Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n act_n law_n parliament_n 2,185 5 6.6353 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

50. by the King and all the grandees in full Parliament That that judgement should never be drawn into example or consequence for the time to come And they there gave the reason of it because it was against the Lawes of the Land for them to judge those that were not their peeres and equals From whence I observe That if it be illegall for the House of Lords with the Kings presence consent and concurrence as they here confesse to condemne Sir Simon de Berisford for Treason and murdering the King because he was none of their peeres although vigorously put upon it by King Edw. the Third in the behalf of his father who in his own person sate and concurred with them in it much more is it unlawfull for the Lords to presume to passe judgment upon me a Commoner for a triviall supposed case without the King their creators presence Commission or Concurrence which by their own principles and by the principles of the Law yet in force gives life power and strength to all such their Judiciall actions and therefore all their proceedings with me are most illegall and unjust and utterly null and void in Law 5 My Fifth Argument against them is That by the Lawes of this Land no man is to be Judge in his own case 8. H. 6. fol. 21. 5. El. Dier 220. and Doctor Bonbams case 8 part of Cooks Reports yea and an Act of Parliament in such a case is a void Act by Law Therefore the Lords ought not to have judged this cause of mine for that it concerns themselves or at least the Earl of Manchester who was Speaker all the three severall times I was before their House who with the rest of his fellow Lords were not only Parties but Complainants Persecutors Witnesses Jury and Iudges which practise is against all the Lawes of England and the formes thereof as you your selves notably confesse and declare in the case of the five Members 1 part Book Decl. pag 201. and a greater act of injustice then ever I heard done by either the Starre-Chamber Councell-Board or High Commission Court in the dayes of their greatest tyranny and oppression 6 If the Lords judgement originally were binding in my case then a few Lords would bind not onely me but all the Commons of England who all one after one may be so served by them as I am and that without any hope of redresse in the world which both Law and reason abhorres either by Writ of Error or Appeale Attaint or Certificate of Assize to any Court whatever no not to the Parliament it selfe for then it would come before themselves againe who would never condemne themselves nor their owne Decrees And if the House of Commons suffer the Lords to excercise such an arbitrary illegall tyranny as they have done upon me and without all grounds rules or formes of Law suffer them to send for whom of the Commons of England they will and at their will and pleasure condemne them in what and how they please then the House of Commons stands for meere cyphers the Judges in Westminster-Hall for cyphers and all the Lawes in England for cyphers and we the Commons of England are become the perfectest slaves this day upon the face of the earth and by this practice the end of all Government is overthrowne viz. the weale and safety of the people as your House declares it to be in your notable Declaration of 17. April 1646. 2. part Book Decl. pag. 879. where you also declare but I may say by your dealings with me without any intentions to performe it that you will not nor any by colour of any authority derived from you shall interrupt the ordinarie course of justice in the severall Courts and Judicatories of this Kingdome nor intermeddle in cases of private interest otherwhere determinable unlesse it be in case of male administration of justice wherein ye shall see and provide that right be done and punishment inflicted as there shall be occasion according to the Lawes of the Kingdome and the trust reposed in you Yea and hereby the people of the Kingdome are left without all meanes to preserve themselves which your selves say it never ought to be being as old a Law as any is in the Kingdome 1 part Book Decl. pag. 207. in that you suffer the House of Lords without controule to exercise at their pleasure such a power over the Lives Liberties and Estates of the Free-men of England as I confidently aver it cannot legally nor justly be exercised by King Lords and Commons joyned and agreeing altogether who are when the most is said that can be said of them but Magistrates as all other Magistrates are appointed for the protection and preservation but not ruine or destruction of the people 1 part Book Dec. pag. 150. yea and de facto habitually to doe that for but endeavouring of which the Earle of Strafford lost his head by the decree of this very Parliament and for which I doubt not but either I or my posterity shall see the proudest and stoutest of them to do theirs it being more just equitable and rationall to destroy a man for acting and doing of a mischiefe then intending it Strafford being a Saint and a just man upon their owne principles in comparison of themselves And therefore Sir if you or the Lords shall shew me as many Presidents as will fill Pauls that they have done to others as they have done to me I value them no more in comparison to the severall Acts of Parliament and the Common Law of the Land which are above Acts that I have cited which are point blank against their usurpations then I value a dirty rag on the dunghill and I say unto you that if the Lords in their House can make Presidents to destroy Acts of Parliament and plucke the fundamentall common Law of England up by the roots yea such Acts as have been confirmed by scores of Parliaments then why doe you cozen blind deceive and delude the people of England by sitting for cyphers in the House of Commons and therefore awake and rouze up like men and powerfully and effectually rescue our Liberties from them least we doe it our selues and punish you as justly you deserve for your cowardly or treacherous negligence 7. The Lords being the meere creatures of the King made by his will and pleasure and set there as Prerogative persons and yet in Law and by their own principles as Lords without the King they have no Prerogative and yet have acted upon mee without the King or his particular Commission which makes all they have done unto me to be null and void both in Law and reason yea and I may justly say that they both in reference to the King and people thereby have forfeited their power and honour and cannot justly by you the Trustees of the people and who should be the Guardians of their Lawes and Liberties any longer be owned or acknowledged either in equitie
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.