And he said That the House of Commons desiring that such a Power might have been Enacted into a Law though themselves would have been the first who would have repented such a Law did sufficiently denote That the Commons did not think the Order would be binding in Law after their Dissolution for otherwise what need was there of a Law if the Order was in force after Dissolution without a Law Upon the whole he said He thought the Distemper of that time had given more weight to the Order then any thing else and some of their Lordships on that Bench did know both in what an heat it had been made and how it had been since blown upon by the Lords themselves who he was confident would no more endure to have it Construed in that Sence which now seems to be put upon it of Subjecting Men to be under INDEFINITE IMPRISONMENT then they will endure themselves to be every Day put in the Stocks As he had said thus much to the Order it self so he said He hoped to make appear That the Courts Bailing of him would not at all Intrench upon the Order nor meddle with the Jurisdiction of the Lords nor their Proceedings in any kind For that he took it for granted That what is done by that Court and the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer on Appeals and Writs of Error was understood not to meddle at all with the Jurisdiction nor Proceedings of the Lords in those Cases and that this was just the same all being alike Subject to the final Determination of the Lords whenever they pleased to call the Appeal Writ of Error or Impeachment before them and without any prejudice to their Lordships Proceedings by any of those Acts done by that or the other Courts in the Interval of Parliaments Besides he said It had been usual to Bail in that Court to the Justice Seat in Eyre and yet that that Court could not proceed further He Instanced also That Courts allowing of the Pardons of Peers when pleaded there and yet that they had no power to proceed to the Tryal of a Peer And so he said There were divers other Instances of that Courts proceeding to such and such degrees of Exercising their power to avoid delays c. where the Court had no Jurisdiction to determine the matter Precedents he said were not to be expected which were exactly fitted to his Case because he durst be bold to say there never was such a Case before when well considered in all its Circumstances nor he hoped never would be again But he said That therefore both the Kings Power and the Peoples Liberties would be the more concern'd in what Resolution should be given by the Court in this Case of his He said There were Precedents of Discharging of Men Impeach'd in Parliament upon the Kings Writ to that Court Commanding the Proceedings to cease and they have been Discharg'd accordingly by that Court without any other Reason given in the Writ but because the King held the Parties to be Innocent and free from the Crimes Charg'd against them As in the Cases of Melton Arch-Bishop of York and Gravesend Bishop of London 7 E. 3. He mentioned also Hugh Spencer and Sir Thomas Barkley's being Mainprized to Parliament and yet that the latter was upon suspition for the Murder of a King viz. Edward the Second He said Inferior Courts had Bailed to Parliament about the Popes Bull c. Reg. Writs 274. He said A single Judg viz. Sir Robert Atkins had lately Bayled one for Treason and another for Murder and that he did himself hear his Justification of both allow'd as to the Legal part before the King and Council He said That Kings had formerly abolish't Accusations of Treason and Instanced a Case of Talbot against Ormond in the time of H. 6. And to shew how powerful the bare intention of Kings to Pardon had been heretofore he Instanced the Case of a man Indicted of Felony who without any Council shew'd forth a Charter of Pardon to the Court which was discordant to the Indictment and also to his name and yet because the Court perceived that it was the King's Intention he should be pardoned he was Remanded to get a better Pardon 26 Ass p. 46. And he did thereupon say That he hoped the Kings Intention of Pardon as to him had been sufficiently declared to the whole Kingdom And in short he said that if the matter was proper for the Jurisdiction of that Court before it was in Parliament it 's having been there did not take away the Jurisdiction from a Competent Court when the Extraordinary Jurisdiction fails which was not to be supposed could lay all other Jurisdictions asleep when itself was not in being and especially when that Competent Court should do nothing in Contradiction to the Proceedings of the Extraordinary Court as he hoped he had made appear that that Court would not do by the Bayling of him Whereas on the contrary he said it was most evident that Justice did fail in the highest concern which is that of Mens Liberties unless he could be inform'd when and where he might certainly be either Tryed or discharged for that as he had said before it was agreed both by the Council for the King and the Council for the Prisoners in the Arguments on the Grand Habeas Corpus that INDEFINITE IMPRISONMENT was held to be PERPETVAL IMPRISONMENT which the Law did admit in no Case where the Imprisonment was only AD CVSTODIAM And although his had been intended but AD CUSTODIAM yet it could not be denyed but it had already been ad Gravem paenam and without any perticular Cause yet shew'd for which he ought not to be Bayled by Law He then said that Littleton had declared in his Arguments 5 Car. That if Treason in General should be held to be a sufficient Returne yet that the Kings-Bench might Bayle And the said Littleton and the Kings Attorny in their Arguments one for the King and the other for Mr. Selden did agree that where the Party could not avoid the Judgment of the Law nor that there was no Danger by his being at liberty He ought to be Bayled after long Imprisonment and at that time six Months was taken to be long Imprisonment He said he had read a passage in the Lord Cokes Institutes where he spoke of such Imprisonments as he compared to the Imprisonment of St. Paul by the Centurion who first put him in Chains and then enquired who he was and what he had done He said he would not compare his case to that but that there was so much of resemblance in it that he had been in Chains or what was there meant by Chains which was a Prison for above three years on a pretence of Treason without being told to that day what kind of Treason he had committed which had been done in no bodies Case but his and by so much the greater was his hardship He had also both been
and half after his Imprisonment that he was not a Week without Endeavours used by strange People to get to speak with him and such as he had reason often to suspect to be Knights of the Post amongst whom the story of one Magrath another Irish Man he said was notably remarkable in his endeavour under pretence of kindness to have made him their Tool to prove that Sir Edmund-Bury Godfrey had killed himself but he said he had the good fortune immediately to detect that Villany as he hoped yet to live to doe of some others but that in the mean time he foresaw that he was always to be a particular Object of the malice of such men so long as he was left under this Confinement from which he saw no hopes to be relieved but by that Court where the Law Directs every English man to come for Justice that is oppress'd in his Liberty He said he hoped his Lordship would forgive him for having been a little tedious on that Subject of Sir Edmund-Bury Godfrey because his Reputation had been so much Exposed in that particular and before that Court. After his discharge from that Indictment he said there seemed to be a probability of the Call of a Parliament in some short time and whenever he could give himself the least hopes of that he resolved to trouble no other place But that now he had not the least prospect of that kind and that he had been a Prisoner above three years and yet could safely swear he was without the knowledge to that day for what real Crimes he was Committed only he knew that the name of Treason had been laid to his Charge without saying wherein the Treason consisted He said he came therefore now to that Court as the only proper place for all Persons to resort to for their Liberty and he was sorry that he was put to the great disadvantage of speaking in his own Cause but because he saw the last time he was there that some fault seemed to be found with his Councils for urging things which seemed to relate to matters of Parliament although upon a due consideration of his request there is nothing in it which does touch their Jurisdiction he had chosen rather to rely upon the Courts pardoning his defects than put any further hardships upon those Gentlemen who had been his Council to whom he had been more beholden than they had been to him for that they had undergone some unheard-of rebukes already in another place for offering to be of Council with him though in matters of Law which he believed had never been heard of but in his Case and he hoped that when all his Circumstances shall have been well considered he shall be the last English man that will ever have so many hardships put upon him as will appear to be through every part of his Case In the first place he said that he had been both Accused and Committed without any Oath or Affidavit made against him for any Crime whatever Which had been in the Case of no other Lord but himself and he did believe of no other Man Secondly That there was no particular Treason mention'd in the Articles against him only the word TRAITEROVSLY had been applyed to things which were not Treason if they had been true as was then declared by Sir William Jones the King's Attorney and he said there were good store of Witnesses to prove that when it could not be maintained by Argument in the House of Commons that any of the Crimes mention'd against him were Treason It was answered by one of the long Robe there who would not have spared to have assigned the Treason had there been any that however they ought to give the title of High-Treason to the Articles for that otherwise they would dwindle to nothing when they came into the House of Peers Now in the Impeachments of the other Lords not to meddle with the Truth or Falsity of their Accusers they were Charg'd with the highest Treasons in Name and upon Oaths made against them Thirdly When a short day was set by the Lords for his being heard and that he appeared that day accordingly his Council was then Threatned if they did dare to plead matter of Law for him Which he said was never heard of before in any Man's Case whatever nor in the worst of times Fourthly He said if all the Articles had been true against him and had been Treason he had his Majesty's Pardon which he then shewed to the Court and demanded the benefit of it saying that that did pardon both his Crimes if he were Guilty of any and his Imprisonment and yet that both that Pardon and he had been Prisoners together for above three years of which he said he durst confidently affirm that his was the first Precedent since the Conquest Fifthly He set forth that he had not only his Majesty's Pardon but that there had been his Majesty's Declaration of it in his Speech to his two Houses of Parliament together with a Declaration of his Innocency and a Declaration that he would give him his Pardon ten times over if that were defective either in matter or form And in this also he said that his Case was not only particular from any others but that such Declarations of the King's Intentions to Pardon although the formal Pardons have not been obtained have heretofore been alone a ground to procure Bail at least when the Party has been the King's Prisoner and at the King's Suit which he supposed was not doubted in his Case Sixthly He said that he had not only been thus Committed and thus detained for above 40 Months but he had been kept a Prisoner without any prosecution for the greatest part of that time which is another sufficient ground by the Law for Bail But instead of a restraint Ad Custodiam he said he had undergone punishments greater than the Crimes alledged against him could have deserved if they had been true both by the length of his Imprisonment which was agreed to be a sufficient Ground for Bail both by the King's Council and the Prisoner's in the Arguments on the Grand Habeas Corpus 3º Car. as also in Melvin's Case 1º Car. and in Sir Tho. Darnell's and other Cases By the Inconvenience of his Accommodations in the Prison for above two years and a half of the time By two most dangerous Sicknesses in the Prison And By the loss of divers of his Family since his being in Prison who would some of them most certainly not have been in those places where they have been lost had he been at liberty He said he was informed that his Majesty had been again pleased to give his Directions to Mr. Attorney to give his Consent a second time to his Bail and he did beg leave to ask Mr. Attorney if it were so Whereupon Mr. Attorney did stand up and say that he had his Majesty's Directions to give his Majesty's Consent again to
themselves upon the matter why those Gentlemen had not been Bailed when by the Jtdges Arguments it was possible they might have been kept Prisoners all their Days To which he said Whitlock Answered First Not so but they did Remand them that they might better advise of the matter and that the Gentlemen if they had pleased might have had a new Writ of Habeas Corpus when they thought fit And Secondly That he had spent much time in this Court and that in such great Cases he never knew any Man Bailed without the King first consulted in it and the same he said was then said by the rest of the Judges of that Court. Hereupon he made two Remarques First That by this it did appear that upon Consideration That Court had alter'd their opinions in the Case of Bail just contrary to what their first opinions had been positive in and Secondly That the consulting of the King was ever necessary in such Great Cases and he said he did believe that there was not a Presedent where the King had agreed to the Bail that ever it had been denied He said That those Men whom he had Quoted were Men of no ordinary Understanding in the Laws and as the Judges then did at last acknowledg their sense of them to be right so he said He hoped our Laws were neither changed nor diminish'd in what related to the SVBJECTS LIBERTIES and he hoped that no Order of one House nor Ordinance of both Houses nor King alone nor King and either House alone could alter them and he rested assured that a King and Parliament would never alter them to the prejudice of Liberty He proceeded That if the Law were still the same it was heretofore it was plain that that Law did both give a power to that Court to Bail for all Offences whatsoever and for Treason perticularly and did require that the Subject should at all times find remedy in it when his Liberty was Restrained BY ANY CAVSE WHATEVER The chief Reasons he said why such large Powers had been given to that Court were principally for avoiding all failure of Justice and to the end First That the King may both have a means of giving Right to his Subjects at all times according to his Oath at his Coronation and according to the intent of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right And Secondly That there might be a constant place for the Subject to resort unto for Remedy at all times whensoever he was oppress'd in his Liberty And he hoped we were not now to learn a new Law that the King could neither keep his Oath nor maintain Magna Charta nor the Petition of Right without the Assistance of an Extraordinary Court which he may both chuse whether he will call or when he will call it and how long it shall sit which as he had said would put all under the King 's absolute Will He then said He took for Granted that there would be no dispute made in this matter but that there was an Order of the Lords which was supposed to stand in the way But he said If his Lordship would give him leave he would first say something to the Order it self and then he hoped to show his Lordship that it stood not at all in the way as to his Request of Bail and that it should neither be interfered with in the least nor the Jurisdiction of the Lords nor their Proceedings medled with in any kind by his being Bailed but rather owned and submitted to by his being Bailed to the Parliament And first for the Order it self He desired the Court to observe that it was Dated the 19th of March 1678. and worded as followeth viz. Die Mercurii 19 no Martii 1678 9. THE House this Day taking into Consideration the Report made from the Lords Committee for Priviledges that in Pursuance of the Order of the 17th Instant to them directed for considering whether Petitions of Appeal which were presented to this House in the last Parliament be still in force to be proceeded on and for considering of the State of Impeachments brought up from the House of Commons the last Parliament and all the Incidents relating thereunto upon which the Lords Committees were of opinion That in all Cases of Appeals and Writs of Error they continue and are to be proceeded on in Statu quo as they stood at the Dissolution of the last Parliament without beginning De novo And that the Dissolution of the last Parliament doth not alter the State of the Impeachments brought up by the Commons in that Parliament Now upon this Order he observed That it related as well to Appeals and Writs of Error as to Impeachments and seemed to be more fully worded to them than to Impeachments The Words STATU QUO and without beginning DE NOVO being annexed in the Order more particularly to the Appeals and Writs of Error whereas all that was said as to the Impeachments he observed to be that the Dissolution of THAT LAST PARLIAMENT doth not alter the State of Impeachments brought up by the Commons in THAT PARLIAMENT and are not words which strictly taken can bind after the Dissolution of any other then that Parliament But he said if the Order should be Expounded otherways yet that both the Law and the Practice of the Inferiour Courts were undoubtedly contrary In the Cases of Appeals and Writs of Error And he hoped no Court would take upon them to Expound the Order so as if they were at liberty to split the Order and to Judg which part of the same Order should be binding and which not for that that would be to meddle in a more Extraordinary manner with the proceedings of the Lords than he had desired Now as to Writs of Error he said there were full Resolutions of the Judges in the Case tho in times of Prorogations only when a day is set for the Sitting of the Lords House and he cited the Case of Heydon and Godsalve in Crooks Reports as also the Lord Ch. Just Hales who did not only grant Execution upon a Writ of Error depending in Parliament but did also Answer the Defendants Council who would have pleaded the Lords Order in bar of the Execution that he should always pay all due Respect to that Superiour Court of the Lords but that he must act according to Law and that he knew that the Lords did not intend otherwise And of this Lord Ch. Just Pemberton himself who he said had denyed Restitution upon an Execution lately taken out in a Case where a Writ of Error was and is still Depending in Parliament And in Cases of Appeals he said he was Inform'd that the Court of Chancery did not take any notice of the Appeal being in Parliament after a Dissolution but did notwithstanding proceed to Sequestration And he said that there was a late Precedent in the Court of Exchequer in the Case of one Fountaine where an Appeal was brought from a Decree
in the Exchequer and Recognizance entred into by the said Fountaine to abide the Order of the House of Lords and after the Parliament was Dissolved the Council of the said Fountaine did Insist on the said Order before the Barons that the House being possest of Mr. Fountaines Cause and Security having been given by him to abide the Order of the House that no Proceedings ought to be had in the Exchequer upon the said Decree until the matter on the Appeal was determined before the Lords Notwithstanding which and that Mr. Fountaine produced the Lords Order in Court and produced the security allow'd yet the now Barrons Declared and Ordered that the Decree by them made should be proceeded on against the said Fountaine in the Court of Exchequer And a proceeding hath been had accordingly By all which he Observed That the Inferior Courts did proceed upon matters forbid as much by the House of Lords in the matters of Appeals and Writs of Error as it was upon Impeachments and yet that the reason was plain why they did so for that the Parliament might proceed again upon the same Appeals and Writs of Errors notwithstanding those proceedings in the Inferior Courts in the interval of Parliaments for that none of those Acts of the Inferior Courts does so hinder the proceedings of the Superior but that the Plaintiff in Parliament may revive the same matter there again by Scire Facias or by Re-summons c. But he said It was never heard of that the Lords themselves did proceed again Ex Officio without the Petition of the Party to revive the Cause And so he said in the Case of Impeachments that the Lords would no more proceed Ex Officio upon that neither unless they were called upon by the Prosecutors and then their Lordships proceedings upon the Impeachment would be no more hindered by the Bailing of him in the Inferior Court then they were in the other Cases by the Executions and Sequestrations which are Granted in the intervals of Parliament which were for the the prevention both of DELAY and of FAILVRE of JVSTICE Besides he said If this should not be done how could it be known whether the Prosecutors of an Impeachment from the House of Commons who are never the same Men in a new Parliament will proceed any more upon a former Impeachment For he said it had many times fallen out otherwise and he Cited a late Case of the Lord Mordant who was Impeach'd upon Articles in one Session and having taken out a Pardon during the Prorogation was never more called upon nor never question'd upon the former Impeachment although the very same Parliament sat again which had Impeach'd him and therefore he said That the Case might more probably happen to fall out so when a new Parliament should meet again which would consist of new Men. He said It was likewise to be Observed that although the Transcript of the Record in a Writ of Error might have Days of continuance yet no Supersedeas is grantable and he said That if the Lords Order be no ground for a Supersedeas on a Writ of Error why the lying of an Impeachment should be a ground for Confining a Man within Fower Walls all his Life he was sure must be both less reasonable and less just As Liberty was more valluable then Property and without which Property could be of no comfort In the next place he Observed That if the Order should be continued litterally to mean that the Impeachments as well as the Appeals and Writs of Error and the Incidents relating to all of them should remain in the same State they were at the Dissolution of THAT PARLIAMENT mentioned in the said Order his case thereupon he said would be quite different from any others for that he was not under any Commitment at the Dissolution of THAT PARLIAMENT nor at the time when THAT ORDER was made but was then at liberty to be a sitting Member of that House and by a Vote of the House had leave to continue so for that as he had already Observed the Date of the Order was the 19th of March 1678. and the Warrant of his Commitment did appear by the return before the Court to be the 16th of April following Insomuch that he desired the Court to take notice that the strict Letter of the words Statu Quo in the Order compared with the time when the said Order was made would be an Argument to set him in a State of Liberty as he then was He then told the Court That by what he had said he hoped he had made appear that the Order did not afford the least shadow for the hindering of his being Bailed but that on the contrary the Reasons were much stronger for the doing of that as it related not only to him but to the Liberty of the Subject in General then for the proceedings which the Inferior Courts do daily practice upon Appeals and Writs of Error which are but for Property and are comprised in the same Order and therefore he said That he hoped he should at least find the same favor in a Case of Liberty which is allow'd every day in Cases of lesser Moment He then said that although it did not concern his particular Case Yet for the sake of English Liberty it self he could not but say something further upon this point for he could not but be of opinion That if the Order had directly forbid Bail which it was far from doing and besides the Lords own practice had shew'd their meaning to the contrary by the Bailing of a Commonnor whose Crimes were declared to be greater then his and in which Case they made no Non Obstante to their Order but take that to be still in the same force towards him as towards any others who are in Custody yet he said In that Case if such an Order should be found to be against Magna Charta and the Fundamental Right of the Liberty of the Subject as any thing must be which does Subject any Man to an INDEFINITE IMPRISONMENT he conceaved that of Right that Court ought to free any Man from such a Slavery for he said he could give it no better a name and he then Cited an Argument of the Earl of Shaftsburyes upon that point which that Lord argued in that Court upon an Habeas Corpus when the Court agree'd they would have Bailed him had it not been in a time of an Adjournment only of the Parliament his words he said were That this Court will and ought to Judg AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT VOIDE if it be against MAGNA CHARTA and more might it Judg of AN ORDER OF THE HOVSE OF LORDS that is put in Execution to deprive any Subject of his LIBERTY and as he said this could not be denyed to be Law so he was confident the Earl of Shaftbury was still of the same mind and so must every Lord in England be or when they consider their own Cases they
would make their Liberties to be very precarious He proceeded to say That the Earl of Shaftsbury being allow'd to be a knowing Man both in the Laws Orders and Constitutions of Parliaments he would beg leave to Quote another part of the same Speech viz. That Mr. Attorney which was then Sir William Jones was pleased to Answer the Instance of one of his Lordships Council That if a great Minister should be Committed he hath the Cure of a Pardon a Prorogation or a Dissolution but says the Earl If the Case should be put why Forty Members or a greater number may not as well be taken without any Remedy of any of the King's Courts his Lordship said That Mr. Attorney-could not very easily Answer and if in this Case says he there can be no relief no Man can foresee what may be hereafter And in another place of the same speech he says He does not think it a kindness to the Lords to make them Absolute and above the Law for so it must be if it be Adjudged that they may Commit a Man to an INDEFINITE IMPRISONMENT He said He took these Men whom he had named for no small Authorities in this Age and the Earl of Shaftsbury he said was a Man still as much for the maintaining of this Order as ever but that his Lordship did shew himself at the same time to be for English Liberty and he plainly shew'd his own Sence both of this and of all Orders whatever which concern'd the Liberty of the Subject and declared that he took that Court to be the proper Judg of all such Orders He said It thereby appeared how sensible that Lord was that such Cases might concern Forty as well as One and Members of either House as well as other Men and without relief if it should be admitted that ORDINART COVRTS could not relieve and the Earl of Danby said That there was no Answering of these Arguments of the Earl of Shaftsbury unless it could be denyed That the King can Impeach as well as the Commons or that the King cannot Call and Dissolve Parliaments at his own Will and Pleasure For if he may as was not to be doubted he said He was sure every Man in England was in the same Danger when the King pleased and then he saw nothing whereby we had any Security but that we lived under a King who would not Exercise this Power over us which we will needs put into his hands although he does not desire it himself As if we were so weary of our Liberties that we would be Industrious in contriving how we might insensibly slide into those Slaveries which our Ancestors have been some Ages taking pains to secure us from and our Kings have been so gracious as to Grant and Confirm to us so many times over as they have done and which other Kings may be as ready to reassume hereafter as we are to give them away He concluded his observations upon that Speech of the Earl of Shaftsbury with taking notice that his Lordship had shew'd he was one of those Peers who would take it for no kindness to be made absolute and above the Law by such Orders of theirs being construed to extend to INDEFINITE IMPRISONMENTS He then repeated Sir William Jones his Declaration in that Court that either a Pardon a Prorogation or a Dissolution was a Cure against such Imprisonments and he observed thereupon that if that Doctrine were true that any one of those was a Cure against such Imprisonment and he could not doubt of it's being good Law then certainly he ought to find relief from his Imprisonment who had every one of those Cures on his side He then desired to put the Court in mind how in the worst of times Justice had taken place so far as to lay aside the force of Orders made in Parliaments after the Dissolutions of those Parliaments which made them although it was to the prejudice of the Interest of those Usurpers themselves He cited an Instance of one Sir John Stowel who by the Articles of Exciter was to have been admitted to composition for his Estate but yet contrary to those Articles the Parliament did afterwards order his Estate to be sold After the Dissolution of which Parliament Sir John Stowel pleaded by his Council which were Serjant Maynard and Mr. Latch that that Order was Dissolved by the Dissolution of that Parliament and that therefore the Articles were again in Force and that the Plea was admitted to be good and Sir John restored to the benefit of the Articles upon that Plea even by Bradshaw himself But he said he was sorry that he could neither have Sir William Jones to argue those points for him which he had used against my Lord Shaftsbury nor Serjeant Maynard to make good the Invalidity of Parliamentary Orders after Dissolutions but he said that it was not his fault and he doubted not but he was before more Just Judges than there was in those ill times and that he hoped that the Liberty of the Subject was not now more Precarious than it was in those days He added that if upon such Orders Men could not be Bayled in the Interval of Parliaments they would become Grievances equal to the Multiplications of Treasons in former Days which have some times been greedily made heretofore by Parliaments in Distemper'd Times but the Commons had never been quiet till they could get their Bear chain'd up and their Laws reduced to the old standard of Treason again But yet those things had been done by Acts and not by Orders of Parliament He desired them likewise to remember that it had been one of the chief grounds of the late War betwixt the King and his Parliament in which so much blood had been shed that an Ordinance of Parliament should not be held equal to an Act of Parliament and yet those were Orders of both Houses And now said he shall we be defending that an Order of one House only shall be Equivalent to a Law and shall be in force against our greatest and most sacred Laws of Liberty which have been so confirmed to us This said he I am not able to understand the reason of nor will any Man who shall give himself the least leisure to think upon it He then said He desired to ask any Man that then heard him or any Commonor of England who would but take time to consider this Case which may be any Man 's in England whether they would be contented to invest the Lords with such an Inherent Power over their Liberties which they can no more be exempted from then the Peers themselves And he said That the Lords had already made it appear that they would not have any such Arbitrary Power placed in them for that they had refused to pass a Favorite Act which was for their own Tryals only by reason of a Clause which was Incerted therein To have Enacted the Substance of this present Order into a Law