and that they are notorious and known for truth unto the Lords and all the People of the Realm And the Lords also having examined these Articles said all these things contained therein are notorious and known They speak not a word of any one witness examined or any other proof then the common fame For this Cause and for that the said Earl was not brought to Judgment nor to answer but condemned unseen and unheard upon common Fame only without any legal Proof The whole Parliament did very justly Repeal the said Judgment and Record declaring it to be erronious and defective in all points And the Lords were willing to damn the whole Record in all points least haply it might be alledged against themselves another time for Precedent Anno 15. E. 2. The Lords and Commons joyned in the Accusations against the Spencers and for that the Lords had no Record in their own pursuit upon the Cause contained in their award and they ought not to be their own Judges c. having been Accusors no exceptions were taken to the Articles but other Errors assigned quod vide where it is said to be sans Accusament so that they repealed it not for that there was no Accusation but for that he was not brought to his Answer Again That those words Sans accusament should simply signify no Accusation is only the Averment of the Petition The Judgment doth not say that there was no accusation but that it was erronious in all points And so it was no proof being produced but common Fame to prove the Answer And this first error bred a second I do not well understand the meaning of these words Sans accusament That a Peer ought to be Indicted for Capital offences in Parliament But having perused all the Judgments I do not find any one Peer indicted in Parliament In 11. R. 2. Numb 7. All the Lords Spiritual and Temporal claimed as their liberty and franchise that the great matters moved in this Parliament and to be moved in other Parliaments in time to come touching the Peers of the Land ought to be admeasured adjudged and discussed by the course of the Parliament and not by the Civil-Law nor by the Law of the Land used in the more base Courts of the Realm which the King granted in full Parliament eodem Anno Rot. Appeal 290. This is said to be their ancient custom viz. To be adjudged according to the use of the Parliament only Then no Peer can be indicted in Parliament for that it is contrary to the use of Parliament Let this suffice for the confession and rectifying mine own former Error herein But a Lord of Parliament may be indicted out of Parliament and by the Kings command proceeded against in the next Parliament upon the same indictment as in these Subsequent In the same Parliament the Lord Berkley was arraigned for the death of Ed. 2. and whether out of his humility or otherwise he waved his Peerage and put himself on the Tryal of his Country the Articles against him though not expressed but by the Inference out of his Arraignment are for the murder of King Ed. 2. at Berkley Castle in the County of Gloucester unto which he answered that he was then sick at Bradley in Worcestershire and pleaded not guilty of the death of the said King Et de hoc de bono malo ponit se super Patriam The Precedent shall hereafter be added at large It begins thus Placita Coronae tenta coram Dom. Rege Ed. 3. post conquestum Angliae in pleno Parliamento suo predicto Et allocutus de hoc quod cum Dominus Edwardus nuper Rex Angliae Pater Dom. Regis nunc in custodiam Thomae cujusdam Johannis Matrevers extitit deliberatus ad salvo custodiendum Castro ipsius Thomae de Berkley in Com. Gloucester in eodem Castro in custodia ipsorum murderatus extitit interfectus qualiter se velit de morte ipsius Regis acquietare dicit c. Numb 16. Then follows his Answer Here the cause why the Lord Berkley was tryed is mentioned but the Articles objected against him and by whom he was accused who questioned him whether the Chancellor or Steward of England or who else All these circumstances are omitted It appears not I say in what manner this crime of the Lord Berkley was presented to the Lords whether by the former general Information against Mortimer autres de la Covyn or by some such Particular Information against him alone which I rather believe Some such Information there must be of necessity else how could he be question'd for his crime in Parliament But here it appeareth that the Lords brought him to his Answer which they omitted to Mortimer and in that Point their Proceedings against Mortimer were erronious And had his manner of Accusation been erronious also No doubt but the Lords would have avoyded that error now against Berkley The manner how Berkley was arraigned here in pleno Parliamento is explained in the Precedent of 1 R. 2. Gomeniz and Weston who were brought Prisoners by the Constable of the Tower before the Lords in full Parliament sitting in the white Chamber where they were arraigned at the commandment of the said Lords in full Parliament by Sir Richard le Scroop Knight Steward of the Kings House The words full Parliament signify the Lords and Commons For that Record saith the Commons prayed that all such that have surrendred any Forts c. might be put to their Answer before the Lords and Commons c. Whereupon they were brought to their Answers in full Parliament for that Offence So here I conceive the Lord Berkley being accused by the King for the murder of King E. 2. was brought before the Lords and Commons For the Commons are to be present at such arraignment as shall be shewn hereafter and the Clerk of the Crown having read the Accusation against him Allocutus fuit That is the Lord Steward of England recited the Fact whereof he was accused and demanded of him how he could acquit himself This I conceive to be the manner thereof Vide the Appeals 21 R. 2. for the form thereof I marvel the Lords permitted the Lord Berkley to wave his Peerage and put himself super Patriam Anno 4 R. 2. Sir Ra. Ferrers Knight was brought into Parliament under the guard of the Marshal of England and there arraigned on the Kings behalf for suspition of Treason c. Numb 21. In the Process against him is recorded that for suspition of Treason surmised against him he was arrested in the Marches of Scotland by Monsieur de Lancaster and other Lords Temporal there being in the said Marches and that he was brought under the said Arrest by commandment of the Lords to Answer in this Parliament to that which shall be surmised against him in special concerning certain Letters which were found and sent to the King and his Councel The Letters
and Judges I have observed four manner of Accusations in Parliament 1. First by the Commons either by their Complaints or their Impeachments 2. Secondly by Information Ex. parte Dom. Regis 3. Thirdly by Complaint of private Persons 4. Fourthly by Appeal of some of the Lords in Parliament which was abolished p. Stat. 1. H. 4. c. 14. The Accusation of the Commons The manner of Accusation ought to be by the Commons alone and not by the Lords and them together for so Earls Prelates Barons and other Peers of the Land and Commons of the Realm did accuse Hugh de le Spencer 15 E. 2. and one of the Errors assigned for the Reversal was that the Lords had no Record before them of the Causes contained in their Award vis Rot. claus 15 E. 3. in the Parliament at York The Reasons may be because the Lords joyning in the Accusation with the Commons have declared their opinion of the Fact and there needs no further Tryal thereof Wherefore the Lords who are only Judges may neither accuse any to themselves nor joyn in the Accusations with others The complaint of the Commons is either by Petition or demand in general or by Impeachment in particular which is their Declaration against the party accused Precedents of their Complaints by Petition are Anno 21 E. 3. n. 38. The Commons complain of Extortion used by certain Merchants who were Farmers of the Kings Customs of Wools not naming the Parties for which they pray remedy and that the said Merchants may be put to their answer in this Parliament for such outrage and distress done to the people Which Petition is thus answered Let the Merchants be called into the Parliament Et oient lour Respons In codem Parl. n. 49. The Commons in another Petition complain That whereas diverse aids have been granted to the King for his Wars certain Merchants by confederacy between them and in manner of usury have bargained for the same to the Kings great loss and the grievance of the Commons c. His people pray these Particulars may be examined in presence of some by the said Commons deputed by good wise and Loyal men during the Parliament The King shall assign some of the Sages of his Council to hear and determine the things contained in this Article And if any of the Commons can inform the King for his profit of any of the Points herein contained let him put it in certain and he shall be heard to the end that Right and reason may be done And the Justices which shall be assigned to enquire of false Mony shall have power to enquire of the excess of such Ministers Though these complaints were general yet they pointed so directly to the Parties accused that John de Worsenham and Walter de Chairton did exhibit their Petitions also in their own defence desiring to come to their Answers What further proceedings were herein is not recorded The Commons were directed to impeach the Parties whom they accused If any of the Commons can inform c. Let him inform in certain and he shall be heard c. So that although the Commons accusation by complaint be general yet if the complaint be received and the Parties brought to answer the Commons may then impeach the said Parties viz. declare against them in special and then the Suit is theirs prout Anno 50 E. 3. against Lyons Ellis the Lord Latimer the Lord Nevile Peecher and others But if the Commons do only accuse by any way of complaint whatsoever and do not declare in special against the Party accused then the Suit is the Kings and the Party is to be arraigned or otherwise proceeded against by commandment Ex parte Dom. Regis prout Gomeniz Weston and Alice Peirce 1 R. 2. Anno 1 H. 4. The Commons pray the Lords Apellants in the 21 R. 2. may be put to their answer and so they were 10 Placit Coron of that Parl. n. 1. 2. 3. c. Anno 29 H. 6. The Commons pray that the Duke of Somerset the Dutchess of Suffolk the Bishop of London and many others may be abandoned from the Kings Presence during their lives and not come within twelve Miles of the Court for that the people spoke evil of them The King of his own meer motion is contented that all shall depart unless they be Lords and a few of them whom he may not spare from his presence and so to continue one year to see if any man can misprove them n. 6. inter Petitiones Communium For this was no Accusation for the Commons did not require they might be banished the Court. Anno 38 H. 6. The Commons among their Petitions accuse the Lord Stanley of sundry Particulars as to be of confederacy with the Duke of York and pray he may be committed to Prison The King will be advised Primo Jac. 26 Maii. The Commons by message accuse the Bishop of London for words spoken of them in the upper House Of the other kind of complaint by way of demand I have seen these two Precedents only Anno 1 R. 2. The Subsidy to be treated upon between the Lords and Commons as the manner then was The Commons delivered to the Lords a Schedule of their demands to be dispatched before Treaty should proceed Amongst which one was That all such who without Cause have lost or given up any Castle Town or Fortress to the dishonour of the King and damage of the People may be put to their Answer before the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament The Complaint herein is general They accuse such as had delivered up Castles c. if it be an Accusation But they name not the Parties yet two Delinquents hereupon who were Imprisoned in the Tower for delivery of Castels c. were put to their Answer viz. Gomeniz and Weston Anno 7 R. 2. The Commons grant a Subsidy according to the Tenor of a Schedule indented delivered in Parliament requiring it may be enrolled in the Parliament Roll verbatim in which Schedule is this Protestation That it is not their meaning to grant the said Subsidy without the Conditions ensuing Inprimis That the Clergy make the like Grant Item That the Bishop of Norwich and others be compelled to answer such Sums as they have received for Service by them undertaken and not performed c. Numb 13. Here the Commons name one of the Parties against whom they complain but they impeach him not and yet he and divers others were censured on that general demand Of the Impeachments of the Commons there be these Precedents Anno 50. E. 3. The Commons having granted the Subsidy they protested their good will and firm purpose to aid the King and said That it seemed to them for truth that if the King had always about him Loyal Subjects good Councellors and faithful Officers he had been rich in Treasure and needed not have charged his Commons with Subsidies
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
that whereas he being Chancellor was bound by Oath to further the King's Profit and Commodity in all things He notwithstanding contrary to the said Oath and not regarding the King 's great necessity had purchased of the King Lands and Tenements to a great value procuring the same by reason of his Office to be Surveyed at an under value 2. Item Whereas at the last Parliament nine Lords were appointed to see and examin the State of the King and Realm which being done and their Advice delivered to the King as well by word as writing by what means the same might best be remedied The Chancellor promised in open Parliament that the same should be put in Execution which was not done through his default he being a Principal Officer 3. Item Whereas the Subsidy granted the last Parliament was appointed by the assent of the King and Lords in what sort it should be expended and not other ways employed in this was his default he being Principal Officer 4. Item Whereas John Tidman had a certain Annuity from E. 3. which he had since forfeited and the payment thereof was discontinued for the space of 20 or 30 years The said Chancellor knowing this purchased his Interest and procured the King to confirm the same unto him c. 5. Item That whereas the great Master of St. Antony being a Schismatic had thereby forfeited to the King all his Revenue within this Realm the same Chancellor had taken the same to Farm of the King for 20 Marks And whereas the Master should have livery thereof again he could in no wise get the same until he had bound himself to pay 100 l. yearly to the Chancellor and his Son 6. Item That during the time of his Chancellorship there had passed divers Charters of Pardon as well for Murders Treasons and Felonies as also for rasing of Rolls and imbezelling of Laws and Records and especially since the beginning of this Parliament a Charter of Franchises was granted to the Castle of Dover to the disinheritance of the Crown and to the Subversion of all the Places and Courts of the King and his Laws 7. Item That at the last Parliament divers Sums were allotted for the defence of the Town of Gant notwithstanding the same Money was lost c. by his default c. Of all which Articles the Commons demand Judgment of the Parliament c. I have been long upon this considering all the Precedents follow at large These are the most formally set down of all the Accusations hitherto of the Commons yet most of these are very general and uncertain Howbeit the Chancellor took no exceptions to the insufficiency thereof but answered to every particular The next Accusation of the Commons is 11 R. 2. in the 21. of the King they accused divers of those whom the Lords had first appealed whereof when we speak of all Appeals Anno 21 R. 2. the Commons accused and impeached of Treason the Archbishop of Canterbury Numb 15. and demanded Judgment against him and had it Numb 16. Eodem Parl. The Commons accused and impeached of Treason Tho. Mortymer and John de Cobham a Baron of Parliament and had Judgment against them both Anno 28 H. 6. William de la Pool Earl Marshal and Duke of Suffolk was accused and impeached by the Commons in manner following viz. The Duke being the great Favorite of the King and Queen the common People laid all the fault of the evil Government on him and made Ballads thereof which I have seen taxing his Loyalty to the King The Parliament of 28 H. 6. begun the 6th of November and held to the 6th of December and was then Prorogued to the 22th of January The Duke of Suffolk whether provoked by the Ballads then made on him or by some Speech in the House of Commons whereof nothing is recorded did require of the King that he might be specially accused and be heard to answer for that many reported him to be an untrue man and he made a solemn Protestation of his Loyalty wherein he sheweth that his Father and three of his Brethren died in the Service of the King and of his Father and Grandfather That he himself had served 34 years in the Wars being then but a Knight That he had been taken Prisoner and paid 20000 Marks for his Ransom That he had been 30 years of the Order of the Garter Chancellor to the King 15 years and had been 17 years in the King's Wars without returning home And he prayed God so to pardon him as he had been true to the King and required his Purgation Numb 14 15. Whether this was sent to the Commons or what notice they had of it appears not but on the 2th of January the Commons required the Duke might be committed to Ward for his own Confession for that as I concieve he himself confessed That the general Fame went of him And the Lords on Consultation of the Justices thought the same to be no good Cause of Commitment unless some special Matters were objected against him Numb 16. On the 28th of January the Speaker declared to the Lords how the Duke of Suffolk as it was said had sold this Realm to the French who prepared to come hither And that the said Duke for his own defence had furnished Wallingford Castle with all Warlike Munition And then on request the Duke was committed to the Tower On the 7th of February the Chancellor and some other Lords were sent by the King to the Commons a thing not usual but wherefore they were sent is not expressed happily to be informed what they could say against the Duke or to reconcile the business But the Commons delivered to this Chancellor and those other Lords a Bill of Articles against the Duke wherein they accused him of divers Treasons viz. For intending to marry his Son to the Heir of the Duke of Somerset and thereby for want of Issue of the King to claim the Crown For practising with the French c. Numb 18 19. and they require Prosecution against him Numb 17. March 19. The Commons delivered another Bill of less Offences against him Numb 28 29 30 c. requiring those Articles also to be inrolled and the Duke put to his answer These before recited are all the ancient Precedents I find recorded the following are of later times Anno 1 Jac. The Commons accused and impeached by word of Mouth Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Fr. Michell Knights for many Oppressions done to the People They impeached them to the Lords at a Conference and afterwards delivered their Declaration against them First Concerning a Patent for Inns and Osteries Secondly A Monopoly for Gold and Silver Thread Thirdly Concerning a Patent of Concealments Eodem Parl. They accused Francis Lord Viscount St. Alban at a Conference of Bribery and Corruption in his Office of Chancellor They delivered no Writing but a Committee of the Lords having considered the Proofs and drawn up
were also recorded and read in Parliament Numb 17. 18 19 20. but the Information exhibited against him whereupon he was arraigned is not recorded It is only said He was arraigned Ex parte Domini Regis §. 3. Here might be two Questions First Whether was this Sir Ra. Ferrers legally brought to his Answer in Parliament by the commandment of the Duke of Lancaster and those other Lords who were then with him in the Marches of Scotland Secondly Whether he being no Baron or Lord of Parliament for he never had Summons might be legally arraigned in Parliament for life and death upon an Information Ex parte Dom. Regis which is contrary to the Law as was resolved in Parliament 4 E. 3. Numb 2. and 6. For resolutions of these doubts I am of opinion that the Duke of Lancaster might send Sir Ra. Ferrers to the Parliament because it was then sitting and might examine the Treason whereof he was suspected though they could not proceed to Judgment against him without the Commons he being a Commoner and not their Peer And it fell out in the Examination of this business they found the Letters to be counterfeited and so he was acquitted thereof And so far their proceeding was not illegal For the Parliament may entertain and examine any Cause and then direct the Judgment thereof to its own proper Court if it belong not unto them as they did in 5 R. 2. Numb 43. 44. Here Sir William Cogan Knight being accused by Sir Richard Clurdon of matter sounding to Treason After the Lords had heard the Cause they remitted both the parties to the Common-Law And in this Case of Sir Ra. Ferrers if they had found he had been guilty they might have proceeded to Judgment against him according to the Precedent of Sir Tho. Mortimer in 2 H. 4. who was indicted in London and the Indictment returned into the Chancery and thence brought into the Parliament where the Commons affirmed the same and prayed Judgment against him Anno 2 H. 4. The Lords Temporal gave Judgment on one Tho. Holland Earl of Kent John Holland late Earl of Huntington John Mountague late Earl of Salisbury the late Lord de Spencer and Ralph Lumley who were beheaded in a War they had Trayterously raised against the King This Judgment is entred but not the Information Ex parte Dom. Regis which is necessary to be understood for had it been omitted his Son Thomas would without doubt have assigned that for one of the errors in his Petition to reverse the said Judgment 2 H. 5. apud Leicester which he did not though he assigned for an Error That his Father was put to death without an accusation In the Parliament begun at Westminster Feb. 6. 1 Car. 1. and continued until June 25. Anno 2. ejusdem Regis John Earl of Bristol was charged with High Treason in this manner viz. Primo die Maii. The said Earl of Bristol being brought to the Bar and kneeling till the Lord Keeper wished him to stand up The Lord Keeper told him he was sent for to hear his Charge of High Treason And Mr. Attorney General being at the Clerks Table began to open his Charge but being interrupted by the said Earl who with much importunity exhibited Articles against the Duke of Buckingham then present which as he said he conceived to be Treason and required of the Lords that his Testimony against the Duke and the Lord Conway against whom he then also delivered Articles might not be made invalid no more then the Charge against himself which he affirmes was procured by the said Duke yet notwithstanding the head of the Kings Charge were opened against him by Mr. Attorney and then the said Articles against the said Duke and against the Lord Conway were read And it was ordered by the Lords of the Parliament that the Kings Charge against the said Earl should be first heard and afterwards the Earls Charge against the Duke c. But yet so as the Earls Testimony against the said Duke be not prevented prejudiced hindred or impeached Secundo die Maii. The House was moved that the Earl of Buckingham might be indicted according to the Stat. of 35 H. 8. the Treasons committed being beyond the Seas as was objected and that being certified to both Houses they to proceed against him by Tryal of Peers But their Lordships did not resolve on the manner of proceeding Then the Houses were moved that Mr. Attorney might provide an Indictment against the said Earl to be returned to the House on Saturday next Maii 6. And if he doubt of the Form to confer thereof with the Judges And if any great difficulty appear to resort to their Lordships and acquaint them with it And it was ordered that Mr. Attorney proceed with the preparation but the Houses not to be concluded at their next meeting on Thursday And the Sub-Committee for Priviledges c. to search for Precedents in the mean time Die Jovis Maii 4. The Sub-Committee for Priviledges reported one onely President viz. the Tryal of the Earl of Northumberland 5 H. 4. which the Clark read unto them out of the Parliament Roll of that year Whereupon after long debate It was ordered first that Mr. Attorney prepare the heads of the Charge against the Earl of Bristol and to bring them in on Saturday next Secondly The Earl then to receive his Charge at the Bar. Thirdly That when the Earl hath heard his Charge the Lords will determine when he shall Answer But he is not to be inhibited if he will Answer presently Fourthly The Cause of the Earl of Bristol is to be retained wholly in this House After the Earls Charge is brought in and his Answer then their Lordships to proceed to hear Mr. Attornies proofs amongst themselves and then to put the Cause into a way of Proceeding in this House Die Sabati Maii 6. The Lord Keeper shewed how Mr. Atturney desired that in regard the House hath already heard the nature of the crimes objected against the said Earl of Bristol That the Clark of the Crown in the Kings Bench may attend the reading of the Charge here according to a Precedent of former times which was denyed in regard the Clark of the Crown in the Kings bench is no Minister of this Court And also for that it was ordered May 4. that this Cause was wholly to be retained within this House The said Order being read the Earl was brought to the Bar and the Lord Keeper commanded Mr. Attorney to read the Charge against him who read the same out of a Parchment ingrossed in Court-hand and signed by himself Ro. Heath It containeth diverse Articles of High Treason and other great Enormities Crimes Offences and contempts committed by the said Earl c. prout postea Thus much touching the Charge against the said Earl by Information in the Kings behalf A Question was demanded of me and others in private the last Parliament
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
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
King and then at a day the ancient use in such Cases was this The Lords considered of the Complaint and examined the Proofs produced by the Commons Then agreed on their Judgment and caused Proclamation to be made throughout England for the party to appear at a day else Judgment shall be pronounced against him with which the Commons are to be acqnainted before the Proclamations are sent for Then the Return of the Proclamations to be reviewed and examined and if any Errors be therein new Proclamations are to be made in the next Shire only for the party to appear at a short day If they find no Errors in the Return then Judgment is to be pronounced and not before Thus it was in 21 R. 2. in Thomas Mortymors Case c. In 7 H. 4. in the Earl of Northumberlands Case But there needed no Articles to be drawn up Ex parte Dom. Regis out of the Impeachment of the Commons for the Suit is theirs and not the Kings Touching the Lord Treasurer First the Commons did swerve from the Ancient Course in this they delivered not their Accusation in writing he being absent Had it been in the open House an Impeachment by word of mouth had been sufficient and the Suit had been theirs but it being at a Committee how could the Lord Treasurer take notice of their Impeachment wherefore the Lords of necessity did draw up a Charge against him out of their Accusation and then it became the Kings Suit and they were abridged of their power to reply or demand Judgment Prout in Weston Gomeniz Case 1. R. 2. And Alice Peirce ibid. Neither was it now necessary for the Commons to be acquainted with the Delinquent's Answer or any of the Proceedings for that they neither demanded he might be put to his Answer before the Lords and them nor impeached by word in open House nor in Writing One of which is required in an Impeachment And the Lords they varied in this that they did mingle other Complaints with these of the Commons when each should have been apart of it self prout 43 E. 3. Sir Joh. at Lees Case Neither did the Lords anciently use to omit any part of the Commons Complaint and Accusation as they did the Imposition on the French-Wines And the Articles of the Charge they sent to the Lord Treasurer ought to have been examined ex parte Domini Regis prout in the former Precedents of 1 R. 2. The next Precedent is 7 R. 2. upon the Demand of the Commons against the Bishop of Norwich and others §. 5. Of Accusation by Complaint of private Persons I do not remember any Precedent of this manner of Accusation for publick Offences unless the Parties Complainant be particularly interessed therein yet I doubt not but such Complaints have been and may be received and the Parties proceeded against in Parliament or else that High Court should not have so much Authority to receive Information pro Domino Rege from private persons as the Inferiour Courts have But what hath been done shall appear I will omit all Complaints of particular wrongs evcept it be of Bribery Extortion or Oppression in Men of Authority Anno 43. E. 3. William Latimer exhibited his Petition in Parliament unto our Lord the King and to his Council shewing that he had the Wardship and Marriage of the Heir of Robert Latymer by mean Grant from the King and held the same until Monsieur John at Lee then Steward of the King's House sent a Serjeant at Arms to bring them to London and commanded him being come not to depart without his leave upon payment of 1000 l. and afterwards would not give him leave to depart until he had surrendred the Body of the said Heir and the King's Patent unto him the said Monsieur John at Lee and thereupon the said John was put to reason before the Lords c. no. 20 21. and also the said John was put to reason before them for this When he was Steward of the King's House he caused divers to be attached by their Bodies some by Serjeants at Arms and some otherwise as W. Latymer and others to be brought before the King's Council c. n. 22. and also for executing the Authority of Steward out of the Verge n. 23. and also for discharging out of Newgate by his own Authority and against the Judges Commandment Hugh Levenham an Approver who had appealed several men of Felonies c. n. 24. and also that he being sworn by the King's Councel did bargain with Nicholas Levayn for the Mannor of Cainham in Kent which the faid Nicholas claimed to hold during the Minority of John Staynton whereas the said John at Lee knew the same was never holden of the King in Chief of the Castle of Dover n. 25. These be the Particulars wherewith the said John at Lee was Charged It appeareth W. Latymer accused him at the first but not the rest and I imagine that the Commons accused him of the Second and other Particulars for that they are said somewhat generally and are offences against the Liberties of the Commons and also for that divers of the Commons were present at the hearing And for the Fourth and Fifth Particulars I conceive the King's Councel accused him thereof for that one is an Offence against the legal Proceedings of Justice which then was that of the Approver viz. He which accuseth any one of Felony c. should remain in Prison as well as the accused until Trial. Of later times the Accuser puts in Sureties to prosecute and the other Offence is a partiticular wrong done unto the King in his Revenues And had any private person accused him of this their Petitions would have been recorded as well as Latymer's But the Lords proceeded against him upon Latimer's Accusation and then upon the rest severally and they did not mingle one with another Anno 50 E. 3. The Commons accused and impeached W. Ellis n. 31. and afterwards John Botheil and W. Cooper exhibited their Bills against him to this effect To their Thrice Redoubted King and to his Sage Councel sheweth John Botheil of London That the Monday next after the Ascention in the Fortieth Year of our Lord the King that now is a Ship of Scotland in Pruse was chased by Tempest into Likebread whereof the Master's Name is Henry Luce Charged with divers Merchandizes c. and that the same day one William Savage Clerk and Servant to William Ellis by Command of the said William took of the said Ship for the Merchandizes not discharged there 17 Nobles and a Last of c. and because that W. Ellis knew that W. Cooper was to come to the Parliament and shew these and other Grievances in aid of the Merchants and also to shew how the great Prices of Herrings might be amended in aid of the whole Realm the said W. Ellis by false suggestion caused the said W. Cooper to be Arrested and put in Prison in
of Men at Arms and Archers for which he accorded with the King and those he carried with him were not sufficient come Garcone autres lieux And yet he received full payment in deceit of the King and that by his default many Forts were lost in Britayn And also at his passing at Southampton his Men did much Mischief to the Country as if they had been Enemies To the First Touching the Buying of a Debt due by the King to the Lady Ravensholme he made a very good Answer and denied that he bought any Debt of Reignald Love for gain And the Commons being present desired that Love might be examined therein and he was examined and cleared the Lord Nevil thereof And thereupon Michael de la Poole and W. de Winged being present did expresly affirm That the said Love had acknowledged before him and many others the Day before That the said Lord Nevile had bought the said Debt for gain c. And the said Reignald Love replying to their Affirmation said That he never spake any such Words to them or any other Et tant est autres apres c. And soon after the said Knights and Commons affirming that the said Reignald did not only speak those Words but also prayed that it might be shewed in open Parliament the said Reignald confessed That c. and was therefore Committed c. Touching the Second Point The L. Nevile shewed That he made full Muster of his Men c. Touching the Third The Pillaging of Souldiers he said That he did none and if any were done let the Malefactors answer And unto this it was said by the said Lords of the Parliament That it was reason sith the King paid the Soldiers their Wages that the Souldiers should answer for their ill Deeds and the Captains should answer for themselves And thereupon the Commons prayed Judgment against the Lord Nevile and that he might be put out of his Office about the King Touching the Articles of the Lady Ravesholm It was awarded in Parliament That the Lord Nevile should make Restitution unto her Executors Quaere hoc That he be banished according to the quality of his Offence as others have been c. I have translated this of the Lord Nevil almost ad verbum it needs no Exposition The Commons were present at the L. Nevil's Answer and desired that one Witness whom he had brought with him and who gave them Information of the Complaint touching the buying of the King's Debts might be examined And examined he was in the presence of two Knights of the Parliament and they did contrary his false Answer and afterwards all the Commons came and testified against the Witness This is sufficient to prove That the Commons may Reply and are to be present at the Answer or have a Copy thereof sent them But the Commons did not Reply unto the Lord Nevil's Answer Touching the Pillaging of his Souldiers for ought appears the Lords Replied to that part Primo Car. 1. 6 Febr. The Commons impeached the Duke of Bucks and Declared against him in writing The Commons demanded a Copy of his Answer that they might Reply unto it and it was debated at a Committe whether the Commons might Reply or no which was resolved in the Affirmative upon view of Precedents and reported to the House and then a Copy was sent to the Commons Thus much touching Replication by the Commons Where the Articles against the Delinquents are ex parte Dom. Regis there the Commons cannot Reply nor Demand Judgment for the Suit is the King 's and not theirs Anno 10. R. 2. Upon Complaint of the Commons Jo. Lord Comeniz and W. Weston were put to their Answers but the Articles were exhibited de part le Roy. The Complaint of the Commons was general and though the Commons be there present at their Answer and Judgment yet they did neither Reply nor Demand Judgment The King's Steward before whom they were Arraigned Replied as shall appear by the Precedent at large In like manner the Commons demanded that the Bishop of Norwich and others might be put to their Answer and the Articles were drawn de part le Roy. And the Chancellor replied to their Answer the Commons not once interposing therein 5 R. 2. The Chancellor and Scholars of Cambridge accuse the Mayor Bayliffs and Commonalty of Cambridge of many Outrages and Misdemeanors They appeared and answered The King's Councel replied Numb 49. CHAP. IV. The next Considerable Part in Judicature after the Answer and Replication is the Proof by Examination First Of Witnesses THe Practice at this Day is to swear the Witnesses in open House and then to examine them there or at a Committee either upon Interrogatories agreed upon in the House or such as the Committee in their discretion shall demand Thus it was in Ancient Times as shall appear by the Precedents so many as they are They being very sparing to Record those Ceremonies which I shall briefly recite and then add those of later times Witnesses produced by the Commons Anno 15 R. 2. The Lord Latymer having answered to one of the Commons Complaints touching a Loan of 20000 Marks for 30000 Marks to be repaid whereof he said he was innocent It followeth thus immediately c. And thereupon it was certified in Parliament by Monsieur Rich. le Scroop the late Lord Treasurer to our Lord the King and by W. Wallworth of London That when the said Loan was made the said Walworth offered in the Name of the Staplers to lend the same and be repaid without Usury out of the Customs of Wool to Calice Whereto the Lord Latymer answered He never heard of that Proffer and others swore the said William Walworth did make the said Proffer to them Anno 15 R. 2. The Commons produced four Witnesses to prove their Complaints against Ellis Les queux Examinees in Parlement said c. And there I observe that two of those Witnesses had exhibited a particular Complaint against Ellis concerning a particular wrong done unto Merchants whereof the Commons complained and Ellis took no exception against them And afterwards being put to his Answer upon their particular Complaints for wrong Imprisonment c. Ellis said That they betrayed him as he was coming to London and so he caused them to be committed and the said Complainants affirmed the contrary upon Oath and it was testified expresly by divers sufficient men That c. agreeing with their Oath Eodem Anno John Peecher being accused for Extortion affirmed he retained it by the assent of the Mayor Recorder and of the greater part of the Aldermen and being examined in Parliament affirmed there That c. to the contrary and then Judgment was given Eodem Anno The Commons accuse Jo. Lord Nevil for buying the King's Debts of Reignald Love which the said Lord denied and the Commons desired that the said Reignald might be examined And the said Reignald being charged upon his Allegiance to
Conferences wherein his Majesty by Testimony becometh a Witness and in case the Earl should be convicted his Commission cometh to the Crown c. he desired their Lordships to put his Majesty in mind thereof for the declining his Accusation and Testimony 9 Maij These Questions were proposed to the Judges 1. Whether in Treason or Felony the King's Testimony is to be admitted or not 2. Whether Words spoken to the Prince who afterwards is King make any alteration in the Case And the Judges were to deliver their Opinion therein on the 13th Day of the said Month of May. And on Saturday Morning being the said 13th Day the Judges were desired to deliver their Opinions The Lord Chief Justice said They appointed to meet and to consider thereof and Mr. Attorney desired to know the time of their Meeting and before that time he brought them a Message from the King viz. That his Majesty was so sensible of his Honour that he would not suffer the Right of his Crown which may justly be preserved to be dampnified in his time That they might deliver their opinion in any particular Questions concerning the Earl of Bristol but not in the general Questions whereof his Majesty could not discern the consequence which might happen to rhe prejudice of the Crown Every particular Case varying according to the circumstances 4 E. 3. The Articles were read against Roger Mortimer and it followeth thus Wherefore our Lord the King doth charge our Earls and Barons Peers of this Realm That forasmuch as these touch him principally and all the People of this Realm That you do unto the said Roger Mortimer right and lawful Judgment such as appertaineth to such an one to have who of all the faults abovesaid is very guilty as he believeth And for that the said things are notorious and known to be true unto you and to all the People of the Realm This was all the Proof produced against Roger Mortimer The Lords hereupon judged him But afterwards Anno 28 E. 3. Numb 10. they reversed it as erroneous so that although the King's Testimony confirmed by the common Fame was 4 E. 3. received against Roger Mortimer yet it was afterwards adjudged Nul Accusament in the 28th of the said King E. 3. In that Parliament of 18 Jac. divers Witnesses were examined in open House in the Causes of Mompesson and the Lord Chancellor upon Interrogatories agreed on beforehand and divers at a Committee And it was resolved That none might be examined upon any thing that might accuse Whereupon the Earl of Southampton one of the said Committee signified That a Scruple did arise Whether Sir Ralph Horsey should be examined what Bribe he gave to the Lord Chancellor and upon the Vote it was agreed he should dissentiente Comite Dorset Eodem Anno The Lords did find that the Testimony of divers of the House of Commons was necessary touching the Complaint against Mompesson and therefore sent a Message to this effect The House of Commons before their Complaint exhibited against the Lord Cobham and Doctor Feild for a Bribe concerning Egerton's Case 18 Jac. examined one Davenport but not upon Oath The Lords when they had examined Davenport found that the Case was not so foul as he related it unto the Commons and therefore sent his Examination again unto them and then punished him for his false Relation CHAP. V. The Judgment FIrst Unto whom the Judgment belongeth and the King's Assent and of the Presence of the Spiritual Lords the Commons and the Judges Secondly The Judgment it self and by whom it was demanded and by whom rendred In making of our Antient Laws the Commons did Petere the Lords Assentire and the King Concludere So in Judgments on Delinquents in Parliament the Commons might accusare petere Judicium the King assentire and the Lords only did judicare §. 1. That the Judgment belongeth only to the Lords appeareth by all the old Records that I have seen prout 4 E. 3. against Mortymer The Earls Barons and Peers did Award and Judge by assent of the King c. 7 H. 4. In the Case of the Earl of Northumberland Protestation was made by the Lords That the Judgment belonged unto them only For the clearing of this Point That the Judgment belongeth to the Lords only vide the Protestation of the Commons 1 H. 7. which excludes the Commons from any Right thereunto viz. On Monday Novemb. 3. The Commons made their Protestation in manner as they did in the beginning of this Parliament and then further declared to the King That no Record in Parliament be made against the Commons That they are or shall be Parties to any Judgment given or hereafter to be given in Parliament Unto which it was then answered by the Archbishop of Canterbury by Command of the King That the Commons are Petitioners and not Demanders and that the King and the Lords have ever had and of Right shall have the Judgment in Parliament in manner as the Commons themselves have declared saving in Statutes to be made and in Grants of Subsidies and the like though to be done for the common profit of the Realm the King will have especially their Advice and Assent And that this Order be held and kept at all times to come This excludes the Commons from all Right to Judgment But whereas it faith the Judgments in Parliament belong only to the King and Lords That is to be understood touching the King's Assent only as apppeareth by the Replication of the Parliament in this Point in 2. H. 5. which was thus In the Parliament at Leicester 2 H. 5. Numb 11. Tho. Earl of Salisbury Petitioneth to reverse a Judgment in Parliament against John Earl of Salisbury his Father in 2 H. 4. and one of the Errors assigned was for that the Judgment was not given by the King but by the Lords Temporal only whereupon the Earls of the Parliament at the King's Commandment gave Copies of the said Judgment of 2 H. 4. and of the said Errors assigned unto the Kings Serjeants at Law then present Ad sequentem solutionem Juris Regni in hac parte avisarentur Super quod Servientes ad Legem crastino die Domino Regi ac Dominis Spiritualibus Temporalibus praedictis hoc in Parliamento petierunt scrutinium pro Domino Rege in hac parte Quibus dictum erat ex parte Domini Regis Quod ipsi procederent ulterius absque aliquo scrutinio habendo quoad declarationem judicium super supradicta c. And afterwards Day was given at the next Parliament which was held at Westminster eodem Anno 2 H. 5. In which Parliament the said Judgment of 2 H. 4. being examined and discussed at full videbatur tam dicto Domino nostro Regi quam etiam Dominis suis antedictis c. quod idem Judicium Declaratio praedicta versus eundem Johannem c. sunt fuerunt bona legalia
Parliament The Chancellor Answered before the Prelates and Lords In Offences Capital In 4 E. 3. The Earl of Kent was brought before the Counts Barons autres Grandees and Nobles en mesme Parlement c. for Treason dors Numb 38. Eodem Anno The Articles of Treason being read against Mortimer the King charged les Counts Barons les Peeres de son Realme to give Judgment And Judgment was given per les dits Counts Barons Peeres come Judges del Parlement Item The King commanded les dits Counts Barons Assembled in Parliament to give Judgment on c. and so were four others tried in the same Parliament all for Treason and not one word of the Prelates either when the Articles were read or at the Judgment 6 E. 3. Numb 11 12. Post Festum Sancti Gregorii The Parliament being commanded to consult of the keeping of the Peace and Punishment for the breaking thereof the Prelates departed pur ceo que aviz fuit dits Prelates que ne attinet pas a eux consuler de guard de la Pees ne de chastisament de tiel yet afterwards when they heard what was ordained touching those Malefactors for the apprehension of them by Hue and Cry c. to bring them before certain Commissioners to be tried according to Law the Prelates gave their Consents also to the Act and added also Excommunication by the Assent of King Lords and Commons Anno 10 R. 2. The Commons prayed That such as gave up Forts puissent estre a respons cest Parlement Et selon leur desert puis per guard les Seigniors Baronage And thereupon John Gomeniz William Weston were brought before the Lords aforesaid in full Parliament c. It is to be understood before the Temporal Lords for the Bishops are never comprized in the Word Baronage Anno 11 R. 2. Divers Lords and others being appealed of Treason other misdemeanors the Prelates absented themselves during the Tryal having first made Protestation saving their Right to be present in Parliament Regni more solito considerare tractare ordinare statuere definire caetera excercere cum caeteris Paribus c. Verum quia in praesenti Parliamento de nonnullis materiis agitur in quibus non licet nobis juxta Canonum Sacrorum instituta quomodo libet interesse Eo propter pro nobis nostrum quolibet Protestatur quod non intendimus nec volumus sicuti de jure non possumus nec debemus nec intenditur nec vult aliquis nostrum in Parliamento dum de hujusmodi rebus agitatur vel agitur quomodo libet interesse sed nos nostrum quemlibet in ea parte penitus absentare Jure Paritatis nostrae cujuslibet nostrum interessend in dicto Parliamento quoad omnia singula ibidem excercenda juris eorum quilibet statu Ordine in omnibus semper salvo Ad haec insuper protestamur nostrum quilibet protestatur quod propter hujusmodi absentiam non intendimus nec volumus nec nostrum aliquis intendit nec vult quod processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parliamento super materiis antedictis in quibus nec possumus nec debemus ut praemittitur interesse quantum ad nos nostrum quem libet attinet futuris temporibus quomodo libet impugnentur infirmentur seu etiam revertentur This was read in full Parliament and enrolled at the Request of the Commons I mean the Prelates by the Kings Command and assent of the Lords Temporal and Commons Here the Protestation saith de jure interesse non debemus but I think it intends that they could not be present by reason of the Common-Law and by reason of an Ordinance made at the Councell at Westminster in 21. H. 2. By which all Clergy-men were forbidden agitare Judicium sanguinis upon pain to be deprived both of Dignities and Orders For surely as I think they might otherwise have been present both by the Common-Law and by the Law of God But by such their long constant absence even from our first Parliaments upon Record The Lords Temporal have only heard and determined all matters concerning Capital offences which hath continued in them so long that it is become their Right c. So that now it will be a wrong unto them the Lords Temporal if the Bishops do any way meddle with such Judicatures either touching the Answers the Replyes the Proofs or the Judgement For where they may not adjudg they may not do any thing as a Judge that doth conduce to judgment And therefore as heretofore they would be absent Now they cannot be present whilst the Matter is in hand but are to be absent altogether dum de hujusmodi materiis agitatur For some or other matter may happen to be Voted in their presence concerning the Answer Replication c. or concerning the Form of Judicature herein And by the Voices of the Spiritual Lords that Vote may pass against the major part of the Temporal Lords who should sustain wrong therein Can they be present and not Vote I know that at all Assizes and Sessions divers of the Clergy are present till Judgment be given in such Cases but their Presence cannot prejudice the Judge at the Assizes by Vote as in Parliament And at Sessions the Lay and Clergy are equally in Authority to hear and determine Eodem Anno 11 R. 2. A Special Act passed at the Request of the Commons to make good those Appeals and Judgments notwithstanding that the Spiritual Lords pur benefit salvatioun de lour Estate Cap. 3. in Parl. Roll N. 28. This Act I conceive was occasioned by the Clause in the said Protes 〈…〉 of the Prelates Ad haec insuper Protest 〈…〉 c. quod processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parliamento super Materiis praedictis in quibus nec possumus nec debemus interesse ut praemittitur quantum ad nos attinet futuris temporibus non impugnentur c. For there is no such Act to make good any former Judgment notwithstanding their Absence And 2 H. 5. Upon the Petition of the E. of Salisbury the King Lords Temporal adjudged the Judgment against his Father in Parliament 2 H. 4. to be good notwithstanding that it was rendred without the consent of the Lords Spiritual which yet the said Earl alledged as Error in his Petition so that by the Judgment of the whole House neither the Presence nor Absence of the Spiritual Lords in necessary in such Judgments In 21. R. 2. The first Petition that the Commons offered was That before this time many Judgments and Ordinances made in the time of the Kings Ancestors in Parliament have been repealed because the Clergy was not present in Parliament at the making of the Judgments and therefore they desired that the Clergy might make a Proctor with a suffici 〈…〉 to consent in their wants 〈…〉 Things and Ordinances to be done in this
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