House nor any Speaker of their Houâ—e that we find in History or Record till 51 E. 3. Therefore doubtlesse they had no judicial power or jurisdiction 4ly When they became a House and had a Speaker they could neither chuse their Speaker in any Parliament without a command to and license first granted them by the King Lord Chancellor or the person implyed by the King to shew the causes of summoning the Parliament who gave them a command to elect their Speaker and then to present him to the King and Lords for their approbation of him at the time prescribed them who had then power to allow or disallow their Speaker and to order them to elect another then or afterwards incase of unfitness sickness imprisonment or any other just ground or excuse as our Parl. Rolls and others attest If then the Commons can neither elect their own Speakers nor approve nor remove them but by the Kings and Lords approbation who may discharge them upon just grounds and order rhem to elect others in their places and that against their wills as in the case of Thorpe hereafter cited Then certainly the judicature in all other cases as well as this of their very Speakers and Members too resided still in the King and Lords and was not communicated to the Commons House 5ly The Commons House inability to administer an Oath to any person in any case which the Lords alone have power to doe in Parliament 6ly Their Petitions Articles of complaint and Impeachments in all Parliaments delivered and sent up to the Lords against Delinquents in Criminal causes as well of Commons as Peers Clergy men as secular persons and their praying the Lord to judge and give sentence against them 7ly Their prosecuting and giving in evidence against all sorts of Deliquents at the Lords Bar as accusers 8ly Their standing always in such cases and that bare headed in the Lords House as Prosecutors Informers Grand-Jurymen whiles the Lords alone fit and that covered and only give pronounce the iudgement and that in the Comons absence for the most part not presence 9ly Their having no voice or share at all in the hearing examining debating reversing erronious Judgements in other Courts upon Writs of Error brought in Parliament but the Lords alone 10ly The Kings Judges not sitting amongst them but only in the House of Peers to authorize and assist them in their judgements are all infallible arguments and clear irrefragable demonstrations that the Judicatory or judicial power of Parliaments was never communicated to the Commons House upon their first admittance into Parliament nor since but remained intirely fully in the King and Lords alone as it did before That this is so in truth I have the express acknowledgement and confession of the whole House of Commons themselves long since in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 79. remaining on record to all Posterity with the Kings and Lords concurrent resolution both from the time of the Commons first admission and for all succeeding ages The Commons in this Parliament November 3. made their Protestation in the same manner they had done in the beginning of the Parliament and more over shewed to the King Come les Ioggementz du Parlement apperteignent soulement au Roy et Seignieur et nient as Communes c. That the Judgements of Parliament appertained only to the King and to the Lords and not unto the Commons And thereupon they praâ—ed the King out of his special grace to shew unto them the said Iudgements and the cause of them that so no Record migâ—t be made in Pâ—rliamenâ— against the said Commons which are or shall be parties to any judgement given or hereafter to be given in Parliament without that privity Whereunto the Archbishop of Canterbury gave them this answer by the Kings commandment That the Commons themselves are Petitioners and demanders Et que le Roy et les seigniours de tout temps ont eues et averont de droit les juggement in Parliament en manere come mesmes les Communes sont monstrez and that the King and Lords from all times have had for times past and shall have for time to come of right the Iudgements in Parliament in manner as the Commons themselves have shewed Saving that in Statutes to be made â—or in Grants and Subsidies or in such things as are to be doâ—e for the common profit of the REALM the KING will have especially their advice and assent By this memorable Record in Parliament it is apparent by the Commons own confession First That the Judgments in Parliament even in cases of Commoners themselves and Members of the Commons House as well as Peers appertain only to the King and to the Lords in the Affirmative Secondly That they appertain not to the Commons in the Negative Thirdly A Confession both of the Commons King and Lords That they have from all times in all ages before that Parliament appertained to the King and Lords and that of right not by usurpation or connivence Fourthly An express order and resolution that the King and Lord shall alwayes kéep and hold this their Right of Iudicature in all times to come without admitting the Commons to share therein upon this their Petition as not fit to be granted them Fifthly That if the Commons should be admitted at any time to be parties or privies to the Judgements in Parliaments as they then desired it would be meerly out of the Kings special Grace Sixthly That the special reasons ends of the Kings summoning the Commons to Parliaments at the first and ever since were only these especially 1. to have their advice in Statutes to be made 2. in Grants or Subsidies 3. in such things as are to be done for the common profit of the Realm not to give them the least share right or interest in the Judicature or Judgements of Parliament as it is the supremest Court of Justice The Judicial Power and the Judgements in Parliament being never transferred in part or whole by the King and Lords to the Commons House but intirely reserved to themselves as before their admission inâ—o our Parliaments as I have proved it follows inevitably from thence 1. That all Judgements given by the Commons House alone or by any of their Committees of Sequestrations Examinations plundered Ministers c. without the Lords are meerly void and null in Law being Coram non judice and may be justly questioned and vacated by the Lords upon appeal or complaint as Nullities 2. That the House of Commons have no more right or power to judge or vote down the Lords House or question or null their Judgements upon appeals to the Commons from them as Lilburn and Overton pretend they may than the Grand or Petty Jury have to Vote down the Judges and Justices of Assize or Sessions from the Bench or to reverse or repeal their Judgements and Orders Or the Common Council of London to
praesenti supersit His horumque similibus regali facundia editis praefaâ—us Petrus assensum praebere utile judicavit annuit Quapropter larga regis munificentia magnifice honoratus nullo modo se quicquam antiquae dignitatis derogaturum immo ut dignitatis ipsius gloria undecunque augmentaretur spoâ—pondit plena fide elaboraturum Pax itaque firma inter eos firmata est qui Legati officio fungi in tota Britannia venerat immunis ab omni officio tali cum ingenti pompa via qua venerat extra Angliam a Rege missus est At Canterbury he perused the antient privileges granted to the Prelates by the See of Rome touching their superiority over York Quibus ille perspectis atque perpensis testatus etiam ipse est Ecclesiam Cantuariensem grave nimis immoderatum praejudicium esse perpessam quatenus hoc velocius corrigeretur â—e modis omnibus opem adhibiturum pollicitus est Post haec Angliam egreditur By all these Parliamentary Councils and Proceedings in them and the Kings answer to this Legate it is most apparent from the testimony of Eadmorus present at most of them and then antient Hiâ—orians 1. That they all consisted during all the reign of King Henry the 1. of the King Bishops Abbots Earls Lords and Barons without any Knights Citizens Burgesses or Commons elected by the people 2ly That not only the legislative but judicial power or judicature of Parliament in all civil ecclesiastical and criminal causes debated or judged in them resided wholly in the King Prelates Earls Barons and Nobles which they joyntly and severally exercised by mutual consent as there was occasion 3ly That our Kings Prelates Nobles were then all very vigilant and zealous in opposing the Popes usurpations upon the antient Liberties Privileges Customs of the king kingdom and Church of England 4ly That those Antiquaries and others are much mistaken who affirm the Commons were called to the Parliament of 16 H. 1. as well as the Peers and Nobles and that since that time the authority of this Court hath stood setled and the COMMONALTY had their voice therein which the said H. 1. GRANTED TO THEM in love to the English Nation being a natural Englishman himself when as the Normans were upon terms of revolt from him to his Brother Robert Duke of Normandie it being clear by these Histories and all the Parliamentary Councils under King Henry the 1. and under Hen. the 2. King Ric. the 1. King John and Henry the 3. forecited and here ensuing that there were no Knights Citizens Burgesses or Commons elected by the people summoned to our Parliaments in their reigns succeeding Henry the 1. therefore not in his 5ly That the Opinion of Mr. Cambden Judge Dodridge Jo. Holland Sir Ro. Cotton Mr. Selden and others is true that the first Writ of Summons of any Knights Citizens Burgesses or Commons to Parliament now extant is no antienter than 49 H. 3. dors 10.11 That King Henry the 3. after the ending of the Barons wars appointed and ordained That all those Earls and Barons of the Realm to whom the King himself should vouchsafe to send his Writ of Summons should come to his Parliament and none else but such as should be chosen by the voice of the Burgesses and Freemen by other Writs of the king directed to them And that this being begun about the end of Hen. the 3. was perfected and continued by Edward the 1. and his Successors Which Holinshed Speed do likewise intimate in general terms So that upon due consideration of all Histories Records and judicious Antiquaries it is most apparent that the Commons had no place nor votes by election in our Parliaments in Hen. 1. his reign noâ— before the latter end of King H. 3. and Ed. 1. who perfected what his Father newly before him began in summoning them to Parliaments This being an irrefragable truth as I conceive the next thing to be considered of is this whether the Commons when thus called and admitted by H. 3. and E. 1. into our Parliaments had any share right or interest in the judicature of Parliaments then granted to them either as severed from or joyntly with the King and Lords And if any share or right at all therein at what time and in what cases was it granted or indulged to them With submission to better judgements I am clear of opinion that the King and Lords when they first called the Knights Citizens and Burgesses to Parliament never admitted them to any share or copartnership with them in the antient ordinary Judicial power of Parl. in civil or criminal causes brought before them by Writ Impeachment Petition or Articles of complaint as they were the supreme judicature and Court of Justice but reserved the judicial power and right of giving and pronouncing all Judgements in Parliament in such cases and ways of proceeding wholly to themselves admitting them only to share with them in their consultative Legislative and Tax imposing power as the Common Council of the Realm thereby in cases of Attainder by Act Bill or Ordinance a part of the Legislative not ordinary judicial authority of Parliament allowed them a voice and partnership with themselves and a share in reversing such Aâ—tainders by Act Bill or Ordinance by another Bill or Sentence but in no cases else except such alone wherein the King or Lords should voluntarily at their own pleasures not of meer right requite their concurrence with them The Arguments reasons inducing me to this opinion and irrefragably evincing it are these 1. The Form of the Writs for electing Knights Citizens Burgesses of Parliament with the retorns and Indentures annexed to them which are only ad faciendum consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem de Communi Concilio dicti regni contigerint ordinari Which gives them no judicial power in civil or criminal causes there adjudged as the Writs to the Lords doe give to them by these clauses Ibidem cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus regni colloquium habere tractatum vobiscum c. colloquium habere tractare Personaliter intersitis Nobiscum ac cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus super dictis negotiis tractaturi vestrumque consilium impensuri and usage custom time out of mind 2. Because when first summoned to our Parliaments they were never called nor admitted thereunto as Members of the Lords house or as persons equal to them in power nor admitted to sit in the same Chamber as Peers with them but as Members of an inferiour degree sitting in a distinct Chamber from them by themselves at first as they have done ever since which I have elsewhere proved against Sir Edward Cooks and others mistakes as Modus tenendi Parliamentum it self resolves if it be of any credit 3ly Because after their call to our Parliaments in 49 H. 3. they had scarce the Name nor Form of an House of Commons or Lower
vote down the Lord Mayor and Aldermen and reverse their Orders and Judgements in their Court upon appeals unto them They being in nature of Grand Jury men and the General Inquisitors of the Realm to inquire of present and impeach transmit delinquents of all sorts in Parliament to the Lords House their only Judges Cooks 4. Instit p. 24. 3ly That the King and House of Lords are now of right and still ought to be the only true and proper Judges of all Parliamentary Causes and Controversies Civil Ecclesiastical or Criminal whether they concern Peers Clergymen or Commoners as they were originally before any Knights Citizens or Burgesses summoned to them To clear this from all Scruples and avoid mistakes I must inform you that there is a twofold way of proceeding and judgeing in Parliaments The 1. extraordinary and extrajudicial by way of Bill Act or Ordinance by the Legislative power alone such Bills Acts Ordinances ratifying only the precedent judgements of the Lords passed against Malefactors being not any proper actual Judgements in their own name This is evident by one of the first cases wherin the Commons after their admission into our Parliaments were made parties to a Judgement by way of Bill In the Parliament of 15 E. 2. there were sundry Articles of High Treason in accroaching royal Power in divers cases c. as likewise of misdemeanour and Breach of the Great Charter exhibited against the 2. Hugh Spencers both privy Counsellors of the realm which upon examination were found true BY THE EARLS BARONS OTHER PEERS OF THE LAND Parquoy NOVS PIERS DE LATERRE COUNTS BARONS en la presence nostre SEIGNOUR LE ROY AGARD que Sir Hugh le Despenser le Fitz Sir Hugh le Despenser le piere soient disheritz a touts jours come disheritours de la corone enemies du roy de son people que ilz soient de tout exiles hors du royalme Dangliterre sans retourner in nul temps si ceo ne soit de assent nostre Seignor le Roy de lassent DES PRELATS COUNTS ET BARONS et ceo en parlement duement somons Et les donons port a Dover nul parte aillours a voyder a passer hors du royalm Dangliterre enter cy la feast de sainct John le Baptist prochein avenir cest jour accompte Et si lesâ— it Sir Hugh Sir Hugh demurgent en le royalme Dangliterre oustre le dit jour que done lour est de voyder de passer come desuis est dist ou que apres le dit jour retournet adonques soit fait de eux come de enemies de roy de roialme This judgement being given against them in Parliament only by the Peers Earls and Barons in the presence of the King as the Close of the Act for their banishment and Clause Roll of that year recite thereupon there was an Act drawn up wherein all the Articles and the judgement given against them are recited for confirmation of this Judgement wherein the Prelates and Commons were made parties though not to the judgement it self beginning thus Al honeur de deiu c. luy monstrent Prelates Counts Barons et les autres Pieres de la terre COMMON de Royalm contre Sir Hugh c. To which Act the King much against his will to prevent a warr consented The History of the Lords proceedings against these Spencers is thus related by Walsingham There falling out a difference between Hugh Spencer the younger and Earl of Hereford about lands which Spencer purchased of William de Brews which the Earl desired to buy and had first contracted for but Spencer by his power at Court bought from him the Earl thereupon being much incensed complained of this injury to Thomas Earl of Lancaster qui allicientes caeteros pene cunctos Comites Barones in partem suam conjurationem fecerunt maximum ad vivendum moriendum pro justitia regni proditores pro viribus destruendis praecipue utrunque Hugonem de Spencer patrem scilicet atque filium quos odio inexorabili perstringebant eo maxime quia regem ducebant pro suae voluntatis arbitrio in tantum quod nec Comes nec Baro nec Episcopus quicquam valuit expedire in Curia sine horum consilio vel favore Omnium ergo livore persequebantur qui omnibus pene dominabantur quo plus crevit eorum gloria eo amplius contra illos crevit invidia quae semper accrescit abundantia aliorum Igitur Barones duce Thoma de Lancastria apud Shirborn in Elmedon convenerunt faederati prout dicitur juramentis astricti ad prosequendum propositum usque ad corporis animae divisionem Sed tamen pene cuncti praeâ—er Thomam de Lancastria Humfridum Comitem de Herefordia paucos alios ante finem negotii retrorsum abierunt prae timore mortis sese Regi dediderunt sed haec inferius plenius videbuntur Cumque Barones ut praefertur apud Shirburnam convenissent quosdam artirulos proscriptionem dictorum Hugonis Hugoniâ— composuerunt sed tamen vias juris et aequitatis in hac parte penitus omiserunt suorum pro tempore exequentes impetus animorum Nam illorum bona qui illis vel amicitia vel affinitate juncti fuerant furibunde invadebant capientes castra per violentiam vastantes praedia per malitiam perimentes famulos reperâ—os iâ— custodiis eorundem dolentes ob hoc tantummodo quod eorum personas capere quos oderunt minime potuerunt praedicta furia de die in diem vires sumente Barones vexillis explicatis ad sanctum Albanum veniunt per viam deripientes ubique victualiâ— pauperes terrae gravantes In hac comitiva fuerant quidam qui propter inveteratum odium monasterium sancti Albani dictique loci Monachos se gravaturos devoverant Sed tamen disponente Deo qui neminem temptari permittit supra vires horum magister autor tantae malitiae in villa de Alysbury priusquam ad sanctum AlbanuÌ„ attingeret morbo percussus irremediabili propriis seipsum descerpit manibus post duos dies miserabiliter expiravit Caeteri tam formidabili tremefacti vindicta casum pro miracuâ—o reputantes ab executione voti illiciti timore magis quam amore destiterunâ— Magnates vero apud sanctum Albanum cum suis armatis exercitibus per triduum perhen inâ—ntes miserunt solennes ad Regem nuncios Londoniis commorantem Londoniensem Sarisburiensem Eliensem Herefordensem Cicistrensem Praesules qui tunc apud sanctum Albanum convenerant pro pace reformanda mandantes ut dominus rex non solum suam vacuaret curiam sed regnum suum de regni Proditoribus Hugone Hugone le Spencer per communitatem terrae in multis condemnatis articulis exiliumque meritum subire permitteret si diligeret regni pacem Petierunâ— Barones insuper
de la foy le roy en cellez paâ— Pâ—r la ou le roy devoit pluis ost par reson avoyre vengee loure mort de pardonee contre fourme de parlement Ensy le dit Roger compassa devoyre destrut lez noryes le roy et lez secrettez le roy de queuz il se pluis aâ—ya Et susmyt al roy en presence la reyne sa miere et dez eveskes de Nichole et de Salusberye et autres de counsaile le roy qe lez avanditez secretez le roye luy exciterent destre la covygne dez enmys par de lay en destruccion de sa miere et del avant dite Roger La quela chose il affirma tant sour le Roy que le parole le Roye ne poet creu Et cele vendurdi deinz la nute qils estoient prisez a la myt nyt suant donke pur lez caulez susescriptes et molt dez autrez choses que ne sont pas ore a dyre touz si fist le dit roy prendre en la manere par eide et avisement dez priveez et nuriicz come il vous ad souent monstres Tunc propter causas subscriptas et multas alias quae jam non sunt recitandae ad praesens Rex praecepit Comitibus Baronibus et caeteris Magnatibus regui justum judicium ferre super praedicto Rogero Mortymere Qui omnes adinvicem consulentes venerunt dicentes quod omnes et singuli articuli superius de dicto Rogero attestati veri sunt et notorii et omni populo terrae cogniti et praecipuè articulus tangens mortem regis apud Berkeleye unde respiciatum est et adjudicatum quod praedictus Rogerus ut proditor et inimicus regis et regni distrastus sit et suspensus tertio kalend Septembris apud Londonias Cujus corpus duobus diebus et duabus noctibus nudum pendebat super furcas By these Articles it is evident 1. that it was adjudged high Treason in him to murther King Edward the 2. after his resignation of and deposition from the Crown by his own and a Parliaments consent How much more then to destroy murther him when an actual lawfull King when never deposed without and against his Parliaments consents and contrary to their resolutions protestations Covenants Oaths 2ly That to come with armed forces to any Parliament to over-awe force menace terrifie thereby and drive away any of the Members thereof from it and compel the rest to comply with or not to oppose what this armed party propounds or to put any Nobleman to death is a high and treasonable offence That Lords and other Members may justly depart from Parliament without doing any thing when there is any such force upon them Let Lilburn and others guilty of such Treasons sadly consider them and take timely warning by this president In the Parliament of 28 E. 3. n. 7. to 14. Roger Mortimer of Wigorn Cosin and heir to this executed Roger required by his Petition that the Act of his Attainder in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. n. 1. might be examined and for manifest Errors therein reversed whereupon the record was brought into Parliament and all the Articles Proceedings and Circumstances of his Judgement at large recited Which being read it was alleged that the judgment was defective erronious in all points not for the substance of his Charge for that the said Earl was put to death and disinherited by the Lords as Judges oâ— Parliament by the Kings command Sans nulle accusement et sans estre mesne au juggement au en respons without any accusation and without being brought to Judgement or to answer for which causes it was prayed That the said Statute and Judgement might be reversed and annulled For which causes Nostre Seignour le Roy et les dits Prelates Prince Duks Countz et Barons per accord des Chivalers des Counts et des ditz Comunes reâ—ellent et anientissent et pur erroigne et irrâ—t ajudgent les Records et Iuggements suis dits This Judgement whose reversal is also recited in Claus 28 E. 3. m. 7. 29 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 29. though given in Parliament being erronious and void in Law because given without any lawful accusation trial answer and arraignment of the party against the Great Charter and Law of the Laud which ought to be observed not violated by the Lords or Parliament it self in their Judicial proceedings In this Parliament of 28 E. 3. â— 13. Richard Earl of Arundel by Petition shewed that in the Parliament of 1 E. 3. touching the attaindâ— of Edmund Earl oâ— Arundel his Father a Statute was made without forfeiture albeit he was put to death and prayed that he may now be taken as heir of his Father and that Act reversed as erronious which being read and duly considered 〈◊〉 suâ—ceâ— oue bon deliberation et auys a graunt 〈◊〉 nostre Seigniour le Roy Prelates Prince Duk◠〈◊〉 Barons 〈…〉 il apiert clerement que le dit Edmund fuist non 〈…〉 a la mert et que parols recites eu le dit Statute touchant la mort et destruction de dit Edmund sont voydes erroignes et nulles Pur quoi nostre Seignior le Roy et les ditz Prelates Prince Dukes Countz eâ— Barons per accord des Chivalars des Counteâ— et des dites Commune ajuggent et agardent que la recitation et quelque est en le dit Statute touchant la mort et destruction du dit Edmund sont Voides erroignes et nulles c. et soint anientez et pur nul toutz a toutz jours The said Edmund being put to death without due proces or trial by his PEERS according to the Law of the Land and the Great Charter Therfore the Act confirming this erronious attainder was thus reversed repealed and nulled In these two last Records it is observable First that the King and Lords debated adjudged these Judgements and attainders to be erronious but because they were confirmed by Act of Parliament the assent of the Knights of Shires and Commons was required and had to their reversal as well as to the nulling and repealing of other publike Acts. In the Parliament of 50 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 21. to 31. William Lâ—d Latymer was accused by the Commons for divers oppressions by him done to the Kings people both during his command in Britain and also in the time that he was Chamberlain to the King and of his Council in levying divers sums of money for victuate and ransoms amounting to many thousand pounds for which he never accounted For the loss of sundry Foâ—s and Towns in Normandy and Brittain to the Enemy of which he had the command and partaking with Richard Lions in those illegal Impositions and misdemeanours whereof he was then impeached by them Whereunto the Lord Latymer saving the tryal of his Peers offered to answer any particular
but by Bill The 8th President that may be objected is this Adam de Arleton or Tarlton Bishop of Hereford in a Parliament held at London Anno 1322. was apprehended by the Kings Officers and brought to the Bar to be arraigned for Treason and Rebellion in aiding the Mortimers and others in their wars with men and arms where having nothing to say for himself in defence of the crimes objected and standing mute for a space at last he flatly told the King That he was a Minister and Member of the Church of Christ and a consecrated Bishop though unworthy therefore I neither can nor ought to answer to such high matters without the consent of my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury my direct Judge next after the Pope and of the other Fathers the Bishops my PEERS At which saying the Archbishops and Bishops there present rose up and interceded to the King for their Colleague and when the King would not be intreated they all challenged the Bishop as a Member of the Church exempt from the Kings Justice and all secular judicature The King forced thereunto by their claimors delivered him to the Archbishops custody to answer elsewhere for these crimes Within few days after being apprehended again and brought to answer before the Kings royal Tribunal in the Kings Bench at Westminster for his Treasons the Archbishops of Canterbury York and Dublin hearing of Tarltons arraignment came with their Crosier staves carried before them accompanied with 10 Bishops more and a great company of men entred into the Court and by open violence rescued and took away the Bishop from the Bar before any answer made to his charge chasing away the Kings Officers and proclaiming openly That no man should lay violent hands on this Trayterly Bishop upon pain of excommunication and so departed The King exceedingly incensed at this High affront to Justice and himself commanded an Inquest to be impanelled and a lawfull inquiry to be made of the Treasons committed by the Bishop in his absence being thus rescued from Justice The Jury without fear of the King or any hatred of the Bishop found the Bishop guilty of all the Articles of Treason and Rebellion whereof he was indicted Whereupon the King banished the Bishop seised all his temporalties lands and goods But yet notwithstanding the Bishop by consent of all the Prelates was by strong hand kept in the Archbishops custody till he had reconciled him to the King After which by way of revenge he was a principal instrument of the Kings deposing and murther which having effected in the Parliament of 1 E. 3. 6. this Bishop petitions that the Indictment and Iudgement against him and the proceedings therein might be brought into Parliament and there nulled as erronious which was done accordingly Et quia recitatis et examinatis coram nobis et consilio nosâ—ro recordo et processu praedictis Et etiam coram Praelatis Comitibus Baronibus Magnatibus tota communitate regni nostri praesenti Parliamento nostro praesentibus compertum fuit quod in eisdem recordo et processu errores manifesti intervenerunt per assensum totius Parliamenti adnullatur and so he had restitution I answer that as this rescue of proceeding and judgement against this trayterous Bishop were singular So is this repeal and reversal of it as erronious before and by all the Commons and whole Parliament as well as King Prelates and Nobles and that no doubt at the special instance of this and all the other Bishops highly concerned in this cause Wherefore this one Swallow makes no Summer and proves no judicial authority joyntly with the King and Lords since they never joyned with them before nor since in reversing of any such error upon Judgement in the Kings Bench but only where an erronious Attainder by Bill in one Parliament was reversed by Bill in another The 9th is the Clause of King Edward the thirds Letter to the Pope in the 4th year of his reign already answered p. 274. The 10th is Sir John at Lees case 42 E. 3. n. 20. said to be ADJVDGED by the Lords and COMMONS I answer this Case is somewhat mâ—staken For the Record only mentions That the 21 day of May the King gave thanks to the Lords and Commons for their coming and aid granted on which day all the Lords and sundry of the Commons dined with the King After which dinner Sir Iohn at Lee was brought before the King LORDS COMMONS next aforesaid who dined with the King to answer certain objections made against him by William Latymer about the wardship of Robert Latymer that Sir John being of power had sent for him to London where by duresse of Imprisonment he inforced the said William to surrender his estate unto him which done some other Articles were objected against the said Sir John of which for that he could not sufficiently purge himself HE was committed to the Tower of London there to remain til he had made fine and ransom at the Kings pleasure and command given to the Constable of the Tower to keep him accordingly And then the said Lords and Commons departed After which he was brought before the Kings Councel at Westminster which COUNCEL ORDERED the said ward to be reseised into the Kings hands So as this record proves not that this judgment was given in the Parliament house nor that the Lords and Commons adjudged Sir Iohn but rather the King and his Councel in the presence of the Lords and Commons after the Parliament ended The 11 12 13. Are the cases of the Lord Latymer Lord Nevil and Richard Lyons forecited Here p. 283 284 350. which are nothing to purpose the Lords alone giving judgement in them without the Commons who did only impeach them and the King removing the Lord Latymer from his Council at their further request So that these 3. cases refute their opinions who object them The 14. is the Case of Weston and Gomines 1 R. 2. n. 38 39. In which the Lords alone gave the Judgement as I have proved p. 332 333 Therefore pointblank against the Objectors The 15. president is that of Iohn Kirby and Iohn Algar two Citizens of London in the Parliament of 3 R. 2. n. 18. who conceiving malice against John Imperial an Ambassador sent hither from the State of Genoa who had procured a Monopoly to furnish England with all such wares as come from the Levant keeping his staple at Southampton killed him in London upon a sudden quarrel picked with him for which they being committed this being a new and difficult case and the Judges being in doubt whether it were Treason or no it was thereupon propounded in Parliament according to the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. like that of 25 E. 3. Parl. 2. of those who are born beyond the Seas 14 E. 3. c. 5. 13 E. 1. c. 24.32 E. 1. rot 17. 22. Claus 46 H. 3. n. 3. Claus 14
Lords gave him remedy by a Writ out of the Chancery Claus 14. E. 2. m. 12. in the Schedula there is a Judgement in Parliament by King Lords and Council touching the Abby of Abingdon and a composition formerly made between the Abbot Prior and monks thereof reversed nulled because inconvenient Claus 14. E. 2. m. 17. dorso there is a case concerning a reprisal brought by appeal out of the Chancery into the Parliament before the King Lords and Council and there heard and decided And Claus 15. E. 2. there are many cases and Writs touching Reprises In the Parliament of 1. E. 3. there were many Judgements given in sundry civil cases upon petitions To the King and his Council by the King Lords and Council extant in the bundle of Petitions and Claus Rolls of that year and those things that were proper for the Courts of Law and Chancery were referred to them to be there ended Claus 1. E. 3. m. 1. Upon the petition of Alice Gill and Robert Carder to the King Council and Parliament that they buying Corne in Abevil in France to transport to London it was arrested by the Baily of St. Valeric to the value of one hundred pounds at the suit of Will de Countepy of Crotye in Picardy and delivered to him against their wills because the Ship of the said Will was taken upon the Sea by the men of Bayon which ship the petitioners finding in the port of London had arrested by writ out of the Chancery directed to the Sheriffes of London until the said hundred pounds was paid them by the Merchant the King and Council ordered upon their petition that the ship might not be discharged till the 100 l. was satisfied that a Writ should be directed out of the Chancery to the Sheriffes of London to do Justice upon the contents in the Petition according to the Law of Merchants The like case of Reprise upon the Petition of Hugh Samson is in 1. E. 3. rot 5. In Claus 1. E. 3. part 1. m. 10. There is a Judgement given by the Lords and Council for the Bishop of Durham touching the Liberties and Royalties of his Bishoprick against the Kings revocation where in sundry Petitions and answers in former Parliament under King Edward the 2d are rehearsed wherein hee could have no right Mem. 12. there is a Judgement given by the Lords and Council in Parliament for the Bishop of York his prisage and preemption of wines next after the King in the Port of Hull and in Claus 1. E. 3. Pâ— 2. m. 11. Claus 4. E. 3. m. 9. remembred in the year Book of 6. E. 3. f. 50. So Claus 2. E. 3. m. 20. in Schedula there is Placitum in Parliamento before the King and his Council of the Dean and Chapter of Litchfield touching their Title to Camock Claus 14. E. 3. part 1. m. 41. Upon the Petition of the Bishop of Carlisle it was resolved by the Lords and Council in that and sundry other Parliaments in the Reign of this King and his Father non esse â—uri consonum that Churches and other things spiritual annexed to Archbishopricks and Bishopricks should belong to the King and Gardians of the temporalties but to the Gardians of the spiritualties and so ordered accordingly yea so was it resolved upon the Petition of the Bishop of Winchester to the King and his Council in the Parliament of Claus 1. E. 3. rot 9. dorso Where coram Rege et Magno Concilio concessum est et concordatum quod custodâ—s temporalium Episcopatus non se intromittant amplius temporibus vacationum hujusmodi fructibus Ecclesiarum de Estanmer Hamoldan annexed to the Bishoprick of Winchester In the Parliament of 14. E. 3. Sir Geoffry Stantens case upon his Petition to the King and Lords in Parliament the Justices of the Common Pleas came with the record of his case which had long depended before them in the Court of Common Pleas which being read and debated in the presence of all the LORDS Justices and others of the Kings Council their assistants in this case of Law they resolved that the Sonne being a stranger might aver that his Father who levyed the fine had nothing in the Lands and that the Wife in this case could not vouch her Husband And thereupon a Writ under the great Seal was sent to the Judges by the Lords order to give judgement accordingly Claus 35. E. 3. m. 40. A villain commits fellony and is attainted after that the Lord had seised his goods whereupon his goods were prized and seised on for the King notwithstanding the Lords seisure upon a Petition in Parliament It was resolved by the Lords and Council that it was just the goods should be restored to the Lord if they were not seised fraudulently to prevent the Kings seisure of them And a Writ of Restitution was thereupon awarded per ipsum Regem et per Petitionem in Parliamento In the 6. year of King Richard the 2d it was agreed between the Duke of Lancaster and the Scots in the Marches that for the benefit of both parties ut â—de caterâ— ipsi nee Anglici vexarenâ—ur per tot labores expensas sed singulis annis certi utriusque gentis destinarentur ad Parliamentum Regni utriusque qui et injurias acceptas proferrent in medium emendas acciparent secundum quantitatem damuâ—rum per Judicium Dominorum here the Lords both in the Parliament of England and Scotland are made sole Judges of injuries and dammages done by Scots or English upon one another in the Marches Quia vero Scoti ad Parliamentum Londoniis Anno 1383. supersederunt venire juxta conductum insuper damna interim plura Borealibus praesumpserunt inferre c. decretum est per Parliamentum ut frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem Et concessae sunt Borealibus commissiones congregandi virtutem exercitus Scotis resistendi damna pro damnis inferendi quoties contingeret Scotos irrumpere vel hostili mâ—re partes illas intrare In the Parliament of 4. H. 4. n. 9. Upon the complaint of Sir Thomas Pomeroy and his Lady against Sir Philip Courtney and others forcible entry into several Lands and Mannors in the Country of Devon The King and Lords adjudged that the said Sir Thomas should enter into the said Mannors and Lands if his entry were lawful or bring his Assize without all delayes at his election In the Parliament of 5. H. 4. n. 41 42 43 44. in a case concerning Mannors and certain Lands in the County of Cornwal between the Prince and John Cornwal and the Countesse of Huntington his wife the King and Lords gave Iudgement that the Prince should â—e restored to the said Mannors and Lands being parcels of the Dutchey of Cornwal and that the Prince after seisin had should regrant them unto them which was done accordingly in Parliament In 6 H. 4 n. 28. Upon the Petition of
these 2. deposed Kings these 2. inferences have been made 1. That the Commons have a joynt interest with the Lords in the Judicature and Jugements in Parliament 2. That the Proceedings against our late condemned beheaded King are justifiable and warranted by them I answer that neiâ—her of these 2. Consequences are proved by them For 1. The Commons themselves in this Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 79. immediately after King Râ—chards deposition confess That the Judicature and Judgements of Parliament belong only to the King and Lords not to the Commons 2ly The Commons neither in nor out of Parliament are may or ought to be the Judges of the meanest Lord or Peer of the Realm who are to be judged tried by their Peers alone as I have abundantly evidenced in the premises Much less then can they be lawful Judges of their Soveraign Lord and King who is a degree above all the Peers of highest dignity In the Parliament An 1260. Prince Edward as I have proved before would be tried only by 2. Kings because all the rest of the Earls and Barons were not his Peers neither could they be his Judges much less then can Peers or Commons be their Kings Judges Peers to ondemn or try him 3ly Our Law-books resolve That the King hath no Peers in his own Realm and Therefore he can neither be legally tried nor judged by the Peers themselves much less by the Commons in Parliament 4ly The Lawes of Hoel Dha King of Wales about the year 940. Lex 20. resolve Rex non poterit secundum legem in lite stare coram Judice suo agendo vel respondendo per dignitatem naturalem yea all the Lords and Commons of England in the Parliament of Lincoln Anno 29. E. 1. in their forecited Letter to the Pope p. 128. resolve That the Kings of England Ex praeeminentia status suae Regiae dignitatis ex consuetudine cunctis temporibus observata neque responderunt neque respondere debebant coram aliquo Iudice Ecclesiastico vel seculari supâ—r juribus suis in regno c. Much less then may or ought they to be put to answer criminally for their lives or Crowns before any Ecclesiastical or Temporal Judge Peers or Commons House or High Court of COMMONS 5ly The Statutes of 16 R. 2. c. 5. and of 25 H. 8. c. 19.21 thus declare resolve and the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Parliament of 16 R. 2. n. 20. protested against the Popes pretended Supremacy That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in subjection to no Realm or Person but immediatly subject to God and to none other in all things touching the Regality of the said Crown And the Statutes of 25 H. 8. c. 19 21 22. 26 H. 8 c. 1.3 27 H. 8. c. 15. 28 H. 8. c. 7.10 31 H. 8. c. 10.15 32 H. 8. c. 22.24 26. 33 H. 8. c. 29. 35 H. 8. c. 1.3.17 19. 37 H. 8. c. 17. 1 E. 6. c. 2. 1 Eliz. c. 1. 8 Eliz. c. 1. 3 Jac. c. 3 4. declare and enact The King to be the only Supreme Head Governor upon Earth both of the Church Realm of Engl. both of which recognize no Super or under God but only the King To affirm then that the Lords or Commons in Parliament may lawfully judge depose the King and deprive him of his Crown Regalities Head Life is to contradict repeal all these Statutes since the inferior Members can no more legally judge the Supreme head of the body politick than the head of the body natural or the Courrs in Westminster hall or Hundred Courts judge the High Court of Parliament and condemn repeal their Acts or Judgements 6ly Though Articles were drawn up against these two Kings pro forma yet neither of them was ever required or judicially summoned to make answer to them or heard or brought to trial before the Lords or Commons Barr or any other Tribunal or Court of Justice Whence the Bishop of Carlisle protested against it as most illegal unjust and trayterous Therefore neither the Lords nor Commons could be properly said their Iudges in this case and their Judgement without hearing or trial of them must needs be most erronious as well as Mortimers and the Earl of Arundels forecited 7ly The Lords and Commons resignation of their Homage to these 2. Kings when deposed shew that even then they esteâ—med them their Superiors Lords Homage being the most honourable and humble service that a franktenant may do to his Lord the tenant being ungirt his head uncovered kneeling down on both his knees before his Lord sitting covered and holding up his hands joyntly together between his Lords and the Kings hands when he doth his homage saying I become your man from this day forward of limb and of earthly worship and unto you shall be true and faithfull and bear faith for the tenements I hold of you And when done to any other Lord it is with a Saving the faith I owe unto our Soveraign Lord the King and his Heirs 8ly The Sentences of Deposition against them were given only by the Legislative power not JUDICIAL by way of Bill consented unto in the Parliament house by the Lords and Commons then sent to these Kings to their prisons and there read unto them by Committees and Proxies representing all the Estates in Parliament Therefore the reading of them to these Kings in their prisons was not properly a judgement neither did it constitute them who read it to them their Judges much less create the Commons Judges of these Kings 9ly All the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons concurred joyntly in this Act of resigning their Homage to these Kings to whom they were all joyntly obliged and in whom they had all a common interest Et quod tangit omnes ab omnibus debet approbari Therefore it is no warrant for the proceedings against our late King without the consents and against the Express Votes of the whole House of Lords and of the Majority of the Commons house 10ly The Lords alone without the Commons gave Judgement for the close and perpetual imprisonment of King Richard the 2. therefore they were his sole and proper Judges by way of Sentence his deposition being by the Legislative not Judicial power 11ly These Kings especially the later of them had no sentence of deposition nor proceedings against them til they had through fear or pusillanimity first resigned their Crowns and kingship as unfit to reign or govern any longer which was made the principal ground of their subsequent declaratory depositions by the Lords and Commons when they had reduced themselves into the condition of private men by their resignations These presidents therefore cannot justifie the late proceedings against an actual lawful hereditary King by a small party of the Commons house alone without the House of Peers or the Majority of their fellow-Members who never resigned his
And if so then questionless such who hold not by an intire Barony and are not Majores Barones by Patent or Inheritance now cannot be created such by a meer general writ of summons neither can the King by his general writ create or make them such against this antient Law and usage ever since And the Earls Lords and Great honorary Barons who excluded all such from sitting in Parliament with them as Barons and their Peers then may much more exclude and refuse to admit such into their house or to sit with them if summoned now because their dignity honor power would suffer much diminution thereby and the King might by writ at any time call so many to their House as might overtop overâ—ote and alter their very Constitution as an House of Peers I shall close up this point of the Lords sole right to sit in Parliament with one or two memorable presidents In the 7. year of King Edward 2. as Walsingham stories in quindena Paschae per Regis brevia citatae sunt generaliter omnes Parliamentales personae pro Parliamento teuendo Londoniis Sed multis Proceribus praetendentes impedimenti causas nihil hâ—c vice factum suâ—t So Anno 1316. King Edward in the 9th year of his reign celebravit Concilium apud Clarindon sed Magnates noluerunt interesse Whereupon nothing was there effected The Lords presence being held then so necessary that by reason of the absence of divers of them upon some real or pretended impediments though all legally summoned by the Kings writs nothing was done or concluded by those who met who held themselves no compleat or legal Parliament without them Whereas in the Parliament of 5 E. 2. some of the Judges and Assistants departing from the Lords and divers Knights Citizens and Burgesses from the Commons house without license yet the Lords continuing all together and making Ordinances for regulating the Kings house and Revenues the Parliament still continued and these special writs were sent to recall the Judges and Lords Assistants quod redeant exinde et sine licentia nostra speciali durante Parliamento praedicto non recedatis Et hoc sicut indignationem nostram vitare volueritis nullo modo omittaris Teste Rege apud Haddely 12 Septemb. PER CONSILIUM And this general writ was sent to the Sheriff of Yorkeshire and all other Sheriffs of England to summon all the Knights Citizens and Burgesses in their several Counties to return thither or else to elect other fit persons in their places Praecipimus tibi firmiter injungentes quod illos Milites Cives Burgenses de Balliva tua quos nuper ad praesens Parliamentum nostrum apud London inchoatum de mandato nostro venire fecisti et qui ab eodem Parliamento certis de causis recesserunt quod redeant exinde c. vel alios ad hoc idoneos loco ipsorum SI AD HOC VACARE NON POSSUNT usque ad Westmonasterium ad dictum Parliamentum quod ibidem duximus continuandum c. proxime futur ad ultimum cum sufficienti potestate Comitatus tui Civitatum Burgorum praedictororum ad consentiendum hiis quae tunc ibidem contigerint ordinari c. Teste Rege apud London xi die Octobris This Parliament being thus continued Claus 5 E. 2. m. 25. Special license was granted to some LORDS to goe home who made Proxies to other Lords to supply their places by these words Deputamus in loco nostro in Parliamento and this in the Writ of Prorogation This I hope will suffice to convince all Levellers and Gainsayers of the LORDS undoubted antient Hereditary just Right and Title to sit vote in all ENGLISH PARLIAMENTS though not elected by the people SECTION II. Wherein the Lords House sole Right of Judicature in Parliament without the Commons is fully cleared by Presidents Histories Records in all ages and undeniable Reasons and that both in Criminal Civil Ecclesiastical Causes of all sorts as well in cases of Commoners and Clergymen as Temporal Peers persons of the highest degree proper for Parliament IT is the General confession resolution assertion both of Lawyers Law-books the Parliament and Statute of 31 H. 8. c. 10. and all who have written of our Parliaments That the Parliament of England is the antientest honourablest highest Court and Supremest Judicature in the Realm to whose Judicature all other Courts Persons Subjects of the Realm are subject accountable for all Injuries Oppressions Crimes Wrongs Corruptions Errors Abuses Grievances Misdemeanors Treasons Contempts Frauds false Judgments and matters of publike or privat concernment not properly triable remediable or punishable in other inferior Courts of Justice and that Court to whom all Appeals concerning Misproceedings Errors or Injustice in other Courts or places ought to be made and from whose Injustice and Sentence there is no appeal but only to another Parliament as in the case of General Councils as Divines assert there is no appeal but to another general Council in Ecclesiastical affairs concerning the Universal Church or matters of Faith This being an unquestionable Principle and Truth the sole Question will be in what House or Persons in Parliament this Supreme Judicatory or judicial power resides Whether in the King alonâ— or Lords alone or King and Lords jointly or in the House of Commons alone never made a question â—il now by Lilburn and Overton or in the King and House of Peers not separate from but joyntly with the Commons House And for my part I conceive it resides wholly and solely in the King and House of Lords not in the House of Commons which hath no part nor share therein singly considered in it self nor yet joyntly with the King and Lords but only in some special cases and proceedings as when and where the King and Lords voluntarily require their concurrence or where the judgement and proceedings in Parliament are by way of Bill or Act of Parliament or when a judgement passed or confirmed by Bill or Act to which the Commons consent was requisite is to be altered or reversed but in no cases else that I can find To make this ouâ— beyond contradiction it must be necessarily granted by all and cannot be gainsaid or disproved by any that this Supreme power of Judicature hath been vested in our Great Councils and Parliaments even from their beginning and original institution it being the antientest as well as highest and honourablest of all other Courts That it had this Soveraign Jurisdiction vested in and exercised by it both under our British Saxon Danish and Norman Kings I have elsewhere evidenced and shall anon make good by undeniable presidents Now the Great Parliamentary Councils under them consisted only of the King the Ecclesiastical and Temporal Lords Earls Barons Nobles without any Commons House or Knights of Shires Citizens or Burgesses elected by the people as I have already touched and manifested more fully in other Treatises yea
nunquam poâ—â—ea pacem habuit Per idem conâ—ilium tempotibus nostris turbatum fuiâ— reguum venit interdictum et denique factum est regnum tributarium et princeps provinciarum factâ—s est proâ— doâ—or ignobilibus sub â—â—ibuto et inita guerra et diu protelara mortuus est pater vester quasâ— extorris nec in pace regni vel animi et hâ— mortem per eoâ— admodum incurrit periculosam Per idem consilium contra vos detentum â—uit Castellum de Bedeford ubi multum thesaurum et streâ—uos nomines perdidisti ob quam causam interim Rupeâ—am in ignominiam totius regni tui amisisti Item perturbatio nunc imminens toti regno periculosa per eorum consilium iniquum accidit quia si per justitiam et rectum judicium terrae tractati fuissent homines vestri non eveniâ—â—et ista perturbatio et haberetis terras vestras non destructas et thesaurum inexhauâ—lum Item in fide dicimus qua vobis astringimur obligati quod consilium vestrum non est pacis sed perturbationis terrae quia sic crescere volunt qui per pacem non possunt scilicet per regni perturbationem et aliorum exhaeredationem Item quia Castra vestra et fortitudinem vestram habent in manu sua quasi de gente vestra diffidere debeatis Item quia â—caccarium vestrum et omnes custo ias et eschaetâ—s maximas habent in potestate sua placet â—alis expectatio et quomodo vobis respondebunt in fine ut credimus comprobabis Item quia nisi per sigillum vestrum vel praeceptum sine sigillo Perri de Rivallis vix aliquod magnum negoâ—iâ—m â—it in regno quasi â—vos pro Rege non haberent Item per idem consilium naturales homines de regno vestro de curia vestra expulsi sunt unde â—imendumest tam de vobis quam de regno cum videamini magis esse in eorum potestate quam ipsi in vestra sicut per plurima constat exempla Item quia pnellam de Britannia et sororem vestram habent in potestate et alias plures puellas nobiles et alias mulieres nubiles cum wardis et maritagiis quas dant suis et disparabanâ— Item quia legem terrae juratam et confirmatam atque per excommunicationem corroboratam pariter et justitiam confundunt et pervertunt unâ—e â—imendum est ne sinâ— excommunicati vos eis communicando Item quia non observant alicui promissionem fidem vel juramentum vel scripturae munimentum nec timent excommunicationem Unde qui a veritate recessetunt sunt desperati ut qui in timore remanent diffidentes Haec autem fideliter vobis dicimus et coram Deo et hominibus consulimus rogamus et monemus ut tale consilium amoveatis a vobis et sicut est in aliis regnis consuetudo regnum vestrum tractetis per fideles homines vestros et juratos de regno vestro Denunciamus enim vobis in veritate quod nisi infra breve tempus ista correxeritis in vos in omnes alios contradictores per censuram ecclesiasticam procedemus nihil nisi consecrationem venerabilis Patris nostri electi Cantuariensis expectantes Et his ita dictis Rex humiliter postulavit inducias dicens se non posse ita subito consilium suum amovere donec de thesauro suo illis commisso ratiocinium audisset Et sic solutum est COLLOQUIVM recedentibus cunctis cum fiducia concordiae celeriter ob inendae On the 5 of April following Convenerunt ad COLLOQVIUM apud Westmonast REX CUM COMMITIBVS ET BARONIBUS Archiepiscopus nuper consecratus cum suis suffraganeis ut regno perturbato salubriter providerent Archiepiscopus quidem conjunctis sibi Episcopis accaeteris qui aderant Praeclatis ostendit ei consilium suum Episcoporum super desolatione regni periculo imminenti replicando suprascripta incommoda in COLLOQUIO superius habito sibi expressa Denunciavit etiam ipsi expresse quod nisi celerius errorem dimitterei cum fidelibus regni sui pacifice componeret ipse in continenti cum omnibus qui aderant Praelatis IN IPSUM REGEM SENTENTIAM FERRET EXCOMMUNICATIONIS in omnes alioâ— hujus pacis contradictorâ—s et concordiâ— perversones Rex autem pius audiens consilium Praelatorium humiliter respondiâ— quod consiliis eorum in omnibus obtemperaret unde post dies paucoâ— intelligeâ—â— proprium errorem poâ—uitentia ductus â—raecepit Petro Wintoniensi Episcopo ut pergens ad Episcopatum suum curis intenderet animarum et de caeteris Regiis negotiis nequiquam interesseâ— Petro etiâ—m de Rivallis immurabiliter jussit cujus Angliâ—â—ota dispenfacionibus subjacebat ut redditis sibi Castellis suis ratioâ—inium de thesauris in continenti reddereâ— et a Curia recederet affirmans cum juramento quod nisi beneficiatus et in sortem â—loâ—iâ—orum esset admissus ipse ei ambos oculos eruere faceret Pâ—â—tavienses insuper omnes â—am de Curia sua quam de castrorum presidiis expellens remisit in patriâ—m suam praecipiens ut ultra faciem suam non viderent Et sic Rex dimissis iniquis Consiliariis suis revocavit ad obseqâ—ium suum naturales homines de regno suo subjiciens se consilio Archiepiscopi et Episcoporum per qâ—os sperabat regnum perturbatum ad statum prosperum revocare Soon after the King as appears by Claus 18 H. 3. m. 19. by the advice and judgement of the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons and other his Great men in the Parl. at Gloucester reversed and nulled all the Outlawries against Hubert Earl of Kent Ralph Basset and other adherents to the Earl Marshal eo quod injuste et contra legem terrae in eos fuerant promulgata which he caused the Sherifs publikely to proclame recalled Hugh de Burgo Earl of Kent Gilbert Basset Sâ—r Richard Sward whom he had formerly banished imprisoned injured cum omnibus qui cum eis et pro eis in exilium fuerunt pulsi in gratiam suam plenam et non fictam revocavit et eis in osculo pacis receptis reddidit omnia jura sua IN COLLOQVIO 510 Calend Junii admitting in this Parliament the said Hubert Gilbert and Sward to be his domestick servants and familiar counsellors runc demum intelligens quod primum fuerat seductus astutia consiliatoruÌ„ In the mean time R.E. Marshal being treacherously slain in Ireland by a Letter sent hence from the Kings ill Counsellors under the Kings Seal hereupon in eodem Colloquio Aedmundus Cant. Archiepiscopus fecit recitari exemplar literarum de proditione Richardo Comiti praeparata coram Rege et unverso Conventu Episcoporum Comitum pariter ac Baronum qui affuerunt quae a Consiliariis regis miâ—â—ae fuerunt ad Magnates in Hybernia Unde Rex ipse et alii omnes qui eas audierant admodum sunt
personâ— that would complain against him but that the Commons would not do but prayed he might answer their charge in general whereupon he answered every of the Charges against him and that very fully in open Parliament before the LORDS Yet notwithstanding the Bishops and Lords gave Iudgement against him in full Parliament that for his ill Counsel and Government against the profit of the King and Realm and namely for divers Chevisances to the Kings loss for procuring grants to the destruction of the Staple and Town of Calice and for divers impositions laid upon wools he should be committed to prison under the custody of the Marshal and make fine and ransom at the Kings pleasure Whereupon the Commons further required That he might lose all his Offices and be no longer of the Kings Council which the King granted After which this Lord found certain Lords and others of quality whose names are mentioned in a Schedule annexed to the Parliament roll to be his Mainpernors for the forth-comming of his body during the Parliament Upon which the Marshal offered him to be at large In the same Parliament 50 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 34. John Lord Nevil was accused that during the time he was of the Kings privy Council he bought certain debts due by the King to the Lady Ravensham and Simon Love a Merchant at under values and for receiving of the King more wages and for a longer time than was due for one hundred Souldiers in Britain Upon which he confessed he received 95 l. of the Lady for the obtaining of her debt only our of her meer good will which was not disproved The Charge touching Love he wholly denied Love thereupon being brought into the Parliament before the Lords wholly excuseth the Lord Nevil But because Love the day before had confessed the contrary unto two of the Knights of the Parliament he was committed to Prison by the LORDS To the receiving of Wages he fully cleared himself Notwithstanding the LORDS GAVE JUDGEMENT of imprisonment and of lâ—sâ— of Lands Goods and Offices against him and that he should make restituâ— of the 95 l. to the Ladies Executors These Judgement◠〈◊〉 the Commons importunity were so unjust that in the very next Parliament of 51 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 75. upon the prayer of certain Bishops Lords and the Commons themselves the Lord Latymer by the Kings grant and royal assent and the Authority of the Lords was restored to his Offices and Privy Counsellorship whereof he was deprived by them this Parliament upon untrue Suggestions Such partiality and injustice is there many times even in Parliaments themselves out of malice faction or affection In the Parliament of 7 R. 2. holden at Westminster the Monday next before the feast of All Saints rot Parl. n. 13.15 to 24. Ralph Nevil the martial Bishop of Norwich was accused in Parliament for not serving the King in his wars in Flanders for so long a time and with so many men and with a sufficient General as he promised whereby the Voyage was lost to the Kings dishonour and damage and for selling the Castle of Gravelin to the French for money which the Chancellor in open Parliament declared against him The Bishop answered thereunto in person albeit in this case he said he might have Counsel with this Protestation that he might at all times avoyd or amend his answer To which answer of his the Chancellor replied In conclusion upon debate THE KING AND LORDS resolved his answer to be no sufficient excuse of what was charged against him Whereupon the Chancellor by ASSENT OF THE LORDS concluded That although the King might pass on the Bishop as a Temporal Lord by reason he took upon him to serve him as a Souldier and had the Sword carried before him contrary to his profession yet for that time in regard he was a Bishop the King would spare to lay hands on or imprison his person as he might doe And therefore they ADJUDGED him to make fine and ransom to the King at his pleasure whereunto he should be compelled by the seisure of his temporalties And it was commanded that from thence the Sword should no more be carried before him In the same Parliament held this year about the feast of St. Martin in quo prout jam a multis consuevit temporibus nihil dignum memoria fuit actum praeter illud quod sedulo actitabatur as now in our age extortio videlicet pecuniae de clero et communi plebe ad sustentationem militibus werrae regalis Nondum Parliamentum finitum fuerat cum nova de partibus borealibus sunt allata de captione Castelli de Berwico per Scotos cujus custodiam Comes Northumbriae domibus Henricus Percey avito jure possedit Scoti namque mediante pecunia de quodam qui secundarie castri custodiam tunc habebat introitus castelli dolosenacti sunt Factum est ergo Duce procurante Johanne ut dicitur ut pro perditione dicti Castelli regalis Comeâ— Iudicium qui aderani Optimatum et regis sententiam daâ—ationis exciperet in eum publice promulgatam Cujus executionis vindicta per regem postea cito relaxâ—ta fuit quamvis id Duci ut dicitur displiceret Acta sunt haec 14 die Decembris in eodem Parliamento non obstante quod idem Comes ad dictum Parliamentum vocatâ—s fuerat per breve regium et ad custodiam suae patriae morari maluisset Haec ideirâ—o causa inter ipsum Ducem er Comitem postea irae et odii â—omitem ministravit At the Parliament held at Salisbury an Irish Frier Carmelite delivered a Schedule to the King conteining divers treacherous plots and Treasons against him by the Duke of Lancaster that he had resolved sodainly to kill oppress the King and seise upon the Kingdom setting down the time place and all other circumstances taking his Oath upon the Sacrament of Christs body that every word contained in that Schedule was true advising the King not to believe the Dukes excuses nor to deferr his judgement lest he should raise forces against him to effect his design or be deceitfully reconciled to him The King hereupon being young NON DOMINOS NON PARES REGNI super tantis negotiis ut disecrâ—erant qui◠〈…〉 coâ—sulait but two Câ—eras of his Chappel his accustomed Counsellors whiles the King and they were privately debating the business the Duke came in unto them whom the King beholding with a stern countenance and not receiving him with that honour as formerly he suspecting the King conceived something in his mind against him withdrew himself But by the Chaplains advice he was called in again and the Schedule delivered him to read Which having read he said with a great sign to the King Heu Domine mi cur fidem datis talibus dela toribus Cur de mea persona talia opinamini Nonne sum aâ—unculus vester Nonne tutor extiti Nonne post vos principalis
Earl of Ireland Mâ—chael de la Poole Earl of Suffolk Robert Tresylam Chief Justice Nicholas Bramber Knight and other of their adherents of High Treason against the King and his Realm The Articles they exhibited against them were 36 in number at large recorded in Henry de Knyghton de Eventibus Angliae l. 5. col 2713. to 2727. with the whole proceedings thereupon for which many were attainted condemned executed BY JUDGEMENT OF THE LORDS notwithstanding the Kings intercession for some of them to the LORDS they are likewise mentioned in the printed Statutes at large of 11 R. 2. c. 1 3 4. in Walsingham Hist Angliae p. 359 to 367. and other vulgar Historians I shall therefore for brevity refer you to them Exactum est juramentum a rege ad standum REGULATIONI PROCERUM et non solum a rege sed a cunctis regni incolis idem juramentum est expetitum In the Parliament of 14 R. 2. n. 14. The King and Lords without the Commons declared That in the 7 year of this King the Earldom of Richmond with the appartenances WERE ADJUDGED BY THE KING AND LORDS to be forfeited to the King by reason of the adherence of John Duke of Britain then Earl of Richmond to the French against his allegiance to the King and his father king Edward the 3. which judgement was not then enrolled in the Rolls of Parliament for certain causes known to the King and LORDS but was now inrolled and the lands granted to the Earl of Westmerland which King Henry the 4th would not revoke upon the Commons Petition to restore them to the Duke 1 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 78. In the Parliament of 17 R. 2. n. 11 Richard Earl of Arundel in the presence of the KING and LORDS accused the Duke of Lancastre of 5 particular misdemeanors In which when the King had justified him it was awarded by the King BY THE ASSENTS OF ALL THE LORDS that the Earl should in full Parliament make a formal submission to the Duke and crave pardon for his false accusation In the Parliament of 21 R. 2. rot Parl. n. 12. to 17. the Commons impeached Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury of high Treason for procuring the Duke of Glocester and others there named to accroach to themselves regal power and execute the Commission of 10 R. 2. when he was Chancellor praying that he might be kept under safe custody with a protestation of making for her accusations during the Parliament against him and others After which they prayed the King to give judgement against the Archbishop according to his desert who submitted himself to the Kings mercy Whereupon the KING LORDS and Sir Thomas Piercy the general Proctor for the Bishops in this case adjudged the fact of the Archbishop to be Treason and himself a Traytor and that thereupon he should be banished his temporalties seised and all his lands in proper possession or use together with his goods forfeited to the King and presenting the day and place of his departure into exile After this in the same Parliament of 21 R. 2. the Lords Appellant therein named accused the Duke of Glocester the Earls of Arundel and Warwick and others of High Treason for procuring the Commission in 10 R. 2. for raising forces and coming to the Kings person armed For accroching to themselves royal power and adjudging some to death and executing them as Traytors in the Parliament of 11 R. 2. For intending to surrender up their Homage and allegeance to the King and then to depose him and saying they had good cause to depose him c. Hereupon the Earl of Arundel being brought in custody to the Parliament before the Lords by the Kings command and assent of the Lords had his charge read and declared before him by the Duke of Lancaster Steward of England to which he pleaded his pardon which plea being disallowed because his pardon was revoked by this Parliament and he relying on it without any other plea the Lords appellants prayed judgement against him as convict of the Treasons aforesaid Whereupon the Duke of Lancaster by assent of the KING Bishops Earles and LORDS adjudged him convict of the Articles aforesaid and thereby a Traytor to the King and Realm and that he should be therefore hanged drawn and quartered and forfeit all his Lands in fee or fee-tayl which he had in the 10. year of this King with all his goods and chattels But for that he was come of Noble bloud the King pardoned his execution of hanging drawing and quartering and granted that he should be beheaded which was accordingly executed the same day on Tower hill by the Marshal of England The 28. of September the Earl of Warwick was brought ao his Trial in the same manner as the Earl of Arundel who confessed all the Articles submitted to the Kings grace and had the same judgement pronounced against him in the same manner as the Earl of Arundel But the King at the Lords Appellants and others requests pardoned his execution granted him his life and banished him into the Isle of Man The Duke of Norfolk by assent and Act of Parliament was tried in a Court Martial by the King Lords and some Knights for words spoken against the King and judgement was there given that he should be banished into Hungary and his lands forfeited to the King Within one year after such is the vicissitude of all worldly honour and power in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. Plac. Coron n. 1. to 11. at the prayer of the Commons the great Lords Appellants Edward Duke of Albemarl Tho. Duke of Surry John Duke of Exeter John Marquess Dorset John Earl of Salisbury and Thomas Earl of Glocester were all questioned and brought to their several answers before the King and Lords for their Acts and proceedings in the Parliament of 21 R. 2. the records whereof being read before them in Parliament they made their several answers and excuses thereunto whereupon the King and Lords after consultation thereupon ADJUDGED that the said Dukes Marques and Earls should lose their several Titles and Dignities of Dukes Marquess and Earls with all the honor thereunto belonging and that they should forfeit all the Lands and goods which they or any of them had given them at the death of the Duke of Glocester or since and that if they or any of them should adhere to the quarrel or person of King Richard lately deposed that then the same should be Treason The which Judgement was pronounced against them by William Thurning Chief Justice of the Kings Bench in Parliament by the Kings command but in the Parliament of 2 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 33. upon the Petition of the Lords and Commons to the King the Earls of Rutland and Somerset were pardoned and restored by the King in Parliament In the Parliament of 2 H. 4. n. 14. the Bishop of Norwich was accused by Sir Thomas Erpingham the Kings
Vice-Chamberlain before the King and Lords of divers offences against the King who taking the accusation to be good because of the Bishops order and that he was of the kingâ— linage pardoned the said Bishop all his misprisions done against his person and reconciled the Bishop and Sir Thomas one to another And n. 30 31. all the Lords Temporal whose names are there recorded being 25. in number by assent of the King declared and ADJUDGED Thomas Holland late Earl of Kent John Holland late Earl of Huntingdon John Mountague late Earl of Salisbury Thomas le Despencer Sir Ralph Lumley Knight and divers others who were for their Rebellions and Treasons in levying war against the King taken slain or beheaded by certain of the Kings Subjects to be Traytors and that they should forfeit all such Lands as they had in fee the 5. of January the first year of the King or at any time after with all their goods and chattels The Record is Toutz les Seigneurs temporelz esteantz en Parlement per ussent du Roy declarerent et adjuggerent les ditz Thomas c. pur Trayteurs pur la leve de Guerre encountre lour Seignior le Roy nient obstant qils furent mortz sur le dâ—t leve de guerre sanz process de ley Lo here the Lords alone by the Kings assent declare and adjudge what is Treason both in the case of Lords and Commoners too and â—taint and give Judgement against them both without the Commons after their deaths without legal trial In the Parliament of 5 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 11 12 13 14. On Friday the 18 of February the Earl of Northumberland came before the King Lords and Commons in Parliament and by his Petition to the King acknowledged that he had done against his Lawes and allegeance and especially for gathering power giving of Liveries for which he put himself upon the Kings grace and prayed pardon the rather for that upon the Kings Letters he yielded himself and came to the King at York whereas he might have kept himself away Which Petition by the Kings command was delivered to the Justices to be examined and to have their counsel and advice therein Whereupon the LORDS made a Protestation que le Juggement appentient a â—ux tout soulement THAT THE JUDGEMENT APPERTAINED ONLY TO THEM And after the said Petition being read and considered before the King and the said Lords as Peers of Parliament aus queux teils juggemeâ—t apperteignent de deoit to whom such Iudgements appertained of right having had by the Kings command competent deliberation thereupon and having also heard and considered as well the Statute made in the 25. year of King Edward the Kings Grand father that now is concerning the Declaration of Treason as the Statutes of Liveries made in this Kings reign ADJUDGED That that which was done by the said Earl contained within his Petition was neither Treason nor Felony but Trespas for which the said Earl ought to make fine and ransom at the will of the King Whereupon the said Earl most humbly thanked our Lord the King and the said Lords his Peers of Parliament for their rightfull judgement and the Commoners for their good affections and dâ—ligence used and shewen in this behalf And the said Earl further prayed the King that in assurance of these matters to remove all jealousies and evil suspitions that he might be sworn a new in the presence of the King and of the Lords and Commons in Parliament and the said Earl took an Oath upon the Crosier of the Archbishop of Canterbury to be a faithfull and loyal liege to our Lord the King the Prince his Son and to the heirs of his body inheritable to the Crown according to the Laws of England Whereupon the king out of his grace pardoned him his fine and ransom for the trespass aforesaid After which num 17. the Lords Spiritual and Temporal humbly thanked the King sitting in his royal Throne in the white Chamber for his grace and pardon to the said Earl of his fine and ransom and likewise the Commons thankâ— the Lords Spiritual and Temporal for the good and just Iudgement they had given as Peers of Parliament to the said Earl From this memorable Record I shall observe First that though this Declaration of this Earls case was made by his Petition in the presence of the King Lords and Commons in Parliament according to the Statute of 25 E. 3. yet the Lords only by Protestation in presence of the King and Commons claimed to be the sole Iudges of it as Peers of Parliament and belonging to them OF RIGHT Secondly That this claim of theirs in this case was acknowledged and submitted to both by the King and Commons and thereupon the Lords only after serious consideration of the case and Statutes whereon it depended gave the definitive sentence and judgement in this case that it was neither Treason nor Felony but Trespass only c. Thirdly That the Earl thanked the King only for his grace the Lords for their just Iudgement and the Commons only for their good hearts and diligence having no share in the judgement though given by the Lords both in the Kings and their presence and that the Commons themselves returned special thanks to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament for their good and just judgement Fourthly That this judgement of the Lordr only was final and conclusive both to the King and Commons who acquiesced in it In the Parliament of 2 H. 5. rot Parl. num 13 14. Thomas Mountague Earl of Salisbury son and heir of John Mountague Earl of Salisbury exhibited his petition in Parliament to reverse a judgement given against his said father in the Parliament at Westminster in the second year of King Henry the fourth rot Parl. n. 30 31. forecited wherein amongst others he was attainted of Treason by judgement of all the Temporal Lords in Parliament and thereupon he exhibited certain reversals of Judgements given in Parliament as making on his behalf to the Lords consideration reversed for some errors assigned in those judgements to wit one judgement given against Thomas heretofore Earl of Lancaster before King Edward the second at Pomfract the Monday before the feast of the Annunciation in the fifteenth year of his reign and another Judgement against Roger de Mortymer late Earl of March in the Parliament of King Edward the third the Monday after the feast of St. Katherine in the fourth year of his reign at Westminster Which Judgements being distinctly and openly readâ— and fully understood It seemed to the King and Lords that the case of the death and execution of the said John late Earl of Sarum and of the judgement aforesaid against him given is not nor was like to the case of the executing of the said Th. heretofore Earl of Lancaster nor to the case of the putting to death of Roger Earl of March nor to any judgement given against
the said Thomas and Roger as aforesaid but that the judgement and declaration had and given against the said John late Earl of Sarum were a good just and legal Declaration and Iudgement Per quod consideratum suit in praesenti Parliamento per praedictos Dominos tunc ibidem existentes de assensu diâ— Domini nostri Regis quod praefatus nunc Comes Sarum nihil capiat per petitionem aut prosecutionem suam praedictam Et ulterius tam Domini spirituales quam temporales supradicti judicium et Declarationem pradicta versus dictum Joannem quondam Comitem Sarum ut praemittitur habita sive reddita de assensu ipsius Domini Regis affirmarunt fore et esse bona justa et legalia et ea pro hujusmodi ex abundanti decreverunt et adjudicarunt tuuc ibidem This is all that is mentioned in that Parliament Roll concerning this businesse Sir Edw. Cook who hath an excellent faculty above all others I have yet met with in mistaking mis-reciting and perversing Records and Law-books too oft times which he had no leisure to peruse which I desire all Lawyers and others to take notice of who deem all he writes to be Oracle lest they be seduced by him in his 4 Institutes p. 23. affirms with confidence That in this Rot. Parl. 2. H. 5. n. 13. Error was assigned to reverse this judgement that the Lords gave judgement without Petition or assent of the COMMONS citing it to prove that the COMMONS have a power of judicature together with the LORDS But under his favour I can assure ye Reader 1. That there is no such error at all either mentioned or intended in this Record nor any one syllable tending to that purpose 2ly The Petition mentions no error at all in this judgement but only remembers two presidents of judgement formerly reversed the first in the case of Thomas Earl of Lancaster in 15 E. 2. which judgement was given against him at Pomfret Castle which was afterwards reversed as Sir Edward Cooke himself informs us in his 3 Institutes c. 7. p. 52 53. in Pas 39 E. 3. Coram rege rot 92. for this only reason Qua contra Chartam de libertatibus cum dictus Thomas fuit unus PARIVM MAGNATUM Regni non imprisonetur c. nec dictus Rex super eum ibit nec super eum mittet nisi per legale judicium PARIUM SUORVM c. tamen tempore pacis absque juramento seu responsione seu legale judicio PARIUM SUORUM c. adjudicatus est morti The other was the judgement given against Roger Mortymer in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. reversed for the like reason in the Parliament of 28 E. 3. n. 10 11 12. forecited being condemned and executed by the Lords without any arraignment hearing trial or answer against the Great Charter Now these two Presidents are pointblank against this pretended error alleged by Sir Edward Cook That the Lords gave judgement without the assent of the Commons and it had been very improper for them to allege the reversal of them for want of a legal tryal by their Peers to prove that the Commons who are no Peers should have assented to the Earl of Salisburies judgement and because they did it not it was Error and reversible These presidents therefore might have minded him of his gross mistake 3ly The King and Lords upon consideration declared and adjudged these two cases and judgements upon perusal of them not to be like the case of the Earl of Salisbury who being slain in rebellion and actual war against the king could not be personally arraigned and condemned as the other two might and ought to have been and therefore the judgement given against him in this case by the King and Lords in Parliament who were his Peers was a good just and legal judgement and no ways against the great Charter 4ly The Commons themselves in the Parliament o 13 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 19. acknowledged this judgement to be good without their assents by their Petition to the Kâ—ng that John Lumly whose Father was attainted of Treason by it together with the Earl of Salisbury might be restored to blood and lands by Act of Parliament and the Kings grace notwithstanding this judgement of Treason against them Which the King by assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal consented unto 5 ly In the Parliament of 3 E. 4. n. 31 32. this judgement was made void and repealed out of the Kings Grace by a special act of Parliament and the heir restored but the judgement not reversed for any Error 6ly Had there been any such Error assigned as is alleged yet the King and Lords upon solemn debate and deliberation over-ruled and adjudged it to be no Error at all as he pretends it and thereupon abated the Petition and adjudged the Judgement and Declaration given by the Lords alone with the Kings assent in 2 H. 4. without the Commons Petition or assent to be GOOD JUST AND LEGAL reconfirming it a new on Record as such Therfore it was a gross oversight in him to assign and print it as an Error and a President of the Commons House or both Houses power of judicatures together when as it is a most undeniable double Parliamentary resolution of the Kings and Lords sole right of judicature of their declaring and judging in Parliament what is Treason and what not within the Statute of 25 E. 1. without the Commons assent or privity and an unanswerable refutation of his sole opinion to the contrary in his 3 Institutes c. 2. p. 22. which he opposeth against not only these two Parliamentary resolutions but likewise against 5 H. 4. n. 11 12.15 and 17 R. 2. rot Parl. n. 20. there quoted by him By this you may judge how little credit is to be given to Sir Edwards quotations and authority in matters concerning Parliamentary Judgements and Records In the Parliament of 28 H. 6. rot Parl. n. 14. to 53. The Commons generally accusing William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk to the King and Lords he thereupon required of the king that he might be specially accused and heard to answer to that which many men reported of him to be an untrue man making therewith a protestation of his manifold good services in the wars and as a Privy Counsellor for sundry years and so asking God mercy as he had been true to the King and his Realm required his purgation The 26 of January the Commons required that for this his Confession he might be committed to ward The Lords and Judges upon consultation thought there was no good cause for that unlesse some special matter were objected against him The 28 day of January the Speaker declared that the said Duke as it was said had sold the Realm to the French who had prepared to come hither and for his own defence had furnished Wallingford Castle with all warlike necessaries upon whose request the said Duke was then
Lords only sit upon the Bench and that covered and in their Parliamentary Robes the badges of Judicature but the Commons stand and that bare at the Bar without any robes at all the Lords only swear examine the witnesses and judge of their testimony the Commons only produce the witnesses presse and manage the evidence and when the buâ—nesse is fully heard the Lords only debate the cause among themselves and give the final Sentence Judgement without the Commons though sometimes in their presence and that both in cases of Commoners and Peers Therefore the Lords and House of Peers are sole Judges in Parliament not the Commons 9ly The Commons themselves in all ages since admitted into our Parliaments have always presented their Petitions in Parliament to the King and Lords alone for redress of all Grievances wrongs misdemeanours abuses whatsoever publike or private criminal or civil ecclesiastical marine or military And the Lords House alone have in all antient Parlaments appointed particular persons of their House to receive al Petitions Triers of them to hear and answer them by their advice and the kings assent when necessary which Triers of Petitions had power given to call the Lord Chancellor Treasurer Chamberlain Judges kings Servants and others to this assistance prescribing where when their Petitions should be presented examined redressed at all our Parliament Rolls aâ—est and Sir Edward Cook himself relates There being few or no Petitions at all presented by any to the Commons before â—â— H. 7. c. 19. 4 H. 7. c. 6. These Petitions then presented to them and all ever since with all in this present Parliament being only to this end that they upon the examination of the truth matters complaints grievances mentioned in them might transmit and represent them in the name of the Commons House to the Lords House for to give full redress relief and judgement on them to the Petitioners not for the Commons themselves to judge finally determine them or give relief upon them without the Lords as all the transmissions of private and publike Petitions by the Commons to the Lords heretofore and in this Parliment in the cases of Dr. Layton Dr. Bastwick Mr. Burton Mr. Walker my self and of Lilburns own Petition against his censure attest Therefore the Judicature of our Parliaments must wholy rest and intirely reside in the Lords House as well in all Criminal as civil cases both of Commoners and Lords 10ly The surest badge and highest evidence of the right and exercise of Juridical and Judicial Authority in Parliament is the examination affirmation control repeal nulling adjudging and finall determining all Errors in Judgements Decrees Proceedings all Misprisions Abuses Corruptions grievances whatsoever of Judges Justices in all other Courts of Justice Civil Ecclesiastical Marine or military Now the Lords-alone in Parliament upon Wtits of Error Appeals Complaints Petitions c examine confirm repeal null redresse and finally determine all Errors misprisions in Judgements Decrees Proceedings and all Abuses Corruptions Grievances whatsoever in all other Courts of Justice whether Civil as the Kings Bench Chancery Exchequer Chamber Common Pleas Exchequer Court of Wards Courts of Requests Stanneries c. or Ecclesiastical as the High Commission Archbishops Consistories the Convocation and the Admiralty Court Marshal Council Table Star-chamber and in former Parliaments as is evident by sundry presidents in former ages and in this present Parliament of King CHARLS in the cases of Dr. Layton Dr. Bastwick Mr. Burton Lilburn himself Mr. Grafton Alderman Chambers Mr. Rolls Sir Rob Howard Alderman Langham and Limry Mr. Johns and le Gay with sundry others But more especially in cases of Writs of Error brought in Parliament by Peers or Commoners upon any Erronious judgements touching their real or personal estates lives limbs liberties persons upon Indictments or Attainders In all which writs the King and Lords only are sole judges without the Commoners and the returns of the proceedings upon such Writs are only before the Lords in the Vpper House secundum legem et consuetudinem Parliaments So Sir Edward Cook himself expresly resolves in direct terms in his 4 Institutes p. 21 22 23. And 22 E. 3.3 Fitz Error 8 Br. 3.1 H. 7.20 21 22. Br. Error 137. Old Book of Entries p. 302.16 E. 3. Fitz. Brev. 651.21 E. 3.46 Br. Error 65.29 E. 3.24.39 Ass 18.42 Ass 22.7 H. 6.28 8 H. 5. Fitz. Error 88.19 H. 6.12.35 H. 6.19.37 H. 6.16.11 H. 4.65.9 E. 4.3.2 R. 3.22.37 H. 8.14 15 25. Dyer f. 62.196 201 315 375. intimate as much This is most clear by the Writs of Error Judgements and Proceedings on them in the Parliament House before and by the Lords alone mentioned in the Parliament Rolls themselves as 14 E. 1. roâ— Parl. 1.4 E. 3. n. 13 14.21 E. 3. n. 65 66.28 E. 3. n. 8. to 14.50 E. 3. n. 38.1 R. 2. n. 28 29 105.2 R. 2. n. 31 32 33 37 38. Parl. 2. and Parl. 1. n. 21. to 27.3 R. 2. n. 19.20 21 22.6 R. 2. n. 17.7 R. 2. n. 20 21.8 R. 2. n. 13 14 15 16.13 R. 2. n. 16 17 15 R. 2. n. 22 23 24.16 R. 2. n. 17 18.17 R. 2. n. 17.19 â—8 R. 2. n. 11 12 13.20 R. 2. n. â—6 21 R. 2. n. 25 55. to 66 71.1 H. 4. n. 91 92.2 H. 4. n. 38 39 40.4 H. 4. n. 26.5 H. 4. n. 40.6 H. 4. n. 31.1 H. 5. n. 19.2 H. 5. n. 13 14.3 H. 5. n. 19. with sundry Writs of Error in succeeding Parliaments and this now sitting adjudged determined by the King and Lords alone without the privity or interposition of the Commons A truth so clear that Lilburn himself in his Argument against the Lords jurisdiction confesseth iâ— If then the Lords House be the soâ—e Judges in all Writs of Error and Appeals from all other Courts of Justice concerning the Lands Tenements Goods Estates Liberties Members Lines Attainders of all English Freeholders and Commoners whatsoever notwithstanding the Statute of Magna Charta ch 29. No Freeman shall be â—aken or imprisoned c. neither will we pass upon him nor condemn him but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers c. the grand and principal objection against the Lords Judicature in Cases of Commoners then by the self same reason they are their lawfull Judges and may regally proceed against them in all other criminal or Civil causes especially in cases of breach of their own Privileges wherein they are the sole and only Judges since no other Court can judge of nor yet punish them as Sir Ed. Cook resolves being properly triable only in Paâ—liament as contempt against all other Courts are punishable and triable by themselves alone the present cases of Lilburne and Overton Now that they are and alwayes have been so de facto unless by way of Bill of Attainder or in such extraordinary cases when their concurrence hath been desired even in criminal cases misdemeanors and offences of Commons as well as Peers I
fined a 1000 l. to Edmond Earl of Cornwal and 2000 marks to the Abbot of Westminster and committed to the Tower of London by JUDGEMENT of the King Earls Barons and Iustices in full Parliament for citing and attaching the said Earl of Cornwal in Westminster hall to appear before the Archbishop sitting the Parliament whereof he was a Peer against his Privilege and the privilege of Sanctuary granted to the Abbot of Westminst and remained prisoners there till they put in Sureties and paid the 1000 l. fine to the Earl notwithstanding their plea of ignorance of these their Privileges In the Parliament of 4 E. 3. n. 2 3 4 5 6. Sir Simon Bereford knight John Mautravers Boso de Bayons John Deverall Thomas de Gournay and William of Ocle confederates with Roger Mortimer Earl of March in all his Treasons and misdoings for which he was then impeached and condemned and guilty of the murders of King Edward the 2. after his deposition in Berkley Castle and of the Earl of Kent his Brother were attainted and condemned of High Treason by the Lords Barons Péers in Parliament as Iudges of Parliament though they were Commoners and not their Péers whom they were not at all obliged to judge as Péers adjudging them by the Kings assent as Traytors and Enemies of the King and his Realm to be drawn and hanged Whereupon Sir Simon being in Custody was executed by the Marshal and Proclamation made by the Kings writs by the Lords order to apprehend the others with promise of great rewards to those who should apprehend them that they might be executed and if they could not take them alive to bring in their heads for which thty should receive the reward of 500 l. from the King It is true indeed that after these Judgements given the Lords the same Parliament entred this special Protestation in the Parliament Roll n. 6. against being forced to give Judgement in such cases against those who were not their Peers which Sir Edward Cook stiles an Act of Parliament though it be no such thing but a voluntary Protestation of the Lords with the Kings assent It is assented and agreed by our Lord the King and all the Great men in full Parliament that albeit the said Péers as Iudges of Parliament took upon them in the presence of our Lord the King to make and render the said Judgements by assent of the King upon some of those who were not at all their Peers and that by reason of the murder of our Leige Lord and destruction of him who was so near of the bloud royal and son of a King that thereby the PEERS which now are o◠the Péers which shall be in time to come shall not be bound or charged to render Iudgements upon others who are not their Péers nor yet to doe it but upon the Péers of the Land but that they shall from henceforth be for ever acquitted thereof And that the said Iudgements now rendered shall not be drawn into example nor consequence for time to come whereby the said Peers may be charged hereafter to adjudge others than their Peers against the Law of the Land if such another case should happen which God defend From this Protestation of the Lords which Lilburn principally insists on he and some others conclude that the Peers in Parliament have no right at all to imprison fine judge or pass sentence of death against any Commoner for any offence no not for breach of their own Privileges but only the Commons To which Objection I answer First that this is no Act of Parliam as Sir E. Cook mistakes but a bare Protestation of the Lords alone assented to by the King without the Commons assent which no wayes impeacheth the Lords right of judicature Secondly that neither the House of Commons nor the Commoners then attainted of Treason and adjudged to death by the Lords ever demurred or excepted against their Jurisdiction as Lilburn and Overton doe but acknowledged and submitted to it Thirdly That in this very Protestation the Lords profess and justifie their right of BEING JVDGES in Parliament without admitting or acknowledging any Joynt or sole right of Judicature with them in the Commons Fourthly That this Protestation was meerly voluntary not in derogation but preservation of their own Honour Right Peerage and the Parliaments privileges too The substance of it is no more than this That the Lords should not be constrained against their wills by the Kings command and in his presence to give judgement of death in ordinary cases of Treason or Felony in the high Court of Parliament or elsewhere out of it against such who were no Peers who in such cases by the Law might and ought to be tried in the Kings Courts at Westminster or before the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer by a Iury of their equals but only in cases which could not well be tried elsewhere and were proper for their Judgement in Parliament they fearing that by this president in Parliament they might be sworn and impannelled on Juries in cases of Treason committed by Commoners against the Great Charter c. 29. and the Privilege of their Peerage which exempted them being sworn or put into Juries as Fitz. Nat. brev f. 165.48 E. 3. f. 30. Exemption 6.48 Ass 6.27 H. 8. f. 22. b. This is the whole summ and sence of their protestation To argue therefore from hence That they cannot pass sentence or judgement against any Commoners in any case proper for their Judicature in Parliament because they protested only against being COMPELLED to give Iudgement against such as were no Peers in cases triable elsewhere and not proper for their tribunal as the Objectors hence conclude is quite to mistake their meaning end to speak rather non-sence than reason or Law Fifthly This Protestation was made only against the Lords giving sentence in Felony and Treason and that in the Kings own presence in Parliam who usually pronounced the judgment himself or by some other with the Lords assent did not charge the Lords to pronounce it as here not against sentencing fining imprisoning any Commoner for rayling and libelling against their Persons Jurisdiction and procedings or refusing to answer and contemning their Authority to their faces at the barr or appealing from their Judicature in case of breach of Privilege of which themselves alone and no others are or can be Judges the cases of Lilburn and Overton whose commitments are warranted by hundreds of Presidents in this and former Parliaments Therefore for them to apply this Protestation to their cases with which it hath no Analogy is a manifestation of their injudiciousness and folly rather than a justification of their Libellous Invectives against the Lords injustice Sixthly The Lords gave judgement against all these persons by the Kings command in their absence without any Indictment hearing Trial witnesses heard or examined against them face to face or due process or Law against the Great Charter
and Law of the Land And this was the main reason of this their Protestation as the close of it shews to prevent such dangerous presidents for the future Upon which ground the Judgements they then gave against Roger Mortymer John Mautravers were reversed in the Parliament of 21 E. 3. n. 65.28 E. 3. n. 8. to 16. Lastly This Protestation did not foreclose the Lords in this or future Parliaments to give Judgement against Commoners in other cases of Felony and Treason even without the Commons which I shall prove by some other instances In the Parliament of 4 Ed. 3. n. 16. Sir Thomas Berkeley Knight was arraigned and tried by a Jury for Treason as being guilty of the death of King Edward the 2. committed to his custody who pleaded not guilty and was tried in full Parliament before the King by a Jury and by them acquitted Which case being rare and memorable I shall here insert the whole Record Thomas de Berkele Miles venit coram Domino Rege in pleno Parliamento suo praedicto et allocutus hoc Quod eum Dominus Edwardus nuper Rex Angliae pater Domini Regis nunc in custodia ipsius Thomae et cujusdam Johanuis Mautravors nuper extitit collatus ad salvo custodiendum in castro ipsius Thomae apud Berkele in Com. Gloucestriae et in eodem castro in custodia ipsorum Thomae Johannis murdratus extitit et interfectus qualiter se velit de morte ipsius Regis acquietare Dicit quod nunquam fuit consentiens auxilians seu procurans ad mortem suam nec unquam scivit de morte sua usquam in praesenti Parliamento isto et de hoc paratus est acquietare se prout CURIA REGIS consideraverit Et super hoc quaefitus est ab eo ex quo ipse est Dominus castri praedicti et idem Dominus Rex in custodia ipsorum Thomae Johannis extitit liberatus ad salvo custodiend ipsi custodiam ipsius Regis recepeâ—unt et acceptarunt quali er se excusare possit quin de morte ipsius Regis respondere debeat Et praedictus Thomas dicit quod verum est quod ipse est Dominus Castri praedicti et quod ipse simul cum Johanne Mautravers custodiam ipsius Regis recepit ad salvo custodiend ut praedictum est Sed dicit quod eo tempore quo dicitur ipsum Dominum Regem esse murdratum et interfectum fuit ipse taliter tanta infirmitate apud Bradeley extra Castrum praedictum detentus quod ei currebat memoriae Et super hoc dictum est ei quod ex quo cognovit quod ipse simul cum dicto Johanne custodiam ipsius Domini Regis obtinuit ut praedictum est et ipse custodes et ministros sub se posuit ad custodiam de eo faciendam si per aliquam infirmitatem excusari posset quin respondere debuit in hac parte Et praedictus Thomas dicit quod ipse posuit sub se tales custodes et ministros in castro praedicto pro custodia facienda a quibus ipse se confidebat ut de seipso qui custodiam ipsius Regis simul cum praedicto Johanne Mautravers inde habuerunt unde dicit quod ipse de morte ipsius Domini Regis auxilio assensu seu procuratione mortis suae in nullo est inde culpabilis Et de hoc de bono et malo ponit se suâ—er patriam Ideo venerint inde Juratores coram Domino Rege in Parliamento suo apud Westm in Octabis Sancti Hilarii proxime futuri c. Ad quam diem venit praedictus Thomas coram Domino Rege in pleno Parliamento ac similiter Juratores scil Johannes Darci Iohannes de Wisham Willielmus Trussell Rogerus de Swyneuerton Constantius de Morâ—imer Iohannes de sancto Phileberto Richardus de Rivers Petrus Hussey Iohannis de Dynton Richardus de la Rivere Robertus Dabenhate Richardus de Corveyes omnes milites Qui dicunt super Sacramentum suum quod praedictus Thomas de Berkelie in nullo est culpabilis praedicti Domini Edwardi Regis Patris Domini Regis nunc nec de assensu auxilio seu procuratione mortis ejusdem Et dicunt quod tempore mortis ejusdem Domini Edwardi Regis patris Domini Regis nunc fuit ipse tali infirmitate gravatus apud Bradely extra castrum suum praedictum quod de viâ—a ejus desperabatur Ideo idem Thomas inde quietus Juratores quaesiti si idem Thomas unquam substraxit se occasione praedicta dicunt quod non Et quia idem Thomas posuit custodes et ministros sub se scil Thomam de Gourney et Willielmum de Ocle ad custodiam de ipso Domino Rege faciendam per quod idem Dominus Rex extitit murdratus et interfectus datus est ei dies coram Domino Rege nunc in proximo Parliamento suo de audiendo JUDICIO SUO c. Et praedictus Thomas de Berkelei interim committitur Radulpho de Nevill Mareschallo hospitii Domini Regis c. It is observable that though Edward the 2. was murdered after he was deposed by this Parliament yet he is still â—â—lled a King in this Indictment and record and his murder adjudged Treason in those who did it After his acquittal he put in Mainpernors to appear in the next Parliament Where appearing he and his Mainpernors were discharged but yet himself ordered to appear again the ensuing Parliament as appears by the Parliament Roll of 5 E. 3. n. 16. William Thorp Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and one of the Justices of Assize in the County of Lincoln in the 23 year of Ed. the 3. against his Oath took 10 l. of Richard Saltley 20 l. of Hildebrand of Beresward 40 l. of Gilbert Holliland 40 l. and 10 l. of Ro. Daldorby to stay an Exigent upon an Indictment of diverse felonies that should have issued against them Whereupon he was indicted before the Earls of Arundel Warwick and Huntingdon the Lord Gray and Lord Burghers Anno 24 E. 3. to whom the King by Commission referred the examination of the businesse before whom he could not deny but confessed the Bribery Ideo consideratum est per dictos Justiciarios assignatos ad judicandum secundum voluntatem Regis et secundum regale posse suum quod quia praedictus Willielmus Thorpâ— qui sacramentum Domini Regis quod erga populum suum habuit custodiendum fregit malitiose false et rebelliter in quantum in ipso fuit ex causis supradictis ipsum Willielmum expresse cognitis ideo SUSPENDATUR et quod omnia terra et tenementa bona et catalla sua remaneant forisfacta The King by a writ under the privy Seal stayed his execution and sent him Prisoner to the Tower In the Parliament of 25 Ed. 3. nu 10. command was given that the record of this Judgement
against Judge Thorp should be brought into the Parliament and there read openly BEFORE THE LORDS to have every of their advice concerning it whether this Iudgement were legal or not et nullo contradicente all the Lords affirmed the judgement to be legal and good considering that he against his Oath received Bribes And therefore it was agreed by all the Lords that if the like case should hereafter happen the King might take to him such Nobles as he should think meet and therein do according to his pleasure Provided this judgement should not be drawn into example against any other Officers who should break their Oaths but only against those qui praedictum Sacramentum fecerunt of Justices et fregerunt et habent leges Regales Angl. ad custod Here the Lords were sole Judges of the Judge who was a Commoner and gave judgement against him without the Commons yea declare the Law in this new case both in and out of Parliament In the Parliament of 21 E. 3. n. 68. The Commons by divers Bills complained to the Lords of divers extortions grievances prejudices done to the King and Commons by John Wattenham and Walter de Cheriton Merchants who desired the King would command them to come before THE COUNCIL LORDS in Parliament to answer what should be objected and clear themselves In the Parliament of 50 E. 3. n. 17 18 19 20. The Commons accused Richard Lyons Merchant of London of divers deceits extortions and misdemeanors whiles he was farmer of the Customs and last subsidy for transporting wools and staple Commodities procuring new Impositions on staple ware for buying debts from the Kings Creditors at under rates and making the King to pay the whole for taking of bribes and defrauding the King To some of which charges he answered and to the rest submitted himself to the King touching Body Lands and Goods Whereupon THE LORDS adjudged him to prison during the Kings will that his lands tenements and goods should be seised to the Kings use that Commissions should issue throughout all England to inquire of his Extortions whiles farmer of the subsidies and that he should be disfranchised Upon this Judgement in the Fine Roll of 50 E. 3. m. 19 21 22. there issued out writs for the arresting and selling the goods of Richard Lyons to the Kings use which were his on the 19 of March certis de causis coram Nobis et Concilio nostro in praesenti Parliamento nostro propositis c. per Concilium in Parliamento The same Parliament 50 E. 3. n. 31 32. William Ellis of great Yarmouth was accused by the Commons of sundry extortions whiles he was Deputy Farmer of the kings subsidie to Richard Lyons To which he seemed sufficiently to answet yet was BY THE LORDS adjudged to prison and to make a fine at the Kings pleasure Ibidem Num. 33. Iohn Peach of London was impeached by the Commons for procuring a license under the Great Seal that he only might sell sweet wines in London by colour whereof he took 4 s. 4 d. of every man for every Tun thereof sold which he justified he lawfully might doe Notwithstanding JUDGEMENT was given against him by THE LORDS that he should be committed during the Kings pleasure and make recompense to all parties grieved Num 37. Adam de Bury was accused of divers deceits and wrongs done by him whiles Mayor of Callice and Captain of Bellingham Being sent for to come to the Parliament he came not nor could he be found Thereupon the Lords agreed that all his goods and chattels should be arrested and so they were All these Commons were first impeached by the Commons and thus judged and censured by THE LORDS in this GOOD PARLIAMENT as Historians and others stile it And in the Commons petitions therein there are divers Petitions of Grievances from sundry Counties Towns persons complaining of wrongs and grievances presented to the King and Lords for redresse of oppressions extortions Monolies c. In the Parliament of 1 R. 2. n. 41 42 43. Dame Alice Pâ—etrees was brought before THE LORDS by Sir Richard Scroop Knight and there charged for pursuing matters at the Court contrary to an Order made in the Parliament of 50 E. 3. n. 35. and procuring King Edward to restore Richard Lyons to his lands and goods c. she denied she pursued any such thing for singular gain against that Ordinance whereupon diverse Officers Counsellers and Secretaries of king Edward 3. were examined against her who proved she made such pursutes and that for private gain in their conceits Whereupon the Lords alone without the Commons gave Iudgement against her that she should be banished according to the order aforesaid and forfeit all her Lands Goods and Tenements to the King The same Parliament 1 R 2. n. 32 33. The Lords committed William Fitz-Hugh Goldfiner and Citizen of London to the Tower for refusing to averr a Petition exhibited by him in the name of the poor Commonalty of that mystery complaining against John Chichester and John Bolcham of the same mystery of divers oppressions done by them to the said Commonalty In this very Parliament of 1 R. 2. n. 38 39 40. The Commons prayed that all those Captains who had rendred or lost Castles or Towns through default might be put to answer it in this Parliament and severely punished according to their deserts BY AWARD or Judgement OF THE LORDS and BARONS to eschew the evil examples they had given to other Governors of Towns and Castles Whereupon Sir Alexander de Buxton Constable of the Tower was commanded to bring BEFORE THE LORDS IN PARLIAMENT William de Weston and Lord of Gomynes both of them Commoners on Friday the 27 of November to answer such Articles as should be surmised against them on the Kings behalf Being brought BEFORE THE LORDS in full Parliament they were severally articled against at the command of THE LORDS by Sir Richard le Scrop Knight Steward of the Kings House and their several Articles and answers to them in writing read before THE LORDS Which done the Constable was commanded to bring them again before THE LORDS on Saturday next ensuing being the 20 of November on which day it was shewed unto them severally by the said Steward by THE LORDS COMMAND That THE LORDS OF THE PARLIAMENT whose names are particularly mentioned in the Roll had met together and considered of their respective answers and that IT SEEMED TO THE LORDS AFORESAID that the said William had delivered up the Castle of Onâ—herwycke to the Kings enemies without any duress or want of victuals contrary to his allegiance and undertaking safely to keep it and therefore the Lords above-named sitting in full Parliament adjudge you to death that you shall be drawn hanged But because our Lord the King is not informed of the manner of the Judgement the execution of it shall be respited till the king be thereof informed After which Judgement given
against Sir Michael de la Pool Knight Lord Chancellor of England first before the Commons and afterward before the Lords which was granted Then he accused him BEFORE THE LORDS for bribery and injustice and that he entered into a bond of 10 l. to Iohn Ottard a Clerk to the said Chancellor which he was to give for his good success in the business in part of payment whereof he brought Herring and Sturgeon to Ottard and yet was delayed and could have no justice at the Chancellors hands Upon hearing the cause and examining witnesses upon Oath before THE LORDS the Chancellor was cleared The Chancellor thereupon required reparation for so great a slander the Lords being then troubled with other weighty matters let the Fishmonger to Bail and referred the matter to be ordered by the Judges who upon hearing the whole matter condemned Cavendish in three thousand marks for his slanderous complaint against the said Chancellor and adjudged him to prison till he had paid the same to the Chancellor and made fine and ransom to the King also which the Lords confirmed In the Parliament of 8 R. 2. n. 12. Walter Sybell of London was arrested and brought into the Parliament before the Lords at the sute of Robert de Veer Earl of Oxford for slandering him to the Duke of Lancaster and other Nobles for maintenance Walter denied not but that he said that certain there named recovered against him the said Walter and that by maintenance of the said Earl as he thought The Earl there present protested himself to be innocent and put himself upon the trial Walter thereupon was committed to Prison by the Lords and the next day he submitted himself and desired the Lords to be a mean for him saying he could not accuse him whereupon THE LORDS CONVICTED and FINED HIM FIVE HUNDRED MARKS TO THE SAID EARL for the which and for his fine and ransom to the King he was committed to prison BY THE LORDS A direct case in point By these two last Presidents of the Lords â—ining and imprisoning Cavendish and Syber two Commoners in Parliament for their standers and false accusacions only of two particular Peers and Members of their house it is most apparent the Lords now may most justly not only imprison but likewise fine both Lilburn and Overion for their most scandalous Libels against all the Members just Privileges Judicatory and Authority of the whole House of Peers which they have contemned vilisied oppugned and libelled against in the highest degree and most scurrillously abused reviled in sundry seditious Pamphlets to incite both the Army and whole Commonalty against them In the Parliament of 11 R. 2. the Duke of Glocester and other Lords came to London with great forces to secure themselves and remove the kings ill Counsellors and bring them to judgement whereupon the King for fear securing himself in the Tower of London and refusing to come to them at Westminster contrary to his faithfull promise the day before they sent him this threatning Message nisi venire maturaret juxta condictum quod eligerent alium sibi Regem qui vellet et deberet obtemperare consiliis Dominorum Wherewith being terrified he came unto them the next day Cui dixerunt PROCERES pro honore suo regni commodo oporterâ—â— ut Proditores susurrones adulatores et male fici detractores juratores à suo Palatio et Comitive etiam eliminarentur Whereupon they banished sundry Lords Bishops Clergy-men Knights and Ladies from the Court and imprisoned many other Knights Esquires and Lawyers to answer their offences in Parliament The first man proceeded against in Parliament was the Chief Justice Tresylian whom the Lords presently adjudged to be drawn and hanged The like Iuegement the Lords gave against Sir Nicholas Brambre Knight Sir Iohn Salisbury Sir Iames Burwâ—yes Iohn Beauchamp Iohn Blakes who were all drawn and hanged accordingly as Trayâ—ers one after another and Simon Burly beheaded after them by like judgement notwithstanding the Kings and Earl of Derbies intercessions for him to the Lords After their Execution Robert Belknapâ— John Holâ— Roger Fulthorp and William Burgh Justices were banished by the Lords sentence and their lands and chattels confiscated out of which they allowed them only a small annual pension to sustain their lives After which these Judgments against them were confirmed by Acts of Attainder as you may read in the Statutes at large of 11 R. 2. where their Crimes and Treasons are specified in Cokes 3 Institutes c. 2. p. 22 23. and in Knyghton Holinshed Fabian Speed Trussel with other Historians In the Parliament of 13 R. 2. n. 12. Upon complaint of the Bishop Dean and Chapter of Lincoln against the Mayor and Bayliffs thereof for injustice in keeping them from their rights and rents by reason of the franchises granted them which they abused Writs were sent to the Mayor and Baylifs to appear at a certain day before the Lords and to have full authority from the whole Comonalty to abide their determination therein At which day the Mayor and Bayliffs appearing in proper person for that they brought not full power with them from the said Commonalty they were anâ— goâ— by the Lords to be in contempt and so were the Mayor and Bayliffs of Cambridge for the self same cause this very Parliment n. 14. In the Parliament of 15 R. 2. n. 16. The Prior of Holland in Lancashire complained of a great riot done by Henry Treble John Greenboâ— and sundry others for entring into the Parsonage of Whitwâ—rke in Leicestershire thereupon John de Ellingham Serjeant at Armes by vertue of a Commission to him directed brought the said Treble and Greenbow the principle malefactors into the Parliament before the Lords who upon 〈◊〉 confessed the whole matter and were therefore committed to the Fleaâ— there to remain at the Kings pleasure after which they made a fine in the Chancery agreed with the Prior and found sureties for the Good behaviour whereupon they were dismissed The same Parliament n. 19. Sir Will. Bryan was by the King with the assent of the Lords committed prisoner to the lower during the Kings will and pleasure for purchasing a Bull from Rome to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to excommunicate all such who had broken up his house and taken away divers Letters Privileges and Charters which Bull was adjudged prejudicial to the King his Councâ—l and in derogation of the Law Num. 20. Thomas Harding was committed to the Fleet by the King and Lords assent there to continue during the Kings pleasure for falsly accusing Sir John and Sir Ralph Sutton as well by mouth as writing of a conspiracy whereof upon hearing they were acquitted And n. 21. John Shadwell of Baghsteed in Sussex was likewise committed to the Fleet by THE LORDS there to remain during the Kings pleasure for misinforming of the Parliament that the Archbishop of Canterbury had excommunicated him and his neighbours wrongfully in his
Sautre being condemned of Heresie in the Convocation by Archbishop Arundel and the Clergy thereupon by order and advice of the Temporal Lords without the Prelates who must not have their hands in blood though they gave the Sentence that he should be burned or the Commons there issued out a Writ to the Sherifs of London for the burning of Sautre as an Heretick accordingly burnt thereon being the first writ of this Nature issued by the Lords alone in the Kings name before the Statute of Heresie was made and passed in this Parliament In the same Parliament of 2 H. 4. n. 30. The Temporal Lords by assent of the King adjudged and declared Sir Ralph Lumly Knight and others Traytors for levying war in sundry parts to destroy the K. his people and that they should forfeit all their lands in fee goods and chattels though they were slain in the field not arraigned nor indicted by reason thereof In the Parliament of 4 H. 4. n. 19 20 21. Sir Philip Courtney being complained against and convicted of a forcible entry into Lands and for a forcible imprisonment of the Abbot of Mâ—nthaem in Devonshire and two of his Monks was upon hearing and examination adjudged by the King and Lords to be bound to his good behaviour and for his contempt committed to the Tower of London prisoner Anno 1403. Henry Percy the younger confederating with Thomas Percy Earl of Worcester to raise forces â—nd rebel against the King sent Letters to the people of every County propositum quod assumpserant non esse contra suam ligeantiam et fidelit tem quam regi fecerant nec ab aliunde exercitum congregasse nisi pro salvatione personarum suarum reipublicae meliori guvernatione Quia census et Tallagia Regi concessa pro salva regni custodia covertebantur ut dixerunt in usus indebitos et inutiliter consumebantur praeterea querebantur quod propter aemulorum dilationes pessimas rex eis insensus fuerat ut non auderent personaliter venire ad ejus praesentiaem donec Praelati regnique Barones regi supplicassent pro eisdem ut coram Rege permitterentur declarare suam innocentiam per Pares suos legaliter justificari Plures igitur visis his literis collaudabant tantum virorum solertiam extollebant fidem quam erga Rempublicam praetendebant Having raised great forces against the King by this means which the kings forces encountred at Shrewsbury in a pitched battel Henry Percy and sundry of his adherents were there slain in the field and the rest routed For which levying of war in the Parliament of of 5 H. 4. n. 15. the said Henry Percy and his Coâ—federaâ—es were declared and adjudged Traytors by the King and Lords in full Parliament and their Lands goods and chaâ—tels confiscated In the same Parliament n. 18. At the Petition of the Commons The Lords â—enâ—ed and ordered that the Kings Confessor the Abbot of Dore Mr Richard Durham and Crosby of the Chamber should be removed out of the Kings house and Court whereupon 3. of them appearing before the King and Lords in Parliament the King though he excused them yet charged them to depart from his house for that they were hated of the people In the Parliament of 13 H. 4. n. 12 13. The Lord Roos complained against Robert Thirwit one of the Justices of the Kings Bench for withholding from him and his Tenants Common of Pasture and Turbâ—ry in Warbie in Lincolnshire and lying in wait with 500 men for the Lord Roos Thirwit before the King and Lords confessed his fault and submitted himself to their Order who appointed 3. Lords to end the difference who made an award between them that Thirwit shouâ—d confess his fault to the Lord Roos crave his pardon and tender him amends In the Parliament of 5 H. 5. n. 11. Sir John Oldcastle knight being outlawed of Treason in the Kings bench and excommunicated before the Archbishop of Canterbury for Heresie was brought before THE LORDS and having heard his conviction made no answer nor excuse thereto Upon which Record and Process THE LORDS ADJUDGED that he should be taken as a Traytor to the King and Realm carried to the Tower of London from thence drawn through the City to the new Gallows in St. Gyles without Temple-barr and there hanged and burned hanging which was accordingly executed Sir Iohn Mortymer knight being committed to the Tower upon supposition of Treason done against King Henry the 5. in the 1. year of H. 6. brake out of the Tower for which breach he was indicted of Treason being afterwards apprehended he was brought into the Parliament of 2 H. 6. n. 18. and upon the same Indictment then confirmed by assent of Parliament JUDGEMENT was given against him BY THE LORDS that he should be carried to the Tower drawn through London to Tiburn there to be hanged drawn and quartered his head to be set on London-bridge and his four quarters on the four Gates of London In the Parliament of 38 H. 6. n. 20 2â— 22. Sir William Oldham knight and Thomas Vaughan Esquire were attainted of Treason by the LORDS and in the Parliaments of 1 E. 4. n. 19. to 31. 4 E. 4. n. 28. to 38. â—4 E. 4. n. 34. to 40. sundry Knights Esquires Citizens and Commoners are attainted of Treason by the Lords for levying warr and holding forts against the King then after by Bill whose names are overtedious to reherse which you may peruse at leisure in the Exact Abridgement of the Records in the Tower To omit all other presidents of this Nature in the reigns of King H. 7.8 Ed. 6. Qu. Mary and Qu. Elizabeth of Commoners censured in and by the Lords house in Criminal causes upon impeachments complaints petitions which those who please may find recorded in the Journals of the Lords house I shall recite only some few Presidents more of late and present times In the Parliaments of 18. 21 Iacobi Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Iohn Michel upon complaints and impeachments by the Commons for promoting Monopoliâ—s Corruption and other Misdemeanors were fined imprisoned by Judgement of the Lords House and Sir Giles degraded of his knighthood In the Parliament of 3. Carolâ— the Commons impeached Roger Manwaring Dr. of Divinity for preaching and printing Seditious and dangerous Sermons and sent up this Declaration against him to the Lords June 14. 1628. For the more effectual prevention of the apparent ruine and destruction of this kingdom which must necessarily ensue if the good and fundamental Laws and customs therein established should be brought into contempt and violated and that form of government thereby altered by which it hath been so long maintained in peace and happiness And to the honour of our Soveraign Lord the King and for the preservation of his Crown and Dignity the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do by this their Bill shew and
upon him nor condemn him but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers or by the Law of the Land Whence thus they argue The Lords in Parliament are not Commoners Peers but the Commons only therefore they cannot be judged in Parliament by the Lords but by the Commons alone and if Peers there judge Commoners it is a tyranny and usurpation even against Magna Charta it self though it be in case of privilege To take away this grand seeming Objection and give it a satisfactory answer I say First in general that there is scarce one Parliament ever since Magna Charta was first confirmed but the Lords have sentenced and given Judgement against some Commoners capitally or penally in body purse or both without the Commons and did so doubtlesse before Magna Charta was made as I have already manifested yet never did the Commons in any one of those Parliaments till this present complain of it as a violation of Magna Charta or a tyrannical usurpation as Lilburn and Overton stile it but acknowledged ir as a just right in the Lords even in 3 Caroli it self when the Petition of Right was passed in the Lords Judgement and Sentence against Dr Manwaring a Commoner impeached by the Commons in Parliament And therfore for this Ignoramus alone against the judgment of the Commons in Parl. in all ages to averr this a breach of Magna Charta for imprisoning and sining him for the highest affront and breach of privilege ever offered to any Parl. is the extremity of ignorance malice singularity Secondly I answer That the Statute of Magna Charta extendeth not to nor was ever intended of the high Court of Parliaments Judgements Proceedings but only to and of the Proceedings Judgements in the Kings great Courts of Justice at Westminster Hall the Exchequer his Privy Council and other inferior Courts held before Judges Justices of Assise and other Officers as is evident by comparing this objected Chapter with c. 11 12 13 14 18 28 30 34 37. by the Statutes of 25 E. 3. Stat. 5. c. 4. 28 E. 3. c. 3. 37 E. 3. c. 18. 38 E. 3. c. 9. 42 E. 3. c. 2. 17 R. 2. c. 6. and the Petition of Right it self 3. Caroli which so expound it there being never any complaint against the Parliament it self or House of Peers in any age for breach of Magna Charta in censuring or imprisoning Commoners till now Therefore this misapplying of this Law to the Parl. and House of Peers is a gross oversight Thirdly the very literal sence of this Law is much mistaken by the Objectors The main scope whereof is this That no man should be deprived of his Freehold Liberties Limbs life or outlawed exiled or otherwise destroyed without legal process in due form of Law in Courts of Justice not by meer force violence injustice arbitrary and tyrannical power or martial Law nor being brought to his legal trial or answer And that none should pass upon them in any trials for freehold or life but only English Freemen Now in respect of Freedom any every Freeman of England is a Peer to another Freeman quatenus such a one within this Law though of an higher degree in point of honour dignity office estate as Knights Esquires Gentlemen Yeomen Citizens Merchants these as Freemen are all Peers one to another and may pass upon each other in Juries both in civil and criminal causes and this clause No Freemâ—n shall be imprisoned c. but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers extends only to villains and those who are not Freeholders from being Iudges of Freemen and Freeholders in trials by Jury whence the Writs to the Sherifs to summon Jurors require them alwayes to return Liberos Legales homines not to exclude Lords or Peers who are Freemen in the highest degree to be Judges of Commoners who are Freemen So as the Argument from the true meaning of this Law can be but this in respect of the persons quality who are to give judgement Villains and those who are no Freemen are not to be Judges of or impannelled in Juries to condemn Freemen because they are not their Peers nor Freemen as well as they Therefore Lords who are Freemen of the highest degree may not give judgement against Commoners who are Freemen Very learned nonsence We all know that the Lord Chancellor of England Lord Keeper Lord Treasurer Master of the Court of Wards and some of the Judges of the Kings Courts in Westminster Hall in former times with the Chief Justiciar and Justices in Eyre were antiently and of late too as the Earl of Holland and others Peers of the Realm not Commoners and that all the Peers of the Realm are in Commissions of Oyer and Terminer and of the Peace yet did we never hear of any Commoner demurring or pleading thus to any of their Jurisdictions in Chancery Kings Bench the Exchequer Chamber Eyres Assises or Sessions Sir I am a Commoner and you are a Peer of the Realm but no Commoner as I am besides you sit here only in the Kings right doing all in his name and representing his person who is not my Peer but Sovereign Therefore you ought not to judge my cause condemn my person nor give any sentence for or against me it being contrary to Magna Charta which enacts That no freeman should be judged or passed upon or condemned but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers Certainly no person was ever yet so mad or sottish to make such a Plea before Ignoramus Lilburn And if Lords Peers may judge the persons causes of Commoners in the Chancery Kings Bench Exchequer Court of Wards Eyres and at Assises Sessions without any violation of this clause in Magna Charta though they are exempted to be impannelled or serve in Juries in cases of Commoners as Commoners in Juries to try them much more may the House of Peers in Parliament doe it who are certainly Peers to Commoners as Freemen though Commoners be not Peers to them as Lords within the meaning of Magna Charta chap. 29. Fourthly If the Lords in Parliament cannot meddle with or give judgement in Commoners causes without breach of this clause in Magna Charta then why did Lilburn himself sue and petition to the Lords as the only competent Judges to reverse his sentence in Star Chamber and give him damages because it was against this very Chapter of Magna Charta If Lords cannot give judgement in the case of Commoners as now he holds without express violation of this Law then himself in petitioning the Lords to relieve him against the Star-Chamber sentence because contrary to this very Law and Chapter of Magna Charta was a great a violator of it as his Star-Chamber censurers and his sentence in Star-chamber remains still unreversed because the Lords examining reversing of it they being no Commoners as he is but Peers was Coram non judice and meerly void by the Statute of 25 E.
3. Stat. 5. c. 4. because contrary to Magna Charta it self as he now expounds it Let him therefore unriddle assoyl this his own Dilemma or for ever hold his tongue and pen from publishing such absurdities to seduce poor people as he hath done to exasperate them to clamour against the Lords for being more favourable in their censure of him than his transcendent Libels and contempts against them deserved Fifthly This Statute is in the disjunctive by the Lawfull Judgement of his Peers OR BY THE LAW OF THE LAND which this Ignoramus observes not Now by the Law of the Land every inferiour Court of Justice may fine and imprison men for contempts or misdemeanors against them and their authority therefore the Lords in Parliament being the highest Tribunal may much more do it and have ever done it even by this express clause of Magna Charta and the Law and Custom of Parliament as well as they may give judgements in writs of Error against or for Commons without the Commons consent as himself doth grant yea and by the Kings concurrent assent declare what is Treason and what not within the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 20. in the cases of Commoners as well as Lords without the Commons as they did in the forecited cases of William de Weston and Lord of Gomines 1 R. 2. n. 38 39 40. Of William Thorp 25 E. 3. n. 10. Of Thomas Haxey 20 R. 2. n. 15 16.23 Of Sir Thomas Talbot 13 R. 2. n. 20 21. Of Sir Robert Plesington and Henry Bowhert 22 R. 2. Plac. Coronae in Parliamento n. 27 28. Of John Hall 1 H. 4. Plac. Coronae in Parl. n. 11. to 17. Of Sir Ralph Lumley and others 4 H. 4. n. 15. 19 20 21. Of Sir John Oldcastle 5 H. 5. n. 11. and of Sir John Mortymer 2 H. 6. n. 18. as the Commons and Judges in all those Parliaments agreed without contradiction against the erronious opinion of Sir Edward Cooke to the contrary in his 3. Institutes p. 22. Sixthly It is granted by Lilburn that by this express Law No Freeman of England ought to be judged or censured but only by his Peers and that Commoners are no Peers to Nobles nor Noblemen Peers to Commoners Then by what Law or reason dared he to publish to the world That the House of Commons are the Supreme Power within this Realm and THAT BY RIGHT THEY ARE THE LORDS JUDGES certainly this is a Note beyond Ela a direct contradiction to Magna Charta in this very clause wherein he placeth his strength and subverts his very ground-work against the Lords Jurisdiction in their censure of him For if the House of Commons be by right the Lords Iudges then by Magna Charta c. 29. they are and ought to be their Peers and if the Commons be the Lords Peers then the Lords must be the Commons Peers too and if so then they may lawfully be his Judges even by Magna Charta because here he grants them to be no other than his Peers Lo the head of this great Goliah of the Philistin Levellers cut off with his own sword and Magna Charta for ever vindicated from his ignorant and sottish contradictory Glosses on it Now to convict him of his Errour in affirming the House of Commons to be by right the Lords Judges I might inform him as I have formerly proved at large that Magna Charta it self c. 14. 29. and Sir Edward Cook his chief Author in his commentary on them are express against him that in the Parliament of 15 E. 3. ch 2. in print it was enacted That whereas before this time the Peers of the Land have been arrested and imprisoned and their Temporalties Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels seised into the Kings hands and some put to death without Iudgement of their Péers that no Peer of the Land Officer or other by reason of his office nor of things touching his office nor by other cause shall be brought in judgement to lose his Temporalties Lands Tenements Goods Chattels nor to be arrested or imprisoned outlawed exiled nor forejudged nor put to answer nor to be judged but by award of the said Péers in Parliament which privilege of theirs was both enjoyed and claimed in Parliament 4 E. 3. n. 14 15 E. 3. n. 6 8 44 49 51. 17 E. 3. n. 22. 18 E. 3. n. 7. to 16. 10 R. 2. n. 7 8. 11 R. 2. n. 7 c. and sundry other Parliament Rolls See Cook 4. Instit p. 15. 17 E. 3. 19. Cromptons Jurisdiction of Courts f. 4. 12 13. Stamford f. 151 152. This Paradox therefore of his is against all Statutes Law-Books Presidents whatsoever and Magna Charta it self And as false an assertion as that the Subjects are the Judges of their Soveraign the Servants of their Masters the children of their Parents the Wiâ—es of their Husbands the Soldiers of their General and the feet and lower members of the Head The second only Objection more of moment is this If the House of Peers may without the Commons fine and imprison Commoners then if their fine and imprisonment be unjust and illegal they shall be remediless there being no superior Court to appeal unto which will be an intollerable slavery and grievance not to be indured among free-born people I answer first That no injustice shall or ought to be presumed in the highest Court of Justice till it be apparently manifested Secondly If any such censure be given the party as in Chancery upon just grounds shewed may Petition the House of Peers for a review and new hearing of the cause which they in justice neither will nor can deny and if they do then the party grieved may petition the house of Commons to intercede in his behalf to the Peers for a rehearing but for them to discharge free any Commoner judicially censured by the Lords I have hitherto met with no president in former Parliaments nor power in the house of Commons to doe it who cannot reverse Erronious judgements in any inferiour Courts by writ of Error but the Lords alone much less then the judgements of the Higher House of Peers which is paramount them Thirdly I conceive the House of Peers being the Superior Authority and only Judicatory in Parliament may relieve or release any Commoners unjustly imprisoned or censured by the Commons house or any of their Committees and ought in justice to doe it or else there will be the same mischief or a greater in admitting the house of Commons to be Judges of Commoners if there be no appeal from them to the Lords in case their sentences be illegal or unjust Thirdly This mischief is but rare and you may object the same against a sentence given or Law made in Parliament by the King and both Houses because there is no appeal from it but only to the next or some other Parliament that shall be summoned by petition in the nature of a Writ of
Error There is a greater grievance in all ill publique Acts which concern many than in ill judgements which concern but one or two particular persons which yet cannot be repealed but by another Parliament as the Errours and decrees of one General Council cannot be rectified or reversed but by and till another General Council meets to do it The same mischief was and is in Errours Judgements and Decrees given in the Kings Bench Chancery in illegal commitments by them for which there is no relief out of Parliament but to wait till a new Parliament be called For this I shall cite one memorable Record besides the forecited cases of the two Spencers Roger Mortimer Matravers Earls of Arundel Salisbury and others relating to the Parliaments of Ireland Claus 46 E. 3. m. 25. Pro Hominibus de Hybernia de Custumae oneribus revocandis Roberto de Ashton Iustic Hyberniae A complaint was made from some of Ireland to the King that Willielmus de Windsore being Lieutenant of Ireland at the first Parliament held there after his coming desired diversa Custumae et onera quae antea alique tempore concessa non fuerunt viz. de quolibet lasto halicium 3 s. with divers impositions more on most commodities there expressed Et licet Praelati Magnates et alii ligei nostri PRO MAJORI PARTE in dicto Parliamento nostro existentes concessionem levationem et solutionem Custumae et onerum supradictorum ABSQUE ASSENSU MINORIS PARTIS DICTI PARLIAMENTI CONCESSERVNT per tres annos tantum et non ultra concesserunt praefatus tamen Willielmus et alii de Consilio suo â— rotulo Cancellariae nostrae ejusdem terrae irrotulari et registrari fecerunt quod dictae Custumae et onera per OMMES in dicto Parliamento praesentes perpetuis temporibus percipienda concessa fuerunt in ipsorum nostrorum ligeorum terrae nostrae praedict destructionem et depauperationem manifestam Unde Nobis supplicarunt c. Et ideo Vobis mandamus quod praemissa omnia et singula ejusdem modo et forma quibus gesta et act a fuerunt IN PROXIMO PARLIAMENTO NOSTRO in terra praedicta tenendo coram Praelatis Magnatibus eâ— Communitate dicti Parliamento recitari ac decâ—arari facias Etsi per expositionem et examinationem Vobis constare poterit praemissa veritatem continere tunc irrotulationem ac recordum concessionâ—s custumae et onerum praedict DE ASSENSV DICTI PARLIAMENTI cancellari et damnari et levationem et exactionem Custumae praedict ratione concessionis antedictae post dictum triennium supersederi facias omnino Teste c. 28 Maii. It appears likewise by Claus 47. E. 3. m. 3. De quodam subsidio in Hybernia levando that they likewise complained by Petition to the King that the said William de Windsor whiles he was Lieutenant of Ireland had imposed on them a subsidy of 5000 l. in the two last Parliaments there held at Kilkenny and Balydoill against their wills and their free grants whereupon the King had sent a Writ that it should not be levied pro eo tamen that we are since informed by the GREAT MEN and other credible persons of Ireland that the 5000 l. was FREELY GIVEN AND GRANTED by the Lords Greatmen and Commons in these Parliaments ET NON PER VIAM IMPOSITIONIS EXACT as was suggested Volumus de avisamento Concilii nostri quod omnes denarios de dicta summa 5000. librarum qui a retro existunt nondum levati de hominibus et ligeis nostris terrae nostrae praedictae juxta formam concessionis eorundem leventur c. Teste apud Westmonasterium 20 Decembris Finally He that suffers by and under an unjust censure will have the comfort of a good Conscience to support him till he be relieved and therefore he must possess his Soul with Patience and rejoyce under his cross and not rail murmur and play the Bedlam as Lilburn his Companions Overton Larnar and other Sectaries doe against our Saviours own precept and example and then God in his due season will relieve and right them in a legal way whereas their impatience raving and libellous railing Pamphlets and Petitions not savouring of a Christian meek and humble spirit will but create them new troubles expose them unto just and heavy censures and rob them both of the comfort and glory of al their former suffrings against Law and Reason Having answered these Objections I shall now earnestly desire all Lilburns and Overtons seduced Disciples whether Members or others seriously to weigh and consider the premises that so they may see how grossely they have been deluded abused and misled by these two Ignes fatui or New-lights of the Law and Circumscribers of the Lords and Parliaments Jurisdictions which God knows they no more know nor understand than Balams Asse as the premises demonstrate and I shall seriously adjure them if they have any grace shame or remainder of ingenuity left in them ingeniously to recant and publiquely to retract all their seditious railing Libels and Scurrilous Invectives against the Lords undoubted Privileges Jurisdiction and Judicature which I have here unanswerably made good by undeniable Testimonies Histories Records and the grounds of policy and right reason which they are unable to gainsay to undeceive the many ignorant over-credulous poor Souls they have corrupted and misled to the publique disturbance of our Kingdoms Peace and let all their followers consider well of our Saviours caution Mat. 15.14 If the blind lead the blind as these blind-guids doe them both of them shall fall into the Ditch and there perish together O consider therefore what I have here written to undeceive your judgements and reform your practice consider that Dominion Principality Regality Magistracy and Nobility are founded in the very Law of Nature and Gods own institution who subjected not only all beasts and living Creatures to the soveraign Lordship of man to whom he gave Dominion over them Gen. 1.28 29. c. 9.2 3 5· Psal 8.6 7 8. by vertue whereof men still enjoy Dominion over the Beasts but likewise one man unto another as Children to their Parents Wives to their Husbands Servants to their Masters Subjects to their Kings Princes Magistrates Souldiers to their Captains Mariners to their Ship-Masters Scholtars to their Tutors People to their Ministers which order if denied or disturbed will bring absolute and speedy confusion in all Families Corporations States Kingdoms Armies Garrisons Schools Churches and dissolve all humane Societies which subsist by order and subordination only to one another and seeing God himself and Jesus Christ are frequently stiled in Scripture not only King Lord the Head of all Principalities Powers Thrones Dominions but also KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS Deut. 10.17 Ps 136.3 1 Tim. 6.15 Rev. 1.5 c. 17.14 c. 10.6 which glorious Titles they must lose if all Kings and Lords be totally abolished And since
and Wyrsâ—hipp that longed thereto and assoiled all your Leiges of her ligeance and obeisance that longed to yowe uppe the fourme that is contened in the same Renunciation and Cession whiche ye redde your self by your mouth and affermed it by zour othe and by your owne writing upon whiche ye made and ordeyned your Procuratours the Ersbysshopp of York and the Bisshopp of Hereford for to notifie and declare in your name thes Renunciation and Cession at Westmynstre to all the States and all the people that was ther gadyrd because of the Sommons foresayd the whiche thus don yesterday by thes Lordes your Procuratours and wele herde and understonden thes Renunciation and Cession ware pleinelith and frelith accepted and fullich agreed by all the States and people forsayd And over this Sire at the instance of all thes States and people ther ware certein Articles of defauts in your governance redde there and tho we le herd and plesnelich understonden to all the States forsayd hem thoght hem so trewe and so notorie and knowen that by the causes and as by mo other as thei sayd and havyng consideration to your owne wordes in your own Renunciation and Cession that ye were not worthy ne sufficient ne able for to govern for your owne demerites as it is more pleinerlich contened therin hem thoght that wos reasonable and cause for to depose yowe and her Commissaries that thei made and ordeined as it is of record ther declared and decreed and adjudged yowe for to be deposed and priveâ— and in dede deposed yowe and pryved yowe of the astate of Kyng and of the Lordsship contened in the Renunciation and Cession forsayd and of all the Dignite and Wyrsship and of all the administration that longed thereto And we Procuratours to all these States and people forsayd os we be charged by hem and by her auctorite giffen us and in her name yelde yowe uppe for all the States and people forsayd Homage Liege and Feaute and all Ligeance and all other Bondes Charges and Services that longe therto and that non of all tbes States and people fro this tyme forward ne here yowe feyth ne do yowe obeisance â—s to thar Kyng And he answered and sayd that he looked not therafter but he sayde that after all this he hoped that is Cosyn wolde bee good Lord to hym Joesdy le â—xiiij Doctober Lerecuesque de Canterbire chargea deper le Roy touz les Seigneurs Espirituales temporales toutz antres y estantz sur Leur Ligeance que ceo que lors serroit monstres on parlez illoeqe serroit tenuv consâ—il qil ne serroit ascunement discoverez a nully vivant Et pius apres demandez feust per le Count de Northumbr pur la seurte du Roy de touz Lestatz du Roialme Coment leure semble que serroit erdeignez de Richard nadgaires Roy pur Luy mettre saufegard Sauvant su vie quele le Roy voet que luy soit sauvez touz maners Surquoi responduz feust per toutz Les Signiars severalment examines dont les nomes si ensuent que leur semble qil serroit mys en sauso secregard en tiel Lien on nul concours dos gâ—ntz yad qil soit gardez perseures sufficientz persone que nul que este familier du dit nadgairs Roy soit ascunement entour sa persone que ceo soit fait en le pluis seâ—re manere que faire sa purra Les nomes des Seigneurs demandez assentez en La question suisditz cy ensuent Cestassavoir Lerceuesque de Canterbrie Lerceuesque Deuerwyck Leuesque de Londres Leuesque Dely. Leuesque de Nicholl Leuesque de Norwich Leuesque de Roucestre Leuesque de Sar. Leuesque Dexcestr Leuesque de Cicestr Leuesque de St. Asaph Leuesque de Cestr Leuesque de St. Davids Leuesque de Landafe Leuesque de Duresme Labbe de Westminster Labbe de St. Albon Labbe de St. Austyn Labbe de Bury Labbe de St. Doverwycke Labbe de Glocestr Labbe de Battaill Le Prince Le Duc de Nerwyck Le Count Darundell Le Count de Warr. Le Count de Staff Le Count de Northumbr Le Count de Suff. Le Count de Wircestr Le Sgr. de Roos Le Sgr. de Grey de Ruthin Le Sgr. de Cherleton Le Sgr. de Bardolf Le Sgr. de Willughby Le Sgr. de Furnival Le Sgr. de Ferrers Le Sgr. de Beaumont Le Sgr. de Berkeley Le Sgr. de Fitz Wauters Le Sgr. de Manley Le Sgr. de Scales Le Sgr. de Morley Le Sgr. de Burnell Le Sgr. de Lovell Le Sgr. de Camoi Le Sgr. de Seymore Le Sgr. de Crombwell Le Sgr. de Cobham Monsr Henr. Peircy Monsr Richard Scroop Le Sgr. Fitz Hugh Le Sgr. de Bergeueny Le Sgr. de Lomley Le Baron de Greystocks Le Baron de Hilton Monsr Thomas Erpingham Chambr Monsr Mayhew Gowinay Mr. Hall in his Chronicle fol. 10. and others relate that in this Parliament when it was demanded by the Kings friends what should be done with King Richard Thomas Menkes Bishop of Carlile which was a man both well learned and well stomacked rose up and said My Lords I require you take heed what answer you make to this question For think there is none of you worthy or meet to give judgement on so noble a Prince as King Richard is whom we haven taken for our Sovereigne and Liege Lord by the space of two and twenty years and I assure you there is not so ranck a traitour nor so arrant a theef nor so cruel a murderer which is apprehended and deteined in prison for his offence but hee shall be brought before the Justice to hear his judgement and yet you will proceed to the judgement of an annointed King and hear neither his answer nor excuse And I say that the Duke of Lancaster whom you call King hath more offended and more trespassed to King Richard and this Realme than the King hath either done to him or to us For it is manifestly known that the Duke was banished the Realme by King Richard and his council and by the judgement of his own Father for the space of ten years for what cause all you know and yet without license of King Richard hee is returned again into the Realme yea and that is worse hath taken upon him the name title and preheminence of a King And therefore I say and affirm that you do apparently wrong and manifest injury to proceed in any thing against King Richard without calling him openly to his answer and defence When the Bishop had ended he was incontinent by the Earl Marshal attached and committed to ward in the Abbey of S. Albanes And then it was concluded that King Richard should continue in a large prison and should be plentifully served of all things necessary both for viands apparel From the proceedings against
Writs to divers Officers Governours and Ministers of divers other Citees and to many Shires and Burroughs of the seid Realm to make fals untrue and injust proclamations against our seid Soveraign and Liege Lord K. Ed. the 4th by the name of Ed. late E. of March to provoke and excite his destruction And also by his Letters signed with his hand directed unto the seid Dukes of Excester and Somerset and other Lords refused and denied to keep and observe the seid accord convention and agreement and by the same writing falsifying his promise departed from the same Convention and accord afore either the same our Soveraign Lord or the seid noble Prince his Fader any thing did or attempted to the contrary of the same convention and concord for their partie Be it declared and juged by the seid advis assent and authorite the premises considered that the seid Usurper Henry late called Henry the sixth agenst good faith troth conscience and his honour brake the seid Convention and concord and departed therefrom of wilfull malice long afore the seid fourth day of March as by the matters afore declared it appeareth sufficiently And that the breche thereof on his partie discharged our seid Soveraign Lord of all things that should or might charge him to the keeping thereof in any Article or point after the seid breche And that he was then at his freedom and liberty to use his said right and title of the seid Crownes and to enter into the exercise thereof and of the Royal power dignite and preheminence longing thereunto as he lawfully did in manere and fourm above specified the seid convention and concord and the Acte thereupon made or any thing therein conteined notwithstanding And over this it be declared and juged by the seid advis assent and authorite that the seid agreement concord and Act in all things which been in any wise repugnant or contrary to the seid right title entree state seasen and possession of our Soveraign Lord King Edward the fourth in and to the Crown Royal estate dignite and Lordship above said be void and of no force ne effect And that it be Ordeyned and stablished by the seid assent advis and authorite that every person having any parcel of the seid Castles Manors Lands Honours tenements rents services possessions or hereditaments aboveseid the which were given in exchange or in recompence of or for any other Manors Castles lands tenements rents advowsons fee-farms reversions or any other possessions or enheritaments given to the seid Henry late Earl of Derby to the seid Henry his son late called King Henry the fifth or to the seid Henry his son late called King Henry the sixth or to any other person or persones to or for their or any of their use at their or any of their desire or to perform execute their or any of their wille mowe entre And that they and their heirs and successors entre into the same Manors Castles Lands tenements rents services possessions advowsons or hereditaments so given And them have hold keep joy occupy and inherit of like estate as the giver or givers thereof had them at the time of the gift thereof made though it be so that in any of the Letters Patents or gifts made of any of the premises no mention be made of any recompence or eschange Qua quidem petitione in Parliamento praedicto lecta audita plenius intellecta de avisamento assensu Dominorum Spiritualium Temporalium in eodem Parliam existen ad requisitionem Communitatis praedictae respondebatur eidem modo forma hic Inferius annotatis The King by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in this present Parliament assembled at the request of the Commyns being in the same agreeth and assenteth to this Petition and it accepteth with certain moderations provisions and exceptions by his Highness thereupon made and in schedules written and in the same Parliament delivered the tenours of which hereunder follow c. Convenit cum Recordo This Judgement censure repeal in full Parliament of the deposition and proceeding against King Richard the 2. upon the Commons own Petition by this Act never yet reversed as most wicked treasonable unrighteous against Gods Laws and Mans crying for vengeance in Gods hearing in heaven and exemplarily punished upon the whole kingdom Nation and Henry the 4. his posterity on earth with the sad intestine warres miseries that attended it are sufficient arguments of its unlawfulness detestableness against all those who deem it just or allege it for a president to justifie their extravagances of a more execrable and transcendent Nature 16ly It is very observable that Roger Mortimer Earl of March who had the chief hand in deposing murthering King Edward the 2. after he was deposed was in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. condemned and executed for it as a Traytor without any legal trial all his lands confiscated and Queen Isabel her self who concurred with him like to be questioned for her life and abridged in her maintenance Moreover King Richard the 2. Granchild and next heir to King Edward the 3. who imprisoned deposed and invaded his Fathers throne though somewhat against his will was imprisoned deposed proceeded against in the self same manner as Edw. the 2. was by his very president and soon after murdered like as Edw. the 2. was by King Henry the 4. After which king Henry the 4. his Granchild Henry the 6. was also in the self same manner imprisoned deposed attainted of high Treason with his Queen and Adherents in the Parliament of 1 Edw. 4. n. 8. to 33. and at last murdered by Edw. the 4. his procurement to secure the Crown to himself and his Posterity Yet no sooner was King Edw. the 4. dead but his own Brother Richard Duke of Gloucester who by his instigation murdered King Henry the 6. with his own hands procuring himselâ— to be Protector of his son King Edw. the 5. then young getting his Brother and him into his custody by treachery perjury and hypocrisie caused them both to be barbarously murdered to set the Crown on his own head which he most ambitiously aspired after yet seemed unwilling to embrace till enforced to accept it by a Petition and Declaration drawn up by his own Instruments presented to him in the name of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of the Realm of England wherein he branded his Brother king Edw. the fourth his marriage as illegal and his issue as illegitimate aspersed his Life and Government as one by whom the Laws of God of Gods Church of the Land and of nature and also the laudable Customs and Liberties of England wherein every English man is inheritor were broken subverted contemned against all reason and justice So that the Land was ruled by self-will and pleasure fear and dread all manner of Equity and Law laid apart and despised so that no man was sure of
should be holden once every year or more often if need be to redress divers mischiefs and grievances which daily happen especially delayes in Judgements and sutes at Law through difficulty or diversity of Opinions among the Judges To prevent which the Statute of 14 E. 3. c. 5. enacts that from henceforth at every Parliament shall be chosen a Prelate two Earls and two Barons which shall have Commission and power of the King to hear by Petition delivered to them the complaints of them that will complain of such delayes and grievances and to cause the records of such Judgements to be brought before them and to hear the cause and reasons of such delayes and by the assistance and advice of the Chancellor Treasurer Justices of both Benches and as many other of the Kings Council as shall seem convenient shall proceed to take a good award and make a good judgement therein And that the Judges shall proceed hastily to give Judgement according to their determination And in case it seemeth to them the difficulty be so great that it may not well be determined without the assent of the Parliament that the said Prelate Earls and Barons shall present the tenor or tenors of the said record or cause to the next Parliament and there shall be a final accord taken what judgement ought to be given in his case And according to this award shall be commanded to the Judges before whom the plea did depend that they shall proceed to give Judgement without delay And to begin to give remedy upon this Ordinance it was assented that a Commission and power be made to the Archbishop of Canterbury the Earls of Arundel and Huntington the Lord of Wake and the Lord Raufe Basset to endure till the next Parliament After which I find this Commission made in pursuance of this Ordinance Edwardus Dei gratia c. authorizing the Bishop of Chichester the Earls of Huntingdon and Devonshire and Tho. Wake of Lidell and Thomas de Berkley Barons assigned to hear querelas omnium qui se de gravaminibus dilationibus sibi factis coram Iustic et aliis conqueri voluerint per avisamentum Cancell Thes Iustic de atroque Banco aliis dâ— Consilio Regis according to the Ordinance made in Parliament 14 Ed. 3. c. 5. that Unus Praelatus Duo Comites et Duo Barones should have Commission and power to hear and determine such complaints Test Rege apud Westm nono die Iunii There is this Petition of the Commons to the King for declaring Treasons in 25 E. 3. Rot. Parl. n. 17. Item come les Iustices nostre Seignior le Roy assignez en diversâ—es Countees ajuggent les gentz que sont empeschez devant eux come Traiteurs pur diverses Causes desconues a la Comune estre Treason que please a nostre Seignior le Roy per son Counseâ—l eâ— per les Grantz et sâ—ges de la terre declarer les pointz de Treason en cest present Parlament Quant aâ—la Petition touchant Treason nostre Seignior le Roy ad Fait declarer les Articles de Y celle en maneâ— que ensuit as in the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. â— By which Petition Act and the like Petition in 21 E. 3. n. 15. it is apparent That the Right of declaring Judging what is High Treason in Parliament belongs originally to the King himself by the advise of his Councel Great men and Sages of the Land and not unto the Commons House at whose request the KING then made a Declaration of the Articles of Treason as in this Statute by his Nobles Councils and Iudges advice Therefore the Declaration of all other Treasons in particular cases not within this Statute belongs wholly to the King Lords Council and Judges in the Lords House not to the Commons alone or joyntly with them within the later branch of this Act as well as the Treasons within the body thereof viz. Because that many other like cases of Treason may happen in time to come which a man cannot imagin nor declare at this present time it is accorded that if any other case supposed Treason which is not before specified shall happen de novel before any Iustice the Iustice shall demurâ— without going to Iudgement of the Treason tanque per devant le ROY EN SON PARLEMENT soit le case monstre et declare de que leceo doit estre a jugge Treason ou autre Felony Against the Opinion of Sir Edward Cooks 3 Institutes p. 22. The Commons having no power at all to declare and judge what shall be Treason in such new particular cases but only when a New Treason is made or declared for the future by Bill or Act of Parliament wherein their concurrence is necessary as in all new Acts concerning Treasons since 25 E. 3. as is evident by Mr. Sr. Iohns Argument at Law this very last Parliament at the Attainder of Thomas Earl of Strafford and Mr. Samuel Browns Argument at the Lords House Bar to prove and satisfie the Lords House that he and Archbishop Laud were guilty of High Treason upon the Articles of their several Impeachments exhibited and proved against them of which the Lords and King alone were the proper Iudges but the Commons only their Impeachers and Prosecutors in the Iudicial way of Parliamentary Proceedings as I have formerly evidenced Therefore all the late Votes knacks Declarations of the Commons House alone before or without the Kings House of Lords Declarations Resolutions of sundry things to be high Treason and divers persons to be Traytors upon bare informations suggestions though not within the Letter of 25 E. 3. c. 2. are but meer illegal innovations extravagancies yea Nullities in Law fit to be eternally exploded especially by Lawyers the chiefest Innovators Promoters of them rather out of ignorance or rashnesse than Prudence Law or solid Iudgement for which they can produce no presidents in former ages In the year 1392. the 15 of King Rich. the 2. we have this memorable President of the Lords Iudicature together with the King assembled in a Great Councel without the Commons in the case of the Mayor Sherifs Citizens and City of London thus related by Walsingham at large Misit Rex ad Cives Londoniarum petens ab eis mutuo mille libras cui procaciter et ultra quam decuit restiterunt Sed quendam Lumbardom volentem accommodare regi dictam summam male tractaveâ—unt veâ—beraverunt er paulominus occiderunt Quae cum Rex â—udisset iâ—aâ—us est valde et convocaas omnes regnipene Majorâ—s apperuit proterviam civium Londoniarum et de praesumptione conqueritur eorundem Qui omnes infesti Civibus propter diversas causas consulunt ut reprimatur citius eorum insolentia et superbia destruatur Eranc quippe tunc inter omnes fere nationes gentium clarissimi arrogantissimi et avarissimi ac male creduli in deum traditiones avitas Lolardorum sustentatores
dominum nostrum jam elapso irae tempore haec innotuisse Praeterea si aliquid â—iolentiae ipsi Henrico intuleritis ecce Episcopus Londinonsis qui spiritualem et alii amici ejus militares qui vindictam exercebunt materialem et sic in magna parte cessavit Extunc igitur procurante efficaciter Comite Richardo et Episcopâ— memorato mitius actum est cum eo Dictum enim est domino Regi secretius quod mirum est quod aliquis ei curat servire cum eis post ministerium etiam mortem nititur inferre Promissa igitur quadam pecuniae summa a mortis discrimine recessit liberatus After which he paying to the King 2000 marks for a fine and being reconciled to the King ad Curiam est reversus immemor laqueorum quos evaserat Here we have 1. A corrupt Judge accused of bribery by others and by the King of rebellion and sedition and that before the Lords in Parliament 2ly A Proclamation for all that were grieved to complain against him 3ly A rash unjust sentence given against him by the King himself for any man that would to kill him with impunity 4ly the Lords opposition and contradiction of this sentence and its execution as unjust and dangerous 5ly A remission of his sentence by the Lords mediation and a fine imposed and paid to the King for his offences In the 49 year of King Henry the 3. at the Parliament held at Winchester divers Commoners as well as Lords were attainted and condemned of High Treason for levying war against the King their persons imprisoned their lands and goods confiscated and the liberties of the City of London forfeited by judgement of the Lords Anno â—290 King Edward the 1. held a Parliament at London at which time Rex auditis multorum queremoniâ—â— fere Justiciarios omnes de falsitate deprehensos a suo Officio deposuit puniens eos juxta demerita grâ—vi mâ—a by the advice of his Lords in Parliament It appears by the Clause Roll of 5 E. 2. m. 22. dorso and Rot. Finium 5 E. 2. m. 11. in Schedula that in a Parliament held at Stamford 3 E. 2. the Commons of England exhibited sundry Articles of complaint to the King Amongst others that they were not used as they ought to be by THE GREAT CHARTER in taking Prises and Purveyances without mony c. That the King by his Ministers took ijs of every Tun of wine and ijs a cloth from Merchants aliens and 3 d. pur aver de poys to the damage of his people and hinderance of trade which new Impositions being against Law the King promised to redress for the future and to content himself with the Prises and Customs antiently due They likewise complained of the abuses oppressions and extravagances of Purveyors Constables of Castles and Escheators and abuses of Protections and Pardons granted by the King to Murderers and other Malefactors to their incouragement whereto redress was promised In their 6. Article they complained That the Knights Citizens and Burgesses of Parliament came up with divers Petitions for matters not remediable at the Common Law and could not finde to whom to deliver them Whereunto was answered The King willed that in his Parliaments for time to come certain persons should be appointed to receive Petitions and that they should be delivered TO HIS COUNCIL as was used in the time of his Father and examined and answered by him with their advice Whence we find in all our Parliament Rolls ever since in the beginning of every Parliament certain persons nominated by the King and Lords being Members or Assistants of the Lords house to receive the several Petitions of England Ireland Scotland Gascoigne Iersey Gernsey Alderney and other Isles and other persons of the LORDS House appointed to trie examin and answer them in the Kings name and behalf as he by their advice shall think meet and sundry Petitions of Grievances of all kinds presented to them and answered accordingly by the King and Lords in every Parliament as well by the whole house of Commons as by particular Counties Cities Corporations and private Persons a most clear Evidence that the King and Lords are the sole Judges of all criminal and civil causes and Grievances of the Commons in Parliament since they thus constantly petition them for redress and that the Commoners are only Petitioners not Judges as the Parliament roll of 1 H. 4. n. 79. resolves in direct terms Claus 8 E. 2. m. 7. dors The Chaplains of the House of Converts exhibited a Petition in Parliament against Adam de Osgodby the Keeper thereof for putting them out of their lodgings and placing his Clerks therein they being founded by King H. 3. to pray and sing Masses for his and his ancestors Souls and not to lodge the Clerks of the Chancery Upon consideration of the Petition by the Lords and Councel in Parliament it was referred to the Chancellor to examin and determine tanquam principali Custodi omnium Hospitalium et Domorum de eleemosyna Domini Regis fundatorum ut ipfe inde faceret quod de jure esset faciendum He sends a Commission to the House to inquire the truth of the complaint and finds the Complaint unjust and that the Keeper of the House was falsly charged and that especially by William de Okelines being one of the Chaplins Whereupon consideratum est per Cancellarium quod Willielmus idem nihil haberet de contentis in petitione sua praedicta sed quod committeretur ad custodiam suam pro falsâ— querela sua castigandus juxta discretionem dicti custodis Pasch 8 E. 2. Norfolk The Archdeacon of Norfolk was accused for citing the Countess of Warren being the Kings Neece and divorced from her husband to the damage of the King 2000 l. and it was adjudged by the Lords in Parliament against the Archdeacon quod nec citatio nec summonitio fieri debet versus eot qui sunt de sanguine Regis quia illis Major reverentia debita est and therefore he was fined About the year 1316. when the Northumberland Soldiers like some in this age raised against the Scots de tyronâ—bus facti sunt Tyranni de defensoribus destructores de propugnatoribus proditores c. one John Tanner said openly that he was heir of England Therefore at Northampton before the King and Lords he was proved false and hanged and drawn See more of him in Fabians Chronicle part 7. Anno 1314. p. 169. who relates that he reported he was son to King Edward the 1. but was stoln out of his cradle by a false nurse and Edward who was anothers son laid in the cradle for him and that he had a Fiend in form of a Câ—t whom he served 3. years which assured him he should be King of England In the Parliament of 18. E. 1. the Prior of Trinity in London and Bago de Clare were attached brought into the Parliament there