the House of Lords or some other of my adversaries that I am now falen from and forsaken my first principals and would have neither law nor government yet I doe with abundance of confidence avere it that I am not if I know my own heart changed or falen from my first principles in the least but that the Lords themselves are the true apostates and that they are the men that in their constant practizes now of late yeares strongly endeavour to destroy all law and government and to set up in themselves an absolute arbitrary Tyranie worse then either Starre Chamber Councell Table or High commission or all three of them put all together in one which I doubt not but in my following plea to make as apparant to this Committee as the Sun that shines at noone day for which end I desire this Committee to take notice in the first place That the Lords doe not sit in their House by any power or authority derived from the peoples free election and choice who cannot in justice reason and equitie be bound but by their own free consents neither in reason iustice or equity can any be law-makers to them that are not thereunto justly impowred by them which the House of Lords are not in the least but are meerly and altogether the creatures of the King made by his prerogative some times of the basest and corruptest of the people being the meere issue of his will sitting by his command who himselfe in referrence to the bodies and estates of the people is lymitted and bounded by the law 1. As for instance by the 29 th of Magna Charta the King himselfe cannot imprison any man nor dispossesse him of his freehold liberâ—ies or free customes or outlaw him exile him or any otherwise destroy him but by due processe of law according to the law of the Land neither can he sell deny or deferre to any man either justice or right 2. And by the Statute of the 2 Edward 3 8 and 14 Edwaard 3 14 and 11 R. 2. 10 the King is tyed that he shal not hinder disturbe nor delay common right and justice according to the Law of the Land by any command under the great Seale or the little Seale neither by any letters of his Signet or privy seale and if he shall send any such commands the Judges notwithstanding shall and ought to goe on to execute the Law in every point as if any such command had never been 3. And by the Petition of right made in the 3.d of the present King all those lawes and liberties are not only confirmed but it is there inacted and fully declared that no man be adjudged or condemned but by the lawes already established and declared and that all the Administrators of the lawes of England and all other of the Kings ministers shall serve him and the Kingdome according to the declared lawes thereof and not otherwise 4. And in the acts that abolished Shipmoney and abolished the Star Chamber and rectiffeth the Councell Board all and every the particulars of the said Petition of right is not only confirmed but it is inacted further that neither his Majesty nor his privie Councell have or ought to have any jurisdiction power or â—…er authority by English Bill Petition Articles libells or any other arbitrarie way whatsoever to examine or draw into question determine or dispose of the Lands Tenements heredetaments goods or chattels of any the subjects of this Kingdome but that the same ought to be tryed and determined in the ordinary Courts of justice and by the ordinary courses of law which last clause is extraordinary pertinent to my purpose that the ordinarie Courts of iustice and the ordinary Courts of the law are to be tryers of all causes and differences betwixt partie and partie And in that act there is a remedie provided for any man that shal illegally suffer imprisonment or hereafter be committed or restrained of his libertie by the command or warrant of the King himselfe his heires or successors in their own person yea and the Kings oath that he takes when he is made King recorded 1. part booke decla page 712 713 714. tyes him to govourn his people according to the established Lawes and to preserve unto them their liberties and freedomes Now Sir if the King the creator of the Lords be thus restrained by Law as he is that he shall not doe to the freemen of England what he pleaseth nor exercise an arbitrarie tyranicall illegall power over their bodies or estates It is impossible for him to give unto the Lords the exercise of an arbitrarie tyranicall illegall power over their lives liberties or estates for it is a maxime in nature there is no being beyond the power of being neither I am confident are they able to produce any soled testimonie that he ever gave them any such power And though I grant that the King to the iudges gives such a power as he can not nor doth not in his own person execute 〈◊〉 I say that it is alwayes a power not flowing from his owne will but limâ—…ted by the Law by which he is authorized so to doe by acts of Parliament and I am sure by the words of the writt by which he summond them to sit in Parliament as I find it printed in a late printed book called the manner of holding Parliaments pag. which writt is the foundation and roote of their power all the power that is given them by that writt is to come to the Parliament to confer and treat with the King or afford their councell of certaine hard urgent affaires concerning the King the State and defence of the Kingdome of England and the Church therof But my pretended offence touching none of these things but at the most is meerely an action or offence tryable at common Law Cooks 5. part reports delibellis Famosis and besides the Lords about me had no conferrence nor treatie with the King their prorogative fountaine as by their writt of summons which is the foundation and ground of their power they ought to have And therefore the Lords not only by the common law but by their own law and principles had not the least ground to pretend to a power or jurisdiction in the least of my cause 2ly I am summond by the Lords Warrant to come to their Barre and to answer such things as I stand charged with before their Lordships concerning a pamphlet intitulled the iust mans iustification Now Mr Maynard admit that that pamphlet as they call it were mine and full of scandals in the highest nature yet lybells and scandalum magnatum is not to be tryed by the House of Lords but is to be tryed only now the Starchamber is downe by an action at the common law as appeares by the 5. part of Cookes reports Page 125. and the 13. Hen. 7. Kelay 11. Eliz. Dier 285. and 30. assis Pla. 19. all which is fully confirmed by your own words in your
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
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 Chaiâ—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 thâ—… 〈◊〉 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. Wâ—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
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 â—… 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.
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