it particular It hath been confessed by one that argued on the other side that there is a generall in a particular C. 4. Hollands case there is the most generall and there is generall in particular as the State Ecclesiasticall 3 ly There is more particular as Colledges Deans and Chapters This being in a case of Return upon Habeas Corpus no precise certainty is required In an Indictment a certainty of all circumstances is requisite in Pleading a certainty is required in Counâ—s a more precise certainty in Barrs a certainty to a common intent is enough There is not such precise certainty required here as in Indictment or Count because the party ought to answer unto them nor so much certainty is required in this as in a Bar. And the Return is not incertain for as it is said in Plowden 202. and 193. a thing is incertain where it may be taken indifferently one way or the other But where the intendment the one way exceeds the intendment the other way it is not uncertain as it is here The words are for notable contempts against Us and Our Government for stirring up of sedition against Us Here is certainty of intendment one way There are many Writs which are more uncertain thâ—â— this Return here is yet good The Writ concerning the taking of an Apostate is general Quod spreto habitu Ordinis and yet there are more sorts of Apostasies In the Writ concerning the amoving of a Leper the words are generall and yet it appears by F. N. B. that there are two kinds of Lepers one outward and the other inward and for the latter the Writ concerning amoving a Leper So the Writs concerning the burning of an Heretick and concerning the examining of an Idiot are general and yet there are sundry kinds of Hereticks and Idiots also But it hath been objected that Sedition is not a Law-tearm nor known in the Law of which the Iudges can take no notice but the words to expresse offences of this nature are Murder Treason Felony c. and that no Indictment of Sedition generally was ever seen To this I answer Perhaps it is true that no Indictment was ever seen made because the form of an Indictment is precise words of art are required therein as appears in Dyer 69.261 C. 4. Vaux's case yet in 5 E. 6. Dyer 69. it is said that Furatus implies Felonicè cepit although the contrary hath been objected In a Return words by Periphrasis are sufficient The Warrant of a Iustice of Peace to apprehend I. S. because of prepensed malice interfecit I. D. is good enough although there wants the word murdravit In 5 R. 2. F. tryal 54. Belknap saies That a miscreant shall forfeit his land Out of which it may be gathered that a man may be Indicted for miscreancy And it seems likewise that an Indictment of sedition may be good for in some cases it is Treason I agree Peaks case which hath been obiected that for these words seditious fellow no action lies and so is C. 4.19 b. because those words do not import an act to be done but onely an inclination to do it but if a man say such words of another which import that he hath made sedition they are actionable as it was resolved in Phillips Badby's case 24 Eliz. C. 4.19 a. Thou hast made a seditious Sermon and moved the people to sedition this day adjudged actionable So in the Lord Cromwells C. 4.12 13. the action would have lain for those words You like of those that maintain sedition against the Queens proceedings if there had not been another matter in the case I agree the case of 21 E. 3. Sir John Garboyls case 42. E. 3. for in those cases sedition was only taken adjectively and shewes an inclination onely to do a seditious act in such sense sedition may be applyed to other offences then treason In 31 E. 1. f. gard 157. Gardein in Socage made feofment of land which he had in Ward This is forfeiture saies the Book for the treason which he did to the Ward so there one thing is called treason which is onely a breach of trust In an appeal of Mayhem it is felonicè and yet 6 H. 7.1 it is not Felony But felony is there onely put to expresse the hainousnesse of the offence it is as it were a felony The Statutes of 2 H. 4.1 Mar. 13 Eliz. 35 Eliz. 17 R. 2.3 4 E. 6.14 Eliz. which have been objected have the word Sedition but not applyable to this case Bracton in his Book de Corona saies Si quis c. If any by rash attempt plotting the Kings death should act or cause any to act to the sedition of the Lord the King or of his Army it is treason And Glanvil in as many words saies That to do any thing in sedition of the Kingdom or of the Army is high-treason And Britton fol. 16 It is high treason to â—â—herit the King of the Realm and sedition tendeth to the disheritance of the King for as it hath been said Seditio est quasi seorsum-itio when the people are severed from the King or it is Seperans à ditione when the people are severed from the power of the King And in this sense Sedition is no stranger in our Law and such sedition which severs the people from the King is Treason But it hath been objected that by the Statute of 25 E. 3. the Parliament ought onely to determine what is treason what not To this I answer That upon the said Statute the positive Law had alwaies made explication and exposition Br. treason 24. the words are Compasse or imagine the death of the King and there it is taken that he that malitiously deviseth how the King may come to death by words or otherwise and does an act to explain it as in assaying harnesse this is treason 13 Eliz. Dy. 298. Story 's case he being beyond-sea practised with a forraign Prince to invade the Realm and held treason because invasion is to the perill of the Prince and so within the Statute of 25 E. 3.4 Mar. Dy. 144. The taking of the Castle of Scarborough was treason in Stafford by 30. ass p. 19. which was presently after the making of the Statute of 25 E. 3. A man ought to have been hanged and drawn that brought Letters of Excommengement from the Pope and published them in England And it is to be noted that at the same time there was no Statute to make it treason but upon construction of the said Statute of 25 E. 3 though now it be made treason by the Statute of 13 Eliz. if it be with intention to advance forraigne power Perhaps the sedition mentioned in this Return is high treason and yet the King may make it an offence Finable for he may prosecute the offendor in what course he pleaseth and if it be treason then the prisoners are not baylable by the Statute of Westm. But suppose
schismatick because the one opposeth the spirituall truth the other the temporall And as schism of it self is not heresie so sedition without other adjuncts is not treason Bracton f. 112 113 118. hath been objected that he makes sedition treason I will grant to them Hengham also who is to the same purpose for in those Books it is called Seditio Regis Regni To them I answer 1. That they are obscure For what signifies seditio Regis or tumultus Regis shall it be the same thing in sense with seditio contra Regem It seems that the said Authors neither remember Law nor Language 2. Although they reckon sedition amongst the crimes lesae Majestatis yet that is not to be regarded for they are obsolete Authors and are not esteemed as Authors in our Law as it is in Pl. 356. and C. 8.35 but they may be used for ornament and they are good marks to shew to us how the Law was then taken but not to declare how the Law is at this day they are no binding authority and if they be yet we have them of our side likewise For in his 14 Book Glanvill saies That a man accused of such a crime shall be bayled and that the Accuser shall give pledges And Bracton saies That if no accuser appears they shall be set at liberty And Hengham reckons amongst the crimes laesae Majestatis the breach of the Peace and so does Glanvil also Fleta who was a follower of Bracton and transscribes much verbatim out of him calls Sedition Seductionem of the Lord the King And 12 Edw. 1. the Statute of Rutland which prescribes Lawes for Wales enacts That the Sheriff shall enquire in his Turn de seductoribus Domini Regis and it is not apparent whether he intend those which seduce the King or his People And in latter times Seditio is called Sedutio In the time of Henry the seventh the Earl of Northumberland being a great and potent Peer and the King standing in awe of him caused him with twenty four others of great quality to enter in an obligation of twenty thousand pound which Obligation is in the hands of Sir Robert Cotton unto Him that if the said Earl knew Treason Sedution Losse c. to be intended to the King that he should reveal it 3. Also Crimen laesae Majestatis which is the phrase of the Civill-Law is more generall then treason and the old Authors which have been cited much follow the Civill-Law which hath this expression and Sedition by the Civill-Law is Treason But it was resolved 11 R. 2. n. 14. We are not governed by the Civill-Law And the Mirrour of Justices the principall copy whereof is in Benet-Colledge Library in Cambridge and there is also a copy in Lincolns-Inne Library Nor Britton in his Book who writ in the name of the King have not the word Seditio in them And I affirm confidently that there cannot be shewen any Record Book or Statute after the making of the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. in which Seditio is taken as a capitall offence And yet the Mirrour of Iustices reckons up severall kinds of Treasons which he divides into Treasons against the Celestiall or Terrestriall Majesty against the Celestiall Majesty as Schism Heresie Miscreaâ—â—y and according to this the Book of 5 R. 2. Tryall 54 is to be understood which saies That a Miscreant shall forfeit his Lands because it is a kind of Treason And also he shewes divers Treasons against the King as the deflouring of the Kings eldest Daughter c. but not a word of Sedition But admit that Sedition imports a greater offence than Tumult yet there is no colour to say that it is Treason for 25 Edw. 3. is a flat Barre that I may use the Inner-Temple phrase to any thing to be treason which is not contained in it unlesse it be made treason by any speciall Act afterwards and 25 Edw. 3. does not make it Treason Stamford cites Glanvill and Bracton and other antient Books to shew what was Treason before the said Statute and what not And be saies That it was a great doubt what shall be said Treason saving that all agree that any thing that tends to the death of the King was Treason 3 ly Now examine the words against Us those words make not the crime more heinous as the case is I agree that if the words had been Sedition to take away the life of the King it would have been treason yea the very thought of treason is treason though none can judge thereof till it be produced in act 19 H. 6.47 b. by Newton 13 Jac. B. R. John Owen's case the writing of a Letter whereby he intended the death of the King was treason but it is not expressed that the raising of this sedition was with such intent whereby this differs from all the cases which can be put in which there is such an intent of the death of the King Also this Raising of sedition against Us shall not be intended treason for if it had been so the King would have so exprest it by the word Treason For as in his gracious disposition he will not extend a fault beyond the magnitude thereof so he will give to every offence the true and genuine name If the Return had been against Our Person it had been more certain that it concerned the King immediately this may be against any point of his Government And the proper and naturall signification of the words against Us is as much as Against Our Authority Our superintendency against Our Peace Crown and Dignity which are the usuall words in every Indictment of Felony Every breach of the Peace is against the King The usuall Return upon every ordinary Writ out of this Court is That the party be before Us and contempt to this Court is Contempt against Us and it is in the nature of sedition to the King Contempts to the Court of Star-chamber are Contempts against Us and upon them Commissions of rebellion issue and if the parties are brought in upon such Commissions yet they are baylable untill their conviction The King styles himself Us in Writs and every disobedience to any Writ may be said Sedition against Us. Routs riots illoyall assemblies may well be said and called Sedition against Us And for such offences a man shall not be restrained of his liberty upon an it may be Such a Return is necessary by which the Court may be truly informed of the offence For the Writ of Habeas Corpus is to submit and receive what the Court shall ordain And this Return of this nature is not to be compared to Writs which are generall and make a brief narration of the matter and are pursued and explained by subsequent declarations And yet I urge not that the Return ought to be as certain as an Indictment for an Indictment of Murder is not good if it lack the word Murdravit But the Return upon an Habeas corpus q.
baylable And 33 Eliz. it was resolved by all the Iustices of England which I have viewed in chief Iustice Andersons Book under his own hand and it was produced in Parliament That all men committed by the Privy Councill are baylable if the commitment be not for high treason In all cases of commitment an accuser is understood Suppose that the accusation mentioned in Russel's case of sedition had been an accusation of treason then the Iudges ought not to have bayled him of right and no man will say but that the said accusation was a good cause to commit him But the discovery of the offence ought to be afterward in an Indictment Fourthly I come to the objections which have been made on the contrary 1 st It was objected That this was a case of great consequence I confesse it but this consequence is not to the King for if it be truly treason then they might have returned Treason and then the party was not to be bayled of right till there should be a failer of prosecution as was lately in Melvins case who was bailed for lack of prosecution the Return being for high treason 2 ly It was objected that there can be no conviction as this case is therefore there ought to be coercive power to restrain the prisoner This is strange newes to me that there shall be any offence for which a man cannot be convict And if there can be no conviction it hence followes that there is no offence and if there be no offence there ought by consequence to be no imprisonment 3 ly The case of 14 H. 7.8 hath been objected that a Iustice of Peace may commit Rioters without bayl I confesse it for this is by force of a Statute which ordains it 4 ly It hath been objected That if a house be on fire it is lawfull to pull down the neighbours house for the prevention of further mischief and the cases of 22 ass and 22 E. 4. that every man may justifie the coercion of a mad-man I answer That these cases are true for of necessity and no other evasion but here bayl is proffered which is body for body Fire is swift and cannot be punished and no caution can be obtained thereof But observe the true inference and consequence of this Argument If my house be on fire my neighbours house must be pulled down Mr Selden is seditious ergo Mr. Herbert his neighbour must be imprisoned 5 ly It hath been objected out of Br. Treason 24. 1 Mar. That the said Statute of 25 E. 3. is taken largely and that the detaining of a Castle or Fortresse is treason To this I answer That the bare detaining of a Castle is not treason unlesse it be with intention of the death of the King but the taking of a Castle is treason And the case there meant by Brook is Constables case Dy. 128. And I confesse 13 Eliz. Dy. 298. Doctor Story 's case that conspiracy to invade the Kingdom is treason for this cannot be without great danger of the death of the King for arma tenenti Omnia dat qui justa negat and all those Indictments were that they intended the death of the King but no such intention is expressed here 6 ly It hath been objected That this case is out of the Petition of Right because in this Return there is a cause shewed But the grievance whereupon the Petition of Right was framed was where no cause was returned It is true that the grievance goes no further but where no cause was returned for that was the grievance at that time But the words of the Petition of Right are further without being charged with any thing to which they might make answer by the Law which implies that such cause ought to be contained in the Return which being put into an Indictment the party may have his answer thereto 7 ly It was objected that the Return shall not be construed and expounded by fractions I answer That we need not make such an exposition for the joynt-construction thereof makes more for us then the severall as is shewed before 8 ly That a generall Return is sufficient and it need not have tearms of Art in it as an Indictment ought to have For answer I confesse it but I affirm as above that a Return ought to be so particular that the nature of the offence ought to appear out of it And it is not to be compared to generall Writs as Apostatâ capiendo Idiota examinando Leproso amovendo and the like for those Writs are good enough because they contain the very matter And although it hath been said that there are two kinds of Lepers yet I never heard but of one And the Writ de Haeretico comburendo is generall and good because it is but a Writ of Execution upon a Iudgment given by the Spirituall power But because they might not meddle with the blood of any man the execution is by the Secular power 9 ly It hath been objected out of 30 ass p. 19. that the King would have one drawn and hanged for bringing in into England the Buls of the Pope But the Book answers it self for he was not drawn and hanged 10 ly The Statute of Westm. 1. cap. 15. was objected But as oft as that Statute is objected I will alwaies cry out The Petition of Right the Petition of Right as the King of France cryed out nothing but France France when all the severall Dominions of the King of Spain were objected to him 11 ly A curious distinction hath been taken by Serjeant Davenport between stirring To sedition and stirring Up sedition for the first implies an inclination onely to do it the second implies an act done But this is too nice for if a man stir up sedition or to sedition if it be with intention of the death of the King the one and the other is treason 12 ly The opinion of Fortescue in 31 H. 6.10 b. hath been objected That for an offence done to the Court a man may be committed before conviction To this I answer 1 st That the Book does not say That he shall be committed without bayl 2 ly The offence being done in face of the Court the very view of the Court is a conviction in Law 13 ly There was objected the 24 of E. 3.23 Sir Fitchet's case who for going armed in the Palace was committed by this Court without bayl or mainprize which seems to be the strongest and hardest case that hath been objected But the answer to it is clear and undeniable for the Statute of 2 E. 3. c. 3. is That if any one come armed before the Iustices he shall forfeit his Armour and shall be imprisoned during the Kings pleasure so that by the expresse purview of the Statute such a man is not baylable So my conclusion remains firm notwithstanding any of those objections That the prisoner here being committed before conviction of any offence it being not possible to understand this
ever blessed Father in these words That he was commanded by the House concerning the Plaister applied to the King That he did forbear to speak further in regard of the Kings Honor or words to that effect this his Majesty conceiveth to be to his dishonor as if there had been any underhand dealing by his Majesty in applying of the Plaister and this may make his Subjects jealous of his doings In this Point his Majesty is assured that the House did not warrant him Now for that which is excepted against Sir Iohn Elliot his over bitterness in the Aggravation upon the whole Charge and specially upon some of the heads of it For if you please to remember when I moved for putting of the St Peter of Newhaven out of the Charge against the Duke of Buckingham and shewed my reasons for that purpose you know how tender Sir Iohn Elliot was of it as if he had been a child of his own and so carefull in the handling thereof by a Stranger that he would not suffer it to be touched though with never so tender a hand for fear it might prove a Changeling which did manifest how specious soever his pretences were that he had occulum in Cauda And I must confess I was heartily sorry when he delivered his Aggravation to the Lords to see his Tartness against the Duke when as he had occasion to name him he onely gave him this Title of This man and The man whereas the other observed more respect and modesty in their Charges against so great a Person as the Duke is considering that then he was not convicted but stood rectus in Curia Lastly for pressing the death of his late Majesty you know that the Sense of the House concluded That it is only an Act of Presumption nay some of them expresly said Nay God forbid that I should lay the death of the King to his Charge If he without warrant from the House insisted upon the Composition of the Plaister as if there were Aliquid latet quod non patet This was beyond his Commission from our House and this is that which his Majesty doth except against And this I say drew his Majesty with other insolent Invectives to use his Regal authority in committing them to the Tower Sir Dudley Diggs being charged for saying in the matter of applying the Plaister to his late Majesty That he did forbear to speak further of that in regard of the Kings honor or words to that effect There passed a Protestation of every man in particular for himself and it was Ordered in the House That they that were sick in the Town should have three of the House sent to them to take this Protestation likewise I Protest before Almighty God and this House of Parliament That never gave consent that Sir Dudley Diggs should speak these words that he is now charged withall or any words to that effect And I have not affirmed to any that he did speak such words or any to that effect Within few dayes after Sir Dudley being released out of Prison came into the House and made Protestation concerning the Passage whereat his Majesty had taken offence That speaking of the Plaister applied to the Body of the late King he said He would forbear to speak any further of it in regard of the Kings honor He protested that this was far from his words and that it never came into his thoughts And he gave the House great thanks for their respect unto him and said That he had received from his Majesty a gracious testimony of his satisfaction And the King himself signified to the House by the Vice-Chamberlain That he understood out of some Notes which were taken at the Conference that Sir Dudley Diggs had spoken the words wherewith he was charged but now was satisfied that he did not speak them nor any words to such effect Nevertheless the Duke affirmed to the House of Peers that some words were spoken at this late Conference by Sir Dudley Diggs which so far did trench upon the Kings Honor that they are interpreted Treasonable and that had he not been restrained by order of the House he would then have reprehended him for the same He therefore earnestly desired for that divers constructions have been made of those words and for that they have been diversly reported that every one of the said Reporters would be pleased to produce their Notes taken at the Conference This matter was much debated and the House of Peers often put into a Committee and reassumed again but they came to no resolution therein In fine these Lords following to the number of thirty six made this voluntary Protestation upon their Honors That the said Sir Dudley Diggs did not speak any thing at the said Conference which did or might trench on the Kings Honor and if he had they would presently have reprehended him for it The Lord President affirmed That he had reported the words in the same sence they were delivered unto him by the party himself and though the connexion of them require to be explained yet he agreed with the rest of the Lords for the Parties good meaning and made the same Protestation The Lords who Protested were these viz. The Earl of Mulgrave Earl of Cleveland Earl of Westmerland Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Clare Earl of Denbigh Earl of Cambridge Earl of Devon Earl of Warwick Earl of Northampton Earl of Bridgewater Earl of Montgomery Earl of Nottingham Earl of Lincoln Earl of Essex Earl of Herâ—ford Earl ef Kent Earl of Oxon. Lord Grey of Warke Lord Noell Lord Montague Lord Russel Lord North. Lord Cromwell Lord Vaux Lord Dudley Lord Morley Lord Piercy Lord Bishop oâ— Sarum Lord Bishop of Landaffe Lord Bishop of Chester Lord Bishop of Cov. and Lich. Lord Bishop of Worcester Lord Bishop of Norwich Lord Vicount Say and S. Lord Vicount Rocheford Not long after Sir Iohn Elliot also was released out of the Tower and sent for to come into the House Then the Vice-Chamberlain stood up and by way of Explanation of his former Speech said That he intended not to charge him but to give him an occasion to discharge himself First That all the others had used respective words in the Conference but for the manner of his Speech he conceived it was too tart and harsh to the person of the Duke and that in representing a Character of his minde by comparing him with a strange beast he had out-gone his Commission Secondly That contrary to the sense of the House as if they were ignorant of the return of the ships out of France he said They say they are come but I know it not when the House knew it full well That speaking of the Duke he said That man which phrase in all Languages is accounted a great indignity to persons of Honor That he made scandalous comparisons between the Duke and Sejanus and the Bishop of Ely which was
of himself came to the Duke and earnestly moved him to undertake the place The Duke apprehending the weight of the place and considering his yong years and want of experience to manage so great a charge gave no ear unto it but excused it not for form but really and ingenuously out of the apprehension of his then unfitness for it This Gentleman not thus satisfied without the Duke applied himself to the late King and moved his Majesty therein and offered Reasons for it That the Duke was the fittest man at that time and as the State of the Navy then stood for that place for he said it was then a time of peace That the best service that could be done for the present was to repair the Navy and Ships Royal which then were much in decay and to retrench the Kings charge and to employ it effectually and that before there was like to be personal use of service otherwise the Duke being yong and active might gain experience and make himself as fit as any other and that in the mean time none was so fit as himself having the opportunity of his Majesties Favor and Means to his Person to procure a constant assignment and payment of moneys for the Navy the want whereof was the greatest cause of the former defects These Reasons perswaded his late Majesty and upon his Majesties own motion perswaded the Duke to take the charge upon him And thereupon the Earl voluntarily freely and willingly and upon his own earnest and often suit surrendred the place without any President Contract or Promise whatsoever which might render the Duke in the least degree subject to the danger of the Law which was not then so much as once thought upon and upon that Surrender the Grant was made to the Duke But it is true That his Majesty out of his Royal bounty for recompence of the long and faithful service of the said Earl and for an honorable memory of his deserts to him and the Crown of England did grant him a Pension of One thousand pounds per annum for his life which in all Ages hath been the Royal way of Princes wherewith to reward antient and well-deserving Servants in their elder years when without their own faults they are become less serviceable to the State And the Duke also voluntarily and freely and as an argument of his noble respect towards so honorable a Predecessor whom to his death he called Father whose Estate â—s he then understood with his late Majesties privity and approbation did send him Three thousand pounds in money which he hopeth no person of worth and honor will esteem to be an act worthy of blame in him And when the Duke had thus obtained this place of great trust he was so careful of his duty that he would not relie upon his judgment or ability but of himself humbly besought his then Majesty to settle a Commission of fit and able persons for the Affairs of the Navy by whose Council and assistance he might manage that weighty business with the best advantage for his Majesties service which Commission was granted and yet continueth and without the advice of those Commissioners he hath never done any thing of moment and by their advice and industry he hath thus husbanded the Kings money and furthered the service that where before the ordinary charge of the Navy was Fifty four thousand pounds per annum and yet the Ships were very much decayed and their Provisions neglected the charge was returned to Thirty thousand pounds per annum and with that charge the Ships all repaired and made serviceable and two new Ships builded yearly and for the two last years when there were no new Ships built the ordinary charge was reduced to Twenty one thousand six hundred pounds per annum And now he dare boldly affirm that his Majesties Navy is in better state by much then ever it was in any precedent time whatsoever For his buying the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports he maketh this plain ingenuous and true Answer That in December in the Two and twentieth year of his late Majesties Raign he obtained the Office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and Constable of the Castle of Dover being one entire Office upon the Surrender of the Lord Zouch then Lord Warden The manner of obtaining whereof was thus The Lord Zouch being grown in years and with his almost continual lameness being grown less fit for that place he discovered a willingness to leave it and made several offers thereof to the Duke of Richmond and Richard Earl of Dorset deceased but he was not willing to part with it without recompence Notice whereof coming to the Duke by an offer made from the Lord Zouch he finding by experience how much and how many ways both the Kings service might and many times did suffer and how many inconveniences did arise to the Kings Subjects in their Goods Ships and Lives by the intermixture of the Jurisdictions of the Admiralty and Wardenship of the Cinque Ports by the emulation disaffection and contention of their Officers as clearly appear by these particulars amongst many others which may be instanced 1. Where the Admiral-Jurisdiction extends generally to all the Narrow Seas the Warden of the Cinque Ports hath and exerciseth Admiral-Jurisdiction on all the Sea Coasts from Show-Beacon in Essex to the Red Noor in Sussex and within those Limits there have been continual differences between the Lord Admiral and the Lord Warden whether the Lord Wardens Jurisdiction extends into the main Sea or onely as far as the low Water Mark and so much further into the Sea as a man on Horsback can reach with a Launce which occasioneth Questions between those cheif Officers themselves 2. There are many and continual differences in executing of Warrants against offenders the Officers of the one refusing to obey or assist the Authority of the other whereby the offenders protected or countenanced by either easily escapeth 3. Merchants and Owners of Goods questioned in the Admiralty are often enforced to sue in both Courts and often enforced for their peace to compound with both Officers 4. The Kings service is much hindred for the most usual and ordinary Rendevouz of the Kings Ships being at the Downs and that being within the Jurisdiction of the Lord Warden the Lord Admiral or Captains of the Kings Ships have no Power or Warrant to press men from the shore if the Kings Ships be in distress 5. When the Kings Ships or others be in danger on the Goodwins and other places within the view of the Portsmen they have refused to help with their Boats lest the Kings Ships should command them on board whereby many Ships have perished and much Goods have been lost 6. When Warrants come to press a Ship at Road for the Kings service the Officers take occasion to disobey the Warrants and prejudice the Kings service For if the Warrant come from the Lord Warden they will pretend
for the continuance of that service and safety Which we cannot hope for and we beséech your most excellent Majesty graciously to receive this our humble and frée protestation That we cannot hope for it so long as we thus suffer under the pressures of the power and ambition of the said Duke and the divers and false Informations so given to your Majesty on his behalf and for his advantage especially when we observe also that in such his greatness he preventeth the giving of true Information to your Majesty in all things that may any ways reflect on his own misdoings to shew unto your Majesty the true state of your Subjects and Kingdoms otherwise then as it may be represented for his own ends And to that purpose also hath he procured so many persons depending on him either by alliance or advancement to places of eminencie near your Sacred person Through his misinformations of that kind also and power we have séen to our great grief both in the time of your Majesties Royal Father of blessed memory and of your Majesty divers Officers of the Kingdom so often by him displaced and altered that within these few years past since the beginning of his greatness more such displacings and alterations have by his means happened then in many years before them Neither was there in the time of your Royal Father of blessed memory any such Course held before it was by the practice of the said Duke thus induced And since that time divers Officers of the Crown not only in this your Kingdom of England but also in Ireland as they have béen made friends or adverse to the said Duke have béen either so commended or mispresented by him to his Soveraign and by his procurement so placed or displaced that he hath always herein as much as in him lay made his own ends and advantage the measure of the good or ill of your Majesties Kingdoms But now at length may it please your most excellent Majesty we have received from the Lords a Copy of the said Dukes Answer to our Charge transmitted against him whereunto we shall presently in such sort reply according to the Laws of Parliament that unless his power and practice again undermine our procéedings we do not doubt but we shall upon the same have Iudgment against him In the times also most gracious Soveraign of these Interruptions which came amongst us by reason of the procurement of two of our Members committed A gracious Message was formerly received from your Majesty wherein you had been pleased to let us know That if you had not a timely Supply your Majesty would betake your self to New Counsels which we cannot doubt were intended by your most excellent Majesty to be such as stood with Iustice and the Laws of this Realm But these words New Counsels were remembred in a Speech made amongst us by one of your Majesties Privy-Council and lately a Member of us who in the same Speech told us He had often thought of those words New Counsels That in his consideration of them he remembred that there were such kinds of Parliaments antiently among other Nations as are now in England That in England he saw the Country-people live in happiness and plenty but in these other Nations he saw them poor both in persons and habit or to that effect Which state and condition happened as he said to them where such New Counsels were taken as that the use of their Parliaments ended This intimation may it please your Majesty was such as also gave us just cause to fear there were some ill Ministers near your Majesty that in behalf of the said Duke and together with him who is so strangely powerful were so much against the Parliamentary Course of this Kingdom as they might perhaps advise your most excellent Majesty such New Counsels as these that fell under the memory and consideration of that Privy-Counsellor And one especial reason among others hath increased that fear amongst us For that whereas the Subsidies of Tonnage and Poundage which determined upon the death of your most Royal Father our late Soveraign and were never payable to any of your Majesties Ancestors but only by a special Act of Parliament and ought not to be levied without such an Act yet ever since the beginning of your Majesties happy Reign over us the said Subsidies have béen levied by some of your Majesties ministers as if they were still due although also one Parliament hath béen since then begun and dissolved by procurement of the said Duke as is before shewed wherein no Act passed for the same Subsidies Which example is so much against the constant use of former times and the known Right and Liberty of your Subjects that it is an apparent effect of some new Counsels given against the antient setled Course of Government of this your Majesties Kingdom and chiefly against the Right of your Commons as if there might be any Subsidy Tax or Aid levied upon them without their consent in Parliament or contrary to the setled Laws of this Kingdom But if any such do so ill an office as by the misrepresentation of the state and right of your Majesties loyal Subjects advise any such new Counsels as the levying of any Aid Tax or Subsidy among your people contrary to the setled Laws of your Kingdom We cannot most gracious Soveraign but esteem them that so shall advise not only as Uipers but Pests to their King and Commonwealth as all such were to both Houses of Parliament expresly stiled by your most Royal Father but also Capital Enemies as well to your Crown and Dignity as to the Commonwealth And we shall for our parts in Parliament shew as occasion shall require and be ready to declare their offences of this kind such as that may be rewarded with the highest punishment as your Laws inflict on any Offenders These and some of these things amongst many other Most gracious Soveraign are those which have so much prevented a right understanding betwéen your Majesty and us and which have possessed the hearts of your people and loyal Commons with unspeakable sorrow and grief finding apparently all humble and hearty endeavors misinterpreted hindred and now at last almost frustrated utterly by the interposition of the excessive and abusive power of one man Against whom we have just cause to protest not only in regard of the particulars wherewith he hath béen charged which in Parliamentary way we are enforced to insist upon as matters which lie in our notice and proof but also because we apprehend him of so unbridled Ambition and so averse to the good and tranquillity of the Church and State that we verily believe him to be an Enemy to both And therefore unless we would betray our own duties to your Majesty and those for whom we are trusted We cannot but express our infinite grief that he should have so great power and interest in your Princely affections and under your Majesty wholly in
it is declared and enacted That no man shall be forejudged of life or limb against the form of the great Charter and the Law of the Land And by the said great Charter and other the Laws and Statutes of this your Realm no man ought to be adjudged to death but by the Laws established in this your Realm either by the Customs of the same Realm or by Acts of Parliament And whereas no offender of what kinde soever is exempted from the proceedings to be used and punishments to be inflicted by the Laws and Statutes of this your Realm Nevertheless of late divers Commissions under your Majesties great Seal have issued forth by which certain persons have been assigned and appointed Commissioners with Power and Authority to proceed within the Land according to the Iustice of Martial Law against such Soldiers and Mariners or other dissolute persons joyning with them as should commit any Murther Robbery Felony Mutiny or other Outrage or Misdemeanor whatsoever and by such summary Course and Order as is agreeable to Martial Law and is used in Armies in time of War to proceed to the tryal and condemnation of such offenders and them to cause to be executed and put to death according to the Law Martial By pretext whereof some of your Majesties Subjects have been by some of the said Commissioners put to death when and where if by the Laws and Statutes of the Land they had deserved death by the same Laws and Statutes also they might and by no other ought to have been adjudged and executed And also sundry grievous offenders by colour thereof claiming an exemption have escaped the punishments due to them by the Laws and Statutes of this your Realm by reason that divers of your Officers and Ministers of Iustice have unjustly refused or forborn to proceed against such offenders according to the same Laws and Statutes upon pretence that the said offenders were punishable onely by Martial Law and by Authority of such Commissions as aforesaid which Commissions and all other of like nature are wholly and directly contrary to the said Laws and Statutes of this your Realm They do therefore humbly pray your most Excellent Majesty That no man hereafter be compelled to make or yield any Gift Loan Benevolence Tax or such like Charge without common consent by Act of Parliament and that none be called to make answer or take such Oath or to give attendance or he confined or otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the same or for refusal thereof And that no Freeman in any such maner as is before mentioned be imprisoned or detained And that your Majesty will be pleased to remove the said Soldiers and Mariners and that your People may not be so burthened in time to come And that the foresaid Commissions for proceeding by Martial Law may be revoked and annulled and that hereafter no Commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever to be executed as aforesaid lest by colour of them any of your Majesties Subjects be destroyed or put to death contrary to the Laws and Franchise of the Land All which they most humbly pray of your most Excellent Majesty as their Rights and Liberties according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm And that your Majesty would also vouchsafe to declare That the awards doings and proceedings to the prejudice of your People in any of the Premises shall not be drawn hereafter into Consequence or Example And that your Majesty would be also graciously pleased for the further comfort and safety of your People to declare your royal Will and Pleasure That in the things aforesaid all your Officers and Ministers shall serve you according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm as they tender the Honor of your Majesty and the prosperity of this Kingdom Which Petition being read the 2 of June 2628. The Kings Answer was thus delivered unto it The King willeth that Right be done according to the Laws and Customs of the Realm And that the Statutes be put in due execution that his Subjects may have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions contrary to their just Rights and Liberties to the preservation whereof he holds himself in Conscience as well obliged as of his Prerogative On Tuesday June 3. the King's Answer was read in the House of Commons and seemed too scant in regard of so much expence of time and labour as had been imployed in contriving the petition Whereupon Sir Iohn Elliot stood up and made a long Speech wherein he gave forth so full and lively representation of all Grievances both general and particular as if they had never before been mentioned HE reduced the Cause of all our evils to Five heads Our insincerity and doubling in Religion which he exemplified by the freedome and increase of Papists by the composition with them in the North the slightness of those payments and the easiness in them by the hopes presumptions and reports of all the Papists generally by the disposition of Commanders the trust of Officers the confidence of secrecies of employments in this Kingdom in Ireland and elsewhere 2. Our want of Councel which sacrificed our honour and our men sent to the Palatinate stopping those greater supplies appointed for that Service by which it might have been made defensible this gave direction to that late expedition to Ree whose wounds are yet bleeding by means whereof the Protestants of France and their King by a necessary consequence are divided and that Countrey so prepared against us that we have nothing to promise our neighbours hardly for our selves insomuch as by the issue and success it may rather be thought a conception of Spain then begotten here by us 3. The insufficiency and unfaithfulness of our Generals Witness first the expedition to Cales where we arrived and found a Conquest ready viz. the Spanish ships fit for the satisfaction of a voyageâ— either in point of honour or in point of profit why was it neglected why was it not atchieved it being granted on all hands feasible when the whole Army landed why was there nothing attempted if nothing were intended wherefore did they land if there were a service why were they shipt again Witness secondly that to Ree where the whole action was carried against the judgement and opinion of the Officers viz. those that were of the Councel was not the first was not the last was not all at land in the intrenching in the continuance there in the assault in the retreat without their assent to say nothing of leaving the Wines and the Salt which were in our possession and of a value as they say to answer much of our expence nor of that wonder which no Alexander or Caesar ever did know the enriching of an enemy by curtesies when the Souldiers want help nor of the private entercourses and parlies with the Fort which continually were held what they intended may be
agreed in one that he ought not by the Law to be tortured by the Rack for no such punishment is known or allowed by our Law And this in case of Treason was brought into this Kingdom in the time of Henry 6. note Fortescue for this Point in his Book de laudibus legum Angliae see the preamble of the Act 28. H. 8. for the Trial of Fellony where Treasons are done upon the Sea and Statute 14. Edw. 3. Ch. 9. of Jaylours or Keepers who by duresse make the prisoners to be approvers Since the last Session of Parliament certain Merchant who traded in Wines had been committed to the Fleet for the non-payment of an Imposition of 20. s. the Tun and were now at liberty upon their entring into bond for the payment of that Imposition Moreover the King in full Councel declared his absolute will and pleasure to have the entry of 2. s. 2. d. the hundred upon all Currens to be satisfied equally with that of 3. s. 4. d. before the landing of that Commodity it being a duty laid by Queen Elizabeth who first gave being to the Levant Company and which had been paid both in his Fathers time and his own and that their Majesties were equally possessed of the whole summe of 5. s. 6. d. the hundred by a solemn and Legal Judgement in the Exchequer and he straightly charged his Councel to examine the great abuse in this point and to make a full reparation to his Honour by inflicting punishment as well upon Officers as Merchants that for the future they may beware of committing such contempts And Divers Merchants of London having forcibly Landed and endeavoured to carry away their Goods and Merchandises from the Custom-house Key without payment of duties were summoned to the Councel-table And the Councel was informed against them that they had caused great and unlawful assemblies of people to be gathered together to the breach of the Kings Peace and Mr. Chambers was committed to prison by the Lords of the Councel for some words spoken at that time Michaelmas 4. Car. Richard Chambers being in Prison in the Marshalsie Del hostel de Roy desired an Habeas Corpus and had it which being returable upon the 16. day of October the Marshall returned that he was committed to prison the 28. day of Septemb. last by command of the Lords of the Councel The Warrant verbatim was That he was committed for insolent behaviour and words spoken at the Councel-Table which was subscribed by the Lord Keeper and twelve others of the Councel The words were as information was given though not expressed in the Return That such great Customes and Impositions were required from the Merchants in England as were in no other place and that they were more screwed up then under the Turk And because it was not mentioned what the words were so as the Court might adjudge of them the Return was held insufficient and the Warden of the Prison advised to amend his Return and he was by Rule of the Court appointed to bring his prisoner by such a day without a new Habeas Corpus and the Prisoner was advised by the Court That in the mean time he should submit to the Lords and Petition them for his enlargement The Warden of the Prison bringing the Prisoner in again in Court the 23. day of October Then Mr. Iermin for the Prisoner moved That forasmuch as it appeared by the Return that he was not committed for Treason or Felony nor doth it appear what the words were whereto he might give answer he therefore prayed he might be dismissed or bailed But the Kings Attourney moved That he might have day untill the 25. of October to consider of the Return and be enformed of the words and that in the interim the Prisoner might attend the Councel-Table and Petition But the Prisoner affirmed that he oftentimes had assayed by Petition and could not prevail although he had not done it since the beginning of October and he prayed the Justice of the Law and the inheritance of a Subject Whereupon at his importunity the Court commanded him to be bailed and he was bound in a Recognizance of four hundred pounds and four good Merchants his Sureties were bound in Recognizance of one hundred pound a piece that he should appear here in Crastino animarum and in the interim should be of the good behaviour And advertized him they might for contemptuous words cause an Indictment or Information in this Court to be drawn against him if they would The Lords of the Councel were much dissatisfied with the Bailing of Chambers Whereupon the Judges were â—ent for to the Lord Keeper at Durham House where were present besides the Lord-Keeper the Lord Treasurer Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Dutchy And the Lord Keeper then declared unto them that the said enlargement of Chambers was without due regard had to the Privy Councel in not first acquainting them therewith To this the Judges answered that to keep a fair correspondency with their Lordships they had by the Lord Chief-Justice acquainted the Lord Keeper in private therewith before they baild the party And that what they had done as to the bailing of the prisoner was according to Law and Justice and the conscience of the Judges To this it was replied that it was necessary for the preservation of the State that the power and dignity of the Councel Table should be preserved and that it could not be done without correspondency from the Courts of Justice so they parted in very fair tearms On Thursday the 27. of November Felton was removed from the Tower to the Gate-house in order to his tryal and was the same day brought by the Sheriffs of London to the Kings-bench Bar and the indictment being read he was demanded whether he were guilty of the murder therein mentioned he answered he was guilty in killing the Duke of Buc. and further said that he did deserve death for the same though he did not do it out of malice to him So the Court passed sentence of death upon him whereupon he offered that hand to be cut off that did the fact but the Court could not upon his own offer inflict that further punishment upon him neverthelesse the King sent to the Judges to intimate his desire that his hand might be cut off before execution but the Court answered that it could not be for in all murthers the Judgement was the same unlesse when the Statute of 25. E. 3. did alter the nature of the offence and upon a several indictment as it was in Queen Elizabeths time when a Felon at the Bar flung a stone at a Judge upon the Bench for which he was indicted and his sentence was to have his hand cut off which was accordingly done and they also proceeded against him upon the other indictment for Felony for which he was found guilty and afterwards hanged and Felton was afterwards hung up
and Southcot Justices That offences committed in Parliament may be punished out of Parliament And 3 Ed. 3.19 it is good Law And it is usual neer the end of Parliaments to set some petty punishment upon offenders in Parliament to prevent other Courts And I have seen a Roll in this Court in 6 H. 6. where judgment was given in a writ of annuity in Ireland and afterwards the said judgment was reversed in Parliament in Ireland upon which judgment Writ of Error was brought in this Court and reversed Hide Chief Justice to the same intent No new matter hath been offered to us now by them that argue for the Defendants but the same Reasons and Authorities in substance which were objected before all the Justices of England and Barons of the Exchequer at Sergeants-Inn in Fleet-street upon an Information in the Star-Chamber for the same matter At which time after great deliberation it was resolved by all of them That an offence committed in Parliament that being ended may be punished out of Parliament And no Court more apt for that purpose then this Court in which we are and it cannot be punished in a future Parliament because it cannot take notice of matters done in a foregoing Parliament As to that that was said That an Inferiour Court cannot meddle with matters done in a Superior True it is That an Inferior Court cannot meddle with judgments of a Superior Court but if the particular members of a Superiour Court offend they are oft-times punishable in an Inferior Court As if a Judg shall commit a capital offence in this Court he may be arraigned thereof at Newgate 3 E. 3.19 and 1 Mar. which have been cited over-rule this case Therefore Whitlock accordingly 1. I say in this Case Nihil dictum quod non dictum prius 2. That all the Judges of England have resolved this very point 3. That now we are but upon the brink and skirts of the Cause for it is not now in Question if these be offences or no or if true or false but only if this Court have jurisdiction But it hath been objected That the offence is not capital therefore it is not examinable in this Court But though it be not capital yet it is criminal for it is sowing of sedition to the destruction of the Commonwealth The Question now is not between us that are Judges of this Court and the Parliament or between the King and the Parliament but between some private Members of the House of Commons and the King himself for here the King himself questions them for those offences as well he may In every Commonwealth there is one supereminent Power which is not subject to be questioned by any other and that is the King in this Commonwealth who as Bracton saith solum Deum habet ultorem But no other within the Realm hath this Priviledge It is true that that which is done in Parliament by consent of all the house shall not be questioned elsewhere but if any private Members exuunt personas judicum induunt malefacientium personas sunt seditiosi is there such Sanctimony in the place that they may not be questioned for it elsewhere The Bishop of Ross as the Case hath been put being Embassadour here practised matters against the State And it was resolved That although Legatus sit Rex in alieno solo yet when he goes out of the bounds of his Office and complots with Traytors in this Kingdom that he shall be punished as an offender here A Minister hath a great Priviledge when he is in the Pulpit but yet if in the Pulpit he utter speeches which are scandalous to the State he is punishable so in this Case when a Burgess of Parliament becomes mutinous he shall not have the Priviledge of Parliament In my opinion the Realm cannot consist without Parliaments but the behaviour of Parliament-men ought to be Parliamentary No outragious speeches were ever used against a great Minister of State in Parliament which have not been punished If a Judge of this Court utter scandalous speeches to the State he may be questioned for them before Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer because this is no judicial act of the Court. But it hath been objected That we cannot examine Acts done by a higher Power To this I put this Case When a Peer of the Realm is arraigned of Treason we are not his Judges but the high Steward and he shall be tryed by his Peers But if errour be committed in this proceeding that shall be reversed by errour in this Court for that which we do is Coram ipso Rege It hath been objected That the Parliament-Law differs from the Law by which we judge in this Court in sundry Cases And for the instance which hath been made That by the Statute none ought to be chosen Burgesse of a Town in which he doth not inhabit but that the usage of Parliament is contrary But if Information be brought upon the said Statute against such a Burgess I think that the Statute is a good warrant for us to give judgement against him And it hath been objected That there is no President in this matter But there are sundry Presidents by which it appears that the Parliament hath transmitted matters to this Court as 2 R. 2. there being a question between a great Peer and a Bishop it was transmitted to this Court being for matter of behaviour and although the Judges of this Court are but inferiour men yet the Court is higher for it appears by the 11 Eliz. Dy. That the Earl Marshal of England is an Officer of this Court and it is always admitted in Parliament That the priviledges of Parliament hold not in three Cases to wit in case of Treason secondly in case of Felony and in suit for the peace and the last is our very case Therefore c. Crook argued to the same intent but I did not well hear him he said That these offences ought to be punished in the Court or no where and all manner off offences which are against the Crown are examinable in this Court It hath been objected That by this means none will adventure to make his complaints in Parliament That is not so for he may complain in a Parliamentary course but not falsely and unlawfully as here is pretended for that which is unlawfully cannot be in a Parliamentary course It hath been objected That the Parliament is a higher Court then this is And it is true But every Member of Parliament is not a Court and if he commit offence he is punishable here Our Court is a Court of high jurisdiction it cannot take cognizance of real Pleas but if a real Plea comes by Error in this Court it shall never be transmitted But this Court may award a grand Cape and other Process usual in real Actions But of all capital and criminal causes we are originally competent Judges and by consequence of this matter But I am not
of Magna Charta is That no free-man be imprisoned but by the Law of the Land And it appears by these Books that it is against the Law of the Land that the King should imprison any one 2. Admit that this be onely a signification and notification given by the King himself of the commitment of the prisoner yet it seems that that signification is of no force 1. Because the words are general uncertain for notable contempts There are in the Law many contempts of severall natures there are contempts against the Common law against the Statute-law contempts in words gestures or actions And it appears not to the Court of what nature these contempts were Notable Every contempt which is made to the King is notable Against Our Government Contempt which is committed in a Court of Record or Chancery is a contempt against the Government of the King to wit because they disobey the King when he commands them by his Writs C. 8. 60. a. Beechers case The last two words of the Return are For stirring up of sedition against Us which words likewise are indefinite and generall I find not the word Sedition in our Books but taken adjectively as seditious books seditious newes c. in the Statute of 1 st and 2 d. of Phil. and Mary cap. 3. the words are If any person shall be convicted c. for speaking c. any false seditious or slanderous newes saying of the tayles of the Queen c. he shall lose his ears or pay 100 l. There the penalty imposed upon such Sedition is but a Fine C. 4. Lord Cromwell's case 13. where Sedition is defined to be seorsum itio when a man takes a course of his own And there it is said that the words maintain sedition against the Queen's proceedings shall be expounded according to the coherence of all the words and the intent of the parties So that it is plain that there is a sedition that is onely finable and which is no cause of imprisonment without bail And what the sedition is that is here intended cannot be gathered out of the words they are so generall against Us those words are redundant for every sedition is against the King Upon the generality and incertainty of all the words in the Return he put these cases 18. E. 3. A man was indicted quia furatus est equum and doth not say Felonic and therefore ill 29. ass 45. A man was indicted that he was communis latro and the indictment held vitious because too generall So here the offences are returned generally But there ought to be something individuall C. 5.57 Specot's case quia schismaticus inveteratus is no good cause for the Bishop to refuse a Clerk for it is too generall and there are schisms divers kinds 38. E. 3.2 Because the Clerk is criminosus it is no good cause for the Bishop to refuse him 8 and 9 Eliz. Dy. 254. The Bishop of N. refuseth one because he was a haunter of Taverns c. for which and divers other crimes he was unfit held that the last words are too generall and incertain 40. E. 3.6 In the tender of a marriage and refusall of the heir he ought to alledge a certain cause of refusall Whereupon issue may be taken C. 8.68 Trollop's case to say That the Plantiff is excommunicated for divers contumacies shall not disable him without shewing some cause in speciall of the excommunication upon which the Court may judge whether it were just or no. So here And he concluded with a case that was resolved Hill 33 Eliz. Peak and Paul the Defendants said of the Pantiff Thou art a mutinous and seditious man and maintains sedition against the Queen and the words adjudged not actionable Mason of Lincolns-Inne of Counsell with Mr. Long moved also that the Return was insufficient For the first Warrant that he was committed by command of the King signified by the Privy Councill I will not argue that because it was claimed as an antient right pertaining to the Subject in the Petition of Right whereto the King himself hath given his consent For the second Warrant the Return is for stirring up sedition against Us and Our Government Sedition is not any determined offence within our Law our Law gives definitions or descriptions of other offences to wit of Treason Murder Felony c. but there is no crime in our Law called Sedition It is defined by a Civilian to be Seditio or Secessio cum pars reipublicae contra partem infurgit so that sedition is nothing but division Braeton and Glanvill have the word Seditio generally Before the Statute of 25 E. 3. chap. 2. it was not clear enough what thing was Treason what not by which Statute it is declared what shall be said Treason and that the Iudges shall not declare any thing to be Treason that is not contained within the said Statute but it shall be declared onely by Parliament And that Statute speaks not of Sedition nor the Statute of 1 H. 4. chap. 10. which makes some things Treason which are not contained within the said Statute of 25 E. 3. The Statute of 1 E. 6. chap. 12. takes away all intervenient Statutes which declared new Treasons and the said Act declares other things to be Treason but mentions not Sedition Sedition is the quality of an offence and is oftentimes taken Adverbially or Adjectively To raise tumults or trespasses is sedition Tim. 2. E. 3. rot 23. Garbart's case A man was indicted because in the high street he took I. S. there being in hostile manner and usurped over him royall power which is manifest sedition and there it was but an indictment of trespasse Mich. 20. E. 1. rot 27. One that was surveyor of the Wood-work for the King was indicted for stealing of timber and detaining wages ridding Carpenters wages by one that was but a boy and this is there tearmed Sedition and yet it was but a petty Fellony Mich. 42. E. 3. rot 65. B. R. R. Pope was appealed by the wife of I. S. because he feloniously and seditiously murdered I. S. and seditiously was there put in because it was done privily By which cases it appears that sedition is not taken as a Substantive so that it may be applyed to treason trespasse or other offences By the Statute of 2 H. 4. chap. 15. there is punishment inflicted for the raising of seditious doctrine and yet no punishment could have been inflicted for it untill the said Statute yet it was seditious as well before the said Statute as after And this appears also by the Statute of 1 and 2 of Phil. and Mar. chap. 3. which hath been cited The Statute 13 Eliz. chap. 2. reciâ—es that divers seditious and evill disposed persons c. obtained Bulls of reconciliation from the Pope which offence was made treason by the said Statute for it was not before and yet there was sedition and by the saâ— Statute the aiders and abettors
are but in the case of Premunire By the Statute of 13. Eliz. chap. 1. for the avoiding of contentious and seditious Titles to the Crown it is enacted by the said Statute That he that shall declare the Successor of the King shall forfeit the moity of his goods c. so that the said offence although it be seditious is not treason by the Common Law nor is made treason by the Statute of 25. E. 3. nor by the Statute of 13 Eliz. By the Statute of 23 Eliz. chap. 2. he that speaks seditious or slanderous news of the Queen shall lose his ears or pay 200 l. and the second offence is made Felony The Statute of 35 Eliz. chap. 1. 〈…〉 seditious Sectaries which absent themselves from the Church they are to be punished 10 l. by the month Out of all which Statutes it may be collected that the word Sedition is taken variously according to the subject in hand And C. 4. Lord Cromwell's case Seditious is referred to doctrine There are offences more high in their nature than sedition which were not treason unlesse so declared by act of Parliament Every rebellious act is sedition yet if such Acts be not within the Statute of 23 Ed. 3. they are not treason 17 R. 2. chap. 8. Insurrection of villains and others is not made treason which proves that before this Act it was not treason And this Act of 17 R. 2. is repealed by the Statute of 1 H. 4. By the Statute of 3 and 4 E. 6. chap. 5. to assemble people to alter the Lawes is made treason if they continue together an houre after Proclamation made This assembly of people was sedition at the Common Law and the very assembly if they after dissolve upon Proclamation made is not treason by the said Statute By the Statute of 14 Eliz. chap. 1. it is made Felony malitiously and rebelliously to hold from the Queen any Castles c. but because this relates not to the Statute of 25 E. 3. it is not treason 2. It seems clearly that this Case is within the Petition of Right in which Magna Charta and the Statutes of 25 and 28 E. 3. are recited The grievance there was That divers have been imprisoned without any cause shewed to which they might make answer according to the Law And upon this Return nothing appears to be objected to which he might answer It appears not what that Act which is called Sedition was This is the very grief intended to be remedied by this Statute To this he cannot answer according to Law It appears not whether this were a seditious act trespasse or slander or what it was at all The words are Sedition against the King This helps not for every offence is against the King against his Crown and dignity that which disturbs the Common-wealth is against the King seditious doctrine is sedition against the King as is before said In 28 H. 6. vide Postrat fol. 19. the Lords and Commons desire the King that William de la Pool may be committed for divers treasons and sundry other heinous crimes and the Petition held not good because too generall Whereupon they exhibit particular Articles against him And therefore upon the whole matter he concluded and prayed that Mr. Long might be discharged from his imprisonment On another day Barckley and Davenport the Kings Sergeants argued for the King That this Return was sufficient in Law to detain them in prison Barckley began and said That the case is new and of great weight and consequence and yet under favour the prerogative of the King and the liberty of the Subject are not mainly touched therein for the case is not so generall as it hath been made but particular upon this particular Return The liberty of the Subject is a tender point the right whereof is great just and inviolable The prerogative of the King is an high point to which every subject ought to submit I intend not to make any discourse of the one or the other I will onely remember what the King hath determined upon them both in his speech which he made upon the Petition of right to wit That the Peoples liberties strengthen the Kings prerogative and that the Kings prerogative is to defend the Peoples liberties Thi◠〈◊〉 settle the hearts of the people concerning their liberty The way which I intend to treat in my Argument is to answer to the objections and reasons which have been made and to give some reasons whereby this Return shall be sufficient The objections which have been made are reducible to four heads 1. By what the prisoner here shall be said to be committed and detained 2. That this Commitment is against the Petition of right 3. That the Cause which is here returned is generall and incertain 4. That the offences mentioned in the Return are but Finable and therefore notwithstanding them the party is bailable For the first it hath been objected that the commitment here was by the Lords of the Privy Councill and the signification of this cause is by the King himself But I say that there is a further matter in the Return for the Lords of the Councill do it by the command of the King and they onely pursue this command I will not dispute whether the Lords of the Councill have power to commit an offender or no it is common in experience 33 H. 6.28 Poignâ—â— case is expresse in it And in the Petition of right it is admitted that they may commit And this is not alledged there for a grievance but the grievance there was because the particular charge of commitment was not shewed Some Books have been objected to prove that the King though in person cannot commit any person 16 H. 6. F. Monstrance de faits 182. But the authority of that Book vanisheth if the case be put at large which was in trespasse for cutting of Trees The Defendant said That the place where c is parcell of the Mannor of D. whereof the King is seised in Fee and the King commands us to cut And the opinion of the Court was that this is no plea without shewing a specialty of the command of the King And there the whole Court saies That if the King command me to arrest a man whereby I arrest him he shall have trespasse or imprisonment against me although it be done in the presence of the King That the following words are to be understood as the principal case was of one command of the King by word and then such command by word to arrest a man is void And 1 H. 7.4 was objected Hussey saies that Markham said to King Edw. 4. that he cannot arrest a man for suspition of Treason or Felony because if he do wrong the party cannot have his action To this I say That the Book there is to be understood of a wrongfull arrest for there is spoken of an action of false imprisonment and a wrongfull arrest cannot be made by the
stirring of sedition Seditio as an approved Author saies imports discordiam to wit when the members of one body fight one against another The Lord of St. Albans who was lately the Lord Chancellor of England and was a Lawyer and great States-man likewise and well knew the acceptation of this word Sedition in our Law hath made an Essay of Sedition and the Title of the Essay is Of Seditions and Tumults the whole Essay deserves the reading And there is a Prayer in the Letany From sedition and heresie c. So that there Sedition is taken as a kind of Sect. This being the naturall signification of the word then the next labour shall be to see if any thing in our Law crosse this exposition And it seems clearly that there is not 2 H. 4. cap. 15. And it is in the Parliament-Roll numb 48. against Lollards who at that time were taken as hereticks saies That such Preachers which excite and stir up to sedition shall be convented before the Ordinary c. There sedition is taken for dissention and division in doctrine And this is not made treason by the said Statute although the said Statute be now repealed by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 4. 1 and 2 Phil. Mar. c. 3. which is in Rastall Newes 4. which is an act against seditious words and newes of the King and Queen which is a great misdemeanor and yet the punishment appointed to be inflicted by the said Statute is but the Pillory or a Fine of 100 l. And the said Statute by the Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 16. was extended to her also which Statute now by her death is expired which I pray may be observed 13 Eliz. cap. 1. against those who seditiously publish who are the true heirs of the Crown that they shal be imprisoned for a year c. And 13 Eliz. c. 2. the seditious bringing in of the Pope's Buls is made treason which implies that it was not so at the Common Law 23 Eliz. c. 2. If any person shal devise write or print any book containing any fals seditious and slanderous matter to the stirring up or moving of any rebellion c. every such offence shal be adjudged Felony And in an Indictment upon the said Statute which see Cook 's Entries f. 352.353 there are the words rebellionem seditionem movere and yet it is but felony 35 Eliz. c. 1. made against seditious Sectaries Also there are certain Books and Authorities in Law which expresse the nature of this word Sedition C. 4.13 the Lord Cromwell's case In an action for those words You like of those that maintain seditions against the Queens proceedings the Defendant pleaded That he intended the maintenance of a seditious Sermon and this was adjudged a good plea and â—ustification From which it followes that the Seditious Sermon mentioned in the Declaration and the maintaining of sedition against the Queen is all of one signification for if they might have been taken in a different sense the justification had not been good Phillips and Badby's case which is in C. 4. 19. a. which was objected by Serjeant Berkley makes strongly for me for there an action upon the case was brought by a person for those words Thou hast made a seditious Sermon and moved the people to sedition this day And although it were there adjudged that the action lay yet the reason of the Iudgment is observable which was because the words scandalize the Plaintiff in his profession which imply that if they had not scandalized him in his profession no action would have lain And ordinary words if they scandalize a man in his profession are actionable as to say to a Iudge that he is a corrupt man or to a Merchant that he is a Bank-rupt although if they were spoken to another man they would not bear an action And although the Book say that no act followed there yet if the matter objected had been treason the very will had been punishable and by consequence a great slander But it is observed that words which imply an inclination onely to sedition are not actionable as Seditious knave but inclination to treason is treason therefore words which imply it are actionable And also for divers words an action upon the case will lye which induce not treason or felony as for calling a woman Whore by which she loseth her marriage and such like Then sedition is no offence in it self but the aggravation of an offence and no Indictment as I have said afore was ever seen of this singly by it self Tr. 21. E. 3. roll 23. Sir John Garbut's case which was put before by Mason the Indictment was in prejudice of his Crown and in manifest sedition and yet the offence there was but a Robbery It is true that upon his arraignment he stood mute therefore the Roll is that he was put to penance that is so strong and hard pain and this proves that it was not treason for if a man arraigned of treason stand mute yet the usuall judgment of treason shall be given on him And it is true also that he cannot have his Clergy because insidiator viarum was in the Indictment which if it was outs the party of his Clergy untill the Statute of 4 H. 4. c. 2. as is observed in C. 11. Poulter's case And upon the same Roll of 21 E. 3. there are four other Indictments of the same nature where Seditiosè is contained in them Anno 1585 Queen Elizabeth sent a Letter which I have seen by the hands of the noble Antiquary Sir Robert Cotton to the Maior of London for the suppressing of divers seditious Libels which were published against her Princely Government and yet in the conclusion of the Letter it appears that they were onely against the Earl of Leicester and this was to be published onely by Proclamation in London 5 H. 4. numb 11. and 13. The Earl of Northumberland preferred a Petition to the King in Parliament in which he confesseth that he had not kept his Majesties Laws as a liege subject and also confesseth the gathering of power and the giving of Liveries Wherefore he petitioned the worship of the King for so are the words for his grace The King upon this Petition demanded the opinion of the Lords of Parliament and of the Iudges assistant if any thing contained within the said Petition were treason or no and it was resolved by them all that nothing as it is mentioned in the said Petition was treason but great misdemeanors and yet truly though not fully there mentioned it was a great rebellion and insurrection But they adjudged according to the said Petition as you are now to judge upon the Return as it is made here In Mich. 33 Cawdry's case Sedition and Schism were described As schism is a separation from the unity of the Church so sedition is a separation from the unity of the Common-wealth And an Author saies that a seditious person differs from a
d. interfecit I. S. upon prepensed malice is good for the nature of the thing is expressed although the formall word be wanting but out of the Return the substance of the offence ought alwaies to appear which appears not here But it hath been said by the other side That let the cause in the Return be as it will yet is it not traversable 9 H. 6.54 and I confesse it But as C. 11. James Baggs case is the Return ought to have certainty so much in it that if it be false the party grieved may have his action upon the case And the grievance complained of in the Petition of Right is that upon such Return no cause was certified that is no such cause upon which any Indictment might be drawn up for we never understand that the party shall be tryed upon the Habeas Corpus but that upon the matter contained within it and Indictment shall be made and he shall have his tryall upon it And yet it is clear and it hath been agreed of all hands in the Argument of the grand Habeas corpus Mich. 3. Car. in this Court that if the cause be certified upon the Return of the Habeas corpus that the Court may judge of the legality of that cause 2. Consider the parts of this Return as they are coupled together for notable contempts by him committed against Our Self and Our Government and for stirring of sedition against Us Upon the entire Return the King joynes sedition with notable contempts so that it is as much as if he had said that Sedition is one of the notable contempts mentioned in the first part of the Return so that he makes it but a contempt For the generality and incertainty of the Return I refer my self to the cases put by Mr. Ask and I will not waive any of them True it is if the Return had been that it was for Treason he had not been bailable but by the discretion of the Court and such Return would have been good but it is not so of sedition Gard. 157. Treason is applyed to a petty offence to the breach of trust by a Guardian in Socage but it is not treason And so sedition is of far lesse nature then treason and is oftentimes taken of a trespasse it is not treason of it self nor seditiosè was never used in an Indictment of treason It was not treason before the 25 of Edw. 3. nor can it be treason for 25 E. 3. is a flat Barre as I have said before to all other offences to be treason which are not contained within the said Act or declared by any Statute afterwards And there are offences which are more heinous in their nature then sedition is which are not treason as Insurrections c. which see in the Statute 11 H. 7. cap. 7. 2 H. 5. cap. 9. 8 H. 6. cap. 14. 5 R. 2. cap. 6. 17 R. 2. cap. 8. and by 3 and 4 E. 6. cap. 5. the assembly of twelve persons to attempt the alteration of any Law and the continuance together by the space of an hour being commanded to return is made treason which Act was continued by the Statute of 1 Mar. cap. 12. and 1 Eliz. cap. 16. but now is expired by her death and is not now in force although the contrary be conceived by some which I pray may be well observed By the Statute of 14 Eliz. cap. 1. rebellious taking of the Castles of the King is made treason if they be not delivered c. which shewes clearly that such taking of Castles in its nature was not treason But the said Statute is now expired and also all Statutes creating new treasons are now repealed But for a conclusion of this part of my Argument I will cite a case which I think expresse in the point or more strong then the case in question And it was M. 9. E. 3. roll 39. B. R. Peter Russells case he was committed to prison by the Deputy-Iustice of North-Wales because he was accused by one William Solyman of sedition and other things touching the King And hereupon a Commission issued out of the Chancery to enquire if the said Peter Russell behaved himselfe well or seditiously against the King and by the Inquisition it was found that he behaved himself well And upon an Habeas Corpus out of this Court his body was returned but no cause But the said Inquisition was brought hither out of Chancery and for that no cause of his caption was returned he prayed Delivery but the Court would not deliver him till it knew the cause of his Commitment Therefore taking no regard of the said Inquisition they now send a Writ to the now Iustice of Wales to certifie the cause of his commitment And thereupon he made this Return That the foresaid Peter Russell was taken because one William Solyman charged him that he had committed divers seditions against the Lord the King and for that cause he was detained and for no other And because the Return mentions not what sedition in speciall he was bayled but not discharged And I desire the baylment of the prisoner onely and not his deliverance I desire that the case be well observed In the said case there was an actuall sedition against the King here is onely a stirring up of sedition The words of the said Award are Videtur curiae which are the solemn words of a Iudgment given upon great deliberation There it was for other things concerning Us This is all one as if it had said for other things against Us Concerning the King and Against the King are all one as appears by 25 E. 3. c. 4. de Clero Stamf. 124. Westm. 1. c. 15. Bracton f. 119. 14 Eliz. c. 2. And the words of the Iudgment in the said case were not dimittitur but ideò dimittendus which imply the right of the party to be bayled The said case in some things was more particular then our case and more strong for there was an Accuser to boot which wants in our case There true it is that he was committed by the Iustice of Wales and here by the King himself but this makes no difference as to this Court for be the commitment by the King himself or by any other if it be not upon just cause the party may be bayled in this Court. And for the Inquisition which is mentioned it was no Tryall in the case nor did the Court give any regard thereto To detain the prisoner by the command of the King singly is against the Petition of Right but it being coupled with the cause the cause is to be considered and the truth of the cause is to be intended as well where it is mentioned to be by an inferiour Iudge as where by the King himself for it is traversable neither in the one nor other And 22 H. 8. roll 37. B. R. and 1 H. 8 roll 8. Harrisons case resolv'd that a man committed by the command of the King is
in tertio Caroli that generall Returns that were committed by the command of the Lord the King are not good and that those Arguments remain as Monuments on record in the Upper House of Parliament but I will not admit them for Law But I will remember what was the opinion of former times 22 H. 6.52 by Newton a man committed by the command of the King is not replevisable And the opinion cannot be intended of a Replevin made by the Sheriff because the principall case there is upon a Return in this Court 33 H. 6.28 Poyning's case where the Return was That he was committed by the Lords of the Councill and it was admitted good It is true that this opinion is grounded upon Westm. 1. cap. 15. but I will not insist upon it But the constant opinion hath alwaies been that a man committed by the command of the King is not baylable In 9 H. 6.44 it is said That if one be taken upon the Kings suit the Court will not grant a Supersedeas The contrary opinion is grounded upon Magna Charta which is a generall Law and literally hath no sense to that purpose and it is contrary to the usuall practise in criminall causes in which the imprisonment is alwaies lawfull untill the tryall although it be made by a Iustice of Peace or Constable And that a man committed by the command of the King or Privy Councill is not baylable he cited 1 Jacobi Sir Brocket's case 8 Jac. Sir Cesar's case 12. Demetrius's case 43 Rinch's case And in the case M. 36 Eliz. and 4 and 5 Thimelby's case And said that there are innumerable presidents to this purpose M. 21 and 22 Eliz. upon the return of an Habeas corpus it appears that Michael Page was committed by the command of the Lord the King but was not delivered and after was arraigned in this Court and lost his hand And at the same time Stubbs was committed by the command of the Lord the King for seditious words and rumors and he lost his hand also upon the same tryall M. 17 and 18. Eliz. Upon Habeas corpus for John Loan it was returned That he was committed for divulging sundry seditious writings and he was remanded And 7 H. 7 roll 6. Rugs case and roll 13. Chase's case where the Return was that they were committed by the command of the Lord the King and they were not delivered and this was also the opinion in this Court M. 3. Car. And after the said time the Law is not altered and so I hope neither are your opinions But to consider the particular cause mentioned in the Return I will not rely upon the first part of the words although they be of great weight but onely upon the last words for stirring up of sedition against Us But it hath been objected that Sedition is not a word known in the Law But I marvell that the signification of the word is not understood when it is joyned with the words agains Us this ought to be understood Sedition against the King in his politick capacity Sedition hath sundry acceptations according to the subject handled as it appears C. 4. Lord Cromwel's case which hath been cited If it be spoken of a man that he is seditious if it be of a company in London it shall be understood sedition in the Company if it be spoken of a Souldier it shall be taken for mutinous Mr. Littleton who argued this case very well said That Tacitus useth this word and it is true and he saies That there are two manners of Seditions Seditio armata togata and the last is more dangerous then the former But couple it with the subsequent words here against Us the interpretation and sense thereof is easie loquendum ut vulgus Mr. Littleton shewes the acceptation of this word in divers places of Scripture and I will not reject them for they make for me 20 Numb 3. the Latine is populi versi sunt in seditionem and it is Englished murmuring but clearly it was high treason against their Governour and God himselfe 26 Numb 9. in seditione Corah it is manifest that that was a great Insurrection 12 Judg. 1. Facta est ergo seditio in Ephraim The Ephramites rose against Jephta and he at the same time was their Iudge and Governour so it was the heighth of Insurrection It is true that in 15 Act. 2. Facta est seditio and in some Translations it is Orta est repughantia non parva for it may be taken in severall senses 19 Acts 40. the Town-Clerk there knew not how to answer for this daies sedition or insurrection and no doubt he was in great perill for it was a great insurrection and I wish the greater ones were as circumspect as he was 24 Act. 5. Tertullus accused Paul of sedition and doubtlesse it was conceived a great offence if you consider the time and other circumstances for they were Heathens and Romans And although he in very truth taught the Gospell of God yet he was taken for a pestilent fellow and as a perswader to shake off Government Bracton lib. 3. de Corona c. 2. rancks Sedition amongst the crimes laesae Majestatis But it hath been objected that if it be a capitall offence it ought to be felony or treason To this I say That it cannot be felony but it may be treason for any thing that appears It is true that by the statute of 25 E. 3. treasons are declared and nothing shall be said treason which is not comprised within the said Statute unlesse it be declared so by Act of Parliament But upon indictment of treason such sedition as this may be given in evidence and perhaps will prove treason And the Return is not That he was seditious which shewes onely an inclination but that he stirred up sedition which may be treason if the evidence will bear it In divers Acts of Parliament notice is taken of this word Seditio and it is alwaies coupled with Insurrection or Rebellion as appears by the Statutes of 5 R. 2. c. 6. 17 R. 2. c. 8. 2 H. 5. c. 9. 8 H. 6. c. 14. 3 4. E. 6. c. 5. 2 R. 2. c. 5. 1 and 2 Phil. Mar. c. 2. 1 Eliz. c. 7. 13 Eliz. c. 2. 23 Eliz. c. 2. 27 Eliz. c. 2. and 35 Eliz. c. 1. all which were cited before and they prove that Sedition is a word well known in the Law and of dangerous consequence and which cannot be expounded in good sense Wherefore the nature of the offence I leave it to the Court But out of these Statutes it appears that there is a narrow difference between it and treason if there be any at all 3 ly As to the Objections which have been made I will give a short answer to them 1. It was objected That every imprisonment is either for custody or punishment the last is alwaies after the judgment given for the offence and if it be but for custody the