armes unjustly dispossessed his Grandfather of the Kingdome of Navarre after whose death Garsias his Nephew and next heir by the help of his friends and subjects recovered the greatest part thereof from the Emperour but not all Who dying leaving his Son Alphonso an infant with whom Sanctius made a league for ten years Alphonso during the League took by force of armes divers Castles Towns and Lands from Sanctius being his inheritance who thereupon demanded restitution both of the Castles Towns Lands and Territories taken from his Grandfather by Alphonsus his Father and from himself by Alphonsus together with the maine profit of the latter quia sine ordine judiciario ejectus est King Henry having fully heard their cases by the Advice and Assent of his Bishops Earles and Barons adjudged that both these Kings should make mutual restitution of what had been forcibly taken from either party together with the mean profits and dammages for part of them by an award and judgement under his Great Seal subscribed by all his Bishops Earles and Barons which recites super quaerelis vero praetaxatis de castellis terris cum omnibus terris pertinentis suis hinc inde violenter et injuste ablatis cum nichil contra Violentiam utrinque objectam à parte alterutra alteri responderetur nec quicquam quo minus restitutiones quas petebant faciendas essent alligaretur Plenariam utrinque parti supradictorum quae in jure petita erant fieri restitutionem adjudicabimus A clear Parliamentary resolution and judgement in point That Territories Lands Towns Castles injuriously taken by one King from another by force of armes and warre without just Title to them ought in Law and Justice to bee restored to the right heirs and owners of them and that Conquest and the longest Sword are no good Titles in Law or conscience against the right heir or inheriter which I desire those Sword-men and Lawyers who now pretend us a conquered Nation determine Conquest or the longest Sword a just Title to the Crowns Lands Revenues Offices Inheritances Houses Estates of other men now sadly to consider together with the sacred Texts Hab. 7. Micha 2.1 2 3 4 5. Job 20.10 18 19 20. Obad. 10. to 17. Ezek. ch 19. 35. Isa 33.1 1 King 21.1 to 25. Matth. 21.33 to 41. Luk. 20.14 to 17. ch 19.8
Lords gave him remedy by a Writ out of the Chancery Claus 14. E. 2. m. 12. in the Schedula there is a Judgement in Parliament by King Lords and Council touching the Abby of Abingdon and a composition formerly made between the Abbot Prior and monks thereof reversed nulled because inconvenient Claus 14. E. 2. m. 17. dorso there is a case concerning a reprisal brought by appeal out of the Chancery into the Parliament before the King Lords and Council and there heard and decided And Claus 15. E. 2. there are many cases and Writs touching Reprises In the Parliament of 1. E. 3. there were many Judgements given in sundry civil cases upon petitions To the King and his Council by the King Lords and Council extant in the bundle of Petitions and Claus Rolls of that year and those things that were proper for the Courts of Law and Chancery were referred to them to be there ended Claus 1. E. 3. m. 1. Upon the petition of Alice Gill and Robert Carder to the King Council and Parliament that they buying Corne in Abevil in France to transport to London it was arrested by the Baily of St. Valeric to the value of one hundred pounds at the suit of Will de Countepy of Crotye in Picardy and delivered to him against their wills because the Ship of the said Will was taken upon the Sea by the men of Bayon which ship the petitioners finding in the port of London had arrested by writ out of the Chancery directed to the Sheriffes of London until the said hundred pounds was paid them by the Merchant the King and Council ordered upon their petition that the ship might not be discharged till the 100 l. was satisfied that a Writ should be directed out of the Chancery to the Sheriffes of London to do Justice upon the contents in the Petition according to the Law of Merchants The like case of Reprise upon the Petition of Hugh Samson is in 1. E. 3. rot 5. In Claus 1. E. 3. part 1. m. 10. There is a Judgement given by the Lords and Council for the Bishop of Durham touching the Liberties and Royalties of his Bishoprick against the Kings revocation where in sundry Petitions and answers in former Parliament under King Edward the 2d are rehearsed wherein hee could have no right Mem. 12. there is a Judgement given by the Lords and Council in Parliament for the Bishop of York his prisage and preemption of wines next after the King in the Port of Hull and in Claus 1. E. 3. Pâ— 2. m. 11. Claus 4. E. 3. m. 9. remembred in the year Book of 6. E. 3. f. 50. So Claus 2. E. 3. m. 20. in Schedula there is Placitum in Parliamento before the King and his Council of the Dean and Chapter of Litchfield touching their Title to Camock Claus 14. E. 3. part 1. m. 41. Upon the Petition of the Bishop of Carlisle it was resolved by the Lords and Council in that and sundry other Parliaments in the Reign of this King and his Father non esse â—uri consonum that Churches and other things spiritual annexed to Archbishopricks and Bishopricks should belong to the King and Gardians of the temporalties but to the Gardians of the spiritualties and so ordered accordingly yea so was it resolved upon the Petition of the Bishop of Winchester to the King and his Council in the Parliament of Claus 1. E. 3. rot 9. dorso Where coram Rege et Magno Concilio concessum est et concordatum quod custodâ—s temporalium Episcopatus non se intromittant amplius temporibus vacationum hujusmodi fructibus Ecclesiarum de Estanmer Hamoldan annexed to the Bishoprick of Winchester In the Parliament of 14. E. 3. Sir Geoffry Stantens case upon his Petition to the King and Lords in Parliament the Justices of the Common Pleas came with the record of his case which had long depended before them in the Court of Common Pleas which being read and debated in the presence of all the LORDS Justices and others of the Kings Council their assistants in this case of Law they resolved that the Sonne being a stranger might aver that his Father who levyed the fine had nothing in the Lands and that the Wife in this case could not vouch her Husband And thereupon a Writ under the great Seal was sent to the Judges by the Lords order to give judgement accordingly Claus 35. E. 3. m. 40. A villain commits fellony and is attainted after that the Lord had seised his goods whereupon his goods were prized and seised on for the King notwithstanding the Lords seisure upon a Petition in Parliament It was resolved by the Lords and Council that it was just the goods should be restored to the Lord if they were not seised fraudulently to prevent the Kings seisure of them And a Writ of Restitution was thereupon awarded per ipsum Regem et per Petitionem in Parliamento In the 6. year of King Richard the 2d it was agreed between the Duke of Lancaster and the Scots in the Marches that for the benefit of both parties ut â—de caterâ— ipsi nee Anglici vexarenâ—ur per tot labores expensas sed singulis annis certi utriusque gentis destinarentur ad Parliamentum Regni utriusque qui et injurias acceptas proferrent in medium emendas acciparent secundum quantitatem damuâ—rum per Judicium Dominorum here the Lords both in the Parliament of England and Scotland are made sole Judges of injuries and dammages done by Scots or English upon one another in the Marches Quia vero Scoti ad Parliamentum Londoniis Anno 1383. supersederunt venire juxta conductum insuper damna interim plura Borealibus praesumpserunt inferre c. decretum est per Parliamentum ut frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem Et concessae sunt Borealibus commissiones congregandi virtutem exercitus Scotis resistendi damna pro damnis inferendi quoties contingeret Scotos irrumpere vel hostili mâ—re partes illas intrare In the Parliament of 4. H. 4. n. 9. Upon the complaint of Sir Thomas Pomeroy and his Lady against Sir Philip Courtney and others forcible entry into several Lands and Mannors in the Country of Devon The King and Lords adjudged that the said Sir Thomas should enter into the said Mannors and Lands if his entry were lawful or bring his Assize without all delayes at his election In the Parliament of 5. H. 4. n. 41 42 43 44. in a case concerning Mannors and certain Lands in the County of Cornwal between the Prince and John Cornwal and the Countesse of Huntington his wife the King and Lords gave Iudgement that the Prince should â—e restored to the said Mannors and Lands being parcels of the Dutchey of Cornwal and that the Prince after seisin had should regrant them unto them which was done accordingly in Parliament In 6 H. 4 n. 28. Upon the Petition of
Writs to divers Officers Governours and Ministers of divers other Citees and to many Shires and Burroughs of the seid Realm to make fals untrue and injust proclamations against our seid Soveraign and Liege Lord K. Ed. the 4th by the name of Ed. late E. of March to provoke and excite his destruction And also by his Letters signed with his hand directed unto the seid Dukes of Excester and Somerset and other Lords refused and denied to keep and observe the seid accord convention and agreement and by the same writing falsifying his promise departed from the same Convention and accord afore either the same our Soveraign Lord or the seid noble Prince his Fader any thing did or attempted to the contrary of the same convention and concord for their partie Be it declared and juged by the seid advis assent and authorite the premises considered that the seid Usurper Henry late called Henry the sixth agenst good faith troth conscience and his honour brake the seid Convention and concord and departed therefrom of wilfull malice long afore the seid fourth day of March as by the matters afore declared it appeareth sufficiently And that the breche thereof on his partie discharged our seid Soveraign Lord of all things that should or might charge him to the keeping thereof in any Article or point after the seid breche And that he was then at his freedom and liberty to use his said right and title of the seid Crownes and to enter into the exercise thereof and of the Royal power dignite and preheminence longing thereunto as he lawfully did in manere and fourm above specified the seid convention and concord and the Acte thereupon made or any thing therein conteined notwithstanding And over this it be declared and juged by the seid advis assent and authorite that the seid agreement concord and Act in all things which been in any wise repugnant or contrary to the seid right title entree state seasen and possession of our Soveraign Lord King Edward the fourth in and to the Crown Royal estate dignite and Lordship above said be void and of no force ne effect And that it be Ordeyned and stablished by the seid assent advis and authorite that every person having any parcel of the seid Castles Manors Lands Honours tenements rents services possessions or hereditaments aboveseid the which were given in exchange or in recompence of or for any other Manors Castles lands tenements rents advowsons fee-farms reversions or any other possessions or enheritaments given to the seid Henry late Earl of Derby to the seid Henry his son late called King Henry the fifth or to the seid Henry his son late called King Henry the sixth or to any other person or persones to or for their or any of their use at their or any of their desire or to perform execute their or any of their wille mowe entre And that they and their heirs and successors entre into the same Manors Castles Lands tenements rents services possessions advowsons or hereditaments so given And them have hold keep joy occupy and inherit of like estate as the giver or givers thereof had them at the time of the gift thereof made though it be so that in any of the Letters Patents or gifts made of any of the premises no mention be made of any recompence or eschange Qua quidem petitione in Parliamento praedicto lecta audita plenius intellecta de avisamento assensu Dominorum Spiritualium Temporalium in eodem Parliam existen ad requisitionem Communitatis praedictae respondebatur eidem modo forma hic Inferius annotatis The King by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in this present Parliament assembled at the request of the Commyns being in the same agreeth and assenteth to this Petition and it accepteth with certain moderations provisions and exceptions by his Highness thereupon made and in schedules written and in the same Parliament delivered the tenours of which hereunder follow c. Convenit cum Recordo This Judgement censure repeal in full Parliament of the deposition and proceeding against King Richard the 2. upon the Commons own Petition by this Act never yet reversed as most wicked treasonable unrighteous against Gods Laws and Mans crying for vengeance in Gods hearing in heaven and exemplarily punished upon the whole kingdom Nation and Henry the 4. his posterity on earth with the sad intestine warres miseries that attended it are sufficient arguments of its unlawfulness detestableness against all those who deem it just or allege it for a president to justifie their extravagances of a more execrable and transcendent Nature 16ly It is very observable that Roger Mortimer Earl of March who had the chief hand in deposing murthering King Edward the 2. after he was deposed was in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. condemned and executed for it as a Traytor without any legal trial all his lands confiscated and Queen Isabel her self who concurred with him like to be questioned for her life and abridged in her maintenance Moreover King Richard the 2. Granchild and next heir to King Edward the 3. who imprisoned deposed and invaded his Fathers throne though somewhat against his will was imprisoned deposed proceeded against in the self same manner as Edw. the 2. was by his very president and soon after murdered like as Edw. the 2. was by King Henry the 4. After which king Henry the 4. his Granchild Henry the 6. was also in the self same manner imprisoned deposed attainted of high Treason with his Queen and Adherents in the Parliament of 1 Edw. 4. n. 8. to 33. and at last murdered by Edw. the 4. his procurement to secure the Crown to himself and his Posterity Yet no sooner was King Edw. the 4. dead but his own Brother Richard Duke of Gloucester who by his instigation murdered King Henry the 6. with his own hands procuring himselâ— to be Protector of his son King Edw. the 5. then young getting his Brother and him into his custody by treachery perjury and hypocrisie caused them both to be barbarously murdered to set the Crown on his own head which he most ambitiously aspired after yet seemed unwilling to embrace till enforced to accept it by a Petition and Declaration drawn up by his own Instruments presented to him in the name of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of the Realm of England wherein he branded his Brother king Edw. the fourth his marriage as illegal and his issue as illegitimate aspersed his Life and Government as one by whom the Laws of God of Gods Church of the Land and of nature and also the laudable Customs and Liberties of England wherein every English man is inheritor were broken subverted contemned against all reason and justice So that the Land was ruled by self-will and pleasure fear and dread all manner of Equity and Law laid apart and despised so that no man was sure of
his life land or livelihood and many inward discords battels effusion of much Christian bloud and destruction of the Nobles bloud of this land ensued and were committed through all the Realm unto the great sorrow and heaviness of all true Englishmen And then he declared himself undoubted heir and inheritor of the Crown by descent grounded on the Laws of God and Nature and the antient Laws and laudable Customes of this Realm yet for further security superadded another Title of lawfull Election by the three Estates in Parliamen◠then he intayled the Crown upon the issue of his body begotten and declared his son Prince Edward to be his heir apparent to succeed him in the Crown and royal Dignity by Act of Parliament which he ratified with his own royal assent This done he reputed the Crown cock-sure to him and his heirs for all generations Yet notwithstanding all his Machiavilian Policies Power Vigilancy care industry to secure his usurped Royalty by the murther of two Kings and many others some of them most instrumental to advance him to the royal Throne before he had worn the Crown full 3. years Henry Earl of Derby laying Title it and landing in Wales only with 2000 soldiers King Richards own Souldiers Friends and others revolting from him and joyning with the Duke he was slain in Posworth field and lost both his life and Crown together if not his soul for all eternity and by the Statute of 1 H. 7. c. 6. he was declared an Usurper of the Realm So unable are Parliaments themselves to secure Crowns on Usurpers heads or to entayl them for any long continuance on their Posterities as these sad tragical domestick presidents of later times with sundry antienter demonstrate King Henry the seventh having gained actual possession of the Crown as right heir thereunto by the Lancastrian line and espoused the better title of York by marrying the heir female to secure himself and his adherents for the future if any wars should arise about these dubious litigious Titles by Perkin Warbecks or others claims confirmed by several Acts of Parliament and Successions of Kings of both Houses claiming both as next heirs of the antient royal Line not to secure any future Usurpers without just right or title though not of the old bloud Royal if once Kings de facto as Sir Edward Cooke seems to intimate and some ignorant Lawyers assert against the intent and Prologue of the Act it self caused it to be enacted 11 H. 7. c. 1. That from henceforth no person or persons whatsoever that attend upon THE KING and Soveraign Lord of this Land for the time being in his person and do him true and faithfull Service of allegeance in the same or be in other places by his commandment in the warrs within the Land or without shall for the said deed and true duty of allegiance be in no wise convict or attaint of High Treason or other offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any process of Law whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit life lands goods chattels or any other things but to be for that deed and service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or loss And if any Act or Acts or any other process of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance that then that Act or Acts or other process of the Law whatsoever they shall be shall stand be utterly void The reason is rendred in the Prologue That it is not reasonable but against all Laws reason and good conscience that the said Subjects going with their Soveraign Lord in wars attending upon his person or being in other places by his commandment within this Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true duty and service of Allegiance This Act which some conceive to be only personal and temporary for Henry the 7. alone could not secure the Heads Lives Liberties Lands Offices Goods or Chattels of those Lords Gentlemen and other English Subjects from Executions Imprisonments Banishments Forfeitures Sequestrations who accompanied assisted our late King in his warrs against the Parliament though King de facto and de jure too without any competitor Both Houses declaring them to BE TRAYTORS and sequestring proceeding against them as Traytor yea our Grandees since have executed them as such in their new erected High Courts How then it can totally indemnify any Perkin Warbecke Jack Cade or apparent Usurpers of the Crown without right or Title who shall per fas aut nefas get actual possession of the Royal throne and be Kings de facto or secure all those who faithfully adhere unto them though to dispossess the King de jure or his right heir of their just royalty and right against all Laws of God man all rules of justice and their very Oathes of Allegiance Supremacy Homage Fealty Protestations Leagues Covenants formerly made unto them from all sutes vexations losses forfeitures whatsoever and null all Act or Acts and legal Process made against them as many Grand Lawyers now conceive it doth transcends both my Law and reason too That opinion of Sir Edward Cooke 3. Instit f. 7. 9 E. 4. f. 1. b. whereon this erronious Gloss is grounded That a King regnant in possession of the Crown and kingdom though he be Rex de facto non de jure yet he is Seignior le Roy within the purview of the Statute of 25 E. 3. ch 2. of Treason and the other King that hath right and is out of possession IS NOT WITHIN THIS ACT. Nay if Treason be committed against a King de facto et non de jure and after the King de jure cometh to the Crown he shall punish the Treason done to the King de facto And a pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is voyd being no doubt a very dangerous and pernicious Error both in Law and policy perverting those Laws which were purposely made for the preservation of the Lives Crowns Rights Titles Persons of lawfull Kings against all attempts Treasons Rebellions against them and for the exemplary punishment of all Traytors Rebels Usurpers who should rebel wage warr or attempt any Treason Conspiracy against their royal Persons Crowns Dignities Titles into a meer Patronage of Traytors Rebels Usurpers and a Seminary of endless Treasons Assassinations Conspiracies against them by indemnifying exempting both them and their Confederates from all legal prosecutions penalties forfeitures whatsoever if they can but once gain actual possessiō of the Crown by any means upon the forcible expulsion deposition assassination or murder of the King de jure Which if once declared for Law I appeal to all Lawyers Polititians Statesmen whatsoever whether it would not presently involve our kingdoms in endless perpetual Rebellions Usurpations War Regicides as it did the Norwegians heretofore where by a kind of Law and Custom as our
Gulielmus Nubrigensis relates Qâ—cunque Rege tyrannice occiderat eo ipso personam et potestatem Regiam induens suo quoque occisori tandem post modicum fortunam inveteratae consuetudinis lege relicturus Quippe ut dicitur à centum retrò annis et eo amplius cum Regum ibidem numerosa successio fuerit Nullus eorum senio aut morbo vitam finivit fed omnes ferro interiere suis interfectoribus tanquam legitimis successoribus regni fastigium relinquentes ut scilicet omnes qui tanto tempore ibidem imperasse noscuntur illud quod Scriptum est respicere videatur OCCIDISTI INSUPER ET POS SEDISTI Wherefore to prevent the dangerous Consequences of these false Glosses on the Statutes of 25 E. 3. c. 2. 11 H. 7. c. 1. I shall lay down these infallible grounds 1. That all publike Laws are and ought to be founded in Justice righteousnes and common honesty for the preserving securing the lives persons estates of all men especially of lawful Kings and Supreme Magistrates from all violence invasion force disseisins usurpations conspiracies assassinations being against all rules of Law and Justice Exod. 20.12 to 18. c. 21 22. 23. Mat. 5.17 to 48. c. 7. 12. Deut. 4.18 Psal 19.8.9 Ps 119.7.106 137 138·160 167. Rom. 7.12 Deut. 6.25 Ps 33.5 Ps 45.7 Ps 72.2 Ps 74.15 Prov. 8.18 Prov. 24.21 Rom. 13.1 to 7. Lu. 20.25 Tit. 3.1 2 3. 1 Tim 1.9 10. Job 20.19 c. 24.2 Mich. 2.1 2 3 4. Jer. 6.7 c. 20.8 c. 22.3.17 Ezech. 45. c. Hab. 1 2. to 10. Lu. 3.14 Whence Cicero thus defines Law Lex est ratio summa insita in natura quae jubet ea justa quae facienda sunt prohibe que contraria Therefore these 2. Statutes were purposely made for those great ends and ought to be interpreted onely for the best advantage of Lawfull Kings and their adherents not for the indemnity impunity encouragement of Traytors Rebels Intruders Usurpers 2ly What Tully writes of the Roman Senators we ought to doe the same of our English Parliaments and Legislators Ea virtute et sapientia majores nostri fuerunt ut legibus scribendis nihil sibi aliud quam salutem atque utilitatem reipublicae proponerent Whence he there inferrs A Legibus nihil convenit arbitrari nisi quod reipublicae conducat proficisci quoniam ejus causa sunt comparatae Therefore these Laws are to be interpreted for the best security safety preservation of the lawfull heads of the Commonwealth and their rightfull heirs and loyal dutifull subjects not for their destruction and the indemnity security of Usurpers Traytors Rebels aspiring after their Crowns Thrones Assassinations to the publike ruine 3ly All the branches of the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. made at the special request of the Lords and Commons and that by a lawful King at that season declare this Statute to be meant only of a lawful King whiles living whether in or out of actual possession of the Realm not of a bare Usurper in possession without right as Sir Edward Cooke expounds it else it will necessarily follow That it shall be no Treason at all to compasse or imagine the death of the King de jure if once dispossessed for a time by Violence and Treason or of his Queen or eldest son and heir or to violate his Queen or eldest daughter not married or to levy war against the lawfull King in his Realm or to be adherent to his Enemies within the Realm or elsewhere or to counterfeit his Great or Privy Seal or mony c. But high Treason in all these particulars in relation only to the Vsurper in possession without and against all right and Title which would put all our rightful Kings and Supreme Governors into a farr worser sadder condition than their Trayterous Vsurpers and into a worse plight than every Disseisee or lawfull heir intruded upon by abatement or dispossessed by torcions unjust or forcible entries for which our Common and Statute Laws have provided many speedy and effectual means of recovering their possessions and Damages too against Disseisorâ— Abators Intruders on their Inheritances Freeholds for exemplary punishment fining imprisonment of the Disseisors Abaters but no means of recovery at all for our dishinherited disposseâ—ed Kings or their heirs against Intruders Vsurpers of their Crowns nor punishments against them their Confederates or Adherents if our Laws concerning Treasons extend not unto them though Kings de jure but only to Usurpers de facto et non de jure and if the Statute of 11 H. 7. exempt them from all kinds of penalties forfeitures by the lawfull King when he regains possession of the Crown as some now expound them 4ly It is resolved both by our Statutes Judges Law-books over and over That there is no Inter-regnum in our hereditary kingdom or any other That so soon as the rightfull hereditary King dies the Crown and Realm immediatly descend unto and are actually vested in the person and possession of the right heir before either he be actually proclaimed or crowned King and that it is high Treason to attempt any thing against his Person or royal authority before his Coronation because he is both King de jure de facto too as was adjudged in Watsons and Clerks case Hill 1. Jacobi Hence upon the death of King Henry the 3. though Prince Edward his heir was absent out of the Realm in the holy wars where he received a dangerous wound by an assassinate and was not certainly known to be alive yet all the Nobility Clergy and people going to the high Altar at Westminster swore fealty and allegeance to him as their King appointed a New Seal and Officers under him qui thesauram Regis pacem regni fideliter custodirent Sicque pax Novi Regis Edwardi in cunctis finibus regni proclamatur Edwardo fidelitatem Jurantes qui si viveret penitus ignorarunt Besides it is both enacted resolved in our Statutes Lawbooks That Nullum tempus occurrit Regi and that when the King is once in legal possession of his Crown Lands or any Lands holden of him by reason of his Praerogative he who enters or intrudes uppon them shall gain no freehold thereby yea if the Kings Tenant dieth and his heir enter into the lands his ancestors held of the King before that he hath done his homage and received seisin of the King though he hath a right of inheritance to the Lands by Law yet he shall gain no freehold and if he die yet his wife shall not be indowed because he gained no freehold by his entry but only a naked possessioÌ„ much les then shal a meer Intruder gain any Freeheld or interest in the Crown or Crown lands it self to the prejudice of the rightfull King or his heirs This is most evident by the sacred presidents of K. David still King when unjustly dispossessed driven out of his
kingdom by his unnatural Son Absolon who made himself King de facto who was yet a traytor with all his Adherents and came to a tragical end 2. Sam. c. 15. to c. 20. by the case of Adonijah the Vsurper and his Adherents slain and degraded as Traytors and of the Usurper Athaliah who had near 7. years possession of the Throne and slew all the bloud royal but Ioash yet was shee dispossessed slain as a murderer traytor usurper and Ioash the right heir set upon the Throne and crowned King by Jehoiada the high Priest the Captains and Rulers of the host and Officers people of the Land who all rejoyced and the City was quiet after that they had slain Athaliah with the sword 2 Kings 11. 2 Chro. c. 23. And as this was Gods Law amongst the Jews So it was the antient Law of England under the antient Britons as is evident by the case of the Usurper Vortigern who afâ—er his Usurpation of the Crown by the murther of two rightfull Kings Constantine and Constance and near 20 years possession by usurpation the Britons calling in and crowning Aurelius Ambrosius the right heir for their lawfull King he was prosecuted by him as a Traytor both to his Father and Brother whom he caused to be murdered to gain the Crown besieged assaulied and burnt to death in the Castle of Genorium in Wales with all his adherents that were in it This Law continued not onely under our Saxon Kings but English too as is evident by the case of Qu. Maud reputed a lawfull Queen notwithstanding the usurpation Coronation and actual possession of King Stephen in her absence all whose grants of the Crown lands were resumed by her Son King Henry the 2. and King Stephens Charters and Grants of them resolved null and void against King Henry because made by a Usurper and Invader of the Crown King John in the year 1216. was renounced by most of his Nobles Barons people who elected crowned and swore allegeance to Lewes as their King and dispossessed King John of all or most of the Realm who thereupon at his death cum summa mentis amaritudine maledicens non valedicens omnibus Baronibus suis pauper omni thesauro destitutus nec etiam tantillum terrae in pace â—inens ut vere JOHANNIS EXTORRIS diceretur ex hac vita miserrime transmigravit Henricum primogenitum suum REGNI CONSTITUENS HAEREDEM Yet no sooner was he dead though Lewes was K. de facto and that by the Barons own election who called him in and crowned him but Gualo the Popes Legat and many of the Nobles and People asâ—embling at Glocester there crowned Henry his Son for their true and lawfull King at Glocester cogente necessitate quoniam Westmonasterium ubi locus est ex consuetudine regiae consecrationis deputatus tunc ab inimicis suis suit obsessum After his Coronation he received the homages and fealties of all the Bishops Earls Barons and others present at his Coronation Sicque Nobiles Universi Castellani eo multo fidelius quam regi Johanni adhaeserunt quia propria patris iniquitas UT CUNCTIS VIDEBATUR filio non debuit imputari After which most of the Nobles and English deserting Lewes submitted themselves to Henry as their lawfull Soveraign routed the French forces besieged Lewes in London forced him to swear that he would depart the Realm and never to return more into it during his life and presently restore all the Lands and Castles he had taken in England by warr and resign them to King Henry Which he accordingly performed Most of the Barons who adhered to Lewes and submitted themselves to King Henry were by agreement restored to all their rights inheritances and Liberties But some Bishops Abbots Priors Secular Canons and many Clergy-men qui Ludovico Baronibus consilium praestuerant et favorem and continued obstinare were excepted out of the composition between King Henry and Lewes and thereupon deprived of their livings goods and forced to make fines and compositions for adhering to the Usurper Lewes though King de facto for a season Therefore a King de facto gets neither a legal freehold against the King de Jure or his heirs nor can he indemnify his adherents against his Justice who are still Traytors by adhering to him though crowned and the King de jure may punish them as such 5ly Since the Statute of 25 E. 3. which altered not the Law in this point before it in the Parliaments of 1 E. 4. roâ— Parl. n. 8. to 37.4 E. 3. n. 28. to 41.14 E. 4. n. 34 35 36. King Henry the 6. himself though king de facto for 39. years and that by Act of Parliament and a double descent from Henry the 4th and 5th Usurpers and Intruders together with his Queen and sundry Dukes Earls Barons Nobles Knights Gentlemen who adhered to him in his wars against Richard Duke of Yorke and Edward the 4th King de jure were all attainted of high Treason all their lands goods chattels forfeited some of them executed as Traytors for adhering to Henry the 6. and assisting him in his wars against Edward the 4th king only de jure it being adjudged High Treason within the Statute of 25 E. 3. against Sir Edward Cooks fond opinion to the contrary As for the Year-book of 9 E. 4. f. 1. b. that the King de jure when restored to the Crown may punish Treason against the king de facto who usurped on him either by levying warr against him or compassing his death it was so farr from being reputed Law in any age being without and against all Presidents or in King Edward the fourths reign that those who levied war against Henry the 6. were advanced rewarded as loyal Subjects not punished as Traytors for it by King Edward the 4th when actually King It being not only a disparagement contradiction to the Justice Wisdom Title Policy and dangerous to the person safety of any King de jure to punish any of his Lieges Subjects for attempting the destroying deposing of an Vsuper of his Crown and Archtraytor to his person but an owning of that Usurper as a lawfull King against whom high Treason might be legally committed and a great discouragement to all loyal Subjects for the future to aid him against any Intruders that should attempt or invade his Throne for fear of being punished as Traytors for this their very loyalty and zeal unto his safety Moreover all the gifts grants made by Henry the 4 5 6. themselves or in and by any pretenced Parliaments under them were nulled declared void and resumed they being but meer Usurpers and kings de facto not de jure 6ly It is the judgement resolution of learned Polititians Historians Civilians Canonists Divines as well Protestants as Papists Jesuites and of some Levellers in this age that it is no Offence Murther Treason at all by the Laws of God
House is a stronger argument to prove them no Court at all at least of Judicature than their adjournment or prorogation of themselves to evidence them to be a distinct Court from the House of Lords Should I here subjoyn to the premises all the cases extant in the Lords Iournals and Parliament Records evidencing the Lords real Jurisdiction proceedings and Judicature in civil causes in the reigns of King Ed. the 4. Richard the 3. Henry the 7. and 8. Queen Mary Queen Elizabeth King Iames and King Charles I should be over tedious to the Readers I shall therefore only trouble you with 2 cases more In the Parliament of 18 Elizabeth there arose a question about place and precedency in the case of the Lord de la Ware upon debate thereof in the Lords House ALL THE LORDS except the Lord Windesore ADIUDGED that he should have place next after the Lord Wilâ—oughbie of Erisbe And the Lord Keeper was appointed to acquaint the Queens Majesty with this determination of the Peers and to know her pleasure concerning the same In the last long Parliament Pasch 20 Caroli this cale of Note and Consequence was adjudged by the Lords against the late resolutions of some Judges touching the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court between Fairfax and le Gay and Mr. Johns a London Merchant In Lent Vacation 1638. Mr. Iohns libelled in the Admiralty against one Hooper for 26000 weight of Barbadoes Tobacco sold to him at St. Maloes in France in partibus transmarinis infra jurisdictionem Admiraltatis Angliae by one Bâ—les factor to Hooper for fraight due unto him by Hooper for his Ship called the William and Anne whereof Iohns was owner without alleging that this sale and contract was made super altum mare Fairfax and le Gay became sureties for Hooper in the Admiralty Iohns had a sentence against Hooper in the Admiralty upon this Libel who soon after became a Bankrupt Whereupon Fairfax and le Gay his sureties appealed to the Delegates to avoid the sentence and execution against them and then moved in the Kings Bench for a Prohibition to stay the sute suggesting the contract to be made at St. Maloes upon the land and not super altum Mare and so not within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Upon which they procured a rule to stay the Proceeding Whereupon Johns petitioned the House of Lords for relief against this rule and that the Delegates might proceed to give sentence upon the Appeal that so he might have execution against the sureties Hooper being a Bankrupt for above one hundred thousand pounds and all his estate sold so as his debt would be wholly lost if he should be deprived of the benefit of his sentence to which the sureties were liable Upon his Petition this point in Law amongst others whereon the hinge of his case turned was argued at the Lords Bar by Mr. Serjeant Rolls Mr. Maynard for Fairfax and le Gay and by my self for Johns Whether the Admirals Court had any true antient legal Jurisdiction of Contracts made at St. Maloes and other parts beyond the Seas between Merchants and Mariners touching their Merchandise and marine affairs upon the Land as well as on the Sea The Sureties Counsel argued confidently they had not upon the Statutes of 13 R. 2. c. 5.15 R. 2. c. 3. 2 H. 4. c. 14. and the Presidents cited in Sir Ed. Cooks 4 Instit. p. 124. and c. 22. of the Court of Admiralty and in Hubberts Reports â— 331 But I argued to the contrary and clearly proved by the Laws of Oleron Lex 1 2 6 8 9 10 15 16 22 23. made in the reign of King Richard the 1. Anno 1190. ratified under the Seal of that Island by that King confirmed and used by Henry 3. Edw. 1. and practised ever since as the Law of the land in the Court of Admiralty as Sir Edward Cook himself asserts and by the notable Record of 22 E. 1. in Cooks 4 Institutes p. 142 143 144. and Seldens Mare Clausum l. 2. c. 28 f. 275. the Black Book of the Admiralty the Parliament Roll of 4 H. 4. n. 47. for confirmation of the Laws of Oleron 1. That the Admiralty in all ages since King Rich. the 1. â—ill the making of these Statutes and ever since till Hill 2 Jacobi C. B. between Tomlinson Plaintif and Philips Defendant had held Jurisdiction of such contracts between Merchants and Mariners made upon the land in forein parts as well as on the Sea as the Marshal had always used to hold plea of Contracts and deeds of Arms Warr Treasons Murders and Felonies out of the Realm which cannot be determined by the Common Law And that without any Prohibiâ—ion granted to stay the proceedings in all that large tract of time both before and since these Statutes 2ly That these Acts were made only to restrain the Admirals Incroachments of Jurisdiction in Contracts Pleas Quarels other things made or done by Landor Water within the Bodie of the Counties of this Realm or in any Port Harbor Haven or Creek within the Counties the Conusance whereof properly belonged to the Kings Courts or to the Courts of Cities Burroughs and other Lords and to confine them only to such contracts and things within the Realm whereof the Sea is a part being under the Kings Dominion and Lordship as are made or done upon the Sea not upon the Land oâ— Water in any Haven Port River Creek within the precinct of any County but not to debar them in the least degree of their antient undoubted jurisdiction they always had and exercised de Jure without complaint or restraint in contracts of Merchants and Mariners made upon the Land in forein parts beyond the Seas of which the Kings Common Law Courts and the Courts of other Cities Burroughs Ports Lords never had nor could have the least Jurisdiction since out of the Realm and no Jury de Vicineto could be thence awarded or summoned to try the Contract in England which I proved by the Parliament Rolls and Commons Petitions whereon these Statutes were grounded being most express in point as 13 R. 2. Rot. Paerl n. 41.14 R. 2. n. 37.15 R. 2. n. 30.2 H. 4. n. 89.4 H. 4. â— 47.11 H. 4. n. 61. compared with 27 E. 3. c. 13.2 R. 2. c. 4.32 H. 8. c. 14.5 Eliz. c. 5.27 Eliz. c. 27. which so interpret it and by most of the Cases cited by Edward Cook in his Chapter of Admiralty extending only to contracts made within the body of any County within the Realm not in any forein parts on the Land or Sea without or beyond the Realm whereof the Comon Law Courts had never Jurisdiction before Sir Sir Edw. Cooke was Chief Justice and that by a meer fiction and false contradictory surmise contrary to truth reason Justice Law and the Letter of Charterparts and Contracts themselves viz. that they were made at St. Maloes Burdeaux Sevil
should be holden once every year or more often if need be to redress divers mischiefs and grievances which daily happen especially delayes in Judgements and sutes at Law through difficulty or diversity of Opinions among the Judges To prevent which the Statute of 14 E. 3. c. 5. enacts that from henceforth at every Parliament shall be chosen a Prelate two Earls and two Barons which shall have Commission and power of the King to hear by Petition delivered to them the complaints of them that will complain of such delayes and grievances and to cause the records of such Judgements to be brought before them and to hear the cause and reasons of such delayes and by the assistance and advice of the Chancellor Treasurer Justices of both Benches and as many other of the Kings Council as shall seem convenient shall proceed to take a good award and make a good judgement therein And that the Judges shall proceed hastily to give Judgement according to their determination And in case it seemeth to them the difficulty be so great that it may not well be determined without the assent of the Parliament that the said Prelate Earls and Barons shall present the tenor or tenors of the said record or cause to the next Parliament and there shall be a final accord taken what judgement ought to be given in his case And according to this award shall be commanded to the Judges before whom the plea did depend that they shall proceed to give Judgement without delay And to begin to give remedy upon this Ordinance it was assented that a Commission and power be made to the Archbishop of Canterbury the Earls of Arundel and Huntington the Lord of Wake and the Lord Raufe Basset to endure till the next Parliament After which I find this Commission made in pursuance of this Ordinance Edwardus Dei gratia c. authorizing the Bishop of Chichester the Earls of Huntingdon and Devonshire and Tho. Wake of Lidell and Thomas de Berkley Barons assigned to hear querelas omnium qui se de gravaminibus dilationibus sibi factis coram Iustic et aliis conqueri voluerint per avisamentum Cancell Thes Iustic de atroque Banco aliis dâ— Consilio Regis according to the Ordinance made in Parliament 14 Ed. 3. c. 5. that Unus Praelatus Duo Comites et Duo Barones should have Commission and power to hear and determine such complaints Test Rege apud Westm nono die Iunii There is this Petition of the Commons to the King for declaring Treasons in 25 E. 3. Rot. Parl. n. 17. Item come les Iustices nostre Seignior le Roy assignez en diversâ—es Countees ajuggent les gentz que sont empeschez devant eux come Traiteurs pur diverses Causes desconues a la Comune estre Treason que please a nostre Seignior le Roy per son Counseâ—l eâ— per les Grantz et sâ—ges de la terre declarer les pointz de Treason en cest present Parlament Quant aâ—la Petition touchant Treason nostre Seignior le Roy ad Fait declarer les Articles de Y celle en maneâ— que ensuit as in the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. â— By which Petition Act and the like Petition in 21 E. 3. n. 15. it is apparent That the Right of declaring Judging what is High Treason in Parliament belongs originally to the King himself by the advise of his Councel Great men and Sages of the Land and not unto the Commons House at whose request the KING then made a Declaration of the Articles of Treason as in this Statute by his Nobles Councils and Iudges advice Therefore the Declaration of all other Treasons in particular cases not within this Statute belongs wholly to the King Lords Council and Judges in the Lords House not to the Commons alone or joyntly with them within the later branch of this Act as well as the Treasons within the body thereof viz. Because that many other like cases of Treason may happen in time to come which a man cannot imagin nor declare at this present time it is accorded that if any other case supposed Treason which is not before specified shall happen de novel before any Iustice the Iustice shall demurâ— without going to Iudgement of the Treason tanque per devant le ROY EN SON PARLEMENT soit le case monstre et declare de que leceo doit estre a jugge Treason ou autre Felony Against the Opinion of Sir Edward Cooks 3 Institutes p. 22. The Commons having no power at all to declare and judge what shall be Treason in such new particular cases but only when a New Treason is made or declared for the future by Bill or Act of Parliament wherein their concurrence is necessary as in all new Acts concerning Treasons since 25 E. 3. as is evident by Mr. Sr. Iohns Argument at Law this very last Parliament at the Attainder of Thomas Earl of Strafford and Mr. Samuel Browns Argument at the Lords House Bar to prove and satisfie the Lords House that he and Archbishop Laud were guilty of High Treason upon the Articles of their several Impeachments exhibited and proved against them of which the Lords and King alone were the proper Iudges but the Commons only their Impeachers and Prosecutors in the Iudicial way of Parliamentary Proceedings as I have formerly evidenced Therefore all the late Votes knacks Declarations of the Commons House alone before or without the Kings House of Lords Declarations Resolutions of sundry things to be high Treason and divers persons to be Traytors upon bare informations suggestions though not within the Letter of 25 E. 3. c. 2. are but meer illegal innovations extravagancies yea Nullities in Law fit to be eternally exploded especially by Lawyers the chiefest Innovators Promoters of them rather out of ignorance or rashnesse than Prudence Law or solid Iudgement for which they can produce no presidents in former ages In the year 1392. the 15 of King Rich. the 2. we have this memorable President of the Lords Iudicature together with the King assembled in a Great Councel without the Commons in the case of the Mayor Sherifs Citizens and City of London thus related by Walsingham at large Misit Rex ad Cives Londoniarum petens ab eis mutuo mille libras cui procaciter et ultra quam decuit restiterunt Sed quendam Lumbardom volentem accommodare regi dictam summam male tractaveâ—unt veâ—beraverunt er paulominus occiderunt Quae cum Rex â—udisset iâ—aâ—us est valde et convocaas omnes regnipene Majorâ—s apperuit proterviam civium Londoniarum et de praesumptione conqueritur eorundem Qui omnes infesti Civibus propter diversas causas consulunt ut reprimatur citius eorum insolentia et superbia destruatur Eranc quippe tunc inter omnes fere nationes gentium clarissimi arrogantissimi et avarissimi ac male creduli in deum traditiones avitas Lolardorum sustentatores
Mat. Westm An. 1244. p. 180 181. * Mat. Paris p. 638 639. Mat. Westm An. 1245. * Mat. Paris p. 646 647 648. Mat. West An. 1245. †Ypodigmae Neustriae p. 60. * Mat. Westm p. 191. * Mat. Paris p. 674 675 677 678 679 680. Mat. Westm An. 1246. p. 206 207. c. * Mat. Westm p. 207 * Mat. Paris p. 679. * Mat. Westm An. 1146. p. 208. * Mat. Paris p. 687. * Mat. Paris p. 694. * Mat. Paris p. 697 698 706 707. Mat. Westm p. 220 221 223. * Mat. Westm p. 222. * Mat. Westm p. 326. * Walsingham Hist Angl. p. 48. to 56. Ypodig Neustriae p. 88. to 95. Mat. Westm p. 435 436. * 2 Institutes p. 98. Nota. * Mat. Westm p. 463 464. * Tho. Walsingham Hist Angl. p. 76. * Walsingham Hist Angl. p. 74 75 c. * See an Exact Abridgement of the Records in the Tower p. 64 65.120 121 122. * Which some have disclaimed by unPeering themselves * Stiled Magna Farta by some Grandees * See my New Discovery of Free-State Tyranny * See the Whitehall Ordinance for Excise March 17. 1653. others since * My first part of a Legal Vindication c. of the Fundamental Laws of England p. 67. to 72. My Protestation against Excise * See my speech in Parliament and Epistle to my Legal Vindication c. †Mat. Westm p. 409. Walsingham Ypodigmae Neustriae p. 83 84. * Anno 1265. p. 339. 4 (o) See Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour Part. 2. chap. 5. and Coke 4 Instit p. 1. * 11 H. 4.13 Cook 6 Report f. 52 53. (p) Coke 4 Inst p. 3. * As both Houses resolve in their Declaration of August 1642. Exact Collection p. 492. * Modus tenendi Parliament Vowel Coxe 4. Inst c. 1. * 12 R. 2. c. 12.23 H. 6. c. 12.23 H. 6 c. 11.9 H. 6. c. 16.31 H. 8. c. 11.50 E. 3. m. 209. 1 R. 2. n. 137. †Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour part 2. ch 5. p. 732. to 736. †Exact collection p. 320 321 322. Object Answer * Cook 4 Instit p. 16. Seldens Titles of Honour p. 736 737 715 716.747.721.722 724 725. * Seldens Titles of Honour part 2. c. 5. p. 663 665.747 748 751 757 563. †Claus 7 R. 2. mem 32. dorso Seldens Titles of Honor p. 737. Cook 4 Instit p. 47. * Exact Collection p. 723 724. * Exact Collection p. 654.655 †Stat. of Maâ—lbridge 52 H. 2. Prologue 33 H. 8. c. 1. * Cokes 4. Institutes p. 45. * Cokes 4 Instit p. 4 5.44 45. * Fol. 9. b. 16. b. * Plowden f. 333 334 501 Dyer 348. a. 21 E. 4.46 48.57.43 Aff. 15. Coke 1 Report f. 48.52.3 Rep. f. 73 74. 8 Rep. f. 55.167 Ashes Table Grant le Roy 46. * Titles of Honour lib. 2. p. 663 665 747 748 751 757 763. * 1 Inst f. 16.8 †Ro. Paâ— 26. E. 3. part 1. m. 21. See Rot. Claus in dors 11. E. 3. part 2. m. 11. Religious qui teignunt per Barony sont tenus de Venier au Parliament Vid. ibid. 13 E. 3. part 2. m. 8. 1. * Modus tenendi Parl. c. 2. * Dors Claus 27 H. 8. m. 24. Seldens Titles of Honour p. 541. (p) Pat. 5. H. 8. part 2. m. 12 Seldens Title of Honour p. 750 751. Sir Edward Cook 4 Inst p. 45. * See Cooks 4 Inst p. 45. Abbot Banhams case * Titles of Honour 730 731 732 733. * Pat. 26 E. 3. part 2. m. 22. Seldens Titles of Honour p. 734 735. †Selden ib. p. 727. * Titles of Honour p. 727. * Claus 49 H. 3. m. 10 dors in Schedula Seldens Titles of Honour p. 723 724. (1) Titles of Honour p. 720. to 736. (2) Claus 18 E. 2. m. 5. Seldens Titles of Honor p. 721.726 (3) Titles of Honour p. 720. (4) See an Exact Abridgment of the Records in the Tower and my first Table thereunto * And John de Leyburn â—m 14.17 18. E. 3. * Chron. Joh. Bromton col 1108. Mat. Paris p. 431 826. Hen. de Knyghton de Eventibus Angl. l. 3. c. 2. Walsingham Hist Angl. p. 17 18 19. to 23.25.32 33.42.49 to 56. * Ypodigmae Neustriae p. 101. * Walsingham Hist Angl. p. 86. (1) Claus 5 E. 2. m. 27. dorso (2) Claus 5. E. 2. m. 26. dorso (a) 7 H. 6.16 m. 19 H. 6.63 64 30 H. 6.26 a. 33 H. 6.18 a. 21 H. 7.1 Br. Parliament 28. 14 H. 8.9 b. Dyer f. 60. St. Germin l. 1. c. 26. Plowden f. 126.388 389. 398. Cook 8 Rep. f. 120.9 Report in the Epistle 1 Institute f. 109 110.4 Instit c. 1. Cromptons Jurisdiction of Courts f. 1 2. Ashes Tables Parliament sect 15. Cowels Interpreter Minshawes Dictionary tit Parliament Sir Thomas Smith De Republica Angl. l. 2. c. 1 2. Vowel Cambdens Britannia Justice Doderidge Mr. Tate Mr. Agar (b) My Historical Collection of the antient Parliaments of England And 2. 3. Part of my Legal Vindication and Historical Collection of the Fundamental Laws of England (c) Chron. vol. 3. p. 38. (d) Hist of Great Britain p. 438. (e) Hist Novor l. 5. p. 117. (f) Annal. pars prior p. 473 (g) Mat. Par. Anno 1114. p. 63. Mat. Westm p. 28. (h) De Gest Reg. Angl. col 237. (i) Col. 1005. * Mat. Paris Anno 1115. p. 62. Hen. Huntindon Hist l. 7. p. 380. Antiq Eccles Brit. p. 112 113. Radulph de Diceto Anno 1115. col 502 504. Gervasius Actus Pontif. Cantuar. col 1661. Thomas Stubs Actus Pontif. Eboracensium col 1714. Henry de Knighton de Event Angl. l. 2. c. 8. col 2379. Will. Malmsbury de Gestis Pontif l. 1. p. 232. * Eadmerus l 5. p. 125 126. (k) Mat. Paris p. 53 54. Eadmerus Hist Novor l. 3. Chron. Johan Bromton col 1201 1202. Malmsbury de Gest Regum l. 5. p. 156. See Holinshed Speed Daniel (l) Simeon Dunelmensis col 226. Chronicon Johannis Bromton col 998. Hovedeâ— annal pars 1. p. 408. (m) Eadmerus Hist Novorum l. 3. page 56 57 58. (n) Eadmerus l. 3. p. 58 59. Will. Malmsburiensis de Gestis Pontif. l. 1. p. 124 125. (o) Mat. Paris p. 55. Chronicon Johan Bromton col 998. (p) Matth. Westm Mat. Paris Hoveden Huntindon Simeon Dunelmensis Chronicon Johan Bromton an 1101. Henry de Knyghton de Eventib. Angl. l. 2. c. 8. (q) Eadmerus Hist Novorum l. 3. p. 61 62. Malmsburien de Gestis Pontif. l. 1. p. 225. (r) Eadmerus l. 3. p. 66. (Å¿) Eadmerus l. 3. p. 67. Wiâ—l Malmsbury de Gestis Pontif. Angl. l. 1. p. 228. Hoveden An. 1. p. 469. Mat. Par. p. 56. Matthew Westm p. 23. Simeon Dunelm Hist col 227 228. Abbrev. Chron. col 499. Chron. Johan Bromton col 1000. Antiquitates Eccles Brit. p. 104 106. Seldens Titles of Honour p. 763. (t) Eadmerus Hist Nov. l. 3. p. 69 70. Wil. Malmsbury de Gestâ—s Pontif l. 1. p. 226. Antiq. Eccles Bâ—it p.