That if any Judge Justice or Jury proceed upon him and he found guilty that you will declare them guilty of his Murder and Betrayers of the Rights of the Commons of England Hereupon the House came to these Resolves That it is the undoubted right of the Commons in Parliament assembled to impeach before the Lords in Parliament any Peer or Commoner for Treason or any other Crime or Misdemeanour and that the Refusal of the Lords to proceed in Parliament upon such Impeachment is a denyal of Justice and a violation of the Constitution of Parliaments That in the Case of E. Fitz-Harris who by the Commons has been impeached for High Treason before the Lords with a Declaration That in convenient time they would bring up the Articles against him For the Lords to resolve that the said Fitz-Harris should be proceeded with according to the course of the Common-Law and not by way of Impeachment in Parliament is a denyal of Justice and a Violation of the Constitution of Parliaments and an Obstruction to the further discovery of the Popish Plot and of great danger to his Majesties Person and the Protestant Religion That for any Inferiour Court to proceed against him or any other Person lying under an Impeachment in Parliament for the same Crimes for which he or they stand impeached is an high breach of the Priviledge of Parliament This matter thus agitated in the House of Commons was countenanced by a Protestation of many Temporal Lords which was to this effect That in all Ages it had been an undoubted Right of the Commons to impeach before the Lords any Subject for Treasons or any other Crime whatsoever That they could not reject such Impeachments because that Suit or Complaint can be determined no where else for an Impeachment is at the Suit of the People but an Indictment is at the Suit of the King As the King may Indict at his Suit for Murther and the Heir or the Wife of the Party Murthered may bring an †Which was always to be preferred and upon notice thereof all Prosecutions at the Kings Suit were to stop till the Prosecution at the Suit of the Party was determined Appeal And the King cannot Release that Appeal nor his Indictment prevent the Proceedings in it It is an absolute denial of Justice in regard it cannot be tryed any where else The House of Peers as to Impeachments proceed by vertue of their Judicial Power and not by their Legislative and as to that act as a Court of Record and can deny Suitors especially the Commons of England that bring legal Complaint before them no more than the Judges of Westminster can deny any suite regularly commenced before them Our Law saith in the Person of the King Nulli negabimus Justitiam We will deny Justice to no single Person yet here Justice is denyed to the whole Body of the People This may be interpreted an exercise of Arbitrary Power and have an influence upon the Constitution of the English Government and be an encouragement to all Inferiour Courts to exercise the same Arbitrary Power by denying the Presentments of Grand-Juries c for which at this time the Chief Justice stands impeached in the House of Peers These Proceedings may mis-represent the House of Peers to the King and People especially at this time and the more in the particular Case of Edward Fitz-Harris who is publickly known to be concerned in vile and horrid Treasons against his Majesty and a great Conspirator in the Popish plot to Murther the King and destroy and subvert the Protestant Religion Monmouth Kent Huntington Bedford Salisbury Clare Stamford Sunderland Essex Shaftesbury Macclesfield Mordant Wharton Paget Grey of Werke Herbert of Cherbury Cornwallis Lovelace Crew This Protest was no sooner made upon Munday the 28th of March 1681 but the Parliament was instantly dissolved Well The Parliament being dismissed Fitz-Harris must be Hang'd out of the way and the Term approaching Scroggs the Chief Justice who lay under an Impeachment for Treason in Parliament is removed with marks of Favour and Respect being allowed a Pension for Life and his Son Knighted and made one of his Majesty's Learned Council and Sr Francis Pemberton being advanced to the Seat of Lord Chief Justice the Business of Fitz-Harris is brought before him and Justice Jones Justice Dolben and Justice Raymond and proceeded upon in the manner following UPon the 27th of April 1681 an Indictment for high Treason was offered to the Grand-Jury for the Hundreds of Edmonton and Gore in Middlesex against Fitz-Harris whereupon Mr Michael Godfrey the Foreman in the name of the Grand-Jury desired the opinion of the Court whether it were lawful and safe for them to proceed upon it in regard Fitz-Harris was Impeached in the late Parliament at Oxford by the House of Commons in the name of all the Commons of England Mr Attorney General then said That Mr Godfrey and two more were against accepting the Bill but the body of the Jury carryed it to hear the Evidence and that thereupon himself and Mr Solicitor went on upon the * A new way of dealing with Grand-Juries to procure the finding Bills of Indictment Evidence and spent some time in opening it to the Jury and We thought they would have found the Bill but it seems They have prevailed to put these scruples in the others heads Then The Lord Chief Justice Pemberton said your scruple is this here was an Impeachment offered against Fitz-Harris to the Lords which was not received and thereupon there was a Vote of the House of Commons that he should not be Tryed by any other Inferiour Court We do tell you 't is our Opinion that If an Indictment be exhibited to you you are bound to enquire by vertue of your Oathes you cannot nor ought to take notice of any such Impeachment nor Votes and We ought to proceed according to Justice in Cases that are brought before us This We declare as the Opinion of all the Judges of England Then the Jury went away and afterwards found the Bill Upon Saturday the 30th of April Mr Fitz-Harris was brought to the King's Bench-Bar and Arraigned upon the Indictment whereupon he offered a Plea in writing to the Jurisdiction of the Court and the Chief Justice said We do not receive such Pleading as this without a Counsels hand to it Upon which the Prisoner desired the Court to assign Sr Francis Winnington Mr Williams Mr Pollexfen and Mr Wallop for his Council which was accordingly done Upon Monday the 2d of May the four Council moved the Court to have longer time for drawing the Plea and that they might have a sight of the Indictment as necessary to the drawing it but they were opposed therein by Mr Attorney and the Court denyed both Then Sr George Treby and Mr Smith were also assigned as Council for the Prisoner at his request Upon Wednesday the 4th of May Fitz-Harris being brought from the Tower to the King's Bench-Bar
one is to the matter To the Form 1st The general Allegation that he was impeached de alta Proditione is uncertain it ought to have been particularly set out that the Court might judge Whether it be the same Crime and it is not helped by the Averrment 2dly Here is no Impeachment alledged to be upon Record They make a general Allegation that F. Harris was Impeached Impetitus fuit by the Commons before the Lords Quae quidem Impetitio in pleno robore existit prout per Recordum inde c. Now there is no Impeachment mentioned before And quae quidem Impetitio is a relative Clause and no Impeachment being mentioned before in the Plea there is nothing averred upon the Record to be continued or discontinued for Impetitio does not actively signifie the Impeaching or passively the Person Impeached but it signifies the Impeachment the Accusation which is to be upon Record Therefore when they say he was impeached and afterwards alledge Quae quidem Impetitio remains upon Record that cannot be good for the Relative there is only Illusive For the matter of the Plea 't is a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court There the point will be Whether a Suite depending even in a Superior Court can take away the Jurisdiction of an Inferiour Court which had an Original Jurisdiction of the Cause and of the Person at the time of the Fact committed I insist upon these Exceptions Mr Williams for the Prisoner then said I take these things to be admitted Mr Attorney having demurred generally 1. That the Prisoner stands Impeached 2. That the Impeachment is now in being 3. That this was done secundum Legem Consuetudiem Parliamenti and being so remains in plenis suis robore effectu And more particularly the Plea refers to the Record for the parts and Circumstances of the Impeachment prout patet per Record So that it refers the Impeachment to the Record and tells you 't is amongst the Records of that Parliament 4. Moreover That the Treason in the Impeachment and the Treason in the Indictment are one and the same and that this Person Fitz-Harris indicted and F. H. impeached are one and the same Person And withal it appears upon the Record that this Impeachment was depending before the Indictment found for the Parliament was the 21st of March and it appears this is an Indictment of this Term And further it appears not by any thing to the contrary in the Record but that this Parliament is still in being and then it must be admitted so to be Whether your Lordship now will think fit in this Court to proceed upon that Indictment is the substance of the Case I think it will not be denyed but that the Commons may Impeach any Commoner before the Lords That was the Case of Tresilian and Belknap in the time of Richard the second Vpon that Impeachment one of them was Executed and the other Banished in Parliament Mr Attorney allows the Parliament to be a Superior Court but says yet the Inferiour Court having Original Jurisdiction of the Person and Cause may proceed notwithstanding an Impeachment in Parliament I will shew how manifestly an Indictment and an Impeachment differ The Case of an Appeal is like the Case of an Impeachment An Appeal of Murder is at the suite of the Party and in this case 't is at the suite of the Commons t is not in the Name of the King but of all the Commons of England So that 't is like an Appeal and not like an Indictment an Indictment is for the King an Impeachment for the People It is not safe to alter the old ways of Parliament 't is out of the road of Comparisons when they will compare an Indictment and an Impeachment together It becomes not the Justice of this Court to weaken the Methods of Proceedings in Parliament Your proceeding upon this Indictment is to subject the Method of their Proceedings there to the Proceedings of this Court It is not fit that the Justice of the Kingdom and the High Court of Parliament should be crampt by the Methods of an Inferiour Court and a Jury The Parliament is the supreame Court and this Court every way inferiour to it and 't will be very strange that the Supreame Court should be hindred here For the highest Court is always supposed to be the wisest and the Commons in Parliament a greater and wiser Body than a Grand Jury of any one County And the Judges in that Court the Peers to be the Wisest Judges Will the Law of England suffer an Examination Impeachment and Prosecution for Treason to be taken out of the Hands of the greatest and wisest Inquest in England And will it suffer the Judicature to be taken out of the hands of the wisest Judges It stands not with the Wisdom of the Law or of the Constitution of the Government Another thing is this the common Argument in an extraordinary Case there is no Precedent for this way of Proceeding 'T is my Lord Cok's Argument 〈◊〉 Coke's Littleton fol. 108. and in the â—th Instit fol. 17. in the Case of the indictment against the Bishop of Winchester and of that against Mr Plowden He says 't is a dangerous attempt for Inferiour Courts to alter or meddle with the Law of Parliaments So in this case in regard it never was done from the beginning of the World till now it being without President there is no Law for it Another mischief which follows upon this is If you take this Case out of the power of the Parliament and bring it into this Court where the Offence may be pardoned you change the method of proceedings which make the Offence without consent of the Prosecutors not pardonable by Law This may be of dangerous consequence to the Publick by giving this Court a Jurisdiction and possessing it of these Causes expose them to the will of the Prince This way of proceeding inverts the Law in another thing 'T is a Principle that no man's Life is to be put twice in danger for the same thing If you proceed upon this Indictment and he be acquitted will that acquittal bind the Lords in Parliament If they may proceed upon the Impeachment then you invade every English-man's right and his Life may be brought in question twice upon the same account I take it to be a Critical thing now at this time to make such attempts as these are There are Lords now that lie under Impeachments of Treason if you goon in this do you not open a Gap that may be a ground to deliver them By the same Justice the Lords may be tryed by another Court This proceeding will have this effect it will stir up a Question between the Jurisdiction of this Court and the Parliament for in probability if this Person be acquirted the Commons and the Lords too will look into it If he be found guilty here is the Power of the Commons in Impeaching and the Jurisdiction of
determine that Impeachment before you Here is the Method and Proceedings of Parliament before you and I hope you will proceed no further on the Indictment The Cheif Justice then said Here is nothing of the Commons Right to Impeach before us nor of the Lords Jurisdiction nor the Methods of Parliament in this Case the sole matter is whether this be a good Plea to oust the Court of its Jurisdiction in this matter To which Judge Jones added Here is nothing of any fact done in Parliament insisted on here this is for a thing done without Doors Mr Williams replyed 'T is a hard matter my Lord for the Bar to answer the Bench. Sr Francis Winnington then argued for the Prisoner thus The King's Attorney has demurred generally and if our Plea be well and formally pleaded I am sure all the matter of fact is confessed by the demurrer And upon the matter of fact so agreed the general Question is Whether an Impeachment by the Commons and still depending be sufficient to oust the Court to proceed upon an Indictment for the same offence The Lord Chief Justice said That cannot come in question in the Case Sr Francis Winnington replyed Why my Lord Chief Justice The Question is Whether you have pleaded sufficient matter to oust us of our Jurisdiction Sr Francis Winnington proceeded saying My meaning is the same It is agreed that there were no doubt to be made of the Plea if there had been a particular Impeachment The House of Lords is a Superiour Court to this and a Suit in a Superiour Court may be pleaded to stop the Proceedings of an Inferiour Court and if once the Suit be well commenced in the Superiour Court it cannot after go down to the Inferiour and what is begun in one Parliament may be determined in another So is the Case 4. Edw. 3. N. 16. of the Lord Berkley and those accused of the death of Edw. 2. It was there objected as 't is here that by this means there might be a stop of Justice by the dissolution of the Parliament yet the true answer is That it is presumed in Law that Parliaments will be called frequently according to the Statute 4 Edw. 3.14 36 Edw. 3.10 This Record is well pleaded and could not be otherwise unless Mr Attorney would have us plead what is false the Commons Impeached Fitz-Harris generally and We alledge in our Plea that 't was secundum legem consuetudinem Parliamenti and so 't is confessed by the Demurrer A general Impeachment is good by the Law and course of Parliament Coke 4 Inst 14 15 says What the Law and course of Parliament is the Judges will never intermeddle with We find 11 Rich. 2. Rot Parl part 2. and Rushworth part 1. in the Appendix 51. Tresilian and others were appealed against for Treason the Judges of the Common and Civil Law were called by the King to advise of the matter they all agreed that the Proceedings were neither agreeable to Common or Civil Law But the Lords said it belonged not to those Judges to guide them but they were to proceed according to the Course and Law of Parliaments and no Opinion of theirs should oust them of their Jurisdiction 31 H. 6. Rot. Parl. N. 26. The Judges were demanded whether the Speaker of the Commons during an Adjournment might be Arrested They excused themselves saying That in this great matter they ought not to interpose it being a matter of Parliament In the great Council 1st and 2d Jac. The Judges refused to give their Opinions upon questions put to them about the Vnion of both Kingdoms for that such things did not belong to them but were matters fit for Parliament only Hence I infer that since 't is Pleaded here to be according to Law of Parliaments and Mr Attorney hath acknowledged it that you are fore-closed from meddling further with this Case it being a matter whereof you cannot judge But 'T is objected That if the Impeachment be admitted to be according to the course of Parliament yet 't is so general the Court cannot judge upon it Answer The House of Commons would not Impeach a Man for no Crime The Prisoner's Plea avers that that it was for the same Treason in the Indictment this makes the matter as clear to the Court as if the Impeachment had mentioned the particular Treason 26 Assiz Pl. 15. Stamf. Pla. Cor. 105 A Man Indicted for the Murder of I. S. pleads a Record of Acquittal where he was Indicted for the Murder of I. N. but avers that I. S. in this Indictment is the same Person with I. N. in the other Indictment and it was adjudged a good Plea tho' the Averment seemed to contradict the Record This makes it clear that if an Averment may consist with the Record the Law will allow it Mr Attorney had his Election either to plead Nul Tiel Record Or he might have taken Issue upon our Averment that it was not for one and the same Offence but he has demurred and thereby confessed there is such a Record and confessed the Averment to he true that he was Impeached for the same Crime and that he is the same Person I shall now offer some Reasons in general 1st That when the Commons in Parliament in the name of all the Commons of England have lodged an Impeachment against any Man it seems against natural Justice that any Commoners should afterwards try or judge him for that Fact Magna Charta says That every Man shall be tryed by his Peers or by the Law of the Land This is a way of Tryal by the Law of the Land but not by his Peers for 't would be hard that any Man should come to Try or give Judgment upon a Person who hath been his Accuser before The Lords are here Judges in point of Fact as well as Law the Commoners may come in as Witnesses but not as Judges 2d Reason If an Appeal of Murder were depending before the Statute 3 H. 7.1 The King could not proceed upon an Indictment for the same Fact because the King only takes care that the Offender should not go unpunished but the preferrence was given to the Person more particularly concerned and the King's Indictment must stay till the year and day were out to see whether the Person immediately concerned would prosecute the Suit so says Lord Hales in his Pleas of the Crown Then a Minoriad Majus does the Law so regard the Interest of the Wife or Heir c in their Suit and has it no regard to the Suit of all the Commons of England for manifestly an Impeachment is the Suit of the People and not the King's Suit 3d Reason If this Man be tryed and acquitted here Can he plead this in Bar to the Impeachment it cannot bar that great Court by saying he was acquitted by a Jury in Westminster-Hall and if so contrary to a fundamental Rule of Law a Man shall be twice put in danger of his Life
for one Offence I will now mention Precedents to prove that this Impeachment is according to the Course and Law of Parliaments Michael de la Poole Rot Park 18 or 28 H. 6. N. 18. was accused by the Commons of Treason and there 't is said that the Course of Parliament is to find out the Truth by Circumstances and such Degrees as the nature of the thing will bear and they are not confined to the strict Rules of other Courts The Earl of Clarendon was Impeached generally and the Commons took time to bring in their Articles I have had the Experience in three or four Parliaments wherein We have been busied with Impeachments tho' We have had no great success in them That tho' the Commons may carry up particular Articles at first yet the Course is for the Lords to receive the general Impeachment and the Commons say that in due time They will bring in their Articles So it was done in the Case of the five Popish Lords and in that Case tho' the Parliament was Dissolved before any Articles sent up yet in the next Parliament the Articles upon the former Impeachments were sent up and received yet Indictments were against them before any Impeachment and preparations made for their Tryals but there hath been no attempt to try them upon the Indictments tho' there have been several Intervals of Parliament Our Case is stronger than that of the Lords for in this the first Suit was in the House of Lords but in the other Case the first was the Suit of the King by Indictment and yet by a subsequent Impeachment that was stop'd and the Lords are yet Prisoners For the Objection That the King may chuse in what Court he will sue It is agreed when it is at his own Suit but this is not so but at the Commons Suit and can be no where else prosecuted but where it depends To conclude This Plea cannot be over-ruled without deciding whether the Lords can proceed upon such general Impeachments and whether the Commons can Impeach in such a general way This Case highly concerns the Jurisdiction of the Lords the Priviledges of the Commons and the Rights of all the People of England Mr Wallop for the Prisoner then argued thus There are in this Plea three principal parts upon which it turns which are expresly alledged 1st That the Prisoner before the Indictment was according to Law and Custom of Parliament Impeached 2d That the Impeachment remains inforce The 3d great Point and Hinge upon which it turns is this That the Treason in the Indictment and the Treason for which he was Impeached is one and the same Treason These three things are confessed by Mr Attorney for all things well alledged and pleaded are confessed by the demurrer I pass the two former points there being no difficulty in them I take the third to be the only point in the Case and if We have well averred it and can by Law be let into such an Averment I hope this Court will not pretend to go on in this Case They object because he is Impeached generally that cannot be averred to be the same and a Demurrer confesses not the Truth of that which by Law cannot be said But if it may be said and is said plainly Then the Demurrer confesses it I conceive the matter is well averrable and We have well averred I grant a Repugnant and impossible Averment cannot be taken But if there be no impossibility repugnancy or contradiction between the matters averred to be the same it is not only allowable to averr it but most proper For quod constat clare non debet verificari In this Case 't is not necessary that it should appear upon view of the Indictment and Impeachment that the matter contained in both is the same But its sufficient that it be provable upon an Issue to be taken and so much is admitted by the Judges in Sparrye's Case Co. 5. Rep. 51. If this matter may appear at first or at last and the thing is possible to be proved We are well enough Corbet and Barnes Case first Croke fol. 320. By taking the Averment We offer them here a fair Issue an Issue of fact tryable by a Jury but the Attorney refuses that and having demurred it must be taken to be true as if found by a Jury And if they had taken Issue upon this Question of fact We might have gone to a Jury where the matter would have been easily proved For upon evidence given The Jury might fairly take into consideration the reading of this very Numerical Libel set forth in the Indictment and the particular and special Debates of the House of Commons thereupon And that upon those very Debates the House voted that Fitz-Harris should be Impeached for matters in that Libel and that upon those Votes the Impeachment was carryed up to the Lords This is Evidence sufficient that the House of Commons intended to accuse him of the same Treason which proves the Issue viz. That the Treason in the Impeachment is the same with that in the Indictment This is not to put the Intention of the Mind or secret Thoughts of the Heart in issue but to put them into a way of proof In the present Case the Intention of the Commons upon the Issue we offered and the Attorney refused might and ought and would have been proved and without doubt found by the Jury Neither is this general Impeachment such a notional thing as is pretended but 't is as if the Commons in Parliament should say We charge him with Crimes that are Treason Now whether those Crimes are the same with those for which he is Indicted is a good and proper Issue And if it appears to the Court to be the same you will certainly take off your Hands from these Proceedings Again they say The Impeachment is too general and no Man shall be put to answer to such a general Accusation And I say so too neither shall Fitz-Harris be put to answer to it without special Articles But here by the Law of Parliament general Impeachments are held good and Articles and Additional Articles also are usually brought in afterwards And therefore We must take the Impeachment as We find it which stands against us as a Record and We must plead it in the same generallity This Impeachment according to the course of Parliament is well lodged in the House of Lords where it only ought to be tryed and we must plead it as we find the Case to be And having averred the Crimes to be the same We have done what we could and therefore enough And That a general Impeachment without Articles is a bar to any Indictment for the same matter was resolved by all the Judges as I am informed in the Case of the Lords in the Tower who were indicted for Treason and afterwards 5th of December 1678. generally Impeached and no Articles exhibited till the 3d of April 1679 And yet in the mean
made a particular submission to his Royal Highness for his misbehaviour towards him His Majesty and his Royal Highness received so much satisfaction that upon his Royal Highnesse's desire and entreaty His Majesty was pleased to Pardon the said Duke and thereupon did order Mr Attorney General to stop further proceedings against him but ordered he should proceed notwithstanding against all the rest of the Conspirators Copy of the Paper mentioned in the preceding Informations was wrote by King Charles the seconds's own hand who imposed upon the Duke of Monmouth to transcribe and sign it I have heard of some reports of me as if I should have lessened the late Plot and gone about to discredit the evidence given against those who have dyed by Justice your Majesty and the Duke know how ingeniously I have owned the late Conspiracy and tho' I was not conscious of any design against your Majestys Life yet I lament the having had so great a share in the other part of the said Conspiracy Sr I have taken the Liberty to put this in writing for my own vindication and I beseech you to look forward and endeavour to forget the faults you have forgiven me I will take care never to commit any more against you or come within the danger of being again misled from my duty but make it the business of my Life to deserve the Pardon your Majesty hath granted to your dutiful Moumouth Copy of a Paper delivered to the Lord Keeper North the Lord Chief Justice Jeffryes and the Attorney General by the Lady Armstrong on behalf of her Husband Sr Thomas Armstrong I am informed that by the Common Law of England any Man that was outlawed in Felony or Treason might bring a Writ of Error to reverse the Outlawry which was to be granted ex debito Justitiae tho' it may be the sueing forth such a Writ of Error to the King might be by way of Petition As in a Petition or Monstrans de droit for Lands And so it was resolved in Ninian Melvin's Case Co. 4. Just 215. Next by the Common Law if any Man were in England at the time of the Exigent awarded and went out of the Realm after that and before the Outlawry pronounced he could never assign that for Error that he was beyond Sea at the time of pronouncing the Outlawry And the reason is because he was here at the awarding of the Exigent and might reasonably have notice of it On the other side if any Man were out of England during the whole Process and pronuntiation of the Outlawry it was never yet a doubt but that was Error and might be assigned for Error either by the party or by his Heir at the Common Law and so continues to this Day and was not long since adjudged in O. Kerney's Case the Jrish man But that Case differed greatly from this O. Kerney being a Friend of Holy Church who came in two Years after the Outlawry Then comes the Statute of 5. 6. Edw. 6. Cap. 11. and enlarges the Law for the benefit of the outlawed person and gives him liberty to assign for Error that he was beyond Sea at the time of the Outlawry pronounced which he could not do by the Common Law if he went away after the Exigent For if he went before the Exigent that was Error by the Common Law before the Statute and so continues Then comes the Proviso and saith That he must come in within a Year and render himself to be entituled to the benefit of that Act which was to assign for Error that he was beyond Sea at the time of the Outlawry ponounced So that upon this State of the Law and my Husbands case he being beyond Sea at the time of the Process and at the time of the Outlawry pronounced It is conceived he is well entitled to assign this for Error at the Common Law without any aid of the Statute tho' the Proviso in that â—tatuâ—e should be ruled against him which with submission it is the opinion of many learned Persons in the Law that he is within the intent and meaning of that Proviso for many Reasons too long to trouble your Lordship with now Therefore I do hope that this Case of my Husband 's being the first Case that ever any Man was executed upon an Outlawry that did not desire it may have that weight with your Lordship which it deserves Holloway a little before being in the same condition refused a Tryal and so was executed upon the Outlawry And do hope that your Lordship will so advise the King in matter of Law whose Counsel you are that my Husband may have a Writ of Error granted him and Counsel assigned him to argue these points as by Law hath been allowed to Criminals in Capital Cases with whatever else shall appear upon the Record of Outlawry produced which as yet my Husband nor any for him ever saw Colonel Sidney's Plea drawn by Mr Serjeant Rotherham PRedict Algernon Sidney dicit quod per Statut in Parliamento inchoat tent apud Westm octavo die Maij Anno regni domini Regis nunc decimo tertio ibi continuat usque tricesimum diem Julij tunc prox sequen ab eodem tricesimo die Julij Adjornatum usque vicesimum diem Novembris tunc prox sequen Intitulatum An Act for Safety and Preservation of his Majesty's Person and Government against Treasonable and Seditions Practices and Attempts inter alia Ordinat inactitat fuit per Autoritatem Parliamenti predicti quod null Persona sive Personae virtute Actus predicti incurreret aliquas penalita tes in Actu predicto mentionat Nisi Ipse vel Ipsi prosecut esset vel essent infra sex Menses prox offens commiss indictat esset superinde infra tres Menses post talem prosecutionem aliquo in Statuto predict content in contrarium non obstante Et predictus Algernon ulterius dicit quod ipse proseeut fuit commissus Prisonoe Turris de London pro Offens in Indictamento predict mentionat vicesimo sexto die Junij ultimo preterito non anta ibidem continuat Prisonar huousque Et quod ipse predict Algernon non fuit indictat pro aliquo vel aliquibus Offens in Indictimento predict mentionat in fra tres Menses prox post prosecutionem predict Et hoc predict Algernon parat est verificare unde petit judicium si ipse predict Algernon quoad aliquod Crimen sive Offens in Indictamento predict mentionat quod Crimen vel Offens non fuit Alta Proditio ante confectionem Statuti predict respondere debeat et quoad omnes Proditiones Crimina Offens in Indictimento predict mentionata quae non fuere vel fuit alta proditio ante confectionem Statuti predict idem Algernon dicit quod per Statutum in Parliamento tento apud Westm in Com Middlesex in Festo sancti Hillarij Anno regni Domini Edwardi nuper Regis Angliae tertij