Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	court_n	law_n	1,543	5	4.8094	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88190	The grand plea of Lievt. Col. John Lilburne, prerogative prisoner in the Tower of London, against the present tyrannicall House of Lords, which he delivered before an open committee of the House of Commons, the twenteth day of October, 1647. where Mr. Iohn Maynard the lawyer had the chaire.	Lilburne, John, 1614?-1657.	1647 (1647)	Wing L2112; Thomason E411_21; ESTC R202731	16,502	16

reason honour justice safety or conscience to be a House of Peers but a company of Apostats falne from their first institution and degenerated into Tyrants and therefore deserve at least from you and the Kingdome the Starre-Chambers doome Object But contempt of a Court by the Law subjects a man to Fine and Imprisonment Answ I answer first I doe absolutely deny that I did either contemne or affront their Court for I obeyed their Writ of Summons and withall respect and Complement came to their Barre which I aver was more then by Law 〈◊〉 to have done where being examined upon Interrogatories against my selfe I pressed hard to be dealt legally with and to see my charge in writing and to know my accuser and persecutor both of which was denied me contrary to Law and Iustice and a judgement in my owne case given by themselves but the February before against the Starre-Chamber where they declared that the Starre-Chambers sentence and all their proceedings against me which was upon the very same 〈◊〉 for refusing to answer Interrogatories is illegall and most unjust against the Libertie of the Subject and Law of the Land and Magna Charta and unfit to continue upon Record yea and in another Decree gave me 2000. l. damages against some of the Judges and Executors of that sentence all which I pressed againe and againe at their open Barre which was to no purpose for they angrily pressed me to give a positive answer to their illegall questions and beleeving in my owne brest I should be committed for refusing to answer I delivered in my Plea by way of protest against their Jurisdiction as justly I might do it being a maxime in Law as I said before that that which is illegall in the beginning by tract of time cannot be made lawfull for which and nothing else they most illegally committed me to Newgate the 11. June 1646. which Warrant I desire may be read as also the Decree 2. I answer their Court was no Court to me in my case having no Jurisdiction of the cause being not any of the causes that they by the 14. Ed. 3. c. 5. have Jurisdiction of and if it had yet by that Statute they could not meddle with me without the Kings concurrence and his speciall Commission which they had not in the least and therefore in a double respect all their proceedings with me are most illegall and unjust and therefore null and void in Law 3 But in the third place I grant that contempt or affront of a Court that hath jurisdiction over the Cause is fineable and imprisonable but to affront contemne or abuse a Court that hath no Jurisdiction of the cause for which the party is convened before them I say by Law is neither fineable nor imprisonable As for instance if a Court of Sessions questions me for my Freehold and I refuse to answer them and give them contemptuous words for medling with that which by Law they have no jurisdiction of they may by Law bind me to my good behaviour but cannot fine or imprison me much lesse dis-franchise me of all the priviledges of an Englishman as the Lords have done to me as appeares by their sentence the same holds good in the Court of Common Pleas who if they go about to hold Plea of Murder before them if the party refuse to answer it is no contempt of the Court because they have no jurisdiction over such causes And pertinent to this purpose is Baggs Case in the 11. part of Cooks Reports who being summoned before the May or of Plymouth in open Court called him cozening Knave and said unto him come kisse c. for which the Mayor dis-franchised him and it was resolved that the dis-franchisement was illegall because it was not according to Law for that the Mayor in Law had no power to do it and at most could have onely bound him to his good behaviour So that the Lords assuming over me a power of Jurisdiction without Law and the Kings Commission according to the forme of the Statute in that behalf they are no Court to me in my case nor capable of the cause in controversie betwixt us and therefore I say again in a double sense they have not the least ground or colour in Law either to Fine or Imprison me but at most in case there were an affront as I deny to bind me or cause me to be bound to my good behaviour and as for keeping on my hat refusing to kneel and stopping of my eares a moneth after my first commitment in contempt of their illegall usurpations having long before that justly appealed to the House of Commons I am not in the least sensurable therefore as they have sensured me even to 4000. l. fine 7. years imprisonment and everlasting disfranchisement seeing it is a Maxime in Law and Reason both That that which from the beginning is not valid can never be made good by tract of time or those things that are begun from evill principles can never attain a legall or just issue Object But if it shall be objected That this Argument destroyes the Act of the continuance of this Parliament because the King is and hath bin absent and not in a capacity according to the Statute to grant His Commission and Concurrance Sol. I Answer That the act of continuance gives the Lords no more power then what they had by the Law before for it gives them nothing but continuance and therefore the Argument is legal just against them that the Prerogative Lords forsaking their own creator and dealing with me contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of the Kingdom yet as much in force as ever and not appropriating or assuming to themselves any formall new power but meerly stand by the Primitive power derived from him he being by their own declared principles as much their King as ever all Writs c. still running in His Name they have lost their Honor and Justice in going beyond their bounds and dealing so illegally tyranically and unjustly with me as they have done Therefore from all the premises and authorities before mentioned laid together I do draw my conclusion which is this That I was originally and still am most illegally imprisoned by the House of Lords and illegally fined and illegally disfranchized in such a manner that in all ages by the most oppressive and worst of Courts of Justice in England was never known nor heard of before for a bare and supposed Misdemeanor And therefore I most earnestly and most pressingly crave as my right the Judgement of the House of Commons upon my appeale to them against the Lords for which I have waited upon them almost seventeen months and that I may no longer run the hazard of ruine and destruction of me my wife and little children for contesting for my own both in the sight of God and man and which is mine both by the law of God Nature and my Country that is to say My

own declaration of the 19. May 1642. 1. part booke Decl. pag. 208. where you affirme against the King that he hath wayes enough in his ordinary Courts of justice to punish such seditious pamphlets and sermons as are any way prejudiciall to his rights Honour and authority and if any of them have been so insolently violated and vilified his Majesties own Councell and officers have beene to blame and not the Parliament who did never restraine any proceedings of that kind in other Courts and what you there avere of the King I much more avere of the Lords that their remedie in case of libilling which yet I deny mine to be is onely at common law where there is a writte and action by the law ordained de scandalis magnatum as also for libells only triable by a Jurie upon an indictment at common law and not others wise and this also seemes to me to be very cleare and evident by the Statutes 3. E 1. 33. and ●… E. 3. 18. and 38. E. 3. 9. and 42. E. 3 3. and 2. R. 2. 5. and 12. R. 2. 11. none of which I am sure gives the House of Lords any cognizance of my pretended crime therefore for them to meddle with me having no iurisdiction of my cause it being neither about errour or delay of iustice in inferier courts their proceedings are thereupon all Coram non iudice and so void and null in law from first to last it being a maxime in law that that which from the beining is not valid can never be made good by tract of time or those things which are begun from an evill principall can never attaine to a legal Issue 3. My third argument against all the Lords proceedings with me is this that no man what ever he be is to be imprisoned but by the established lawes of the land they are the very words of the excellent Petition of Right but there is no established Law for the iudgement of the Lords in any thing where the King their Creator is not concurrant 14. Edward 3 5 for the Lords as I said before are only there not by any election or power from the people but as persons of honour created and made by the will of the King to assist him as before and let their Lawyers or any of their Proctors shew me one president before this Parliament to the contrary without the Kings Writt for Execution For in the Writ of Error wherein lyes the main and principal power of the Lords there must be a Petition to the King for the allowance thereof and the King must give them a particular Commission and power to take Cognizance of it before they can have Jurisdiction of it as is clear and plain by the express words of the 14. E. 3. 5. which Statute is the principal strength and basis of the Lords power but my case is neither delay of Justice in an other Court nor corruption of Judgement in another Court which is all the cases the Lords have jurisdiction of by Law which is as binding to them as to any other Courts of Justice in England as is cleer by the 4. H. 4. 23. which Statute positively declares it is a subversion of the Law of the Land for the Lords originally to take cognizance of causes or to over-rule the just and ordinary proceedings of the Law in other inferior Courts * As was lately fully pleaded at the Lords Bar as I am from very good hands imformed both by Mr. Recorder Glyn and your self Mr. Maynard in the remarkable case of Limbry against Alderman Langham unto which Plea concurred the opinion of all the Judges then in England which they were commanded to give by the Lords speciall command upon which very Plea as I am told the cause is since dismissed from before the Lords as not legally proper for their Jurisdiction which at least serves thus far to my end that an Act of Parliament is as binding to the House of Lords as to any other Court of Justice in England I might here also make use of the Duke of Epernoones case about 2 years agoe if I wanted matter Law against the Lords Neither was there made in my case any Petition to the King nor any Commission of his granted to the Lords to authorize them to meddle with me and therefore all their proceedings against me are illegall from first to last in the highest nature Again it is plain by the Law of the Land That no man shall be put to Answer without presentment before Justices or matter of record or by due processe and writ originall according to the old Law of the Land See the 5. E. 3. 9. 25. E. 3. 4. 28. E. 3. 3. 37. E. 3. 18. 42. E. 3. 3. and the Petition of Right the 3d of the King and the Act that abolished the Star-Chamber the 17. of the King And Sir Edward Cookes Exposition of Magna Charta but not any of this was done in my case for the Lords summoned me Oretenus before my charge was filed against me and examined me Viva voce upon interrogatories against my self without letting me know either Accuser Prosecutor Witness Jury or Charge and therefore all their proceedings with me from first to last are totally illegall and most unjust 4 My fourth Argument against the illegal proceedings of the Lords with me is from the 29 Chap of Magna Charta and the 3 E. 1. 6. and the Petition of Right which expresly declares That no man is to be judged but by his peeres and by due processe according to the Law of the Land see Clarks case in 5 part Cooks Reports that is as learned Sir Edward Cook in his Exposition of Magna Charta published for good Law by two speciall Orders of your House saith by his equals that is men of his own condition Commons only being peeres to commons as Barons of Parliament are peeres to Barons of Parliament 2 Part Institut fol. 28 29. 46. 50. where also he declares what title they bear that are comprehended within the name of peeres of Parliament and also what titles they have that are comprehended within the title of Commons And notable to this purpose is the Record of Sir Simond de Berisford in the 4. E. 3. Ro. 2. which M. Henry Martin had from me at large last year under the hand of the Record-Keeper of the Tower of London the substance of which Record is That E. 3. in his own person did charge the House of Lords to give right and lawfull Judgment against Sir Simond de Berisford for his treason and murder in murdering his Father King Edw. 2. but the Lords to the King in Parliament said all with one voice That the aforesaid Sir Symon was not their peer wherefore they were not bound by the Law to give judgment against him yet neverthelesse at the Kings importunity they did but it was assented agreed and enacted saith Sir Ed. Cook 2 part Inst fol.

The grand Plea of Lievt Col. John Lilburne Prerogative Prisoner in the Tower of London against the present tyrannicall House of Lords which he delivered before an open Committee of the House of Commons the twenteth day of October 1647. Where Mr. Iohn Maynard the Lawyer had the Chaire Mr. Maynard I Have undertaken a mighty hard and difficult worke to contest with so many powerfull and great men of this Kingdome conjoyned in a House of Peers and thereby claiming the exercise of a greater power then any other Court of record in England for the Lawes and liberties thereof but when I read over the 19. Chap. of Magna Charta and the Petition of right and other the good and post knowne and declared Laws of this kingdome made for the Common good benefit profit protection and preservation of the lives liberties and estates of all the free Denizons thereof and seriously consider of them and compare the present house of Lords violent and irregular practises and dealings with me thereunto it makes my worke to seem very facile pleasant and easie to me And therefore for the clearing up of the justnesse of my present Contest with the present house of Lords I shall desire from you a little liberty to speake a few words unto two things before I come to my maine Plea And in the first place I intreate a little libertie to make some short repetitions of my desires unto the Committee that examined my businesse now about 12. Monethes agoe where Mr. Martin had the Chai●e who I know cannot but remember that at my first pleading of my cause before him and the rest of that Committee in the Inner Court of Wards J made it my earnest desire unto them that they would deale fairelier and iustlier with the Lords then they had dealt with me that so they might not justly complaine of them for iniustice as I had to just cause to complain of the Lords themselves seeing that it was not the manner or law of the Heathen Pagan Romans to condemn any man before that he which is accused hath the accuser face to face have liberty to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him Acts 25.16 and therfore I earnestly pressed th●… 〈◊〉 Lords might be summoned to send their Lawyers or Proctors to the Committee to plead for them and that they might 〈◊〉 condemned 〈…〉 was prest at present to speake to my own businesse whereupon I desired them to give me leave to speake to two things and the first was to matter of law and the second to matter of fact And first to matter of Law I desired liberty to lay before them my grounds reasons and arguments and to read my law proofes which did fully convince my understanding that the Lords originally had no iurisdiction over any Commoner of England what ever either to try him or passe judgement against him either for life limb liberty or estate But Mr. Martin told me that for his part he was as fully satisfied in the point as my selfe and so he thought was all the whole Committee and thereupon addressed himselfe unto them to see whether they were or no. And they all unanimously declared their satisfaction without any one then scrupling and therefore commanded me to goe on to matter of fact which I did and laid down this assertion then before them That in case the Lords had had iurisdiction over me which I then and still do deny yet I did aver and would by particulars make it good that there was not the least legall formallitie in any of their Proceedings with me and therefore also void in law summoning me before any charge impeachment or indictment was filed against me which was and is expresly against the fundamentall common law of the land and also against the 29. chap. of Magna Charta and the Statutes of the 5. E. 3. 9. and 25. E. 3 4. and 28. E. 3. 3. and 37. E. 3. 18. and 42 E. 3. 3. Which Statutes are the true expositors of the 29. chap. of Magna Charta and what is meant by lex terrae there mentioned which is as all those Statutes shew That no man be put to answer without presentment before iustices or matter of record or by due processe or writ originall according to the old law of the land and if any thing from henceforth be done to the contrary it shall be void in law and holden for error all and every of which Statutes are confirmed by the Petition of right in the 3. of the present King and in that act made the 17. of the King this present Parliament for the abolishing the Star Chamber I then further went on to shew multitudes of errors in all their proceedings with me and by speciall order and command of that Committee the 6. of Novemb. 1646. brought in my said plea in writing under my hand and the 9. of Novemb. 1646. Delivered it to the hands of Col. Hen. Martin and since caused it to be printed and intitulnd an Annotamy of the Lords tyranny to which plea in point of fact I desire to referre my selfe 2. And secondly I desire liberty by way of introduction to my plea to state the occasions of my being summoned before the Lords barre in Iune 1646. which were these that after my deliverance out of Oxford Castle I was by L. Gen. Cromwells meanes made Major to Col. Edw. King then Governour of Boston c. under the Earle of Manchester which said Edw. King proved unfaithfull to his trust and committed besides divers transendent inormities and misdemeanors for which by the rules of warre which both he and I was under he ought to have lost his life of which I according to my duty and trust reposed in me complained to my Generall and Lievt Gen. Cromwell and laboured hard to obtaine a tryall for his life before a Councell of Warre But as I conceive by reason of the great interest of Kings two Chaplaines Mr Lee and Mr. Garter with the Earles two Chaplaines Mr. Ash and Mr. Good I nor the Committee of Lincolnshire nor the Magistrates of Boston who then were persecutors of him as well as my selfe could get no effectuall justice upon him saving the casheering him of all or most of his great and profitable commands Whereupon in August 1644. Mr. Mussendon Mr. W●lley and divers of the Committee of Lincolnshire preferred 22. Articles to the house of Commons against the aforesaid Coll. Edward King in the 4. ct 12. articles of which they expressely accuse him for betraying Crowland and Grantham into the hands of the professed and declared enemies of the Parliament and my selfe in discharge of my duty to my Country and the Parliament being an active prosecutor of the said Col. Edward King to bring him to a tryall in the House of Commons upon the said impeachment whereupon by way of diversion and revenge to save his own head upon his shoulders he maliciously and designedly confederates with Dr. Bastwick and