in the ordinary way of Judicature without Bill for so is the present question For the clearing of this I shall propound two things to your Lordships consideration Whether the Rule for expounding the Irish Statute and Customs be one and the same in England as in Ireland That being admitted whether the Parliament in England have cognizance or jurisdiction of things there done in respect of the place because the Kings Writ runs not there For the First in respect of the place the Parliament here hath cognizance there And Secondly If the Rules for expounding the Irish Statutes and Customs be the same here as there this exception as I humbly conceive must fall away In England there is the Common-Law the Statutes the Acts of Parliament and Customs peculiar to certain places differing from the Common-Law If any question arise concerning either a Custom or an Act of Parliament the Common-Law of England the First the Primitive and the General Law that 's the Rule and Expositor of them and of their several extents it is so here it is so in Ireland the Common-Law of England is the Common-Law of Ireland likewise the same here and there in all the parts of it It was introduced into Ireland by King Iohn and afterwards by King Henry 3. by Act of Parliament held in England as appears by the Patent-Rolls of the 30th year of King Henry 3. the first Membrana the words are Quia pro Communi Utilitate terrae Hiberniae unitate terrarum Regis Rex vult de Communi Concilio Regis Provisum est quod omnes Leges Consuetudines quae in Regno Angliae tenentur in Hibernia teneantur eadem terra eisdem legibus subjaceat per easdem Regatur sicut Dominus Iohannes Rex cum ultimò esset in Hibernia statuit fieri mandavit quia c. Rex vult quòd omnia brevia de Communi Iure quae currunt in Anglia similiter currant in Hibernia sub novo sigillo Regis mandatum est Archiepiscopis c. quod pro pace tranquilitate ejusdem terrae per easdem leges eos regi deduci permittant eas in omnibus sequantur in cujus c. Teste Rege apud Woodstock Decimo nono die Septembris Here is an union of both Kingdoms and that by Act of Parliament and the same Laws to be used here as there in omnibus My Lords That nothing might be left here for an exception that is That in Treasons Felonies and other capital offences concerning Life the Irish Laws are not the same as here therefore it is enacted by a Parliament held in England in the 14th year of Edw 2. it is not in print neither but in the Parliament Book that the Laws concerning Life and Member shall be the same in Ireland as in England And that no exception might yet remain in a Parliament held in England The 5th year of Edw. 3. it is Enacted Quod una eadem Lex fiat tam Hibernicis quam Anglicis This Act is enrolled in the Patent Rolls of the 5th year of Edw. 3. Parl. membr 25. The Irish therefore receiving their Laws from hence they send their Students at Law to the Inns of Court in England where they receive their Degree and of them and of the Common-Lawyers of this Kingdom are the Judges made The Petitions have been many from Ireland to send from hence some Judges more learned in the Laws than those they had there It hath been frequent in cases of difficulty there to send sometimes to the Parliament sometimes to the King by advice from the Judges here to send them resolutions of their doubts Amongst many I 'll cite your Lordships only one because it is in a case of Treason upon an Irish Statute and therefore full to this point By a Statute there made the fifth year of Edw. 4. there is a provision made for such as upon suggestions are committed to prison for Treason that the party committed if he can procure 24 Compurgators shall be bailed and let out of prison Two Citizens of Dublin were by a Grand Jury presented to have committed Treason they desired benefit of this Statute that they might be let out of prison upon tender of their Compurgators The words of the Statute of the 5th year of Edw. 4th in Ireland being obscure the Judges there being not satisfied what to do sent the case over to the Queen desired the opinion of the Judges here which was done accordingly The Judges here sent over their opinion which I have out of the Book of Justice Anderson one of the Judges consulted withal The Judges delivered their opinion upon an Irish Statute in case of Treason If it be objected That in this Case the Judges here did not judge upon the party their opinions were only ad informandam Conscientiam of the Judges in Ireland that the Judgement belonged to the Judges there My Lords with submission this and the other Authorities prove that for which they were cited that is that no absurdity no failure of Justice would ensue if this great Judicatory should judge of Treason so made by an Irish Statute The Common-Law rules of judging upon an Irish Statute the Pleas of the Crown for things of life and death are the same here and there this is all that yet hath been offered For the Second point That England hath no power of Judicature for things done in Ireland My Lords the constant practice of all ages proves the contrary Writs of Error in Pleas of the Crown as well as in Civil Causes have in all Kings Reigns been brought here even in the inferior Courts of Westminster-Hall upon Judgment given in the Courts of Ireland the practice is so frequent and so well known as that I shall cite none of them to your Lordships no president will I believe be produced to your Lordships that ever the Case was remanded back again into Ireland because the question arose upon an Irish Statute or Custom Object But it will be said that Writs of Error are only upon failure of justice in Ireland and that suits cannot originally be commenced here for things done in Ireland because the Kings Writ runs not in Ireland Answ. This might be a good Plea in the Kings-Bench and inferior Courts at Westminster-Hall the question is Whether it be so in Parliament The Kings Writ runs not within the County-Palatine of Chester and Durham nor within the Five Ports neither did it in Wales before the Union of Henry the 8th's time after the Laws of England were brought into Wales in King Edw. the 1. time Suits were not originally commenced at Westminster-Hall for things done in them yet this never excluded the Parliament-suits for Life Lands and Goods within these jurisdictions are determinable in Parliament as well as in any other parts of the Realm Ireland as appears by the Statute of the Thirtieth year of Henry 3. before-mentioned is united to the Crown of England By
the Statute of the Eight and twentieth year of Hen. 6th in Ireland it is declared in these words That Ireland is the proper Dominion of England and united to the Crown of England which Crown of England is of it self and by it self wholly and entirely endowed with all Power and Authority sufficient to yield to the Subjects of the same full and plenary remedy in all Debates and Suits whatsoever By the Statute of the Three and twentieth year of Henry the 8th the first Chapter when the Kings of England first assumed the Title of King of Ireland it is there Enacted that Ireland still is to be held as a Crown annexed and united to the Crown of England So that by the same reason from this that the Kings Writs run not in Ireland it might as well be held that the Parliament cannot originally hold Plea of things done within the County-Palatine of Chester and Durham nor within the Five Ports and Wales Ireland is a part of the Realm of England as appears by those Statutes as well as any of them This is made good by constant practice in all the Parliament Rolls from the first to the last there are Receivers and Tryers of Petitions appointed for Ireland for the Irish to come so far with their Petitions for Justice and the Parliament not to have cognizance when from time to time they had in the beginning of the Parliament appointed Receivers and Tryers of them is a thing not to be presumed An Appeal in Ireland brought by William Lord Vesey against Iohn Fitz-Thomas for Treasonable words there spoken before any Judgment given in Case there was removed into the Parliament in England and there the Defendant acquitted as appears in the Parliament Pleas of the Two and twentieth year of Edw. 1. The Suits for Lands Offices and Goods originally begun here are many and if question grew upon matter in fact a Jury usually ordered to try it and the Verdict returned into the Parliament as in the Case of one Ballyben in the Parliament of the Five and thirtieth year of Edward the 1. If a doubt arose upon a matter tryable by Record a Writ went to the Officers in whose custody the Record remained to certifie the Record as was in the Case of Robert Bagott the same Parliament of the Five and thirtieth year of Edward the 1. where the Writ went to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer Sometimes they gave Judgement here in Parliament and commanded the Judges there in Ireland to do execution as in the great Case of Partition between the Copartners of the Earl Marshal in the Parliament of the Three and thirtieth of Edward the 1. where the Writ was awarded to the Treasurer of Ireland My Lords The Laws of Ireland were introduced by the Parliament of England as appears by Three Acts of the Parliament before cited It is of higher Jurisdiction Dare Leges then to judge by them The Parliaments of England do bind in Ireland if Ireland be particularly mentioned as is resolved in the Book-Case of the First year of Henry the Seventh Cook 's Seventh Report Calvin's Case and by the Judges in Trinity-Term in the Three and thirtieth year of Queen Elizabeth The Statute of the Eighth year of Edward the 4th the first Chapter in Ireland recites That it was doubted amongst the Judges whether all the English Statutes though not naming Ireland were in force there if named no doubt From King Henry the 3. his time downwards to the Eighth year of Queen Elizabeth by which Statute it is made Felony to carry Sheep from Ireland beyond Seas in almost all these Kings Reigns there be Statutes made concerning Ireland The exercising of the Legislative Power there over their Lives and Estates is higher than of the Judicial in question Until the 29th year of Edward the 3. erroneous Judgements given in Ireland were determinable no where but in England no not in the Parliament of Ireland as it appears in the close Rolls in the Tower in the 29th year of Edw. the 3. Memb. 12. Power to examine and reverse erroneous Judgments in the Parliaments of Ireland is granted from hence Writs of Error lye in the Parliament here upon erroneous Judgements after that time given in the Parliaments of Ireland as appears in the Parliament Rolls of the Eighth year of Henry the 6th No. 70. in the Case of the Prior of Lenthan It is true the Case is not determined there for it 's the last thing that came into the Parliament and could not be determined for want of time but no exception at all is taken to the Jurisdiction The Acts of Parliament made in Ireland have been confirmed in the Parliaments of England as appears by the close Rolls in the Tower in the Two and fortieth year of Edw. the 3. Memb. 20. Dorso where the Parliament in Ireland for the preservation of the Countrey from Irish who had almost destroyed it made an Act That all the Land-Owners that were English should reside upon their Lands or else they were to be forfeited this was here confirmed In the Parliament of the Fourth year of Henry the 5th Chap. 6. Acts of Parliament in Ireland are confirmed and some priviledges of the Peers in the Parliaments there are regulated Power to repeal Irish Statutes Power to confirm them cannot be by the Parliament here if it hath not cognizance of their Parliaments unless it be said that the Parliament may do it knows not what Garnsey and Iersey are under the Kings subjection but are not parcels of the Crown of England but of the Duchy of Normandy they are not governed by the Laws of England as Ireland is and yet Parliaments in England have usually held Plea of and determined all Causes concerning Lands or Goods In the Parliament in the 33 Edw. 1. there be Placita de Insula Iersey And so in the Parliament 14 Edw. 2. and so for Normandy and Gascoigne and always as long as any part of France was in subjection to the Crown of England there were at the beginning of the Parliaments Receivers and Tryers of Petitions for those parts appointed I believe your Lordships will have no Case shewed of any Plea to the jurisdiction of the Parliaments of England in any things done in any parts wheresoever in subjection to the Crown of England The last thing I shall offer to your Lordships is the Case of 19 Eliz. in my Lord Dyer 306. and Judge Crompton's Book of the jurisdiction of Courts fol. 23. The opinion of both these Books is That an Irish Peer is not Tryable here it 's true a Scotch or French Nobleman is tryable here as a common person the Law takes no notice of their Nobility because those Countreys are not governed by the Laws of England but Ireland being governed by the same Laws the Peers there are Tryable according to the Law of England only per pares By the same reason the Earl of Strafford not being a Peer of Ireland is
Strafford of High Treason against our Soveraign Lord the King His Crown and Dignity And he the said Earl of Strafford was Lord Deputy of Ireland or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Lieutenant General of the Army there under His most Excellent Majesty and a sworn Privy-Counsellor to His Majesty for His Kingdoms both of England and Ireland and Lord President of the North during the time that all and every the Crimes and Offences before set forth were done and committed and he the said Earl was Lieutenant General of His Majesties Army in the North parts of England during the time that the Crimes and Offences in the 27th and 28th Articles set forth were done and committed Tuesday May 11th 1641. Ordered That Mr. Solicitor give Order That the Arguments he made in Westminster-Hall touching the matters of Law in the Case of the Earl of Strafford be Printed and that Mr. Pym give the like Order That his Speeches at the beginning and ending of the Trial of the said Earl of Strafford be likewise Printed The Names of those Gentlemen that managed the Evidence in this Trial being through over-sight omitted to be inserted in their particular places for the first Nine Articles it is thought fit for more exact satisfaction to give an account of them in this place with particular References which may by the Reader be easily supplyed The Names of the Managers FOlio 115. Line 17. Mr. Pym. Ibid. Line 33. Mr. Pym. Ibid. Line 40. Mr. Pym. Fol. 116. Line 5. Mr. Pym. Ibid. Line 44. Mr. Pym. Fol. 117. Line 14. Mr. Maynard Ibid. Line 43. Mr. Maynard Fol. 120. Line 20. Mr. Pym. Fol. 124. Line 27. Mr. Pym. Fol. 127. Line 29. Mr. Pym. To the First Article Fol. 138. Line 29. Mr. Maynard Fol. 139. Line 3. M. Maynard Fol. 142. Line 17. M. Maynard Ibid. Line 24. Mr. Whitlock Fol. 143. Line 7. Mr. Glyn. Ibid. Line 15. Mr. Maynard Ibid. Line 25. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 144. Line 2. Mr. Maynard Fol. 145. Line 3. Mr. Maynard Fol. 147. Line 31. Mr. Maynard To the Second Article Fol. 149. Line 14. Mr. Maynard Fol. 153. Line 6. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 152. Line 14. Mr. Maynard Ibid. Line 16. Mr. Maynard Ibid. Line 18. Mr. Maynard Fol. 154. Line 4. Mr. Maynard Ibid. Line 32. Mr. Maynard Fol. 155. Line 7. Mr. Maynard To the Third Article Fol. 156. Line 8. Mr. Maynard Fol. 164. Line 9. Mr. Maynard Ibid. Line 22. Mr. Glyn. Ibid. Line 17. Mr. Maynard Ibid. Line 28. Mr. Maynard Fol. 165. Line 7. Sir Io. Clotworthy Ibid. Line 36. Mr. Maynard Fol. 167. Line 25. Mr. Pym. Fol. 157. Line 11. Mr. Maynard Fol. 168. Line 16. Mr. Pym. Fol. 158. Line 2. Lord Digby Ibid. Line 25. Mr. Pym. Ibid. Line 37. Mr. Maynard Ibid. Line 34. Mr. Maynard Fol. 163. Line 42. Mr. Maynard Fol. 171. Line 28. Mr. Maynard To the Fourth Article Fol. 173. Line 30. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 183. Line 10. Mr. Maynard Fol. 174. Line 8. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 184. Line 11. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 179. Line 44. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 185. Line 1. Mr. Maynard Fol. 180. Line 37. Mr. Maynard To the Fifth Article Fol. 185. Line 21. Mr. Glyn. Ibid. Line 35. Mr. Maynard Fol. 188. Line 17. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 202. Line 31. Mr. Maynard Fol. 198. Line 1. Mr. Glyn. Ibid. Line 36. Mr. Maynard Fol. 201. Line 19. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 204. Line 5. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 202. Line 7. Mr. Maynard To the Sixth Article Fol. 205. Line 6. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 216. Line 22. Mr. Maynard Fol. 206. Line 31. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 217. Line 21. Mr. Palmer Ibid. Line 37. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 218. Line 17. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 210. Line 38. Mr. Glyn. Ibid. Line 21. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 213. Line 23. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 219. Line 32. Mr. Stroud Ibid. Line 29. Mr. Glyn. To the Eighth Article Fol. 222. Line 8. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 228. Line 10. Mr. Glyn. Ibid. Line 34. Mr. Glyn. Ibid. Line 26. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 223. Line 22. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 229. Line 11. Mr. Glyn. Ibid. Line 42. Mr. Maynard Ibid. Line 33. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 226. Line 42. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 233. Line 25. Mr. Glyn. To the Ninth Article Fol. 236. Line 16. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 239. Line 14. Mr. Maynard Fol. 238. Line 22. Mr. Glyn. Fol. 240. Line 10. Mr. Glyn. THE TRYAL OF T. Earl of Strafford The First day Monday March 22. 1640. THe Lords being set in a place prepared in Westminster-hall purposely for the Arraignment of Thomas Earl of Strafford upon a charge of High Treason laid upon him by the Commons House of Parliament in the Name of themselves and of all the Commons of England And the House of Commons being there likewise seated as a Committee and those who were to manage the Evidence on behalf of the House of Commons being Members of that House standing at the Barr The Prisoner was called for And being brought by Sir William Balfour Lieutenant of the Tower after Obeisances given he came to the Barr and kneeled and after standing up The Right Honourable Thomas Earl of Arundel and Surrey Lord High Steward of England spake to him as follows Your Lordship is called here this day before the Lords in Parliament to Answer to and to be Tryed upon the Impeachment presented to them by the Commons House of Parliament in the Name of themselves and all the Commons of England And that their Lordships are resolved to hear both the Accusation and Defence with all Equity And therefore think fit in the first place That your Lordship should hear the Impeachment of High Treason read The Impeachment was accordingly read by the Clerk of the Parliament A little after the entrance into it a Chair was brought to the Prisoner by the Gentleman Usher and the Prisoner sate down thereon by their Lordships direction After the Charge was read the Earl of Straffords Answer was likewise read And no more of proceedings that day Only the Lord Steward said further to the Prisoner That his Lordship had heard the whole Impeachment of the House of Commons read And his own Answer on which he hath put himself for Trial. That which is now to follow their Lordships have commanded him to say is the managing of the Evidence by those the House of Commons shall please to appoint for the proving of this Charge But likewise they have Commanded him to say That the time being so far spent it may not be so proper now to proceed further in the business That this shall be sate upon only once a day which will be fittest both for their Lordships and for the House of Commons And that they conceive it will agree with the sense of the House of Commons not to fall into the particular management of the Evidence so late but to defer it till the morrow at the hour of nine of the Clock My Lord of Strafford did then desire to know whether he might with their Lordships good leave and favour say any thing at that
Communicate it to any man till I brought the Letter because I was resolved to speak of it to no man living and in conclusion left it wholly to the Council For the words That I would not lose my share in the Honour of that Sentence if I spake the words I meant the Justice and satisfaction done me by that Sentence being by the prime Officers of the Kingdom And whereas it was said yesterday that though I thought it hard to lay words to my Charge yet I thought it not hard to lay words to the Lord Mountnorris his Charge there is a difference between laying words to a man's Charge to Accuse and Condemn him of High-Treason to loss of Estate Life Honour and Posterity and pressing words to only two days Imprisonment being only intended to discipline my Lord Mountnorris and teach him to govern his Speech with more modesty His Defence to the business of Denwitt's Execution He confesses his Vote concurred and thinks he had Authority and may justifie it He produced the Sentence Dated 13. February 1638. where his Crimes are set forth to be the fellonious stealing of a quarrer of Beef and running away from his Colours in breach of the 9th and 6th Articles for which he was sentenced to Death according to the use of Martial-Law His Lordship opened the Nature of the Offence being committed at a time when the 500 men were attending to go to Carlisle and the Example might be dangerous and desired Sir George Mountnorris might be asked Whether Denwitt was not convicted to be guilty adding that he had been burnt in the hand and running from his Colours is death by the Laws of Ireland He produced a Statute of Ireland 20 H. 6. C. 19. whereby it is Enacted That every man that receives the King's Wages and departs from his Captain c. shall be proceeded against as a Felon As also the Statute 7 H. 7. C. 1. The departing of a Souldier from his Colours is Felony and the Offendor to undergo punishment of Law And 10 H. 7. all Laws formerly made in England are to be in force in Ireland and so that of 7 H. 7. For further clearing whereof he refers himself to the Council One of the Managers did make Reply in substance as followeth That if this Fact be not Treason yet it seems to prove his Intention to subvert the Law which is Treason Whereas he hopes for the King's Mercy so the Commons do as really trust for the King's Justice The Commission he insists on is limitted with Si opus fuerit and the King intends Execution according to Law Magna Charta and the rest of the Laws of England being of force in Ireland There hath been an Army in pay in Ireland since Henry the Eighths time and so there are some in pay here in Portsmouth and Plymouth and yet it follows not England must be Governed by Martial-Law The Lord Wilmott was produced by him to justifie the publishing of Orders and exercise of Martial Law in Ireland But we Appeal to your Lordships Whether he gave Testimony of executing any by Martial-Law Sir Adam Loftus says There are Provost-Marshalls and they do use to put men to death but they are Rebels whom they execute which squares not with this Case only that of Sir Thomas Wayneman is a full President For the King's Letter it is written on his Information and if the King's Ministers misinform him He is just before God and men and the Letter directs Reparation as it was fit there should be My Lord pretends he was no Judge in the Cause your Lordships may remember who procured the Letter to proceed and who sate there to manage the business though he sate with his Hat off if he would have been indifferent he should have left the Counsellors to themselves And when some moved they might proceed on one Article he cryed both and so he was the Procurer of the Sentence with which he is charged not with the Voting of it He pretends he sate by and said nothing yet no man talked more at the Sentence than himself He proves not the Course of Martial-Law and there is a Judge-Marshal to whom in any proceedings in a Martial way address should be made and it was desired he might be called to testifie how they went about it Another of the Managers did add by way of Reply That whereas my Lord of Strafford insists much as if Martial-Law were part of the same Law of Ireland but the 25 E. 3. is in force there and that is recited in the Petition of Right in force here as the ground why Martial-Law ought not to be in England and therefore there is the same ground why it should not be in Ireland For that Commission he speaks of Opus est is Martial-Law when there is bellum flagrans but what need was there of Martial-Law in my Lord Mountnorris his Case when he would rather lose his Hand than the Sentence be executed For the Orders made by my Lord Wilmott and others there is difference between making an Order in way of terror for fear of Execution and putting that thing in execution Many Witnesses are produced to prove the practise but not one speaks in point of Execution unless upon Rebels and Traytors and such as would not come into Law whereas my Lord Mountnorris was had into the Law Whereas he takes the Example of those before him the Commons cannot see the Restrictions put upon his Commission for Martial-Law but in the preceding Deputies time there was a limitation that the Provost should leave the Souldiers to trial at Law except in time of War and Rebellion The Statute of 20 H. 6. is against him for it makes the Souldiers running from his Colours Felony and certainly meant it should be tried by that Law that makes it Felony which would have given him the benefit of Clergy not by Martial-Law And though he thinks he may justifie it he falls at last to a Pardon He says He acquainted no body before hand with the business but if he may give the Interpretation he will be sure to put a good end to it if he would not prepare the Council for Justice why should not the Delinquent be prepared The words are pretended to be spoken in April my Lord of Strafford procures the King's Letter in Iuly and questions it not till December here is no opus est The very words of the Order the Witnesses were examined by our Command which make it his own One of the Managers desired that two of the Instructions of former Deputies might be read To this my Lord of Strafford excepted as supplemental and dangerous and not warranted by any other Judicature After some debate touching the admitting of my Lord of Ely to be examined to the Course of Martial-Laws in Ireland being new matter arising out of his Answer It was Resolved that he should be examined only to that new matter The Earl of
a true Testimony my Lord of Strafford presently pursues him and lays Imputations and scorns upon him and therefore humbly prayed to be spared else that he might have liberty to justifie himself Whence the Manager observed What it is to fall on Witnesses persons extravagantly when they produce them and therefore desired my Lord of Strafford might forbear it being a great disheartening to Witnesses My Lord of Corke added That my Lord of Strafford accused him to have a Pardon whereas he knows he hath none That he is an honest man and wishes my Lord of Strafford could leave the Kingdom with as much Reputation as himself had left it And for the matter demanded his Lordship said He was at the hearing of the Cause and Voted against the Plaintiff but whether the major part Voted against him or no he knows not Being asked What words my Lord of Strafford said about making a party in that Cause He Answered That he thinks he spake these words He did not think there would have been a party against him for if he had he would not have brought it to that Table for the Petition was preferred to himself Sir Adam Lofius being asked What Sir Robert Meredith told him of his part in the Bargain He Answered That he heard him say He had no Title or Interest in it but only his name used in trust but for whom he did not declare and that was all he said to him The Manager added That they have another Witness to prove that of the majority of the Vote my Lord of Ely but he is sick And so the Manager summed up the Evidence and observed it to be something that my Lord of Strafford should pitch upon the very sum of 500 l. that Mr. Hibbots had by way of increase That the Order was made with an examination of Witnesses on pretence of Fraud where the Lady denied it on Oath and that though it was so great a fraud in the Lady to procure a Reversion for 2500 l. which was sold for 3000 l. and afterwards re-sold to the Lady for 7000 l. and so concluded that it is an Arbitrary Government drawn into my Lord of Strafford's own breast and the Inheritance of a great Estate taken from the King 's Subject without Rule of Law there being a Fine levied but being not retorned as the Commissioners are bound to retorn it he made an Order it should not be retorned and a Lady threatened with doubling and trebling the Fine and one of the Feoffees Sir Robert Meredith confesses it was for my Lord of Strafford And to prove that Sir Philip Persival acknowledged so much Mr. Fitzgarret was Interrogated What Sir Philip Persival said who thereupon answered That Sir Philip had often told him the Purchase was to the use of my Lord-Deputy now Earl of Strafford That he hath had occasion of Conference with him about the Estate and hath sometimes discoursed with him concerning the Estate wherein his name was used That he the Deponent might understand how far it concerned him telling him that the Estate would one day be questioned And Sir Philip protested he never knew of this business till his name was put into it and he came to Seal the Writings and that it was to the use of my Lord-Deputy Some Questions arising about the number of Hands to the Order being in all 14. The Manager observed That more have subscribed than those that gave their Vote being a Cause introduced by my Lord of Strafford That all subscribed the Orders as well those against them as those for them and Appealed therein to my Lord of Cork The Course being when an Order is made to bring it to the Table another day and take all the Hands of them present and he added That their Lordships that are Counsellors know that Course to be used here My Lord of Corke being asked to that Point Answered That he knows nothing of it The Lord Primate of Ireland his Examination was offered and was admitted accordingly to be read being taken 30. March 1641. To the fourth Inter. That when the Major part of the Council-Board go one way and the Minor part another way when the Order is drawn up the Minor part Signs it as well as the Major The Lord-Deputy alledging it to be the practise of the Council of England and he himself had done it but before my Lord of Strafford's coming he never knew it to be so Lord Renula being asked to the same Point Answered That he doth not remember that Order to be of force there till of late years and that my Lord of Strafford hath declared to them that it is the practise of England and when the Major part doth subscribe though others be of different Opinions they are involved in it and must subscribe The Lord Savil desired he might be asked Whether he ever knew that when the Major part did Vote against an Order they did subscribe it The Manager answered That that 's their grief and though there be no such Course yet if it concern my Lord of Strafford he will make it a course Lord Renula being asked Whether he were present at the Council-Table when this Vote was given and what he heard concerning the Vote He Answered That he was not there and he heard very little of it that the most he heard of it was since the coming of this Gentleman Mr. Hoy into England and that to his best remembrance he heard Sir William Parsons now Lord Chief Justice say He was informed the Major Vote went against Sir Robert Meredith And so the Manager concluded the Charge as to the Eighth Article saying That here is a Proceeding for a Free-hold contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom contrary to the Instructions in the manner and measure as their Lordships had heard My Lord of Strafford after some time given for the re-collecting of his Notes began his Reply in substance as followeth I will with your Lordships noble permission justifie my self against the Charge of High-Treason exhibited against me Having been blamed by the Gentlemen at the Bar for going to matters not pertinent I shall henceforth keep my self to that within the Charge trusting that the things wherewith I am not Charged shall not dwell with your Lordships to my prejudice but that your Lordships will in your Nobleness and Justice reserve to your selves till in its proper place and kind I shall Answer thereunto conceiving that I am to Answer only to Treason not to Misdemeanor The Charge opened is a Decree given by the Deputy and Council of Ireland to the subversion of the Fundamental Laws and to the bringing in of an Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government Whether it be so or no or whether by any manner of Construction it can be brought as an Argument to convince me of High-Treason I conceive I am to Answer Whether the Decree be in it self just or unjust is not the question but
before his going into Ireland and as appears by their own shewing such a Proposition as was allowed and approved of by their Lordships at the Council-Board He desires that in this as in all things else he might not be taken in pieces but altogether for if they take part and leave what they please they may make a man speak strange things and therefore he desired their Lordships would hear the reasons inducing that Proposition as well as the Proposition it self being under the Clerk of the Councils hand and so attested by Mr. Ralton The Proposition and Reasons were accordingly read as followeth in substance Feb. 1631. A Proposition amongst divers others entred in the Register of the Acts of Council 22 Feb. 1631. follows in haec verba THat no particular complaint of Injustice or Oppression be admitted here against any unless it first appear he hath made his Address to the Deputy And indeed this is but justice to the Deputy who must needs in some measure be a Delinquent if the complaints be true as being in chief universally to take care that His Majesties Justice be throughly complyed with in that place and therefore good reason his Judgement should be informed and his Integrity first tryed before either be impeached Nay it is but justice to the Government it self which would be exceeding scandalous through the liberty of complaints and the Ministery therein extreamly discouraged upon every petit matter to be drawn to answer here when the thing it self is for the most part either injurious or for which the party might have received good satisfaction at his own door But where the complaint appears formally grounded and where due application hath been made to the Deputy without relief to the party let it be throughly examined and severely punished wheresoever the fault proves to be especially if it be corrupt or malicious for so he shall not only magnify his Justice but punish an unfaithful Minister or clamorous Complainant and his service shall thereby be bettered From whence my Lord of Strafford inferred That by this it might appear to their Lordships his intent was not to assume any greater Authority than became him to desire but meerly to prevent clamors and unjust complaints and that they might be redressed nearer home without Complaint and no way to hinder any mans just complaint And so it had no relation nor aspect to himself but meerly to the furthering of the Kings Justice And so that Proposition could not he conceived be turn'd upon him otherwise then as Just and Honourable For the Proclamation it self and the staying of men from coming without Licence the thing complained of he begged leave to acquaint their Lordships with some particulars He conceived by the Laws of Ireland no man that is a Subject and Liege-man there can come from thence without Licence from the Deputy but it is very penal and to that purpose he would mention two or three Statutes of that Kingdom One is the 26 H. 6. ca. 2. The Title whereof is An Act that the Kings Subjects or Officers in Ireland may be absent by the Commands of the King or Governor or Council without Censure of c. The words of the Statute in substance Also it is decreed and agreed that none of the Kings Liege men who comprehend all as he conceives or Officers of the Land go out of the Land but by Commission from the King or his Heirs Lieutenant-Iustices c. All the Rents Benefits Offices or other Possessions by their said Absence shall be seized into the Kings hands c. Whence my Lord of Strafford inferred That if they go without the Governors Licence there is a forfeiture of all these Another is 25 H. 6. Ca. 9. It is ordained c. That if any Liege-man be out of the Kingdom by the Commandement of the King or his Heirs or the Lieutenant there Deputy-Iustices or Council Their Rents c shall not be seized c. Whence his Lordship inferred That if they go without Licence they are punishable for it The next is a certain Article preferred by certain Irish Agents then in England in May 1628. or thereabouts long before he was thought on for a Deputy in Ireland either by himself or any body else and this is from their own desire and Petition Being attested by Mr. Ralton to be a true Copy one Article was read being in substance as followeth May 1628. TO the Kings most Excellent Majesty the humble Petition of Your Majesties faithful Subjects appointed Agents to prefer certain humble Requests c. to your Highness in behalfe of your Kingdom of Ireland After the Preamble amongst other things it contained That His Majesty would be pleased that in respect of the non-residence of many great men who spending their Estates abroad the Kingdom was impoverished and great sums of Money transported Order might be taken that both they and all Undertakers on whom Estates have been bestowed for the better supporting and improving of the Kingdom may make their personal Residence at least half the year and not to depart without Licence His Majesties Answer was given in these words ALL the Nobility Undertakers and others who hold Estates and Offices within that Kingdom are to make their personal Residence there and not to leave it without Licence such persons excepted only as are imployed in Our Service in England or attend here by Our special Command Next my Lord of Strafford desired he might read the Lord Faulklands Instructions which as he conceived were pursuing to this and they were as he takes it 24 May 1628. which being attested by Mr. Brooks to be examined by the Original was read C. R. Instructions to be observed by or c. Henry Viscount Faulkland or Council there c. ALL the Nobility Undertakers and others who hold Estates or Offices in that Kingdom are to make their personal Residence there and not to leave it without Licence such persons only excepted as are employed in Our Service in England or attend here by Our special Command Next His Lordship offered His Majesties Letter of 20 th of Ianuary 1634. Commanding the publishing of this Proclamation which Mr. Ralton affirming to be a true Copy was read C. R. To the Lord Deputy of Ireland WHEREAS amongst other things in the Graces vouchsafed to Our Subjects 1628. We signified Our Pleasure That the Nobility Undertakers and Others holding Estates in Ireland should be resident there and not to depart without Licence And being now given to understand That notwithstanding those Directions divers persons not of the meaner sort take liberty to pass into this Kingdom or foreign parts as if they understood not what they owed to Us in their Duty or themselves in their evil Carriage which presumption we may not long suffer c. We do therefore hereby Will and Require you by Act of State or Proclamation to make known Our Pleasure That all Nobility Undertakers and others that hold Estates and Offices such persons
him in his protection and would never forsake him and whatsoever he should loose in this world he would make it up to him in another world And for this purpose Mr. Riley was produced who being questioned whether he was imployed in suing out a Commission for examining of witnesses in Ireland in a Cause concerning my Lord of Esmond and Sir Peirce Crosby Mr. Riley Answered That he was imployed as Clarke in the Cause where Mr. Attorney was Plaintiff by Relation of my Lord Lieutenant against my Lord of Esmond and Sir Peirce Crosby and when that Cause came to Commission they for the Defendant brought Commissioners names and did joyn in that Bond but he cannot remember the time Being asked on Mr. Maynards motion whether Sir Pierce Crosby or my Lord of Esmond fued it out He Answered he could not directly say but the Clerk for the Defendants could Mr. Ralton being asked to the same point He Answered that he remembers that about this time 1638 or 1639. Commissions were sued out in the business between my Lord Lieutenant and my Lord of Esmond and Sir Pierce Crosby and that he was very confident that my Lord of Esmond had the benefit of examining Witnesses My Lord of Strafford observed that these Gentlemen stirred up those things to beget an ill opinion of him but in short answered they were not in his Charge And further That he conceived my Lord of Esmond was stayed on a complaint of Sir Walsingham Cokes concerning a practice of his to the endangering of Sir Walsingham's life And that he was stayed upon that account to be examined and if he the Lord Strafford was not mistaken my Lord Esmond was after examination left at liberty But these things he said were rather aggravations of his Charge than within the Charge and therefore he humbly conceived that in these cases their Lordships would allow him liberty and hoped the Gentlemen will likewise allow it that so he might satisfie them their Lordships and all the world that he hath carried himself justly and fairly in all these particulars Also assuring himself that these Gentlemen were willing he should give the best answer to all these things he could And so he would and that with all respect and reverence to them in the world The next Case is my Lord Roches and his Lordship conceives that my Lord Roche himself gives a fair answer for he was informed against him in the Starchamber and my Lord of Strafford said indeed he remembred there was such an occasion for it as he was willing to forget it for that noble Gentlemans Cause and that the complaint was of so high a nature against my Lord Roche as he was not willing to press it to his prejudice nor ever did but where there was great reason and when he should come to answer for it for he imagines it is not expected he should answer it finally now being not within his Charge Heaven should justifie him and shew that he had reason to stay him at that time The next is Dermond Mac-Cartyes and the Cause of his stay appears to be That he would go abroad for his Breeding Now if he and such other should go to Doway and S t Omer he thinks their Lordships and the House of Commons would have blamed him more for giving him and such persons leave then faulted him for restraining them And had he alleadged That he intended to go over to Complain of that Decree he would not have hindred him and to that purpose he hath Witnesses that he never stayed any Man that pretended he would complain of him The Decree was made by a Letter from His Majesty on a notable fraud of Mac-Carty the Father in the Case of Sir Iames Craig and he that Swears in it is Solicitor in the Cause and so not altogether so competent a Witness But these are all on the by and come rather to prove an Intention then that which is pressed on him as a thing to which he is properly and finally to Answer The next is concerning the Sentence of Mr. Parry in which business my Lord humbly offered That no Testimony is yet produced other than the Testimony of the Party himself Now if the Judge may be Convinced and Condemned on the single Testimony of the Party grieved he knows no man would willingly sit in Judgment on these Termes and out of this single VVitness being qualified with the attribute of the party grieved Must he be Condemned that was one of the Judges But as they have Proved nothing Judicially that can weigh with their Lordships it will be fit for him to justifie himself for this Sentence so far as comes to his share for all the whole Board consented to it And therefore he besought their Lordships to give him the honor To offer the Sentence given against Mr. Parry wherein their Lordships would see the Reason that it was not for departing without Licence but for great and foul neglects and contempts to the Board Mr. Gibson Attesting it to be a true Copy the Decree of the Deputy and Council was Read being in substance WHereas Henry Parry one of them who attended the Lord Chancellor as his Lordships Register-keeper or Clerk for private Iudicatures and Keeper of the Books of these Private Proceedings was Commanded to attend the Board to be Examined And whereas in Contempt thereof he not onely neglected to attend accordingly but departed this Kingdom which being represented to His Majesty it pleased His Majesty to require his return hither to attend this Board To which end a Bond was taken for his Appearance here the next Council-day after the 12th of Aug. and whereas he was present himself at this Board 9th October 1638 but offered no Petition as if he disdained so far to humble himself to this Authority whereupon it ebing made known to him That it became him in the Duty he owed to the dignity of this Board to come by Petition as all other Men but he forbearing to exhibit his Petition till he was called by us the Deputiee to do it and then when he exhibited it he therein misrecited his Offence alleadging it to be for his repairing to England without Licence Licence whereas his Offence was The disobeying the Orders of this Board Secondly He laid a Tax on William Ralton Esq Alleadging That on pretence of Direction from Secretary Cooke he took his Bond for Appearance here whereas he knew it was not by any feigned direction but by appointment of Secretary Cooke by His Majesties Direction Thirdly In stead of humbling himself he desired Cancelling of his Bond and Dismission from attendance and the rather because he conceived he had not in any degree transgressed the Proclamation cautelously alledging that to be his Offence which was not laid to his Charge And for as much as his first Offence in Estoyning himself to shun the guilt whereof he was convinced and after his bold and insolent behaviour at
Money he told them that the French King did use to send Commissaries of Horse with Commission to search into mens Estates and to peruse their Accounts that so they may know what to levy of them by force which they did accordingly levy and turning to the Lord Cottington then present said That this was a point worthy of his Lordships consideration meaning this course of the French King to raise Moneys by force was a point worthy of his Lordships Consideration MR. Maynard proceeded to open the 26th Article and observed That they had shewed formerly how my Lord of Strafford had laboured a Disaffection betwixt His Majesty and His People Now they come to shew That His Majesty being put to extreame Charges by the Advice of my Lord of Strafford my Lord adds his advice for seising Money in the Mint and for that of the base Coyn or Black Money And that when some attended my Lord of Strafford about it to shew to him the danger and ill consequence that might arise from it my Lord of Strafford tells them The City had dealt undutifully and unthankfully with His Majesty and were more ready to help the Rebels than His Majesty and they may thank themselves and it was the Course of other Princes to make use of such Monies And when the Master of the Mynts gave Reasons against it my Lord said The French King uses to send Commissaries to mens Shops and to look into the Accompts and Books of men to see and peruse their Estates that they might raise and levy it by force And turning to a Noble Lord by him he said That was a point worthy of his Lordships Consideration To prove the words spoken about seising the Money in the Mint Robert Edwards was Sworn and Examined What he heard my Lord of Strafford say when he attended him about the Money seized in the Mynt He Answered That he went to his Lordship about the danger that the Company of Merchant-Adventurers were in in regard their Estates were beyond Sea giving his Lordship to understand the danger in regard so much Money was taken out of the Tower being as he remembers on Saturday night They went on Monday morning and desired my Lord to speak to His Majesty that the money might be restored again that their Means might not be seized for some strangers had threatned they would signifie to their Principal how their Money was taken from them and would seek for a recompence again by the Means they had beyond Sea And my Lord made Answer again to him and diverse others that were there That if they fared amiss they might thank themselves for if they went on in that manner they were like to find it themselves and that they should have the damage of it if they did look to it no better And withal he said That though they think it is a strange business here yet beyond Sea it is not so but on Command men have their Goods taken This was the substance as he remembers of what he said to them Being Asked What my Lord of Strafford said touching the City of London He Answered That he said They did deal very unthankfully and undutifully for there was but 14000 l. for Ship-money that was His Majesties due and they denyed the payment of that and did more to maintain the Rebels than they did to maintain His Majesty Being bid repeat his words He said That they came at first to be humble Suitors to his Lordship to be a meanes to His Majesty that the Money taken from the Tower might be restored again for the Merchants Adventurers Estates beyond Sea were in great danger in regard there were some strangers threatned to write to their Principals to stay their Estates there for the Money stayed in the Tower Whereupon my Lord made Answer That if they did speed amiss they might thank themselves for they are more ready to hold with Rebels then they were to give His Majesty His due which was 14000 l. for Ship-money Being Asked on my Lord of Straffords motion Where he spake them and Whether he was not then Sick He Answered It was in his Chamber and my Lord did sit in his Chair and he the Examinant stood hard by him with four or five more and he conceives my Lord was sick at that time Being Asked on like motion Whether he did not tell them he was sick and could not go to the King at that time He Answered That he remembers not that my Lord said he could not go to the King but he said he knew nothing of it till that morning to his the Examinants remembrance Anthony Palmer Sworn and Interrogated What my Lord of Strafford said to him concerning the mixt Money He Answered That my Lord of Strafford had some Discourse with him and the rest of his fellow Officers concerning base Money and upon the Questioning of it they gave him their Reasons against it and the insufficiency of it to do any thing and said so much as they conceived my Lord was disswaded from going any further in it Upon this he afterwards shewed them a Letter drawn out of his Pocket which as he said was sent him out of France and in the French Tongue and because he the Examinant did not understand the French tongue he read it in English to this effect so far as the best of his memory will hold That the King of France or the French King had appointed certain Officers of his to go and take view of mens Books of Accompt and Estates by that means to see what they were worth and to know what the King might demand of them and if they were not willing to pay it there would be a force upon them to pay it This to the best of his Remembrance is that my Lord did deliver Being Asked Whether my Lord of Strafford did not speak words to this effect That if His Majesty should do so he should have the Examples of others or to that purpose He Answered Something he set forth to this effect but the very words he cannot express but it was to that purpose That he had received Letters that the King of France had sent Officers that took view of Mens Books and Accompts to raise to himself some Moneys if they were not willing by constraint and withal some other Speeches did fall from him to this purpose but the very words he cannot speak that it was an Example or might be an Example to do the like in England Being Asked on my Lord of Straffords motion Where this was spoken He Answered It was in my Lords own house in Leister-fields he thinks and there were present three more Sir William Parkhurst Mr. Gogan and himself and my Lord Cottington was also there Henry Gogan Sworn and Interrogated What he heard my Lord of Strafford say when he attended him about the abusing of the Coyn He Answered That after the Coyning of the Base Money was thought on there were Queries made
ad fidem legem Angliae The Irish without the Pale were enemies always either in open act of Hostility or upon Leagues and Hostages given for securing the Peace and therefore as here in England we had our Marches upon the frontiers in Scotland and Wales so were there Marches between the Irish and English Pale where the Inhabitants held their Lands by this tenure to defend the Countrey against the Irish as appears in the close Roll of the Tower in the 20th year of Edw. 3. membrana 15. on the backside and in an Irish Parliament held the 42 year of Edw. 3. it 's declared That the English Pale was almost destroyed by the Irish enemies and that there was no way to prevent the danger but only that the Owners reside upon their Lands for defence and that absence should be a forfeiture This Act of Parliament in a great Council here was affirmed as appears in the close Roll the 22 year of Edw. 3. Membrana 20 dorso Afterwards as appears in the Statute of 28 Hen. 6th in Ireland this Hostility continued between the English Marches and the Irish Enemies who by reason there was no difference between the English Marches and them in their apparel did daily not being known to the English destroy the English within the Pale Therefore it is enacted that every English-man shall have the hair of his upper Lip for distinction sake This hostility continued until the 10th year of Henry the 7th as appears by the Statute of 10 H. 7th and 17th so successively downwards till the making of this very Statute of 11 Eliz. as appears fully in the 9th Chap. Nay immediately before and at the time of the making of this Statute there was not only enmity between those of the Shire-ground that is the English and Irish Pale but open War and acts of hostility as appears by History of no less Authority than that Statute it self for in the first Chapter of that Statute is the Attainder of Shane Oneale who had made open War was slain in open War it 's there declared That he had gotten by force all the North of Ireland for an hundred and twenty miles in length and about a hundred in breadth that he had mastered divers places within the English Pale when the flame of this War by his death immediately before this Statute was spent yet the Firebrands were not all quenched for the Rebellion continued by Iohn Fitz-Gerard called the White Knight and Thomas Gueverford this appears by the Statute of the Thirteenth year of Queen Eliz. in Ireland but two years after this of the Eleventh year of Queen Eliz. where they are attainted of High Treason for levying of War this Eleventh year wherein this Statute was made So that my Lords immediately before and at the time of the making of this Statute there being War between those of the Shire-grounds mentioned in this Statute and the Irish the concluding of War and Acts Offensive and Invasive there mentioned can be intended against no others but the Irish Enemies Again The words of the Statute are No Captain shall assemble the people of the Shire-grounds to conclude of Peace or War Is to presume that those of the Shire-grounds will conclude of War against themselves Nor with the Statute Shall carry those of the Shire-grounds to do any Acts Invasive by the construction which is made on the other side they must be carried to fight against themselves Lastly The words are That as Captain none shall assume the Name or Authority of a Captain or as a Captain shall gather the people together or as a Captain lead them the offence is not in the matter but in the manner If the Acts offensive were against the Kings good Subjects those that were under Command were punishable as well as the Commanders but in respect the Soldiers knew the service to be good in it self being against the enemies and that it was not for them to dispute the Authority of their Commanders the penalty of 100 l. is laid only upon him That as Captain shall assume this Power without Warrant the People commanded are not within this Statute My Lords The Logick wherupon this Argument is framed stands thus because the Statute of the Eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth inflicts a penalty of 100 l. and no more upon any man that as a Captain without Warrant and upon his own head shall conclude of or make War against the King's Enemies Therefore the Statute of the Eighteenth year of Henry the 6th is repealed which makes it Treason to lay Soldiers upon or to levy War against the Kings good People But my Lords Observation hath been made upon other words of this Statute that is that without Licence of the Deputy these things cannot be done this shews that the Deputy is within none of the Statutes My Lords This Argument stands upon the same reason with the former because he hath the ordering of the Army of Ireland for the defence of the people and may give Warrant to the Officers of the Army upon eminent occasions of Invasion to resist or prosecute the Enemy because of the danger that else might ensue forthwith by staying for a Warrant from His Majesty out of England My Lords The Statute of the 10th year of Henry the 7th chap. 17. touched upon for this purpose clears the business in both points for there is declared That none ought to make War upon the Irish Rebels and Enemies without Warrant from the Lieutenant the forfeiture 100 l. as here the Statute is the same with this and might as well have been cited for repealing the Statute of the 18th year of Henry the 6th as this of the 11th year of Queen Elizabeth But if this had been insisted upon it would have expounded the other two clear against him Object My Lords it hath been further said although the Statute be in force and there be a Treason within it yet the Parliament hath no Jurisdiction the Treasons are committed in Ireland therefore not triable here Answ. My Lords Sir Iohn Parrot his Predecessor 24 Edw. was tryed in the Kings Bench for Treason done in Ireland when he was Deputy and Oruche in the 33 year of Queen Elizabeth adjudged here for Treason done in Ireland Object But it will be said these Tryals were after the Statute of the 34th year of Henry the 8th which enacts that Treasons beyond Sea may be tryed in England Answ. My Lords his Predecessor my Lord Gray was tryed and adjudged here in the Kings-Bench that was in Trinity Term in the 33 year of Henry the 8th this was before the making of that Statute Object To this again will we say That it was for Treason by the Laws and Statutes of England that this is not for any thing that 's Treason by the Law of England but an Irish Statute So that the question is only Whether your Lordships here in Parliament have cognizance of an offence made Treason by an Irish Statute
Westminster-Hall during the Trial 41 King 's little finger heavier than the loins of the Law see Art 2. 149 King's Letter on behalf of the Earl 757 Sir Robert King a Member of Parliament in Ireland sent for as a Witness against the Earl 4. L. LEtter to Sir Jacob Ashley and Sir John Conyers to prevent a Design to engage the Army against the Parliament 745 Letter from the King to moderate the severity of the Law against the Earl 755 Letter from the Earl to his Secretary Slingsby before his death 774 Loftus Lord Chancellor made a close prisoner see Art 8. 221 Twelve Lords send to His Majesty to shew favour to his innocent Children 758 M. MAriners a Bill to be drawn to enable the pressing of them 755 Members of Parliament in Ireland sent for by the Commons 4 5 6. A Committee touching the Examination of Members of both Houses named 14 15 16 Members make a protestation of Secresie 16 Four Members viz. Mr. Selden Palmer Maynard and Whitlock added to the Committee for the Earl who made their Protestation of Secresie 32 Members appointed to view the place of Trials 39 Members desired by the Earls Petition to be heard as Witnesses 40 Some Members of the Lords House desired by the Commons to be made use of as Witnesses 44 Members names of the House of Commons whom the House desires to be present at the Trial as Witnesses 44 Message from the Lords for a Conference by a Committee of Thirty of their House with a proportionable number of this House touching the examination of Members c. 10 Message to the Lords about disbanding the new levied Irish Army 42 Message to the Lords to appoint a day for the Earl to conclude his Trial 44 Both Houses agree that if the Earl come not to morrow the House of Commons may sum up their Evidence and conclude 45 Message to acquaint the Lords that the Proceedings by Bill stand in no way of opposition to what hath been already done 48 Moneys without Parliament to be raised by force see Art 21. 516 Monopoly made of Tobacco see Art 12. 402 Sir Walter Montague Sir Toby Mathews c. to be removed from Court 42 Lord Montnorris his Case of Ireland to be reported by the Committee Montnorris sentence of death pronounced against him see Art 5. 186 Sentence read 187 Concerning his being put out of possession of his Freehold see Art 6. 205 Multitudes of people assembled in Westminster 742 Petition from them desiring Iustice against the Earl communicated to the Commons ibid. They depart upon the Lords taking the Protestation 742 N. LYsimachus Nicanor his scandalous Pamphlet Printed 770 Earl of Northumberland made General of the Royal Army in England upon whose sickness the Earl of Strafford was made Lieutenant-General Anno 1640. 769 Earl of Northumberland communicates Mr. Percies Letter to the Peers 748 Earl of Northumberland Lord High Admiral of England 769 O. OAth contrived against the Scots in Ireland see Art 19. 489 The like to the Scots in England 503 Offensive War against the Scots urged by the Earl see Art 20. 515 A Troop of Reformed Officers to be disbanded 15 Officers c. Warrant to them see Art 9. 236 P. PAper posted up at Sir William Brunkards House in the Old Palace-yard declaring the names of many persons to be enemies of Iustice 59 Parliament in Ireland declare against the Scots see Art 22. 517 People assemble in multitudes at Westminster 742 Petitions Orders and Books of Entries of Impositions c. sent for out of Ireland 8 Petitions and Complaints of proceedings in Ireland reported 10 Petition of the Parliament of Ireland to the King read 15 Petition of the Earl to examine some Members of this House read 40 Two Petitions of the Citizens of London read 55 One of them concerning Grievances inserted 56 Petition from a multitude of people at Westminster desiring Iustice against the Earl communicated to the Commons 742 A discovery in the Petition of Soldiers to be brought into the Tower ibid. Father Philips's Letter to Mr. Walter Montague read 751 He is called to the Bar and is impeached 752 Mr. Piercy's Letter concerning the Plot 748 to 750 Mr Piercy and Sir John Suckling voted to be guilty of High Treason 754 Plot discovered in England 735 Upon which the House resolves on a Protestation ibid. Preamble thereunto ibid. The Protestation read 736 Names of the Protestors 736 to 740 The Plot still suspected to be carried on 740 Ports in Ireland to be open 46 1500 Barrels of Powder gone to Portsmouth to be stayed 740 Lord Primate of Ireland his Examination debated 44 Proceedings by way of Bill no way in opposition to what hath been already done 48 Proclamation to issue out against Sir George Ratcliffe if he appear not at the day limited 16 Proclamation by the Earl commanding the Nobility to reside in Ireland see Art 16. 460. Protestation of Secresie taken by the Members 16 The same taken by the four Members added to the Committee for the Earl 32 Protestation of the Lords denying that they did approve of the Earls raising Money in Yorkshire 37 38 Protestation resolved on by the House upon the discovery of the Plot in England 735 Carried up to the Lords to take the same 741 Mr. Hollis's Speech to the Lords to promote the taking thereof 742 The Protestation taken by the Lords and the multitude depart ibid. Q. THe Queen came to her private Closet in Westminster-Hall during the Trial 41 Queen-Mother apprehending her self in danger of the Multitude Mr. Martyn moved the House that she may depart the Kingdom 758 R. LOrd Ranelaghs debate about his Examination 174 Not to be examined 175 Sir George Ratcliffe not to speak with or write to the Earl of Strafford 15 A Proclamation to issue out against him if he appear not at the day limited 16 Articles of High-Treason voted against him 17 Records of Attainder a Committee appointed to search those Cases in the Kings-Bench 7 Reformado-Officers to be disbanded 15 Remonstrance of Ireland reported by Mr. Whistler 7 Remonstrance of the House of Commons in Ireland read 11 12 13 114. No Replication to be put in to the Earls Answer 32 Strafford A Committee of Irish Affairs of the whole House designed in order to his Accusation 1 He is in a great Dilemma in the North 2 His intended Impeachment of some Members disappointed ibid. He is accused of High-Treason 3 Sequestred from the Parliament and Committed to the Black Rod ibid. Examination of Witnesses to be taken previous to his Tryal in the presence of some of the Commons 6 Records of Attainder in the Kings Bench to be search'd in order to a Bill of Attainder 7 Irish Remonstrance reported which reflected on his proceedings in Ireland 7 and 10 Petitions Orders and Books of Proceedings upon Paper-Petitions and of Entries relating to the Custom-House in Ireland sent for 7 8 Articles in maintainance of the Accusation of the said Earl 8