that he was ill spoken of and defamed to the close of all the Judgment given by the King by the mouth of the Chancellour for his banishment in regard he had not put himself upon his Peerage which yet the Chancellour said the King did not do as his Judge for that he was not in the place of Judgment And it was an odd thing and unusual that some Prelates and some Lords should be sent down to the House of Commons to receive the Articles of this Impeachment All this was such a Hodge-podge of a Trial as no man can tell what to make of it nor can it be of any signification to be a president and a rule of proceeding in matters of that nature in Parliament But admit it had been never so regular it is but one single president of Bishops and Prelates acting in a Judicial capacity in a Capital cause in Parliament against multitudes excluding them it was once so and never but once And can that be thought sufficient to alter and change the constant course and practice of Parliaments which hath been otherwise Had it been questioned then and upon a debate and mature consideration been so resolved at that time this had signified something but it was done and no exception taken which they call a passing Sub silentio and more it was never done but once But Sir Edward Coke goes further and saith that two or three presidents are nothing if forty be contrary and it is so here he tells you too when it is that they signifie nothing that is Quand les Presidents passe sans challenge del partie ou debate des Iustices When they be not challenged by the party concerned or not considered of and debated by the Iudges as neither of them was here done it is in Slades case in the 4. Reports It is a rule in Law A facto ad jus non valet argumentum but it may withal be said and truly A saepe facto ad jus contra semel factum valet argumentum Upon the whole matter one may boldly affirm that this President of 28 H. 6. is no ground for the Bishops to build their claim upon of having a right to sit and vote in Parliament in Capital Causes 31 H. 6. is the Earl of Devonshire's Case the Record runs thus Be hit remembred that where the 14. day of March the said 31 year of this present Parliament Thomas Earl of Devonshire upon an Indictment of High Treason by him supposed to be done against the Kings honourable estate and person afore Humfrey Duke of Bucks Steward of England for that time assigned and of the same Treason by his Peers the noble Lords of this Royaume of England being in this said present Parliament was acquitted of all things contained in the same Indictment Now I suppose no man will say That the Bishops were either his Peers or Lords of the Realm 38 H. 6. The Lord Stanley was accused by the Commons for being in confederacy with the Duke of York and they desire he may be committed to prison the Answer is The King will be advised which is all was done And this is the last president of any Impeachment or of any person questioned in Parliament in a Judicial way that is upon the Rolls in the Tower And I do not remember that I have read or heard of any Trial in Parliament in a Judicial way since that time till the E. of Straffords in our memory whose Trial was compleated in that way but he was attainted and condemned by the Legislative power During all the Trial from the beginning to the end the Bishops were never present at any part of it And it yet appears upon the Journal Book of the House of Peers though many passages be razed but this is not That upon the 9. of March 1640. upon a Report brought in by the Lord Privy Seal of something concerning that business and a debate arising upon it the Bishops withdrew it being In agitatione cause sanguinis It is true there was in that same Parliament the February before an Impeachment of High Treason brought up from the House of Commons against the Lord Keeper Finch but it never came to Trial for he fairly ran away and got beyond Sea whereupon by the Order of the Lords Temporal a Proclamation was issued forth for him to appear the 10. of March following the words of the Proclamation are Rex Uice-comiti c. Cum Communitas Regni nostri Anglie in presenti Parliament Iohannem Dominum Finch de Fordich nuper Custodem Magni Sigilli Anglie de Alta Proditione accusaverit impetierit Cumque per Dominos Temporales in eodem Parliamento de assensu advisamento nostris Ordinatum existit quod Proclamatio per totum regnum nostrum Anglie publice fiat qd idem Iohannes Dominus Finch in propria persona sua compareat se reddat coram nobis prefatis Dominis decimo die Martii proxime futuro ad respondendum standum recto coram nobis prefatis Dominis ex hoc parte Nos volentes c. The King to the Sheriff c. Whereas our Commons of this our Kingdom of England have in this Parliament accused and impeached John Lord Finch of Fordich late Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England of High Treason And whereas the Lords Temporal have in the same Parliament with our consent and advice Ordered a Proclamation to be published throughout our whole Kingdom of England that John Lord Finch do personally appear and yield up himself to us and the foresaid Lords upon the 10. of March next following to answer for his Treason and stand to the Iudgment of us and the foresaid Lords in that behalf We willing that the Order have its due effect do command and strictly enjoyn you that upon the receipt of these presents you do in all Cities Market Towns and such other places within your Bayliwick as to you shall seem expedient cause in our name to be publickly proclaimed That John Lord Finch do appear in person and render himself before us and the foresaid Lords in this present Parliament upon the 10. of March aforesaid to answer for the Treason aforesaid and stand to the Iudgment of us and the foresaid Lords in that behalf according to the tenor of the foresaid Order This was the Proclamation Ordered to be made onely by the Temporal Lords and no Bishops present yet was it no part of the Trial but meerly a course taken to have him in Court that he might be tried But because it looked towards a Trial the Bishops must have no hand in it And it is further observable in this president that the Kings learned Counsel was ordered to draw up this Proclamation according to the antient Parliamentary way which shews that it was the ancient Parliamentary way That only the Lords Temporal should be interested in such Proceedings and have the ordering of them and not at all the Bishops And I
Et pur ce que a vis feust a les ditz Prelatz quil ne attenoit pas proprement a eux de conseiler du garde de la pees ne de chastiement des tielx malueis si alexent mesmes les Prelatz c. And because the Prelates were of opinion that it belonged not properly to them to give Counsel about keeping the Peace nor punishing such evils they went away by themselves and they returned no more Et les ditz Countes Barones autres Grantz per eux mesmes And the said Earls Barons and other great ones went by themselves and these return and by the mouth of the Lord Beaumont declare their opinions what was to be done Commissioners to be appointed in every County of the best men des plus grantz they to be Gardeins de mesme le Comte Guardians or Conservators of the County These Commissions afterwards brought into Parliament were read and approved by Nostre Sr. le Roi les Countes Barons autres Grantz our Lord the King the Earls Barons and other great ones no Bishops so much as to hear the Commissions read because they were to enquire into all Crimes as well Capital as other the Prelates must have no hand in it In the same Parliament Sir Iohn Grey and Sir Will de la Zouch had quarrelled in the Kings presence Sir Iohn had mis mein au cotel laid his hand upon his Sword they had been imprisoned and the business brought into Parliament Le Roi chargea de par la bouche le dit Mr. Geffrey le Scrope toutzles Countes Barons autre Grantz en les foies ligeances queulx ils devoient au Roi de lui conseiller ce quil devoit faire de si grand excesse fait en sa presance The King by the mouth of Sir Geffrey Scrope charged all the Earls Barons and other great ones in their Faith and Allegiance which they ow him to give him Counsel what he ought to do upon such an exorbitancy committed in his presence they go and consider of it acquit Zouch judge Grey to Prison here were no Bishops neither to Judge so much as of a Battery 25. E. 3. The proceedings and Judgment of death against Sir Will. de Thorp Chief Justice for Bribery were brought into Parliament which the King caused to be read Overtement devaut les Grantz de Parlement pur saver ent lour avys examine sur ceo chescun aprez autre si sembla a eux toutz c. To be read openly before the Grantz the great men of Parliament to have their advice upon it and being all asked one after another it seemed to them all that they were very just Et sur ceo il fut accorde par les Grantz de mesme le Parlement que si nul autre tiel cas aveigne que nostre Sr. Le Roi preigne lui des Grantz que lui plairra pur per lour bon a vis faire ceo que pleise a sa Roiale Seignurie Vpon this it was agreed by those Grantz those Great men of the Parliament that if any such other case should happen our Lord the King might take any one of those Grantz those Great men whom he should please to do by their good advice what he should think good It cannot be understood any Bishops were here under the name of Grantz and to be of the number of those whom the King should take to assist and advise him in such other Judgments of death for the time to come if occasion were which could be no employment for Bishops being to give Judgments of death 42. E. 3. Sir Iohn de Lee Steward of the Kings House charged with several misdemeanors the Record saith Et apres manger vindrent les Prelats Dues Countes Barons ascuns des Cōes illoeques feust fait venir Mr. Iohn de Lee c. And after they had eaten the Prelats Dukes Earls Barons and some of the Commons came and Sir John de Lee was fetcht thither c. The business was there heard and he was sent to prison Here the Prelats were present for the Crime was not Capital 50. E. 3. Several persons are accused even by the Commons for misdemeanors and the Bishops present at their Trials and Judgments as Richard Lyons who had been Farmer of the Customs the Lord Latimer who was the Kings Chamberlain for Oppression in several places in Britain and in England he was by the Bishops and Lords adjudged to be imprisoned and put to Fine and Ransom and then the Commons desired he might lose all his Offices and no longer be of the Kings Council which the King granted Yet after this 51. E. 3. at the request of the Commons themselves he was restored to all and declared innocent which I take notice of by the way At this Parlament of 50. William Ellis of Yarmouth as privy and accessary to the misdemeanors of Lyons Iohn Peach of London for getting a Monopoly of sweet Wines the Lord Iohn Nevil a Privy Counsellor for buying some debts due by the King at easie prizes to make advantage to himself At all these Trials the Bishops were present and no body says but they might 1. R. 2. William de Weston and Iohn de Gomenitz were tried for surrendring Towns and Castles in Flanders to the Kings Enemies they had put in their Answers Friday Nov. 22. Saturday they are brought to the Parlament and Sir Richard le Scrope Steward of the Kings House A commandement de Seigneurs avant-ditz By the command of the Lords aforesaid told them That the foresaid Lords and the Record tells you who those Lords were cest assavoir to wit the Duke of Lancaster the Earls of Cambridge March Arundel Warwick Stafford Suffolk Salisbury and Northumberland and the Lord Nevil Lord Clifford plusours autres Seigneurs Barons Bannerettes esteants au dit Parlement savoient assemblez avisez Many other Lords Barons and Bannerets being in the said Parliament had met and advised upon it from the time they had put in their Answers and found they were not satisfactory and then gave sentence saying that those Lords had adjudged them to death first Weston was called and this said to him and then Gomenitz Here was none of the Prelats named and it cannot be imagined they should be under the general expression autres Seignieurs Barons Bannerettes And other Lords Barons and Bannerets after the naming of two Barons for if there had been Bishops they would have been named before them Observe likewise that no Bishops were present from the time that the Prisoners Answers came in to have Vote and determine concerning any part of their Answer Pardon or whatever they had pleaded In the same Parliament and the very next thing upon the Roll is the Case of Alice Perrers accused for breach of an Ordinance made 50 E. 3. against Womens medling with State Affairs there the Record saith that she was Fait venir
upon the Trial of Commoners Though to speak the truth I doubt those Prelates did not much desire this Priviledge but the Salvo to their Right of sitting in all Parliaments to have been what they aimed at most in their Protestation and which they would have to be enrolled but the one could not be without the other and upon no terms would they admit the least scruple should be of their right to sit in Parliament which their withdrawing at that time might seem else to call in some question as they thought and therefore they would make that Protestation For that Popish Clergy was very ambitious and loved to have the rule over all persons and things we see it by Matthew Paris how he branded those Constitutions of Clarendon with terming them Consuetudines iniquas and the Archbishop Becket himself after he had sworn to them repented him of it and enjoyned a severe Penance to himself and suspended himself from the Office of the Altar for several months till he had the Popes Absolution This makes me doubt if the Clergy was of another mind in Richard the Seconds time and if they could not have been well enough contented to have continued sitting as Judges in all Cases if the Canon Law had not debarred them but that being they would make that Protestation consisting as I say of those two parts both which being so approved of by the Parliament and there enrolled became then and so continue to be the Law of the Kingdom For in those times all Laws were so made Only the substance of the Law was agreed upon in Parliament by King Lords and Commons and entred in the Journal Book And the Kings Justices did afterwards draw it up into form and then publish it to be the known standing Law of the Kingdom But that was not needful here because it was not a new thing that did then receive its first being Neither I say was it new before in Henry the Seconds time it appearing by what was then transacted that it was in usage in Henry the Firsts time only it was ratified in that Great Council of Clarendon under Henry the Second with a little more solemnity and the addition of an Oath for the better observance of it And we may carry it yet a little higher to Edward the Confessors days as appears by his Appeal against Earl Godwin in a Great Council which was their Parliament and how long it had been the use and practice before that God knows In E. 4 th time it was the declared Law of the Land you have it in the Year-Book of 10 E. 4. Term. Pas. n. 35. the words are Quant un Sr. est endite ceo serra maunde en le Parliament la le Seneschal d' Engleterre le mettra a respondre il dira De rien culpable se sera trie per Pares suos donque les Seigniors Espirituelx que ne poient consent al mort de home ferront un Procurator en le Parliament donque le Seneschal doit examiner primes le pluis puisne Seignior que est sil soit culpable issint separatim a toues les Seigniors queux sont la c. When a Lord is indicted it shall be returned into Parliament and there the Steward of England shall put him to answer and he shall say Not guilty and this shall be tried by his Peers and then the Lords Spiritual who may not consent to the death of any man shall make their Procurator in Parliament and then the Lord Steward shall ask the youngest Lord if he be Guilty and so severally all the Lords that are there c. This I alledge to shew that even by the Law of the Land the Bishops cannot be Judges in a Case Capital it is true here is mention made of their making a Proctor which was Error Temporis the Errour of those times grounded upon what was so lately done as they looked upon it though irregularly done in the last Parliament of R. 2. whom they considered as their last lawful King and in truth he was so the three Henries that came between being but Usurpers and therefore they had it seems a deference for what was then done though as I have already said it was never done before nor is it in truth a thing very practicable and not at all Parliamentary to have one man or two men as we see it was also done that Parliament represent the whole Bench of Bishops And more than all this as I have already observed which it seems was not then thought of that whole Parliament of R. 2. stands repealed and all that was done in it declared by a subsequent Act of Parliament to be Null and Void But this is but by the way my intent in quoting this Book Case is onely to shew that the Bishops were not excluded Judging in Capital Cases by the Canon Law alone but that the Law of the Land did likewise confirm it and the Courts of Westminster did so conceive of it So I think I may well conclude and with some confidence affirm that Bishops now are not to be Judges to Sit and Vote in Parliament in any Trial or part of a Trial that is in any circumstance which doth any ways lead or conduce to such a Trial of any Capital Offender but the whole Judgment is singly and wholly in the Lords Temporal and to them onely such Judgments do belong as was challenged by them in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland 5 H. 4. and is so declared to be in several other Cases upon the Rolls of Parliament And having thus delivered you my opinion and my grounds for that opinion I submit it to your judgment and rest SIR Your Humble Servant POSTSCRIPT SIR AS I was closing my Letter two Papers were brought me one in Written hand the other Printed which maintain an Opinion clean contrary to mine I shall tell you what they say and give my Answer to it then leave it to you to determine who is in the right The written Paper to prove their right of Judicature in all Cases none excepted declares Bishops to be Peers of the Land and a Third Estate in Parliament and therefore are not to be excluded from being Judges in all Cases as well Capital as other To prove them Peers of the Land he urges Statute Law and Common Law for the Statute Law he alledges the 25 of Ed. 3. c. 6. and the 4 of H. 5. c. 6. First For the Statute Law let me tell you It is not every expression Obiter upon the By that is in the Preamble of a Statute as this is of Bishops to be called Peers in these Statutes that makes a thing pass for Law except it be by way of Declaration declaring it to be a Law or reciting it as a Law before made And then I shall shew you how these two particular Statutes run and what they are That of the 25 E. 3. it is true hath in
it was lawful for him sometimes to reprove the other and to reduce him bring him into order if he went astray He leaves out what the Bishops work was he omits that clause Episcopus ut jus Divinum diceret for this was not to try Capital Crimes But Sir Henry Spelman tells us further that that Court had cognisance but of petty matters De causis Magnatum Potentiorum non cognovit Comes nam he ad Aulam Regiam deferende Pauperum tantum minus potentum judicabat Hinc Legibus nostris hodie prohibetur debili aut injuriarum actiones in Comitatu intendere si rei litigate valor non sit minor 40 solidis The Earl hath not cognisance of great mens business for such matters are to be brought into the Kings Courts he only judges poor mens Causes Hence it is that by our Law Actions for Debt and Trespasses are not to be commenced in the County Court if it be for above the value of 40 Shillings Judge now I pray you what all this makes to prove that Bishops have right to judge of Treason Felony and those transcendent Crimes which deserve death He then quotes Mr. Selden and makes him say in his Introduction to his Treatise of the Priviledges of the Barons of England that Omnes Praelati Magnates had this Priviledge till the Prelates lost it by the Parliament of 17 Car. 1. I find no such thing there he saith That the Prelacy had heretofore the first place in the Summons but that they had then lost it And this I observe further that Mr. Selden makes the whole upper House to be but one Estate whether the Bishops be there or No It was one Estate formerly when the Bishops had the Priviledge of sitting there and when they had the first place in the Summons and it was one Estate then in Mr. Seldens time when they had lost that Priviledge but our Assertor in the Printed Paper would take no notice of this Now I come to his Precedents he first begins with their Proxies and cites many Parliaments where Bishops gave Proxies which no man denies and they do it still only they give their Proxies now only to Bishops like themselves who are Members of the House not to such as are no Members as it seems they did then But giving Proxies to represent the whole Bench of Bishops or any one Bishop in any Judgment of death except in that one Parliament of 21 R. 2. I utterly deny Indeed he tells us of the 2. H. 4. and 2 H. 5. that they did it it there in those Parliaments but I dare say he cannot find it there I am sure I cannot and I do verily believe he never looked there but that he takes it upon trust out of the Margin of pag. 125. of Mr. Seldens Book of the Priviledges of the Baronage where indeed there is such a quotation but misplaced by the Printer having reference to what is said at the end of the Paragraph of Thomas Earl of Salisbury 2 H. 5. endeavouring to reverse the Attainder of his Father Iohn Earl of Salisbury who was attainted 2 H. 4. and not at all concerning what is said of Proxies in the first part of the Paragraph as our Assertor would here apply it Then he cites a Precedent or two to make out that Bishops were personally present at the giving of some Judgments of Death which if they be truly related he saith something but I believe they will be found to be of as little weight as all he said before His first is among the Pleas of the Crown 21 R. 2. of the Impeachment as he calls it of the Earl of Arundel and others by the Lords Appellants the Earls of Rutland Kent Huntington and others He saith the Earl of Arundel being brought to the Bar by the Lord Nevil Constable of the Tower that the Articles exhibited against him by the Lords Appellants were read to which he only pleaded two Pardons which Pardons not allowed the Lords Appellants demanded Judgment against him Whereupon the Lord Steward by the Assent of the King Bishops and Lords adjudged the said Earl guilty and Convict of all the Articles and thereby a Traitor to the King and Realm and that he should be therefore Hanged Drawn and Quartered This our Assertor saith who quotes Sir Robert Cottons Collections for it and there indeed it is so but methinks one should not venture to quote a Record upon any mans Allegation without consulting the Record it self and that I am sure he hath not done for it saith expresly that it was only the Lords Temporal and Sir Thomas Percy Proctor for the Prelats that gave that Judgment The words of the Record are Sur quoy le dit Duc de Lancaster per commandement du Roy toutz les Srs. Temporels Mr. Thomas Percy aiant poair sufficiant des Prelatz Clergie du Roialme d'Engleterre come piert de Record en le dit Parlement per assent du Roy agarderent le dit Counte d' Arundel coupable convict de toutz les pointz dount il est appellez per taunt luy ajuggerent Traitour au Roy au Roialme quil soit treinez penduz decollez quarterez Whereupon the said Duke of Lancaster by the Kings Command and all the Lords Temporal and Sir Thomas Percy being sufficiently empowered by the Bishops and Clergy of the Kingdom of England as appears upon Record in the said Parliament did by the Kings assent declare the said Earl of Arundel guilty and convict of all the points of which he was accused and therefore did adjudge him a Traitor to the King and Realm and that he should be drawn hanged his head cut off and body quartered You see the Bishops were none of them present but theit Procurator was to which in my Letter I have largely spoken and need not repeat it here He urges also a Precedent in this same Parliament of the Commons by the mouth of their Speaker Sir Iohn Bussy praying the King That for that divers Iudgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present that the Clergy would appoint some to be their Common Proctor with sufficient authority thereunto I have already shewed that this whole Parliament was repealed for the extravagant things that were done in it of which this was one And therefore nothing that was then done can signifie any thing to be a leading Case any ways to be followed And this as little as any except it could be made appear which I am confident it cannot that some Judgment had been reversed upon that account because the Prelates were not present and had not given their Assent to it Indeed 2 H. 5. Thomas Montacute Earl of Salisbury attempted it brought his Writ of Error to reverse the Judgment given 2 H. 4 against his Father Iohn Earl of Salisbury and did assign that for an Error as the Record saith Item Error de ceo que le dit John susdit Count dust forfaire terres tenements sans assent des Prelates qui sont Piers en Parlement les queux ne furent mye faits parties as Declaration Iuggementz avandits Item An Error in this that the foresaid Earl John should forfeit Lands and Tenements the Prelates not assenting who are Peers of Parliament yet were not at all made parties to the abovesaid Declaration and Iudgments But this was adjudged to be no Error and the Condemnation of his Father to have been just and Legal And I am very confident that this is the only Precedent of such an Attempt and yet it makes a stronger argument against it that it was endeavoured and rejected for now it is a Judged Case And besides as I have already observed this desire of the Commons of their making a Proctor shews what the opinion of those times was that the Bishops could not be personally present at such Judgments which is all that is now in question between us His next Precedent is 3 H. 5. when Rich. Earl of Cambridge and others were tried for Treason for levying War against the King the Bishops then personally sitting in Parliament as he saith and he bids us see the Record in the Tower which I dare say he had not done himself for then he would have found it contrary to what he asserts that Richard Earl of Cambridge and Henry Lord Scroope with him were not Tried nor condemned in Parliament as he saith they were but by a special Commission directed to the Duke of Clarence and other their Peers Earls and Barons at Southampton and were there condemned and executed but the whole Proceedings against them were afterwards brought into Parliament at the desire of the Commons and were there at their desire likewise ratified and confirmed and the Bishops then were and might be present for I look upon it as an Act of Parliament yet not attainting them but confirming their Attainder for they were Convicted Condemned and Attainted before at Southampton His last Chapter of Precedents from H. 8. to the 29 Eliz. is only of Bills of Attainder and so acknowledged by him and therefore Nothing to the purpose As I have said before those Bills are Laws though Private Laws whereto every Freeman of England doth consent either in Person or Represented and Bishops are or should be all present at the passing of them for then they act as Members of the House of Lords in their Legislative capacity But for their being Judges in any Trial of Life and Death or part of a Trial when the House proceeds in a Judicial way I see no reason by all that hath been said on the other side to change my opinion That they ought not Sir you see what is said on both sides be you Judge who is in the right FINIS
of Northumberland had Petitioned the King for his Pardon for having contrary to his Allegiance gathered Forces and given Liveries The King gave this Petition to the Judges to have their opinion of it the Lords Protested against it and said that the Judgment belonged to them and retained the business Et puis leve entendue la Petition les Srs. come Piers du Parlement a queux tielz Iugement apperteinnent de droit adjuggerent que ceo que fust fait per le Conte nestoit pas trahison mes trespas tant seulement Sur quoy le dit Conte molt humblement remercia le Roy les ditz Srs. ses Piers de lour droiturel Iugement And then the Petition being read and understood the Lords as Peers of Parliament to whom such Iudgments do of right appertain did give their Iudgment that what the Earl had done was no Treason but only a Trespass whereupon the said Earl did most humbly thank the King and the said Lords his Peers for their righteous Iudgment Now the Bishops could not be said to be his Peers which shews they were not there 7 H. 4. A Judgment was given much like to that in the 2 H. 4. The King commanded the Lords Temporal to deliver their advice concerning the Earl of Northumberland and the Lord Bardolph who had been killed at Bramham More in Yorkshire by the Sheriff of the County who therewith the Posse Comitatus encountred them in the field There were proceedings against them in the Court of Chivalry after their deaths upon certain Articles of Treason there exhibited against them These Articles were brought into Parliament upon reading of which those Lords Temporal adjudged their Crime to be Treason 5 H. 5. The Commons Baillerent une Petition delivered a Petition directed Al honorable Prince le Duc de Bedford Gardein d' Engleterre as tres sages Srs. de cest present Parlement To the honourable Prince the Duke of Bedford Gardian of England and to the most wise Lords of this present Parliament that Sir Iohn Oldcastle might be brought before them who was indicted and outlawed in the Kings Bench for Treason and excommunicated by the Archbishop of Canterbury for Heresie and that due execution might be done upon him according to their discretion by authority of Parliament Pur quoy agarde est per les Srs. avant ditz del assent de le dit Gardein a la priere susdit que le dit John come Traitor au Roy a son Royalme so it amesnez a la Tour de Londres dilloeques soit treinez parmi la cite de Londres as novelles Fourches en la paroche de St. Giles illoeques soit penduz ars pendant Wherefore it is adjudged by the Lords aforesaid with the assent of the said Gardian upon the foresaid Request that the said John as a Traitor to the King and his Realm be carried to the Tower of London and thence drawn through the City of London to the new Gallows in St. Giles Parish and there to be hanged and burnt hanging The question is now if it shall be understood that under the general expression of Les Srs. de cest present Parlement the Bishops were comprized and so to have been parties in this Judgment and I conceive not first because I observe that generally throughout all the Records and Journals of Parliament almost in all transactions but especially and constantly I find it so in matters of Judicature where they were present it is always mentioned and expressed so at That the Lords Spiritual and Temporal or That the Prelats and Earls and Barons did so and so as it was in the Cases before mention ed of Sir Iohn Lee Richard Lyons the Lord Latimer and the rest accused of misdemeanours And my other reason is that in this particular Case of Sir Iohn Oldcastle I find the Clergy had done their parts with him before declaring him an Heretick and turning him over to the Secular power as the words of the Excommunication run where after having expressed a great tenderness of the desperate condition of his Soul and much bewailed his obdurateness they do condemn him for a Heretick Relinquentes eum ex nunc tanquam Hereticum Iudicio Seculari Leaving him from thence forward as an Heretick to the Secular Iudgment So certainly those good men I mean those Popish Bishops would have no more to do with him as to his farther Execution that the world might see they were not Men of bloud 2. H. 6. Sir Iohn Mortimer had been committed to the Tower upon suspicion of Treason against Henry the Fifth and made an escape out of prison being taken again he was indicted of Treason at Guild-Hall The Indictment by the Kings command was returned into Chancery then brought into Parliament by the Bishop of Durham Lord Chancellour and by him Coram Humfrido Duce Gloucestriae who in the Kings absence was commissionated to call and hold that Parliament ac aliis Dominis Temporalibus in eodem Parliamento tune existentibus fuit liberatum Was delivered to Humfry Duke of Glocester and other the Lords Temporal being then in Parliament to be by them affirmed as it was and Sir Iohn Mortimer then brought before them and adjudged by them to be drawn hanged and quartered Et super hoc viso plenius intellecto Indictamento per dictum Ducem de avisamento dictorum Dominorum Temporalium ac ad requisitionem totius Communitatis in presenti Parliamento existentium auctoritate istius Parliamenti ordinatum est statutum c. quod ipse usque ad Turrim ducatur c. And hereupon the said Indictment being seen and well understood it was by the said Duke by the advice of the said Lords Temporal at the prayer of the whole Commonalty in this present Parliament and by the Authority thereof Ordered and Decreed c. that he should be led to the Tower and from thence drawn to Tyburn and there executed We see here the Bishops did not offer to advise so much as concerning the Indictment if it should be admitted of and received by the Parliament though a Bishop being Lord Chancellor was by vertue of his Office to bring it out of the Chancery and present it to the House as he did and there left it 28 H. 6. is the sole single President of Bishops being present and not only so but acting and bearing a principal part in a Judicial proceeding in Parliament in a Case that was in it self Capital though strangely shuffled off and Justice wholly eluded Ianuary 22. William de la Pole Duke of Suffolk preferred a Petition to the King complaining how he was defamed as if he were other than a true man to the King and the Realm and desiring that any man would say wherein that he might give his Answer thereunto Munday 26. the Commons sent some of their Fellows to the Chancellour who was Archbishop of York and a Cardinal praying him that whereas