Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	kingdom_n	parliament_n	5,978	5	6.9475	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38261	The proceedings in the House of Commons, touching the impeachment of Edward, late Earl of Clarendon, Lord High-Chancellour of England, Anno 1667 with the many debates and speeches in the House, the impeachment exhibited against him, his petition in answer thereto : as also the several weighty arguments concerning the nature of treason, bribery, &c. by Serj. Maynard, Sir Ed. S., Sir T.L., Mr. Vaughan, Sir Rob. Howard, Mr. Hambden [sic], and other members of that Parliament : together with the articles of high-treason exhibited against the said Earl, by the Earl of Bristol in the House of Lords on the 10th of July, 1663 : with the opinion of all the learned judges therein.	England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.; Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of, 1609-1674.; Vaughan, John, Sir, 1603-1674.; Seymour, Edward, Sir, 1633-1708.; Littleton, Thomas, Sir, d. 1681.; Hampden, Richard, 1631-1695.; Maynard, John, Sir, 1602-1690.; Howard, Robert, Sir, 1626-1698.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Lords.	1700 (1700)	Wing E2683; ESTC R3660	65,855	176

declared not to Impeach of Treason upon the first Article And if any Man will add to the rest of the Articles he may but you ought to accuse Mr. Sollicitor None accuseth but for Justice sake and should be glad if the Party accused prove himself Innocent There is a Duty to the King and to Truth and it is not fit that an Article of this Kind brought into the House should be laid by upou pre tence that the time is clapsed for the Crime is more than what is mentioned in the Act made by you it is an Offence at Common-Law and if it be prosecuted by Fine and Imprisonment no time is limited The Third and Fourth Articles read and Voted Mr. Vaugh. Your reading every Article is needless unless it be to see whether any one may be Charged as Treason for if one may be objected against so may all as to Misdemeanours Fifth Article read Sir Iohn Sh w. The old Farmers had not the Customes till others said they would give no more and they had no reason to thank the Chancellour because they gave more than others And I declare upon my Life I know no reward given him Sir Tho. Litt. It appears by the Farmers Confession that they had it 50000 l. under besides time of Payment which was 30000 l. more Mr. Seym. Your are at liberty to receive Objections to the Articles but tho' others bad more they were told they should not have it and had about 1000 l. each given them to bid no more Sixth seventh Eight and Ninth Articles Read and Voted The Tenth Mr. Vaugh. This is an Article of an high Nature Dunkirk was then as much a Part of His Majesty's Dominions as Ireland and if the Sale of it be nothing I know not what you would think of it if England should be Sold you lately debated whether on the first Article he should be accused of Treason and found by the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. he could not tho' it was absolute Treason at Common-Law and it s reported abroad that I said that the Right of the Parliament in declaring Treason is taken away which I did not for there are Treasons not mentioned in that Statute Therefore it provided that the Judges should not upon any one Treaso proceed to Judge untill declared before the King and Parliament and what is signisfied by it If we think before the King Lords and Commons that is impossible for how can the Commons possibly declare before the King and Lords nor was that the Case but this that there is the ultimate Power of determining what the Law is in a doubtful Case In Writs of Error let them pass from Court to Court at last they come to the Lords 24 Ed. 3. If the Judges cannot resolve what the Law is it is to be brought thither that is where it is questionable but that is not in the House of Commons any more than in a Writ of Error How than is the Case here If a Question be whether a Thing is Treason or not it shall be Resolved where the Law useth to Resolve that is before the King in Parliament that is in the Lords House Had the Words of the Act been these there shall be no Proceeding untill Resolved by the King in the Lords House and Suppose that Clause taken away That Treason shall not be Resolved but suppose it shall not be declared otherwise doth it follow it is taken away No if you charge Treason which is not within the Statute it is another Thing but I said not there is no Treason at Common-Law Mr. Sollicitor There was a great Mischief in the declaring Treason by Parliaments for Mortimer was made a Traitor for incroaching upon Royal Power which every Man who incroacheth upon any Power doth Hence the Commons Petition'd the King to explain what incroaching upon Royal Power was and when no Answer could be gotten to it 25. Ed. 3. They Petion'd it might be declared certainly and so Treasons were enumerated and if the Judges be in doubt it is Provided that the King and Parliament shall first declare it Declaration in Parliament is a Declaration before the King Lords and Commons Would our Ancestors leave what is to be Resolved Treason to the Lords and themselves have no share in it And Talbots being declared Treason by the Lords is said to be no Treason by Judge Cook because the Commons had no hand in it there is no Treason in Common-Law because there can be no Treason where there is no way to Judge it which is not at Common-Law Mr. Vaugh. When the Law is made uncertain the Lords must declare it it appears there were Treasons at Common-Law not mention'd 25 Ed. 3. It is one Thing for a Matter to be Treason before and the Parliament to declare it another for the Parliament to make a Thing Treason which was not Sir Will. Lewis I desire to be Resolved whether Dunkirk was annexed to England because a Bill to that end was carryed but not Passed Mr. Waller To shew that Dunkirk was annexed to England consider we were Passing a Bill for 1200000l But when we were making a Preamble to the Bill we were to seek for Reasons for giving the Money seeing we had no War some said to keep Dunkirk but were told we should take heed of looking upon it as annexed unto the Crown but it was replyed Dunkirk was look'd upon as a Frontier Town and accordingly noted in the Bill Therefore the Sale of it Treason Mr. Coven Had it been part of the Crown of England what needed a Bill to make it so Mr. Pr n. It cannot be Treason because Sold by the King's consent Mr. Vaugh. If the King agreed to it doth it follow that he who adviseth the King to a Thing destructive to his Kingdom and King is not a Traitor If any part of the King's Dominions may be alienated especially when a Parliament is Sitting for they concurring it may be alienated by the same Reason the King may alienate Ireland or England too without the Parliament For by what Act of Parliament doth the King hold Ireland or England It is by Acquisition I say not Tangier for that was part of his Portion and is his own But Dunkirk would have been the Kingdoms if not thus disposed of and tho' it might have been alienated with the Parliament it could no more without than England or Ireland Mr. Ed. Hart. The Act of Parliament for annexing was not This Parliaments but of the Convention and came in thus the King was pleased to tell me that the Spanish Ambassadour might press him to part with it which he had no mind to do therefore he would have a Bill to annex it to the Crown which shews it was the King's Will to have it annexed accordingly this Parliament passed it and Dunkirk might have been as useful as Calice At length this Article was passed by without determining whether Treason or not Eleventh Twelfth Thirteenth and Fourteenth

to the payment of which his Majesty was not in strictness bound And afterwards received great Summs of Money for procuring the same VI. That he received great Summs of Money from the Company of Vintners or some of them or their Agents for Inhauncing the Prizes of Wines and for freeing them from the payment of legal Penalties which they had incurred VII That he hath in a short time gained to himself a greater Estate than can be imagined to be gained lawfully in so short a time and contrary to his Oath he hath procured several Grants under the Seal from His Majesty to himself and Relations of several of His Majesty's Lands Hereditaments and Leases to the disprofit of His Majesty VIII That he hath Introduced an Arbitrary Government in His Majesty's Forreign Plantations and hath caused such as complained thereof before His Majesty and Councel to be long Imprisoned for so doing IX That he did reject and frustrate a Proposal and Vndertaking approved by His Majesty for the preservation of Mevis and St. Christophers and reducing the French Plantations to his Majesty's Obedience after the Commissions were drawn for that purpose which was the occasion of our great Losses and Damage in those Parts X. That he held Correspondence with Cromwell and his Complices when he was in Parts beyond the Seas attending His Majesty and thereby adhered to the King's Enemies XI That he advised and effected the Sale of Dunkirk to he French King being part of His Majesty's Dominions together with the Ammunitions Attillery and all sorts of Stores there and for no greater value than the said Ammunitions Artillery and Stores were worth XII That the said Earl did unduely cause Hii Majesty's Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England to one Dr. Crowther to be alter'd and the Enrolement thereof to be unduly rased XIII That he hath in an Arbitrary way examined and drawn into question divers of His Majesty's Subjects concerning their Lands Tenements Goods Chattells and Properties determined thereof at the Council Table and stopped Proceedings at Law by Order of the Councel-Table and threatned some that pleaded the Statute of 17 Car. 1. XIV That he hath caused Quo Warranto's to be issued out against most of the Corporations of England immediately after their Charters were Confirmed by Act of Parliament to the intent he might require great Summs of Money of them for renewing their Charters which when they complyed withal he caused the said Quo Warranto's to be Discharged and Prosecution therein to cease XV. That he procured the Bills of Settlement of Ireland and received great Summs of Money for the same in most corrupt and unlawful manner XVI That he hath deluded and betrayed His Majesty and the Nation in all Forreign Treaties and Negotiations relating to the late War and betrayed and discovered His Majesty's secret Councils to his Enemies XVII That he was a principal Author of that fatal council of dividing the Fleet about June 1666. The Clerk having read them a second time it was moved That in regard the Articles were many they might be referr'd to the Committee to see how far they were true because Fame is too slender a ground to bring a Man upon the Stage Sir Fran. Goodr. Seconds it because new matter was now added to what was formerly charged Viva voce in the House Sir Rob. How Suppose the Earl of Clarendom Innocent and yet Charged and Imprisoned which is the worst of the Case he afterwards appears Innocent and is discharged receiving no more hurt than other Subjects have done Namely * D. Buck. one great Man lately Object But why should you Commit him Answ. For proof whether the Articles be true or not Suppose Men for self preservation will not venture to come not knowing how they may trust themselves and so you have no Proof He very guilty and You not able to proceed is the Inconveniency greater for an Innocent Person if he prove so to suffer a few days than for you to loose your Repuation for ever If this Man be not brought to his Tryal it may force him to fly to that which he Councelled that is that we may never have Parliament more Sir Fra. Goodr. I am not against proceeding but unsatisfied to do it without Witness it being like Swearing in Verbo Magistri Sir Iohn Holl. That the Committee undertake to make good the Charge otherwise examine Witnesses Mr. Vaugh. You admit the Accusation to be matter for a Charge if the Committee find proof if you intend to make this a distinct Case I leave it to you but if this be to settle the Course of the Proceedings of the House I am against it for this is ordering a way of Proceeding in the Earl of Clarendon's Case which shall not be a general Rule Tho' I cannot say one of the Articles to be true yet I know them to be a full Charge if made good and you are prescribing a Course neither proper nor ever practised A Witness who speaks without Outh is subject to Damage not so upon Oath because the Law compells him And whereas it hath been said if Witnesses attest before the House of Commons what Judges dare middle in 't I answer such Judges as meddled in the Case of Sir Iohn Elliot c. and the Ship Money Sir Rich. Temp. A Grand Jury is capable to present upon their own knowledge and are Sworn to keep the King's Council and their own and I believe there is not one Article of the Accusation but will be made good Sir Rob. How As I am sensible of the danger of publishing Witnesses beforehand so I would have every one satisfied therefore take the Articles one by one and according as you shall find what your Members may say for the Truth you may be induced to proceed or not Sir Tho. Osb. The House ought to have something to induce their belief which they have had from several Members and I know how some will be made good Sir Tho. Littl. What Article Members of the House do not offer you matter to induce you to believe you may lay it aside therefore hear what shall be said and proceed accordingly Mr. Iohn Tr. You connot expect Witnesses will appear before you Lords will not nor can you expect Commoners should for when you are up and gone nothing can protect a Commoner if this Information be not Judicial At last the Question was put whether to refer it to a Committee Yeas 128. Noes 194. 322. Then the first Article was read to see what would be said to induce the House to Impeach The First Article read Sir Rob. How Lord Vaugh. Heard from Persons of Quality That it would be proved The Second Article was read Lord St. Ioh. Persons of great Quality have assured him to make it good and if they perform not he will acquaint the House who they are The Third Article read Mr. Ed. Seym. Sufficient Persons will make it good with this Addition When he received

Articles read and Voted Fifteenth Article read Lord Vaugh. I brought in this Article His Betraying the King's Councels was to the French King during the War and that in the secrecy of State which was the occasion of the late Mischiefs Sir Tho. Osb. That is direct adhering to the King's Enemies and so it is Treason Mr. Sollicit This must be Treason if you have any inducement to believe it Sir Rob. How I have heard it from an Eye-Witness who told it me and added that we are neither to be trusted nor dealt with who were so betrayed Serj. Mayn Betraying the King's Councel to his Enemies is doubtless Treason Corresponding is another Thing Betraying must be without the King's Knowledge otherwise it is but delivering the King's Words to his Enemies Sir Iohn Bramp Did this Information come from a Subject or from one of the King's Enemies Sir Rob. How I would not have brought you Information from one of the King's Enemies nor did I ever converse with them during the War Coll. Birch We cannot accuse of Treason except it be said Betraying the King's Councel or Corresponding with his Enemies Mr. Vaugh. You have declared that you have had inducement to Impeach and ought to put the Question whether on this Article he shall be Impeached of Treason Mr. Sollicit To betray the King's Councel taken generally is not Treason for it may be to the King's Friends but to his Enemies it is If the Article be so Lord Vaugh. Let it be put betraying His Majesty's secret Councels to his Enemies during the War Then the Question was put whether these New Words delivered by the said Lord Vaugh. should be added Carryed in the Affirmative Sir Iohn Holl. Was this Information given by an Enemy or by a Subject Mr. Vaugh. It must come from a Forreigner or you could not know it may not the King have from a Forreigner a discovery of Treason against him The end of questioning it must be to know the Man for it might as well be asked whether his Beard be red or black Sir Tho. M rs The words are discovered not betrayed and discovering may be with the King's consent Lord Vaugh. Add the word Betraying for so I meant it Serj. Mayn They who give the Information say not they had it from more than one Witness which Stat. Ed. 6. requires and only one of them Names the Earl of Clarendon Mr. Seym. This exception is proper to be made before the Judges Then the Question was put Whether to Impeach of Treason on this Article Yeas 161. Noes 89. 250. Sir Tho. Litt. That an Impeachment of Treason and other Crimes and Misdemeanours be carryed up to the Lords against him by Mr. Scym Serj. Mayn For Misdemeanour he may have Councel not for Treason Therefore so distinguish the Charge that he may have Councel Resolved That a Charge be carryed up Resolved That the Speaker and the whole House carry it Novvember 12. It being considered that if the Speaker go up with the Charge some dispute might arise about carrying the Mace and otherwise It was Resolved That Mr. Seym. carry it Accordingly he went where at the Bar of the Lords House the Lord-keeper Bridgman being come to the Bar to meet him he delivered himself to this purpose My Lords THE Commons Assembled in Parliment having been informed of several Traiterous Practices and other high Crimes and Misdemeanours commited by Edward Earl of Clarendon a Member of this Honourable House have Commanded me to Impeach him and I do accordingly Impeach him of High-Treason and other Crimes and Misdemeanours in the Name of the said Commons and of all the Commons of England And they have farther Commanded me to desire your Lordships to Sequester him from Parliament and to Commit him to safe Custody and in convenient time they will exhibit Articles against him November 15. The Lords sent down to desire a Conference in the Painted Chamber At which the Earl of Oxford delivered a Paper in writing without any Debate the Contents whereof were to this effect The Lords have not Committed the Earl of Clarendon becase the Accusation is only of Treason in general without charging any thing in particular Mr. Garra I had rather the House should loose the Punishment of this Man tho' a great Offender then that this House should loose its priviledge for if this House may at no time Impeach a Lord without giving in particular Articles it may fall out to be at a time as in the Duke of B s Case where a great Man by his Interest with the King procured the Dissolution of the Parliament and then the Accusation falls Mr. Vaugh. Either you can justifie your Proceedings so as to satisfie the Lords what you have done or you cannot you must name a Committee as well to consider what you are to do if your Reasons satisfie not as to draw those Reasons Mr. Sollicitor Without doubt this House was not mistaken in demanding that the Party accused for Treason should be committed That is that Treason is worthy of Commitment and you can but find Presidents that Persons have been accused of Treason and thereupon have been committed But the Case is this Treason is an Offence for which Bail cannot be taken the Lords tell you not they will or will not Commit But it is true Persons have been Committed for Treason and Persons accused of Treason Judges may Commit or not Consider this Law Let the Crime be what it will an Imprisoning till the Charge it given is but an Imprisoning to security not to Punishment otherwise the Law is not Just and if the Judges of the Kings-Bench have a Judgment of Discretion whether to Commit or not can we wonder that the Lords have not Imprisoned till they know the Article when they have Judgments of Discretion tho' they knew it You may find Presidents but it is not an Argument it must always be so But as the Judges have a Latitude much more then the Lords the Impeachment from the Commons of England is properly the King's Suit for there is no Treason but against him and if the Judges may Bail in that Case may not the Lords But you are not told he shall be Balied but they desire to know what his Crime is and then you shall know their Answer the Resolution seems reasonable having gone no farther I cannot except against it Sir Tho. Litt. The Long-Parliament had some good Presidents which we are not to cast away least we smart for it Resolved To Resume the Debate to Morrow Nov. 16. Mr. Vaugh. The Lords do not say Commitments should follow because Treason is Bailable by the Kings-Bench its true the Kings-Bench Bails for Treason but how If Persons be brought thither for Treason directly there is no Bail but when a Commitment is by the Councel Table for suspition of Treason then if the Matter fall not be to what was expected they give notice to take Bail else the great Article of the Great Charter

Right which a Man hath in this Land or any part of the World but his Right is such that if it be kept from him he hath a means to come to it otherways it is Damnum sine Injuria for where the Law gives no remedy there is but a supposition of Right By the same measure it will follow that there is no civil wrong can be done to any Man but the Law provides a Remedy if that wrong be done and if by the Law there is no Remedy it is no wrong consider then this Case There are in this Kingdom in the Civil State of it three Estates which the King hath then in making Laws There are three Estates whereof the King is Principal sometimes they are mentioned as the King 's three Estates and he none of them The Estates in general are the Commons of the Kingdom who are perfectly represented in this House the Lords another and the King another and these are such that there is no Petitory Action nor the Laws directed to any one of them but the Laws you make are to distribute Justice in other Courts For Instance If all the Commons of England who are one of the Estates should Accuse one of themselves the Party can have no wrong because the Parliament can have no Action brought against them nor can they be supposed to do any thing for Malice It is the same between the Body of the Lords and Commons and there is no Law either to Vindicate the one or the other but they stand as if there were no communicable Law betwixt them but the measure between them is that which is good for the whole for they are the makers of Laws for others but no Laws can be fancied to reach the whole of the Commons or of the Lords So that 't is easily to be seen how it hath been put upon us so that now we are in such a Case we know not to what end we shall proceed upon this or any other Impeachment for by this Judicial power you shall be excluded from any proceedings by Laws of Parliaments and so you take away the whole Right of the Kingdom Quest. But now what shall you do Ans. I see many Inconveniencies which may happen both ways but I see so many this way that if any Man gave such Councel as is Charged upon the Earl of Clarendon it is not so dangerous as the Case before you for the Inconveniencies attending that Councel would quickly shew it self by the Misery following But this is a small thing begun with which like a Canker may eat till it be uncurable and that is as absolutely justifiable as this And now I have said this I am perplexed what to say more for all can bear me witness what respect I have endeavoured to preserve to the House of Peers but I am so sensible of this that tho' I cannot forget my respect to them yet I must lament the Condition into which they have brought themselves first and us next for they cannot think to avoid it The House of Peers is but a New Stile called so as Iurors are called Peers from the Word Par for every Commoner hath his Peers as Lords have and the whole Stile formerly was Arch-Bishops Bishops Dukes c. But Pares Regni is a new Stile It is called the Vpper House and is to be look't upon with Reverence The Lords have a jurisdiction but in this Case I must be plain their granted Jurisdiction ariseth from the House of Common if you Impeach not there your Judicial Power will be very little If a Lord be to be Tried for Treason the Lords are but his Jurors and tho' they Try him upon Honour not upon Oath yet they are no more his Tryers than as out of Parliament The Judge of Treason in the Lords House is Constituted by the King as a Lord High-Steward and there is no other Judge therefore I know not the Judicature they speak so much of There is another for Writs of Error which are there determined but the Jurisdiction of that is very little for the Inconveniency of the Lords determining what could not be determined in other Courts is so found out 25 Eliz. They are to be brought first into the Exchequer Chamber There is another way when Persons carry Complaints to the Lords which is a Question for Commoners ought not to carry Complaints there except in some Cases from Chancery therefore this Matter of Jurisdiction which they talk of is not such a wonderful thing as they would make it Therefore whatever we shall do after it your Rights being so much concerned that you know not where the stay will be it is necessary that you make a Committee to draw up a Protestation to be made by this House concerning this Matter The Invasion of your Right in it and the danger to the Kingdom by it Mr. Colem The Lords say That committing upon a general Impeachment is against Law and I think it will appear so I deny not but a Mittimus without special Cause is legal and grounded upon the Petition of Right the Reason of which is to secure Men against Commitment by a special Warrant and a Judge ought not to discharge where Treason is alledged but in this Case it is different The Judges cannot discharge a Man Committed after Examination but the Lords ought not to Commit a Man except there be particular Treason If I come before a Justice of Peace and say I accuse this Man of Treason will any wise Man Commit him he makes his Warrant indeed but he that accuseth must go farther and make it more particular and the special Matter must appear before he Commits and this is the present Case The Common-Law is That no Man ought to be Committed without particular Cause because no Man can Commit in Capital Matters without taking Examination before hand otherwise no Man can justifie a Commitment Therefore I am not satisfied that the Lords had not reason to deny The Commons are in the nature of a Grand-Iury to present but the Lords are the Iudges Commitment is not the Judgment but in order to it and the Lords have a discretionary Power in the Case The Lords say not that they will not Commit but that they are not satisfied to do it without special Matter therefore we ought to send it up Sir Rob. How I have attended the Reasons given against making a Protestation and whatever is said is but levelling a House of Commons with every private Accuser a Justice of Peace it is said must have Evidence before he Commit and this House has had Inducements to Impeach and may not a House of Commons Judge what is Treason as well as Justice of Peace The Inconveniencies and Dangers laid before you if you proceed are nothing in comparison of those on the other side Had the Lords Imprisoned they had before this had the Particular Charge and the Protestation is not to stop it but to make way for

the Affections of His Majesty's Subjects from him by venting in his own Discourse and by the Speeches of his nearest Relations and Emissaries opprobrious Scandals against His Majesty's Person and course of Life such as are not fit to be mentioned unless necessity in the way of Proof shall require it That he hath traiterously endeavoured to Alienate the Affections of his Highness the Duke of York from His Majesty by suggesting unto him Iealousies as far as in him lay and publishing abroad by his Emissaries that His Majesty intended to Legitimate the D. of Monmouth That he hath Wickedly and Maliciously contrary to the Duty of a Privy-Councellour of England and contrary to the perpetual and most important Interest of this Nation perswaded His Majesty against the Advice of the Lord General to withdraw the English Garrisons out of Scotland and to demolish all the Forts built there at so vast a Charge to this Kingdom That His Majesty having been graciously pleased to communicate the Desires of the Parliament of Scotland for the remove of the laid Garrisons to the Parliament of England and to act their Advice therein the said Earl of Clarendon not only perswaded His Majesty actually to remove those Garrisons without expecting the Advice of his Parliament of England concerning it but did by Menaces of His Majasty's displeasure deter several Members of Parliament from moving the House as they intended to enter upon consideration of that Matter That he had Traiterously and Maliciously endeavoured to Alienate His Majesty's Affections and Esteem from this his Parliament by telling His Majesty that there was never so weak and inconsiderable a House of Lords nor never so weak and so heady a House of Commons or words to that effect and particularly that it was better to sell Dunkirk than to be at their Mercy for want of Money or words to that effect That he hath Wickedly and Maliciously contrary to his Duty of Counsellour and to a known Law made last Sessions by which Money was given and particularly applyed for the maintaining of Dunkirk advised and effected the Sale of the same to the French King That he hath contrary to Law enriched himself and his Treasures by the Sale of Offices That contrary to his Duty he hath wickedly and corruptly Converted to his own use great and vast Summs of publick Money raised in Ireland by way of Subsidy private and publick Benevolences and otherwise given and intended to desray the Charge of Government in that Kingdom By which means a supernumerary and disaffected Army hath been kept up there for want of Money to pay them off occasioned it seems to be because of the late and present Distempers of that Kingdom That having arrogated to himself a supream Direction of all His Majesty's Affairs be hath with a malicious and corrupt Intention prevailed to have His Majesty's Customs Farmed at a far lower Rate than others do offer and that by Persons with some of whom he goes a share in that and other parts of Money resulting from His Majesty's Revenue July 10th 1663. BRISTOL The Earl of Bristol having Exhibited against the Lord Chancellour Articles of High-Treason and other Misdemeanours This Order was made by the House of Peers Die Veneris 10 July 1663. ORDERED by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled That a Copy of the Articles or Charge of High-Treason Exhibited this Day by the Earl of Bristol against the Lord Chancellour be delivered to the Lord Chief-Iustice who with all the rest of the Judges are to consider whether the said Charge hath been brought in regularly and legally and whether it may be proceeded in and how and whether there be any Treason in it or no and make Report thereof to this House on Monday next if they can or else as soon after as possibly they may Whereupon all the Judges met at Serjeauts-Inn in Fleet-street and my Lord of Bristol repaired to us thither desiring to see the Order which being Read he told us he came out of respect to know of us whether we were informed how it came into the House of Peers whether as a Charge or not but one of the Judges who had been present when it was delivered in saying we were tied up by our Order his Lordship took some exception at the manner of his Expression as if his Lordships Address was unnecessary at that time anb taking it as a rebuke unto him went away but according to our Order which supposed it to be a Charge of High-Treason and not mentioning Misdemeanour we did upon Consideration unanimously agree upon this ensuing Answer which on Monday the 13th of Iuly the Lord Chief-Iustice Foster did deliver in viz. We conceive that a Charge of High-Treason cannot by the Laws and Statutes of this Realm be originally Exhibited by one Peer against another unto the House of Peers and that therefore a Charge of High-Treason by the Earl of Bristol against the Lord Chancellour mentioned in the Order of Reference to us of the 10th of this Instant July hath not been regularly and legally brought in and if the Matters alledged in the said Charge were admitted to be true altho' alledged to be traiterously done yet there is no Treason in it Which Answer being given in the Earl of Bristol took some exceptions at it and some of the Lords inferred thence that if it were Irregularly and Illegally brought in it was a Libel but we satisfied them that it was not under Consideration of us whether it came in as an Information or Charge our Order required us to give Answer to it as a Charge Secondly We did not meddle with any thing concerning accusing him of Misdemeanour for our Order reached only to Treason Thirdly It did not follow that if this Charge were Irregular or Illegal that therefore he was Criminal There might be Presidents to give Colour to such kind of Proceedings for which till it be declared or known that they are Illegal they are Titular and ought not to be punished But it was much insisted on That we should deliver the Reason of our Opinions the Lord of Bristol and his Friends seeming unsatisfied We Replyed That it was never known that when the Justices to whom Questions were referred from Parliament had unanimously agreed in their Opinions that Reasons were required from them Yet notwithstanding it being the desire of the Lords after some things premised and a desire that this should not be drawn into an Example which the Lords assented unto as I took it for no Order was entred concerning it there being no Order as I think for delivering our Reasons entred and it was agreed amongst us that no Note should be reduced least we might be required to deliver our Reasons in writing nor had I time to digest it in writing having only Monday Night after Conference with my Brethren to think upon it I did on the next Tuesday being the 14th of Iuly deliver the Reasons of all the Judges of their