against Henry late Earl of Northumberland and Tho. Bardolph late Lord Baron for certain ill deeds which they had lately committed contrary to their Allegiance At their meeting the Constable of England shewed them the Process made in the Court of Chivalry against Henry de Peircy upon the Articles of Treason committed by him and others of his Covyn In which Articles are named the Arch-Bishop of York Tho. Newberry Earl Marshal the said Earl of Northumberland the said Lord Bardolph and many others and their several Treasons are therein contained The Lords having advised therein and considered the proofs delivered their opinion to the King touching the said Earl of Northumberland and the said Lord Bardolph only and proceeded to Judgment against them Then the King caused to be demanded of the Lords Temporal Peers of the Realm what they would say touching the Act of the said late Arch-Bishop of York and of the said Earl Marshal who lately with a great multitude of people were armed and trained in the field within the Realm of England with Banners displayed c. Unto which demand the said Lords Temporal said That according to the Information to them given by the said Constable It seemeth unto them to be Treason yet notwithstanding the Lords desired that with good deliberation when they next returned to the Parliament they might speak thereof unto our Lord the King as no error might be found in their doings in time to come This was done on that day the Parliament was adjorned Here the Lords had no other Accusation against those two Peers but the Kings commandment upon view of former Process against them in the Court of Chivalry And the Lords declared their opinion touching the Archbishop of York and the Earl Marshal though their Treasons were contained in the same Process also least Error might be found in their doings hereafter But whether they thought their Error to be that the King had not commanded them first to advise thereon touching the said Archbishop and the Earl Marshal as he had done touching the others Let the Reader Judge For my part I think that would have been error Could the Lords proceed upon Process elsewhere unless the King commands them 2 H. 6. The Judgment against John Mortimer is drawn up very briefly by John Hales one of the Justices of the Kings Bench wherein he first shews that the said Sir John Mortimer was Indicted in London sitting the Parliament before the Lord Mayor of London and other Commissioners appointed by the King For that the said Sir John being committed to the Tower for suspition of Treason corrupted his keeper and broke Prison That the said Indictment was returned into Chancery Ex mandato Dom. Regis and by the Chancery brought into the Parliament before the Duke of Gloucester the Kings Protector and the Lords Temporal the King being then an Infant And the Protector being Authorized by Commission to hold the Parliament de Precepto Dom. Regis That the said Sir John Mortymer by Vertue of the Writs was brought before the said Duke and Lords and Commons That the said Commons affirmed the said Indictment to be true and desired Judgment against him as convict of Treason and Felony And lastly That he was thereupon adjudged In this is set down all the essential parts of the Lords proceedings against Mortymer The Ceremonious or formal parts thereof are omitted as who complained of or accused Mortymer to the Parliament The King or the Commons did not for then there needed no Indictment And therefore it must move for the King either before the Indictment or rather upon the Return thereof unto the House For had the Accusation been before the Indictment it had been a shorter way to Arraign him also before the Commissioners in London he being no Member nor Peer of Parliament then to return the Indictment into the Chancery and then be brought into the Parliament Here is also omitted the Conference before hand between the Lords and Commons touching this matter For it is very unlikely that the Lords did suddainly send for the Commons and then abruptly read the Information before them and they as suddainly affirm the same all these are necessarily understood That the Commons affirmed the Indictment e. It appears that the Lords cannot of themselves Judge a Common Person for an Offence for he is no Peer according to that of 4 E. 3. Numb 26. The manner of Accusation by Information Ex parte Dom. Regis is when the Commons as any other private Person accuse any man unto the Lords in general but do not declare the Offences in particular other then by the Commandment of the King Articles are drawn up against the Delinquent Ex parte Dom. Regis The Precedents are these 2 R. 2. The Constable of the Tower was commanded to bring Gomeniz and Weston whose Offences were complained of in general by the Commons that they named before the Lords in Parliament to Answer to the Articles objected against them on the behalf of the King and they were severally arrained at the Commandment of the Lords c. Eodem anno Alice Pierce being complained of by the Commons was accused and commanded to come before the Lords in Parliament to Answer to certain things objected against her on the Kings behalf And here upon Sir Richard le Scroope Chief Steward of the Kings House by Comandment of the Lords rehersed in Parliment in the presence of the said Alice a certain Ordinance c. Made in the Parliament of 50 E. 3. against her And this Rehersal being made the said Steward surmised unto the said Alice That it seemed to the Lords of the Parliament that she had incurred the pain comprised in the said Ordinance in certain points and especially in two That is to say c. By these two Precedents it appears plain enough that the Lords commanded the Articles to be drawn and exhibited though ex parte Dom. Regis for all these are said to be done by their Commandment And the practise at this day is that out of the Complaints of the Commons as of Mompesson The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Tresurer and a Committee of the Lords did draw up the Charges But they wanted the words Ex parte Dom. Regis The reason why in this Cause the Articles are Ex parte Dom. Regis seemed to be this The Commons complain but impeach not Notwithstanding the Impeachment the Lords cannot proceed neither can they Impeach any to themselves So it rests that the party is to be Impeached at the Kings Suit It may be lawful for me to examine the proceedings of the Lords in the Complaint against Mompesson and to compare them with ancient Proceedings in like Cases And they will appear to differ much And touching Mompesson the Commons did not only complain but accuse him He fled in his absence they ought to have proceeded to Judgment against him before Proclamation first made for him to appear before the
c. Then they desired that three things might be enquired of 1. First the withdrawing the Staple from Callis by the Council and Procurement of some Privy Councellors about the King 2. Secondly of Loans to the King by way of Usury receiving again greater Sums than they disbursed wherein some Privy Councellors have been Partners 3. Thirdly of buying the King's Debts by way of Bargain some for the 10 th Peny some for the 20 th or 100 th Peny and procuring the King to pay the entire Debt to the King's loss and profit of some Privy Councellors and others of their Covyn Of which three Articles and their Dependencies the Commons said They would make farther Declaration in special whensoever it shall please the King to hear them Numb 15 16. Then follows their particular Impeachments and Accusations First Richard Lyons Merchant of London is impeached and accused by the Commons of many Deceits Extortions and many other ill deeds by him done to our Lord the King and his People as well during the time he was retaining to the King's House and to the King's Council as otherwise whilst he was Farmer of the Subsidy and Customs of the King And in special of this that the said Richard by Covyn made between him and some of the Privy-Council of our Lord the King for their private Profit and Advantage hath procured many Patents and Writs of License to transport great quantities of Wools and Wool-fells and other Merchandize beyond the Seas to other places than the Staple at Callis contrary to the Ordinances c. And so they declare of many other Villanies in great deceipt of the King and of his Court Whereunto the said Richard being then present in Parliament said c. Then follows his Answer in particular to what was particularly alledged against him and in general to what was generally charged upon him The Lords reassured him for that which was particularly objected against him and granted Commissions to enquire of the Extortions wherewith he was charged in general Then the Commissioners in like manner accused and impeached William Lord Latimer of divers Extortions Grievances Deceits and ill Deeds viz. of divers Oppressions when he served the King in Britain for being Partner with Richard Lyons c. and for loss of Towns and Forts beyond the Seas Numb 21. Item William Ellis of Great Tarmouth was impeached in this present Parliament in divers manners First by Surmise of the Commons c. Numb 11. And afterwards John Botheil and William Cooper exhibited their two Bills in form which followeth To their thrice redoubted Lord the King and to the said Council shewn c. complaining of the Oppressions of the said William Ellis unto them and others c. and their Oath was taken against him Numb 32. Item John Peecher of London Merchant was accused and impeached by the said Commons That he by the assent and aid of Richard Lyons and of other Privy Councellors for their private profit and advantage have purchased a Patent under the Great Seal of our Lord the King containing that none shall sell sweet Wines within the Francheses of the City of London but only the said John Numb 38. Item John Nevill was likewise impeached c. for buying the King's Debts c. and for loss of Towns beyond the Seas Here I observe that though the Commons complained 50 E. 3. but of three Grievances viz. of the withdrawing the Staple from Callis of Loans to the King upon excessive Usury and of buying the King's Debts yet when they who were accused appeared they declared against them for other matters also As against Lyons for new Impositions upon Wools without assent in Parliament and against the Lord Latimer for his misgovernment beyond the Seas and loss of Forts there and against Peecher for a Monopoly of sweet Wines c. I observe also that their Declaration is not made according to the strict forms of Law as you may perceive by that against Lyons wherein so many Extortions are so generally set down against him that he made no answer to them neither could c. Which Impeachment the Lords notwithstanding did not reject but supplied the defects thereof by granting Commissions to enquire thereof Ibid. Numb 20. in fine Item In this Parliament of 50 E. 3. an Ordinance was made against Women's pursuing businesses in the King's Court and especially against Alice Peirce Numb 45. I find no Accusation against Alice Peirce I only conjecture that the Commons complained of her though it be not entred for she is in the number of them whom in the next Parliament of 50 E. 3. Numb 87. the Speaker of the Commons names to be unjustly convicted in this Parliament And none were there convicted but those whom the Commons complained of Item Adam de Bury Citizen of London was impeached by the Clamor of the Commons in this Parliament of many Deceits and other ill things done to the King and to his People whilest he was Mayor of Callis and Captain of Bullingam and other ways as more at large appears in one great Bill delivered in Parliament the last day of this Parliament at Eltham And thereupon the said Adam was sent for to come to answer in Parliament and he came not neither could be found Wherefore it was awarded that all his Goods and Chattels should be put in Arrest and so it was done by Writs sent to the Sheriffs of London and Kent And the said Bill is on File with the special Petitions of Parliament 50 E. 3. Numb 11. Out of this last Precedent concerning Adam de Bury I observe two things 1. First whom they complained of The Lords sent for him only to appear before them they sent not to apprehend him as a Delinquent until he contemn'd their Demand whereof more hereafter in the Title of the Parties Answer 2. Secondly that the Commons delivered not their Impeachment that is their Declaration against the Party accused until he appeared before the Lords and then they kept it untill the last day of the Parliament in hope that he would be brought before the Lords and when they saw he could not be found they then delivered their Impeachment against him to the end as I concieve the particulars of their Accusation might remain upon Record against them hereafter Here I also observe an Error of the Clerk that he hath omitted the Proceedings against Alice Peirce John de Leycester and Walter Spooner who were all convicted in this Parliament as appeareth by the Speaker's motion to the King for their Pardons in the next Parliament 50 E. 3. Numb 87. Thus much touching the Commons Accusations and Impeachments The next Precedent is in 11 R. 2. in which Parliament the whole Commons with one assent assembled came before the King Prelates and Lords in the Parliament Chamber complaining grievously of Michael de la Poole Earl of Suffolk Chancellor of England there present accusing him openly by word of Mouth 1. First
private persons where the party might have his Remedy at the Common Law prout Botheil Cooper Anno 50 E. 3. accused William Ellis for extorting 17 Nobles from certain Merchants at Pruse and also for their wrong Imprisonment by the false Suggestion of William Ellis to the King And the Lords referred the taking of the 17 Nobles to the Common Law But upon the Examination of the Imprisonment it was proved That Ellis did write his Letters to one of the King's Bed-Chamber falsly suggesting against Botheil and Cooper which Letters were shewn to the King his Majesty then commanded them to be Committed This the Lords expounded to be false Suggestion in Ellis The King himself judged him for the same Had that Point been cleared in the Statute of False Suggestions haply the Lords would have referred it to its proper place So also Anno 5. E. 2. The Lords referred the Accusation of Clingdon to be Tried at the Common Law Secondly Touching the Demand That verily belongs to the Party at whose Suit it is To the King's Councel for the King if the Articles were de part le Roy and to the Commons against an Impeached Delinquent By whom Judgment ought to be Rendred It appeareth plainly by many Precedents That all Iudgments for Life and Death are to be rendred by the Steward of England or by the Steward of the King's House and this is the Reason why at every Parliament the King makes a Lord Steward of his House though he hath none out of Parliament And at such Arraignment the Steward is to sit in the Chancellor's place And all Judgments for Misdemeanors by the Chancellor or by him who supplies the Chancellor's place CHAP. VI. The Precedents for Life and Death ANno 10 R. 2. John Lord Gome 〈…〉 and William Weston were brought by the Constable of the Tower before the Lords in Full Parliament sitting in the White Chamber where they were severally Arraigned at the Commandment of the Lords by Richard le Scroop Chief Steward of the House of our Lord the King in manner following Here the Lords commanded the Arraignment of certain Earls Peers of the Realm They did not appoint the Steward to do it It belonged to his Office Anno 20 R. 2. Thomas Haxey was Arraigned of High Treason before the King the Lords and Commons in full Parliament in Alba Camera by the Duke of Lancaster Seneschallum Angliae and the Judgment rendred by him Anno 21 R. 2. All those Judgments on the Appeal were rendred per Seneschallum Angliae The Records of E. 3. and H. 4. are silent herein by whom the Judgment was rendred It may be Objected That Anno 5. H. 4. The Lord Chancellor kept his place at the Trial of the Earl of Northumberland because he did deliver the Opinion of the Lords That could not properly be called a Trial for it was upon the Earl's own Petition And if it were resolved whether it were Felony or Treason it should have been done by the Steward sitting in the Chancellor's place Neither doth it appear by the Record that the Chancellor kept his place though he afterwards delivered the Opinion of the Lords So likewise Anno 1 Car. 1. Febr. 6. The Lord Keeper kept his place when the Articles of Treason were read against the Earl of Bristol but he did not Arraign him Then they were read and his Answer heard by the appointment of the House and some Witnesses examined also to the end they might understand the true Nature of his Offence and then to declare how and in what manner to proceed against him for the same The Spiritualty did not deliver their Opinion therein To conclude All Records that are which mention by whom the Delinquents in Cases Capital were Arraigned do say that it was by the Steward of England or of the King's House And in remembrance of this a Lord Steward is appointed at every Trial of a Peer of Parliament Touching Judgment rendred by the Chancellor in Cases of Misdemeanors it is needless to recite any Precedents only this I will say The Chancellor never gave Judgment on Life and Death and the Steward never on Misdemeanors And though there be Precedents of Judgments given by the Steward of England in Parliament prout 20 21 R. 2. yet I have seen none of the Judgments on the Peers rendred by the Steward of the King's House And the reason may be for that there was anciently a Seneschallus Angliae Quaere tamen whether the Steward of the King's House being a Peer may give Judgment on a Peer or not I think he may if there be no Steward of the House constantly made every Parliament though but during the Sessions The last Considerable Thing in Judicature is CHAP. VII The Execution of the Judgment ANd first in Capital Offences I have seen but two Precedents thereof in the Parliament-Rolls The First is 4 E. 3. Which begun on Monday after the Feast of S. Katherine There were long Articles exhibited against Mortimer for Treason and he was adjudged to die for Treason and thereupon saith the Record Commandment was given to the Earl Marshal to Execute the Judgment and also to the Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of the City of London and to the Constable of the Tower and likewise to them who had the Guard of the said Mortimer to be aiding to the said Earl Marshal to do the said Execution The which Execution was done and performed upon Thursday next after the first Day of the Parliament which was the 29th Day of November Ibidem Num. 2. Judgment was given on Simon de Bereford to be Drawn and Hang'd And thereupon it was Commanded that the Marshal should do Execution near the Tower of London And the said Earl of Arundel was Beheaded ou the same Day The Earl of Nottingham one of the Lords Appellants was Lord Marshall at that time and therefore his Deputy did Execution Item The Earl of Warwick being adjudged to die the King did pardon the Execution and granted him his Life viz. That he should remain in perpetual prison out of England in the Isle of Man c. And that he be at Sea on his passage before the end of one Month. And thereupon he was delivered to Monsieur William le Scroope and to Monsieur Stephen his Brother to bring him safely to the said Isle of Man c. The Earl Marshal was Commanded to Execution on a Peer and the Marshal on a Commoner The Command no doubt issued from the Lords with the King's Assent herein Thus much touching Execution quoad Mortem In Misdemeanors the greatest Corporal punishment hath been Imprisonment I find no other in Ancient Parliament But who was the Officer to carry the Delinquent to prison is not Recorded save he to whose Custody he was Committed prout 42. E. 3. John at Lee was Committed to the Tower Et dit fuit al Monsieur Alley de Buxhill Constable de la Tower que il
the Particulars in form of a Charge they were sent to the Lord Chancellor and his answer required to each particular In the same manner in the same Parliament they accused John Bennet Judge of the Prerogative Court of Bribery and Corruption in his Office In the same manner they accused and impeached Lyonel Earl of Middlesex and Lord Treasurer of England of Bribery and Extortion and Impositions on French Wines and Grocery which being reported to the House a Committee was appointed to consider of the Commons complaint and also of a Committee who had reported to the House a great want of Powder in the Stores through the Lord Treasurer's negligence A Committee appointed to consider thereof did after many Examinations taken draw up out of the whole Complaint of the Commons a Charge against him as also out of the Report of the Committee for Munition touching the want of Powder and of a Complaint made to the House by Sir Thomas Dallison and of some Misdemeanors whereof they are informed in the great Wardrobe and Court of Wards Which Charge the House sent unto the Treasurer and required his Answer 21 Jac. In eodem Parl. 21 Jac. The Commons at a Conference accused and impeached by word of Mouth the Bishop of Norwich of some Misdemeanors which being reported to the House the said Bishop made a present Answer thereunto as it was In the Parliament 1 Car. 1. Febr. 6. The Commons at a Conference accused and impeached George Duke of Buckingham of many Misdemeanors and delivered their Declaration in Writing that the said Duke might be put to his Answer § 2. The second manner of Accusation is Ex parte Domini Regis which is threefold The two first are immediately from the King and the third from the Commandment of the Lords by a formal Information exhibited in Parliament by the King's Attorney or Council learned as was that of E. 3. against Roger Mortimer Earl of March and divers others and 4 R. 2. against Sir Ralph Ferrers K t and 1 Car. 1. against the Earl of Bristol By the King's Commandment either upon the Petition of the Delinquent and upon the return and view of any the Proceedings taken elsewhere as against the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph upon former Proceedings against them in the Court of Chancery And 2 H. 6. upon request of the Commons against Sir John Mortimer Knight indicted in London In these Cases no Articles are exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis as in the former By Articles exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis Ex parte Dominorum against such as the Complaint is made upon in general by the Commons prout 1 R. 2. against Gomeniz Weston and Alice Peirce 7 R. 2. against the Bishop of Norwich and divers others Which Articles though drawn and exhibited Per mandatum Dominorum yet were the Parties charged therewith Ex parte Domini Regis Of Accusation by Information Ex parte Domini Regis In Rot. claus 4 E. 3. There is a Proclamation of the death of Edmond Earl of Kent where it is said certain Letters of his containing Treason were shewed to the King wherefore he was Arrested and freely acknowledged the same before the Earls Barons and other Grandees and Nobles of the Realm in the Parliament at Winchester 4 E. 3. Here appears plainly that Articles of Treason are exhibited in Parliament against the Earl of Kent In the next Parliament in the same year Edmond Son and Heir of the said Edmond exhibited his Petition praying the King that the Record and Process whereupon the said Earl was put to death might be brought before him in Parliament and if Errors be found that Right be done Numb 11. The which being read before the King Prelates Earls Barons and other Grandees in the said Parliament the King by his Royal Power and Dignity by assent in Parlialiament repealed the said Judgment Numb 12. Note That in this Repeal no Error was alledged nor any Exceptions taken for this that the Lords proceeded upon the Articles only which were objected against him the said Earl This is out of the Close Roll. The first Precedents recorded in our Parliament Rolls of Accusations in this kind are these of 4 E. 3. in the Parliament at Westminster which are added at large amongst divers others at the end of this Discourse the effect whereof doth follow viz. These are the Treasons Felonies and ill Deeds done to our Lord the King and to his People by Roger de Mortimer and others of his Covin reciting them all and concludeth thus Whereas our Lord the King doth charge you the Earls Barons and other Peers of this Realm that for as much as these things touch him principally and you and all the People of this Realm That you do unto the said Roger right and lawful Judgment as is fit for such an one to have who is very guilty of all the crimes above written for that he believed the said things are notorious and known for truth unto you and to all the People of the Realm Numb 1. The followeth the Judgment against him Item In the said manner our Lord the King charged the said Earls Barons and Peeres to give right and lawful Judgment on Simon de Bereford Knight who was ayding and counselling unto the said Roger de Mortimer in all treasons and ill deeds for which the said Roger was so awarded and done to death as the thing that is known and notorious to the said Peers as the King believeth Then followeth the Judgment against him also Then followeth the Judgment against John Matrevers Thomas de Gurney and William de Ogle Numb 5. But no particular accusations are recorded against any of them unless they were comprised in those general words of that against Mortimer viz. And other of his Coyn. For some of the same Crimes are mentioned in the Judgments yet no doubt but the Kings Attourny did exhibit Articles against every of them upon which the Lords proceeded to Judgment Here I do ingenuously confess my own Error when I said that this Judgment against Roger de Mortimer was afterwards reversed for that he was put to death without any Accusation which I conceived to be so upon first view of the Repeal thereof Anno 21. E. 3. Numb 10. Where the Petitioners Roger de Mortimer the Grandchild assigneth for that the said Earl was put to death and he disinhereted Sans Accusament Et sans estre masone in Judgment ou en Respons By which words sans accusament I gave you to understand that the Articles were no accusation whereas now upon better Consideration I do find that these words do intend no accusation by witnesses or otherwise to prove the said Articles objected against him For these Articles are a legal accusation in Parliment and frequently used as appears by many Precedents of the like nature But there was no other proof offered by the Lords to prove the same then that the King believeth them
Thar seeing by Order of the Lords House May 4. the Earl of Bristols cause should be wholly retained in this House how that might now be done in respect of the Stat. of 35 H. 8. By which it was enacted That all Treasons committed beyond the Seas as this Earls were shall be tryed in the Kings Bench or before Commissioners Assigned by the King And an Order of the upper House cannot avoid the Statute Some were of opinion that the Earl was first to be indicted before Commissioners appointed by the King and that Indictment being returned into the Parliament to be tryed thereon by his Peers and vouched that Precedent of 2 H. 6. Of Sir John Mortimers Indictment returned into the Parliament But then the Cause cannot be wholly retained in the Parliament neither can it be inferred out of the Precedent of Sir John Mortimer that the Parliament can try any of Treason unless he be Indicted elsewhere For then the Parliament should not have so much power as hath the Kings Bench and other inferiour Courts wherein Capital Offences may be both enquired of and determined Neither can Sir John Mortimers Indictment thus returned be a leading Case for Tryal of Peers in Parliament for he was but a Commoner and therefore not to have been judged by the Lords unless they had first accused him and the Commons did so by Informing the Indictment to be true before the Lords gave Judgment upon him But their can be no Precedent shewn that a Peer of Parliament hath been tryed in Parliament on an Indictment taken elsewhere To resolve this Question two things are Considerable First The Statute of 35 H. 8. Whether the meaning thereof were to limit the Tryal of a Peer in the time of the Parliament for Forreign Treasons assigned taken in the Kings Bench or before Commissioners Assigned by the King and not elsewhere But I conceive the Statute hath no such meaning The Preamble saith it was doubted whether such Treasons might by the Common-Law of the Land be enquired into heard and determined within this Realm of England For a plain remedy Order and Declaration herein to be had and made Be it enacted c. So that if such Treasons have not been heretofore enquirable by the Common-Law then this Statute provides a Remedy and Order for the same hereafter But this Statute doth not abridg the Parliament of the power it had to enquire of and determine such Treasons in time of Parliament Whereof there are diverse Precedents viz. 1 R. 2. Weston and Gomeniz 50 E. 3. for William Latimer and John Nevil 7 R. 2. for the Bishop of Norwich ibid. Numb 17. for Cressingham and Shipworth ibid. Numb 24. for Sir William Elsingham Sir Thomas Trevet and Sir Henry de Ferrers all Tryed in Parliament for matters done beyond the Seas The second thing to be considered is The Order it self which I conceive to be of force notwithstanding the Statute of 35 H. 8. for that it is neither directly contrary to the Statute nor repugnant to the Common-Law otherwise the Act of one House alone cannot alter a former Statute made by consent of both Houses And this is to be remembred that the Proceeding against a Peer in Parliament is not necessary But thus it was used to be viz. The Peer accused to be brought before the Lords and Commons and then the Lord Steward to sit in the Chancellors place on the Woolsack and the Articles to be read against him by the Clark of the Crown and upon his Answer the Lords do determine of their Judgment which is afterwards pronounced by the same Lord Steward A Question might be whether the Commons have used to sit with their Speaker at these Tryals If they have then the Court of Requests or some such place may be provided for the purpose And thus that whole Cause might be retained in Parliament notwithstanding the Stat. of 35 H. 8. Thus much touching the Accusation ex parte Dom. Regis exhibited in a formal Accusation by the Kings Atturney The Duke of Clarence was arraigned in Parliament 18 E. 4. upon the like Information but the Precedent is not in the Parliament Rolls Therefore I omit it §. 4. The second kind of Accusation on the Kings behalf is ex mandato Dom. Regis upon the Roll and view of any proceedings elsewhere against the Delinquent or upon his Petition The Precedents thereof are these Anno 5 H. 4. The Earl of Northumberland was Tryed in Parliament ex mandato Dom. Regis upon his own Petition The Accusation and manner was thus The said Earl had raised Forces to have joyned with his Son Hotspur in Rebellion against the King Hotspur was slain in the Battel of Shrewsbury 21 July 4. H. 4. before the said Earl could joyn with him Whereupon he dismissed his Forces and retired to Worksworth Castle The King after the Battel came to York and sent for the said Earl and being come pardoned him for his life but abridged him of his Liberty The next Parliament was summoned the 20 of October to begin at Coventry the 3. of December And the Earl had his writ of Summons This Parliament was prorogued till the 23. of November by new Writs as the manner then was returnable Crastino Hillarii then following But the Earl had no new Summons thither But thither he comes a Petitioner Speed saith he was abridg'd of his liberty but the Record saith he came before the King and Lords And not that he was a Prisoner as Gomeniz and Weston 1 R. 2. Nor that he was caused to be brought as a Delinquent sent for as Alice Peirce 1 R. 2. But that he came before the King Lords and Commons of Parliament And then the Chancellor told him that upon Wednesday last past he had been before the King and Lords and Commons in the same Parliament and besought the King as he had done before at his coming before him at York That the King would do him grace for his misprisions against him in not keeping his Laws and Statutes as by one Petition delivered by him in Parliament written in English The tenor whereof followeth To my most dreadful and Soveraign Leige Lord. I your humble Subject beseech your Highness to have in remembrance my coming into your Gracious Presence at York of your free will by your goodly Letters The which Petition per Commandment du Roy was examined by the Justices to have their Counsel and Advice therein But the Lords by Protestation made claimed the Judgment to belong unto them only in such Cases c. And so the Lords Tryed him and acquited him of Treason and Felony but found him guilty of a Trespass only which the King pardoned Here no Information was exhibited against the said Earl yet the Kings Counsel opened his Offences to the Lords else how could they appear Anno 7 H. 4. The King commanded the Lords Temporal in Parliament to advise what manner of Process should be made