Selected quad for the lemma: england_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A53494
|
The second part of the Display of tyranny; or Remarks upon the illegal and arbitrary proceedings in the Courts of Westminster, and Guild-Hall London From the year, 1678. to the abdication of the late King James, in the year 1688. In which time, the rule was, quod principi placuis, lex esto.
|
Oates, Titus, 1649-1705.
|
1690
(1690)
|
Wing O52; ESTC R219347
|
140,173
|
361
|
of Vices and is a prophane lewd debauchee This Keeling is brought in as the first Witness against Mr Bateman tho' his Evidence touch'd him no more in Law than it did every of the Jury-men and it is remarkable Page 1. c. of the true Account c. that in the four Informations which he at several times gave in to Jenkins Mr Bateman is not so much as once named and yet we here find Keeling a witness against him The fore-mentioned bitter and malitious History doth likewise present us at large Page 34. of the true Account c. as it did Keeling's with the Information of Lee the dyer against Mr Bateman therein Lee swears that he told Mr B. a story he had from Goodenough of our Rights and Priviledges being invaded and that some Gentlemen had taken into consideration how to retrive them c. That Mr Bateman thereupon told him he must have a care and speak at a great distance that he was willing to assist if he could see but a Cloud as big as a Man's hand And that Mr B. told him that the Duke of Monmouth told him the said Mr B. that he was glad that he came acquainted with those Protestant Lords and that Mr B. assured Lee that the Duke was very right for the Protestant Interest and that we need not mistrust him And Lee added in that Information That Goodenough told him that they must seize the Tower and take the City and secure the Savoy and Whitehall and the King and the Duke The Case as to poor Mr Bateman was much altered between the time of Lee's giving the foregoing Information and this Tryal for at first the managers were for hanging Goodenough of whom the Author of the True Account pag. 55. saith that he with monstrous Impiety maintained and recommended the Murder of the King and the Duke as a pious design and a keeping of one of the ten Commandments and the best way to prevent shedding Christian Blood rather than Bateman and to that end Lee's main force was then bent against Goodenough but now it being found that Goodenough and the City Juries of that day could hang Alderman Cornish and Bateman and also Sr. Robert Peyton could they have catcht him the story of a Cloud as big as a man's Hand is expatiated and breaks in a dreadful storm upon Mr B. That of the Duke of Monmouth's being right for the Protestant Interest is now mightily improved and Bateman made to have said The Duke would engage in the business and had Honses in readiness c. And that he the said Bateman would take an House near the Tower in order to surprize it c. As matters were at first concerted the Evidence ran thus Goodenough told Lee that they must seize and secure the Tower the City the Savoy Whitehall the King and the Duke Now Lee swears and Goodenough backs him in it that all this discourse of seizing and securing c. proceeded from Mr Bateman To conclude the whole was a hellish Contrivance to destroy the most valuable men of the Age and with them the Protestant Religion and the wicked History I have mentioned is a lying most malitious Libel upon the great and noble Names and Families of the D. of Monmouth the Earls of Bedford Leicester Essex Shaftesbury Argyle and others and also upon the present learn'd Bishop of Salisbury and therefore seeing that Author doth not unwrite it 't is pitty that 't is not condemned to be burnt by the hands of the Common-Hangman And should it receive that deserved Sentence the Executioner is hereby advertised that he may find the Book in Custody unless escaped since the Prince of Orange's Landing and also in Irons it being affixed very fairly bound with a Chain not far from Newgate at Sadlers Hall with an Inscription on the Title Page The Gift of Mr Nott of the Pall Mall Remarks upon the Tryal of the Right Honourable Henry Lord. Delamere upon the 14th Day of January 1685. Before the Lord Jeffryes Lord High Steward on that occasion SOon after the defeat of the Duke of Monmouth in the Year 1685 a Proclamation was issued requiring my Lord Delamere to render himself which his Lordship accordingly did and upon the 26th of July 1685 the Earl of Sunderland Secretary of State committed him to the Tower for high Treason The Parliament sitting in November following the House of Lords began to enquire into his Lordship's case but were quickly after prorogued to the 10th of February following and never sate more The County Palatine of Chester did at that time furnish the Conspirators with as good Juries as could be pack'd in the City of London by Sr John Moore 's Sheriffs as is well known to the right honourable the Earl of Macclesfield my Lord Delamere Sr Robert Cotton and many other eminently deserving Patriots of Cheshire Thither was a Commission of Oyer and Terminer speeded and an Indictment was preferred against his Lordship before Sr Edward Lutwich Chief Justice of Chester and the Bill was readily found against him by a well prepared and instructed Grand-Jury Thereupon his Lordship was brought to Tryal before the Lord Jeffryes High Steward and the following Peers viz. Laurence Earl of Rochester Lord high Treastrer of England Robert Earl of Sunderland Lord President of the Council Henry Duke of Norfolk Earl Marshal of England James Duke of Ormond Lord Steward of the Houshold Charles Duke of Somerset Christopher Duke of Albemarle Henry Duke of Grafton Henry Duke of Beaufort Lord President of VVales John Earl of Mulgrave Lord Chamberlain of the Houshold Aubery Earl of Oxford Charles Earl of Shrewsbury Theophilus E. of Huntington Thomas E. of Pembrooke John E. of Bridgewater Henry E. of Peterborow Robert E. of Scarsdale William E. of Craven Richard E. of Burlington Lovis E. of Feversham George E. of Berkley Daniel E. of Nottingham Thomas E. of Plymouth Thomas Viscount Fanconberg Francis Viscount Newport Treasurer of the Houshold Robert Lord Ferrers Vere Essex Lord Cromwell William Lord Maynard Comptroller of the Houshold George Lord Dartmouth Master General of the Ordnance Sidney Lord Godolphin John Lord Churchill Who being called over and appearing the High Steward began thus My Lord Delamere you stand indicted of High Treason by a Bill found against you by Gentlemen of Great Quality and known Integrity within the County Palatine of Chester the place of your residence and the King has thought it necessary to order you a speedy Tryal My Lord if you know your self innocent do not despond A Complement which Jeffryes never put upon any Man before For you may be assured of a fair and patient hearing and a free liberty to make your full defence He then ordered the Indictment to be read which was to this effect viz. That my Lord D. as a Traytor against King James the second the 14th of April last conspired with other Traytors the deposing and death of the King and did
one is to the matter To the Form 1st The general Allegation that he was impeached de alta Proditione is uncertain it ought to have been particularly set out that the Court might judge Whether it be the same Crime and it is not helped by the Averrment 2dly Here is no Impeachment alledged to be upon Record They make a general Allegation that F. Harris was Impeached Impetitus fuit by the Commons before the Lords Quae quidem Impetitio in pleno robore existit prout per Recordum inde c. Now there is no Impeachment mentioned before And quae quidem Impetitio is a relative Clause and no Impeachment being mentioned before in the Plea there is nothing averred upon the Record to be continued or discontinued for Impetitio does not actively signifie the Impeaching or passively the Person Impeached but it signifies the Impeachment the Accusation which is to be upon Record Therefore when they say he was impeached and afterwards alledge Quae quidem Impetitio remains upon Record that cannot be good for the Relative there is only Illusive For the matter of the Plea 't is a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court There the point will be Whether a Suite depending even in a Superior Court can take away the Jurisdiction of an Inferiour Court which had an Original Jurisdiction of the Cause and of the Person at the time of the Fact committed I insist upon these Exceptions Mr Williams for the Prisoner then said I take these things to be admitted Mr Attorney having demurred generally 1. That the Prisoner stands Impeached 2. That the Impeachment is now in being 3. That this was done secundum Legem Consuetudiem Parliamenti and being so remains in plenis suis robore effectu And more particularly the Plea refers to the Record for the parts and Circumstances of the Impeachment prout patet per Record So that it refers the Impeachment to the Record and tells you 't is amongst the Records of that Parliament 4. Moreover That the Treason in the Impeachment and the Treason in the Indictment are one and the same and that this Person Fitz-Harris indicted and F. H. impeached are one and the same Person And withal it appears upon the Record that this Impeachment was depending before the Indictment found for the Parliament was the 21st of March and it appears this is an Indictment of this Term And further it appears not by any thing to the contrary in the Record but that this Parliament is still in being and then it must be admitted so to be Whether your Lordship now will think fit in this Court to proceed upon that Indictment is the substance of the Case I think it will not be denyed but that the Commons may Impeach any Commoner before the Lords That was the Case of Tresilian and Belknap in the time of Richard the second Vpon that Impeachment one of them was Executed and the other Banished in Parliament Mr Attorney allows the Parliament to be a Superior Court but says yet the Inferiour Court having Original Jurisdiction of the Person and Cause may proceed notwithstanding an Impeachment in Parliament I will shew how manifestly an Indictment and an Impeachment differ The Case of an Appeal is like the Case of an Impeachment An Appeal of Murder is at the suite of the Party and in this case 't is at the suite of the Commons t is not in the Name of the King but of all the Commons of England So that 't is like an Appeal and not like an Indictment an Indictment is for the King an Impeachment for the People It is not safe to alter the old ways of Parliament 't is out of the road of Comparisons when they will compare an Indictment and an Impeachment together It becomes not the Justice of this Court to weaken the Methods of Proceedings in Parliament Your proceeding upon this Indictment is to subject the Method of their Proceedings there to the Proceedings of this Court It is not fit that the Justice of the Kingdom and the High Court of Parliament should be crampt by the Methods of an Inferiour Court and a Jury The Parliament is the supreame Court and this Court every way inferiour to it and 't will be very strange that the Supreame Court should be hindred here For the highest Court is always supposed to be the wisest and the Commons in Parliament a greater and wiser Body than a Grand Jury of any one County And the Judges in that Court the Peers to be the Wisest Judges Will the Law of England suffer an Examination Impeachment and Prosecution for Treason to be taken out of the Hands of the greatest and wisest Inquest in England And will it suffer the Judicature to be taken out of the hands of the wisest Judges It stands not with the Wisdom of the Law or of the Constitution of the Government Another thing is this the common Argument in an extraordinary Case there is no Precedent for this way of Proceeding 'T is my Lord Cok's Argument 〈◊〉 Coke's Littleton fol. 108. and in the â—th Instit fol. 17. in the Case of the indictment against the Bishop of Winchester and of that against Mr Plowden He says 't is a dangerous attempt for Inferiour Courts to alter or meddle with the Law of Parliaments So in this case in regard it never was done from the beginning of the World till now it being without President there is no Law for it Another mischief which follows upon this is If you take this Case out of the power of the Parliament and bring it into this Court where the Offence may be pardoned you change the method of proceedings which make the Offence without consent of the Prosecutors not pardonable by Law This may be of dangerous consequence to the Publick by giving this Court a Jurisdiction and possessing it of these Causes expose them to the will of the Prince This way of proceeding inverts the Law in another thing 'T is a Principle that no man's Life is to be put twice in danger for the same thing If you proceed upon this Indictment and he be acquitted will that acquittal bind the Lords in Parliament If they may proceed upon the Impeachment then you invade every English-man's right and his Life may be brought in question twice upon the same account I take it to be a Critical thing now at this time to make such attempts as these are There are Lords now that lie under Impeachments of Treason if you goon in this do you not open a Gap that may be a ground to deliver them By the same Justice the Lords may be tryed by another Court This proceeding will have this effect it will stir up a Question between the Jurisdiction of this Court and the Parliament for in probability if this Person be acquirted the Commons and the Lords too will look into it If he be found guilty here is the Power of the Commons in Impeaching and the Jurisdiction of