the Particulars in form of a Charge they were sent to the Lord Chancellor and his answer required to each particular In the same manner in the same Parliament they accused John Bennet Judge of the Prerogative Court of Bribery and Corruption in his Office In the same manner they accused and impeached Lyonel Earl of Middlesex and Lord Treasurer of England of Bribery and Extortion and Impositions on French Wines and Grocery which being reported to the House a Committee was appointed to consider of the Commons complaint and also of a Committee who had reported to the House a great want of Powder in the Stores through the Lord Treasurer's negligence A Committee appointed to consider thereof did after many Examinations taken draw up out of the whole Complaint of the Commons a Charge against him as also out of the Report of the Committee for Munition touching the want of Powder and of a Complaint made to the House by Sir Thomas Dallison and of some Misdemeanors whereof they are informed in the great Wardrobe and Court of Wards Which Charge the House sent unto the Treasurer and required his Answer 21 Jac. In eodem Parl. 21 Jac. The Commons at a Conference accused and impeached by word of Mouth the Bishop of Norwich of some Misdemeanors which being reported to the House the said Bishop made a present Answer thereunto as it was In the Parliament 1 Car. 1. Febr. 6. The Commons at a Conference accused and impeached George Duke of Buckingham of many Misdemeanors and delivered their Declaration in Writing that the said Duke might be put to his Answer § 2. The second manner of Accusation is Ex parte Domini Regis which is threefold The two first are immediately from the King and the third from the Commandment of the Lords by a formal Information exhibited in Parliament by the King's Attorney or Council learned as was that of E. 3. against Roger Mortimer Earl of March and divers others and 4 R. 2. against Sir Ralph Ferrers K t and 1 Car. 1. against the Earl of Bristol By the King's Commandment either upon the Petition of the Delinquent and upon the return and view of any the Proceedings taken elsewhere as against the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph upon former Proceedings against them in the Court of Chancery And 2 H. 6. upon request of the Commons against Sir John Mortimer Knight indicted in London In these Cases no Articles are exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis as in the former By Articles exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis Ex parte Dominorum against such as the Complaint is made upon in general by the Commons prout 1 R. 2. against Gomeniz Weston and Alice Peirce 7 R. 2. against the Bishop of Norwich and divers others Which Articles though drawn and exhibited Per mandatum Dominorum yet were the Parties charged therewith Ex parte Domini Regis Of Accusation by Information Ex parte Domini Regis In Rot. claus 4 E. 3. There is a Proclamation of the death of Edmond Earl of Kent where it is said certain Letters of his containing Treason were shewed to the King wherefore he was Arrested and freely acknowledged the same before the Earls Barons and other Grandees and Nobles of the Realm in the Parliament at Winchester 4 E. 3. Here appears plainly that Articles of Treason are exhibited in Parliament against the Earl of Kent In the next Parliament in the same year Edmond Son and Heir of the said Edmond exhibited his Petition praying the King that the Record and Process whereupon the said Earl was put to death might be brought before him in Parliament and if Errors be found that Right be done Numb 11. The which being read before the King Prelates Earls Barons and other Grandees in the said Parliament the King by his Royal Power and Dignity by assent in Parlialiament repealed the said Judgment Numb 12. Note That in this Repeal no Error was alledged nor any Exceptions taken for this that the Lords proceeded upon the Articles only which were objected against him the said Earl This is out of the Close Roll. The first Precedents recorded in our Parliament Rolls of Accusations in this kind are these of 4 E. 3. in the Parliament at Westminster which are added at large amongst divers others at the end of this Discourse the effect whereof doth follow viz. These are the Treasons Felonies and ill Deeds done to our Lord the King and to his People by Roger de Mortimer and others of his Covin reciting them all and concludeth thus Whereas our Lord the King doth charge you the Earls Barons and other Peers of this Realm that for as much as these things touch him principally and you and all the People of this Realm That you do unto the said Roger right and lawful Judgment as is fit for such an one to have who is very guilty of all the crimes above written for that he believed the said things are notorious and known for truth unto you and to all the People of the Realm Numb 1. The followeth the Judgment against him Item In the said manner our Lord the King charged the said Earls Barons and Peeres to give right and lawful Judgment on Simon de Bereford Knight who was ayding and counselling unto the said Roger de Mortimer in all treasons and ill deeds for which the said Roger was so awarded and done to death as the thing that is known and notorious to the said Peers as the King believeth Then followeth the Judgment against him also Then followeth the Judgment against John Matrevers Thomas de Gurney and William de Ogle Numb 5. But no particular accusations are recorded against any of them unless they were comprised in those general words of that against Mortimer viz. And other of his Coyn. For some of the same Crimes are mentioned in the Judgments yet no doubt but the Kings Attourny did exhibit Articles against every of them upon which the Lords proceeded to Judgment Here I do ingenuously confess my own Error when I said that this Judgment against Roger de Mortimer was afterwards reversed for that he was put to death without any Accusation which I conceived to be so upon first view of the Repeal thereof Anno 21. E. 3. Numb 10. Where the Petitioners Roger de Mortimer the Grandchild assigneth for that the said Earl was put to death and he disinhereted Sans Accusament Et sans estre masone in Judgment ou en Respons By which words sans accusament I gave you to understand that the Articles were no accusation whereas now upon better Consideration I do find that these words do intend no accusation by witnesses or otherwise to prove the said Articles objected against him For these Articles are a legal accusation in Parliment and frequently used as appears by many Precedents of the like nature But there was no other proof offered by the Lords to prove the same then that the King believeth them
Thar seeing by Order of the Lords House May 4. the Earl of Bristols cause should be wholly retained in this House how that might now be done in respect of the Stat. of 35 H. 8. By which it was enacted That all Treasons committed beyond the Seas as this Earls were shall be tryed in the Kings Bench or before Commissioners Assigned by the King And an Order of the upper House cannot avoid the Statute Some were of opinion that the Earl was first to be indicted before Commissioners appointed by the King and that Indictment being returned into the Parliament to be tryed thereon by his Peers and vouched that Precedent of 2 H. 6. Of Sir John Mortimers Indictment returned into the Parliament But then the Cause cannot be wholly retained in the Parliament neither can it be inferred out of the Precedent of Sir John Mortimer that the Parliament can try any of Treason unless he be Indicted elsewhere For then the Parliament should not have so much power as hath the Kings Bench and other inferiour Courts wherein Capital Offences may be both enquired of and determined Neither can Sir John Mortimers Indictment thus returned be a leading Case for Tryal of Peers in Parliament for he was but a Commoner and therefore not to have been judged by the Lords unless they had first accused him and the Commons did so by Informing the Indictment to be true before the Lords gave Judgment upon him But their can be no Precedent shewn that a Peer of Parliament hath been tryed in Parliament on an Indictment taken elsewhere To resolve this Question two things are Considerable First The Statute of 35 H. 8. Whether the meaning thereof were to limit the Tryal of a Peer in the time of the Parliament for Forreign Treasons assigned taken in the Kings Bench or before Commissioners Assigned by the King and not elsewhere But I conceive the Statute hath no such meaning The Preamble saith it was doubted whether such Treasons might by the Common-Law of the Land be enquired into heard and determined within this Realm of England For a plain remedy Order and Declaration herein to be had and made Be it enacted c. So that if such Treasons have not been heretofore enquirable by the Common-Law then this Statute provides a Remedy and Order for the same hereafter But this Statute doth not abridg the Parliament of the power it had to enquire of and determine such Treasons in time of Parliament Whereof there are diverse Precedents viz. 1 R. 2. Weston and Gomeniz 50 E. 3. for William Latimer and John Nevil 7 R. 2. for the Bishop of Norwich ibid. Numb 17. for Cressingham and Shipworth ibid. Numb 24. for Sir William Elsingham Sir Thomas Trevet and Sir Henry de Ferrers all Tryed in Parliament for matters done beyond the Seas The second thing to be considered is The Order it self which I conceive to be of force notwithstanding the Statute of 35 H. 8. for that it is neither directly contrary to the Statute nor repugnant to the Common-Law otherwise the Act of one House alone cannot alter a former Statute made by consent of both Houses And this is to be remembred that the Proceeding against a Peer in Parliament is not necessary But thus it was used to be viz. The Peer accused to be brought before the Lords and Commons and then the Lord Steward to sit in the Chancellors place on the Woolsack and the Articles to be read against him by the Clark of the Crown and upon his Answer the Lords do determine of their Judgment which is afterwards pronounced by the same Lord Steward A Question might be whether the Commons have used to sit with their Speaker at these Tryals If they have then the Court of Requests or some such place may be provided for the purpose And thus that whole Cause might be retained in Parliament notwithstanding the Stat. of 35 H. 8. Thus much touching the Accusation ex parte Dom. Regis exhibited in a formal Accusation by the Kings Atturney The Duke of Clarence was arraigned in Parliament 18 E. 4. upon the like Information but the Precedent is not in the Parliament Rolls Therefore I omit it §. 4. The second kind of Accusation on the Kings behalf is ex mandato Dom. Regis upon the Roll and view of any proceedings elsewhere against the Delinquent or upon his Petition The Precedents thereof are these Anno 5 H. 4. The Earl of Northumberland was Tryed in Parliament ex mandato Dom. Regis upon his own Petition The Accusation and manner was thus The said Earl had raised Forces to have joyned with his Son Hotspur in Rebellion against the King Hotspur was slain in the Battel of Shrewsbury 21 July 4. H. 4. before the said Earl could joyn with him Whereupon he dismissed his Forces and retired to Worksworth Castle The King after the Battel came to York and sent for the said Earl and being come pardoned him for his life but abridged him of his Liberty The next Parliament was summoned the 20 of October to begin at Coventry the 3. of December And the Earl had his writ of Summons This Parliament was prorogued till the 23. of November by new Writs as the manner then was returnable Crastino Hillarii then following But the Earl had no new Summons thither But thither he comes a Petitioner Speed saith he was abridg'd of his liberty but the Record saith he came before the King and Lords And not that he was a Prisoner as Gomeniz and Weston 1 R. 2. Nor that he was caused to be brought as a Delinquent sent for as Alice Peirce 1 R. 2. But that he came before the King Lords and Commons of Parliament And then the Chancellor told him that upon Wednesday last past he had been before the King and Lords and Commons in the same Parliament and besought the King as he had done before at his coming before him at York That the King would do him grace for his misprisions against him in not keeping his Laws and Statutes as by one Petition delivered by him in Parliament written in English The tenor whereof followeth To my most dreadful and Soveraign Leige Lord. I your humble Subject beseech your Highness to have in remembrance my coming into your Gracious Presence at York of your free will by your goodly Letters The which Petition per Commandment du Roy was examined by the Justices to have their Counsel and Advice therein But the Lords by Protestation made claimed the Judgment to belong unto them only in such Cases c. And so the Lords Tryed him and acquited him of Treason and Felony but found him guilty of a Trespass only which the King pardoned Here no Information was exhibited against the said Earl yet the Kings Counsel opened his Offences to the Lords else how could they appear Anno 7 H. 4. The King commanded the Lords Temporal in Parliament to advise what manner of Process should be made
said Mortymer having notice thereof withdrew himself among the wild Irish where the same Serjeant nor any other Officer of the King 's durst come for fear of Death Wherefore and for that his Offences are notoriously known both to the Lords and them they prayed Judgment c. The King the Lords and the Procurators of the Clergy considered of the Request of the Commons with good deliberation and then the Lords with the said Procurators by the assent of the King and Commons did award that Proclamation should be made through England and Ireland commanding the said Tho. Mortymer to render himself in proper Person to the King in what place soever it shall be in England within three Months after the 23th Day of December next coming to be at his Answer and they farther awarded That if he came not c. that then he shall be judged Traytor and Convict of of all Treasons whereof he is accused and shall forfeit c. Then the King adjourned the Parliament and the Appellants to the 15th of Hilary next at Shrewsbury on which Day the said Appellants declared to the King That it was awarded that Proclamation should be made c. ut supra The Commons did the like And for that the said Tho. Mortymer came not they had judgment In 7 H. 4. The Lords agreed this Judgment against the E. of North. and the Lord Bardolph who were fled to the Rebels in Wales and Proclamation ut supra throughout England At the day prefixed they examined the Returns of the Proclamations in the presence of the Commons and so the Judgment was agreed on in their presence also and so it ought to be in all Cases of Life and Death And finding a small Error they awarded new Proclamations in London only and the Return thereof was again viewed and considered in the presence of the Commons and then on the next day Judgment was given Eodem Anno 21 R. 2. The Lords Appellants accused also the Duke of Gloucester of Treason and although they knew he was dead they prayed the King that he might be brought to his Answer Whereupon the King sent his Writ to the Council of Calice unto whose Custody he committed the said Duke to bring him into the Parliament to his Answer The Captain returned his Writ That the Duke is dead the which Writ and Return being read the said Appellants prayed Judgment and the Commons shewed That the Dukes Levying War against the King's Person is notoriously known to all the States of Parliament and therefore they desired Judgment also and had it And what may not the whole Parliament do when they joyn in one Yet notwithstanding the King fearing some Error as it seems the Lords Appellants besought the King that if there were any thing on Record be it by Confession or otherwise which concerned their Appeal that it might be openly known and shewn in full Parliament Whereupon by the King's Commandment was read a Commission granted unto William Richal Justice of the Common-Pleas and a Confession of the Duke of Gloucester made before him by vertue of the said Commission yea and Richal himself being commanded did justifie that the Duke did write the Confession with his own hand in his absence and afterwards read it unto him so careful they were to have something to supply an Answer I marvel that Richal was acquitted of his Proceedings herein at the next Parliament of 1 H. 4. where he affirmed that much of this Dukes Confession was altered after he had returned his Commission He well deserved to die in that he spake not of it Yet there is one Precedent directly contrary to all this viz. 11 R. 2. in that Appeal which happened on this occasion The aforenamed Duke of Gloucester and four other Lords went to the King and accused the Duke of Ireland the Archbishop of York Michael de la Poole and others of Treason the King adjourned them to the next Parliament promising them Justice there and in the mean time conveyed away the Parties accused and then by Proclamation Part 8. fol. 603. in the next Parliament 11 R. 2. the Articles of the Appeal being read the Duke and other Appellants offered to make proof thereof and required that the Parties appealed might be brought to their Answers and for default of Appearance demanded Judgment Whereupon the King did deliberate with the Lords and commanded the Justices and other Sages of the Law to give their best Counsel to the Lords how to proceed rightly in this Matter of Appeal who after Consultation therein had answered the Lords That they had seen and considered the Tenor of this Appeal which they said was in no point made and declared according to the Order of the Common or Civil Law But they gave no Answer touching the Demand of Judgment for default of Appearance whereupon the Lords deliberated and after by the Lords assent declared that this Cause committed by the Peers against the Person of the King and State of the Realm shall be determined in the Parliament only and by no other Law than by the Law and Course of the Parliament And that it belongs to the Lords only to judge in such Cases And with the assent of the King they did judge the same Appeal and the Process thereupon depending to be good according to the Law and Course of Parliament Then the Lords Appellants proceeded and desired to have the fault of Appearance recorded and Judgment given and so it was So likewise 21 R. 2. After the King had given the full power of Parliament to determine all Matters begun into the Hands of twelve Lords or six and six Commoners or any three He adjourned the Parliament from Westminster to Shrewsbury in 15 Hil. and there on March 22. It was shewed to the King how that Robert Possington was impeached at the Parliament at Westminster for being with the Duke of Gloucester in levy at Herring An. 11 R. 2. For which the said Duke was adjudged as Traytor and therefore they brought the King to ordain the like Judgment against Robert Possington though he was dead Whereupon our Lord the King by the assent of the Lords and Knights of Counties having power c. awarded the said Robert guilty c. And that he shall forfeit c. But these extraordinary Precedents cannot lead us into the ordinary course of Proceedings and I alledge them only so as their Errors may be avoided § To conclude it is the just and constant Course of Parliament to bring the Party accused to his Answer yea though he fly Justice yet to send out Proclamations into the Countries that he appear at a Day or else such and such Judgments shall be given against him I confess this Course was omitted in the Judgment against Mompesson 18 Jac. and haply it was not then thought upon the Judicature of Parliament being so long out of use and therefore that cannot be alledged as a leading Precedent And in
JOHN SELDEN OF THE JUDICATURE IN Parliaments A Posthumous TREATISE WHEREIN The Controversies and Precedents belonging to that Title are Methodically handled LONDON Printed for Joseph Lawson Bookseller in the Bail of Lincoln And Sold by the Booksellers in London A Scheme of the Method and Contents CHAP. I. PEers to render Judgment of Peers pag. 1 Qu. Whether the Spiritual Lords de jure are triable by their Peers p. 4 Touching the Nature of the Offences triable in this High Court 6 CHAP. II. In what Cases Judicature belongs to the Parliament 8 Of Judgment on Delinquents 10 § I. 1. Their Accusation by the Commons 11 Four manner of Accusations in Parl. ib. Precedents of their Complaints 1. By Petition 12 2. By Demand 16 3. By Impeachment 17 § II. 2. Accusation ex parte Domini Regis p. 33 Some Delinquents accused in Parliament upon Common Fame without proof of Witnesses 37 The Judgment Repealed 38 No Peer can be Indicted in Parliament 39 He may be Indicted out of Parliament and proceeded against in the next Parliament upon the said Indictment 40 § III. Qu. Whether S. R. Ferrars 4 R. 2. was Legally brought to his Answer in Parliam by Commandment of the D. of L. 44. Whether he being no Peer nor Baron could be Legally Arraigned in Parliament by Information ex parte Regis Ib. Question Resolved 45 How the Earl of Bristol's Cause could be heard in the House of Lords notwithstanding 35 H. 8. 46 The Usage in such Cases and Precedents 48 Whether in a Trial before Lords and Commons the Commons are to Sit with their Speaker 54 § IV. Accusation ex Mandato Domini Regis ib. The Earl of Northumberland's Case 5 H. 4. ib. The Lords Impeach not any to themselves because they are Judges 63 The Manner of proceeding against a Delinquent that absents ib. § V. Of Accusation by Complaint of private persons 66 The Fishmongers Complaint against the Lord Chancellor 7 R. 2. 72 The Lord Chancellor his Defence 74 Of the Complaint against Bishop Williams Lord Keeper 80 The History of the Appeal 11 R. 2. 81 The Lords proceed not against a Commoner but upon the Complaint of the House of Commons 84 Appeals abolished 1 H 4. c. 14. 87. CHAP. III. The Parties Answer 89 The Party accused to be brought to his Answer 95 An Answer required from the D. of Gloucester to certain Accusations though he were dead and Judgment given upon him 91 Another Delinquent found guilty long after he was dead 95 In what Cases the Party is to answer as a Freeman in what as a Prisoner 97 Things to be considered in the Answer 97 Variation from the Ancient Course 100 Touching Council allowed him 102 § 2. When Council shall be allowed him and when not ib. In Misdemeanors the Party may have Council to Answer 103 But the Earl of Middlesex was denied it 21 Jac. 103 The Parliament hath compelled a present Answer in Misdemeanors and without Council 107 The Mayor c. accused by the Scholars of Cambridge ib. § 3. The Replication 109 Where the Articles against the Delinquent are ex parte Regis there the Commons do not reply nor demand Judgment ib. Impeachment of the Lord Latimer 111 William Ellis Impeached 114 Lord Nevile Impeached by the Commons ib. CHAP. IV. The Proof By Examination of Witnesses 120 Witnesses produced by the Commons ib. A Committee for Trial of Alice Pierce 123 A Jurie in Parliament for Misdemeanors 125 G. D. of Clarence Arraigned 127 CHAP. V. The Judgment 132 § 1. It belongeth to the Lords only 133 The Commons have no Right to it ib. § 2. In what Cases the King's Assent is necessarily required 136 Necessary in Capital Judgment 143 In Judgment on Misdemeanors the King's Assent is not required 144 § 3. The King's Presence in Parliament 39 § 4. The Presence of the Lords Spir. ib. In Cases of Misdemeanor aff ib. Capital neg ib. The Protestation of the Bishops for ever 150 Whether they can be present not Vote 152 A Bishop being Lord Chancellor was present at the giving Sentence in Case of Treason 156 § 5. Of the Presence of the Commons in Cases Capital 158 The Precedents 149 Their Presence not necessary unless when they impeach 160 Whether they Sit if they are present 161 Of the Presence of the Judges 162 § 6. The manner how the Lords resolve on their Judgment 167 Whether it be ultra Legem 168 Judgments for satisfaction 173 References to the Common Law 175 By whom to be demanded 176 By whom to be rendred ib. CHAP. VI. The Precedents for Life and Death 178 CHAP. VII The Execution of the Judgment 182 In Capital Offences In Misdemeanors CHAP. VIII The Recovery of Damages or Restitution to the Party aggrieved 187. JUDICATURE IN Parliament CHAP. I. Peers to render Judgment on Peers THE Execution of all our Laws hath been long since distributed by Parliament out of inferiour Courts in such sort as the Subjects were directed where to complain and the Justice how to redress wrongs and punish offences And this may be the reason of the Judges opinion in Thorps Case 31. Hen. 6. Num. 37. That Actions at Common-Law are not determined in this High Court of Parliament yet complaints have ever been received in Parliaments as well of private wrongs as publick offences And according to the quality of the Person and nature of the offence they have been retained or referred to the Common-Law Touching the quality of the Person the Lords of the Parliament did not anciently try any Offenders how great soever the offence was unless he were their Peer As by that of 4 E. 3. N. 2. where when the King commanded the Lords to give Judgment on Simon de Bereford and divers others also who were not their Peers for the murther of E. 2. and the destruction of the Earl of Kent Son of E. the first A proviso and agreement was made and recorded in these words Et est assensu accord c. And it is assented and accorded by our Lord the King and all the Grandees in full Parliament That albeit the Peers as Judges of the Parliament have took upon them and rendred the said Judgment c. That yet the said Peers who now are or shall be in time to come be not bound or charged to render Judgments upon others than Peers Nor that the Peers of the Land have power to do this but thereof ever to be discharged and acquitted And that the aforesaid Judgment rendred be not drawn to example or consequence in time to come whereby the said Peers shall do contrary to the Laws of the Land if the like Case happen which God forbid 4 E 3. N. 6. This Proviso and agreement was made by the Lords and Commons and it had these respects First to satisfy the Commons that the Lords by these Judgments intended not to alter the course of the Common-Law and therefore they disclaimed that they had power
and that they are notorious and known for truth unto the Lords and all the People of the Realm And the Lords also having examined these Articles said all these things contained therein are notorious and known They speak not a word of any one witness examined or any other proof then the common fame For this Cause and for that the said Earl was not brought to Judgment nor to answer but condemned unseen and unheard upon common Fame only without any legal Proof The whole Parliament did very justly Repeal the said Judgment and Record declaring it to be erronious and defective in all points And the Lords were willing to damn the whole Record in all points least haply it might be alledged against themselves another time for Precedent Anno 15. E. 2. The Lords and Commons joyned in the Accusations against the Spencers and for that the Lords had no Record in their own pursuit upon the Cause contained in their award and they ought not to be their own Judges c. having been Accusors no exceptions were taken to the Articles but other Errors assigned quod vide where it is said to be sans Accusament so that they repealed it not for that there was no Accusation but for that he was not brought to his Answer Again That those words Sans accusament should simply signify no Accusation is only the Averment of the Petition The Judgment doth not say that there was no accusation but that it was erronious in all points And so it was no proof being produced but common Fame to prove the Answer And this first error bred a second I do not well understand the meaning of these words Sans accusament That a Peer ought to be Indicted for Capital offences in Parliament But having perused all the Judgments I do not find any one Peer indicted in Parliament In 11. R. 2. Numb 7. All the Lords Spiritual and Temporal claimed as their liberty and franchise that the great matters moved in this Parliament and to be moved in other Parliaments in time to come touching the Peers of the Land ought to be admeasured adjudged and discussed by the course of the Parliament and not by the Civil-Law nor by the Law of the Land used in the more base Courts of the Realm which the King granted in full Parliament eodem Anno Rot. Appeal 290. This is said to be their ancient custom viz. To be adjudged according to the use of the Parliament only Then no Peer can be indicted in Parliament for that it is contrary to the use of Parliament Let this suffice for the confession and rectifying mine own former Error herein But a Lord of Parliament may be indicted out of Parliament and by the Kings command proceeded against in the next Parliament upon the same indictment as in these Subsequent In the same Parliament the Lord Berkley was arraigned for the death of Ed. 2. and whether out of his humility or otherwise he waved his Peerage and put himself on the Tryal of his Country the Articles against him though not expressed but by the Inference out of his Arraignment are for the murder of King Ed. 2. at Berkley Castle in the County of Gloucester unto which he answered that he was then sick at Bradley in Worcestershire and pleaded not guilty of the death of the said King Et de hoc de bono malo ponit se super Patriam The Precedent shall hereafter be added at large It begins thus Placita Coronae tenta coram Dom. Rege Ed. 3. post conquestum Angliae in pleno Parliamento suo predicto Et allocutus de hoc quod cum Dominus Edwardus nuper Rex Angliae Pater Dom. Regis nunc in custodiam Thomae cujusdam Johannis Matrevers extitit deliberatus ad salvo custodiendum Castro ipsius Thomae de Berkley in Com. Gloucester in eodem Castro in custodia ipsorum murderatus extitit interfectus qualiter se velit de morte ipsius Regis acquietare dicit c. Numb 16. Then follows his Answer Here the cause why the Lord Berkley was tryed is mentioned but the Articles objected against him and by whom he was accused who questioned him whether the Chancellor or Steward of England or who else All these circumstances are omitted It appears not I say in what manner this crime of the Lord Berkley was presented to the Lords whether by the former general Information against Mortimer autres de la Covyn or by some such Particular Information against him alone which I rather believe Some such Information there must be of necessity else how could he be question'd for his crime in Parliament But here it appeareth that the Lords brought him to his Answer which they omitted to Mortimer and in that Point their Proceedings against Mortimer were erronious And had his manner of Accusation been erronious also No doubt but the Lords would have avoyded that error now against Berkley The manner how Berkley was arraigned here in pleno Parliamento is explained in the Precedent of 1 R. 2. Gomeniz and Weston who were brought Prisoners by the Constable of the Tower before the Lords in full Parliament sitting in the white Chamber where they were arraigned at the commandment of the said Lords in full Parliament by Sir Richard le Scroop Knight Steward of the Kings House The words full Parliament signify the Lords and Commons For that Record saith the Commons prayed that all such that have surrendred any Forts c. might be put to their Answer before the Lords and Commons c. Whereupon they were brought to their Answers in full Parliament for that Offence So here I conceive the Lord Berkley being accused by the King for the murder of King E. 2. was brought before the Lords and Commons For the Commons are to be present at such arraignment as shall be shewn hereafter and the Clerk of the Crown having read the Accusation against him Allocutus fuit That is the Lord Steward of England recited the Fact whereof he was accused and demanded of him how he could acquit himself This I conceive to be the manner thereof Vide the Appeals 21 R. 2. for the form thereof I marvel the Lords permitted the Lord Berkley to wave his Peerage and put himself super Patriam Anno 4 R. 2. Sir Ra. Ferrers Knight was brought into Parliament under the guard of the Marshal of England and there arraigned on the Kings behalf for suspition of Treason c. Numb 21. In the Process against him is recorded that for suspition of Treason surmised against him he was arrested in the Marches of Scotland by Monsieur de Lancaster and other Lords Temporal there being in the said Marches and that he was brought under the said Arrest by commandment of the Lords to Answer in this Parliament to that which shall be surmised against him in special concerning certain Letters which were found and sent to the King and his Councel The Letters
were also recorded and read in Parliament Numb 17. 18 19 20. but the Information exhibited against him whereupon he was arraigned is not recorded It is only said He was arraigned Ex parte Domini Regis §. 3. Here might be two Questions First Whether was this Sir Ra. Ferrers legally brought to his Answer in Parliament by the commandment of the Duke of Lancaster and those other Lords who were then with him in the Marches of Scotland Secondly Whether he being no Baron or Lord of Parliament for he never had Summons might be legally arraigned in Parliament for life and death upon an Information Ex parte Dom. Regis which is contrary to the Law as was resolved in Parliament 4 E. 3. Numb 2. and 6. For resolutions of these doubts I am of opinion that the Duke of Lancaster might send Sir Ra. Ferrers to the Parliament because it was then sitting and might examine the Treason whereof he was suspected though they could not proceed to Judgment against him without the Commons he being a Commoner and not their Peer And it fell out in the Examination of this business they found the Letters to be counterfeited and so he was acquitted thereof And so far their proceeding was not illegal For the Parliament may entertain and examine any Cause and then direct the Judgment thereof to its own proper Court if it belong not unto them as they did in 5 R. 2. Numb 43. 44. Here Sir William Cogan Knight being accused by Sir Richard Clurdon of matter sounding to Treason After the Lords had heard the Cause they remitted both the parties to the Common-Law And in this Case of Sir Ra. Ferrers if they had found he had been guilty they might have proceeded to Judgment against him according to the Precedent of Sir Tho. Mortimer in 2 H. 4. who was indicted in London and the Indictment returned into the Chancery and thence brought into the Parliament where the Commons affirmed the same and prayed Judgment against him Anno 2 H. 4. The Lords Temporal gave Judgment on one Tho. Holland Earl of Kent John Holland late Earl of Huntington John Mountague late Earl of Salisbury the late Lord de Spencer and Ralph Lumley who were beheaded in a War they had Trayterously raised against the King This Judgment is entred but not the Information Ex parte Dom. Regis which is necessary to be understood for had it been omitted his Son Thomas would without doubt have assigned that for one of the errors in his Petition to reverse the said Judgment 2 H. 5. apud Leicester which he did not though he assigned for an Error That his Father was put to death without an accusation In the Parliament begun at Westminster Feb. 6. 1 Car. 1. and continued until June 25. Anno 2. ejusdem Regis John Earl of Bristol was charged with High Treason in this manner viz. Primo die Maii. The said Earl of Bristol being brought to the Bar and kneeling till the Lord Keeper wished him to stand up The Lord Keeper told him he was sent for to hear his Charge of High Treason And Mr. Attorney General being at the Clerks Table began to open his Charge but being interrupted by the said Earl who with much importunity exhibited Articles against the Duke of Buckingham then present which as he said he conceived to be Treason and required of the Lords that his Testimony against the Duke and the Lord Conway against whom he then also delivered Articles might not be made invalid no more then the Charge against himself which he affirmes was procured by the said Duke yet notwithstanding the head of the Kings Charge were opened against him by Mr. Attorney and then the said Articles against the said Duke and against the Lord Conway were read And it was ordered by the Lords of the Parliament that the Kings Charge against the said Earl should be first heard and afterwards the Earls Charge against the Duke c. But yet so as the Earls Testimony against the said Duke be not prevented prejudiced hindred or impeached Secundo die Maii. The House was moved that the Earl of Buckingham might be indicted according to the Stat. of 35 H. 8. the Treasons committed being beyond the Seas as was objected and that being certified to both Houses they to proceed against him by Tryal of Peers But their Lordships did not resolve on the manner of proceeding Then the Houses were moved that Mr. Attorney might provide an Indictment against the said Earl to be returned to the House on Saturday next Maii 6. And if he doubt of the Form to confer thereof with the Judges And if any great difficulty appear to resort to their Lordships and acquaint them with it And it was ordered that Mr. Attorney proceed with the preparation but the Houses not to be concluded at their next meeting on Thursday And the Sub-Committee for Priviledges c. to search for Precedents in the mean time Die Jovis Maii 4. The Sub-Committee for Priviledges reported one onely President viz. the Tryal of the Earl of Northumberland 5 H. 4. which the Clark read unto them out of the Parliament Roll of that year Whereupon after long debate It was ordered first that Mr. Attorney prepare the heads of the Charge against the Earl of Bristol and to bring them in on Saturday next Secondly The Earl then to receive his Charge at the Bar. Thirdly That when the Earl hath heard his Charge the Lords will determine when he shall Answer But he is not to be inhibited if he will Answer presently Fourthly The Cause of the Earl of Bristol is to be retained wholly in this House After the Earls Charge is brought in and his Answer then their Lordships to proceed to hear Mr. Attornies proofs amongst themselves and then to put the Cause into a way of Proceeding in this House Die Sabati Maii 6. The Lord Keeper shewed how Mr. Atturney desired that in regard the House hath already heard the nature of the crimes objected against the said Earl of Bristol That the Clark of the Crown in the Kings Bench may attend the reading of the Charge here according to a Precedent of former times which was denyed in regard the Clark of the Crown in the Kings bench is no Minister of this Court And also for that it was ordered May 4. that this Cause was wholly to be retained within this House The said Order being read the Earl was brought to the Bar and the Lord Keeper commanded Mr. Attorney to read the Charge against him who read the same out of a Parchment ingrossed in Court-hand and signed by himself Ro. Heath It containeth diverse Articles of High Treason and other great Enormities Crimes Offences and contempts committed by the said Earl c. prout postea Thus much touching the Charge against the said Earl by Information in the Kings behalf A Question was demanded of me and others in private the last Parliament
against Henry late Earl of Northumberland and Tho. Bardolph late Lord Baron for certain ill deeds which they had lately committed contrary to their Allegiance At their meeting the Constable of England shewed them the Process made in the Court of Chivalry against Henry de Peircy upon the Articles of Treason committed by him and others of his Covyn In which Articles are named the Arch-Bishop of York Tho. Newberry Earl Marshal the said Earl of Northumberland the said Lord Bardolph and many others and their several Treasons are therein contained The Lords having advised therein and considered the proofs delivered their opinion to the King touching the said Earl of Northumberland and the said Lord Bardolph only and proceeded to Judgment against them Then the King caused to be demanded of the Lords Temporal Peers of the Realm what they would say touching the Act of the said late Arch-Bishop of York and of the said Earl Marshal who lately with a great multitude of people were armed and trained in the field within the Realm of England with Banners displayed c. Unto which demand the said Lords Temporal said That according to the Information to them given by the said Constable It seemeth unto them to be Treason yet notwithstanding the Lords desired that with good deliberation when they next returned to the Parliament they might speak thereof unto our Lord the King as no error might be found in their doings in time to come This was done on that day the Parliament was adjorned Here the Lords had no other Accusation against those two Peers but the Kings commandment upon view of former Process against them in the Court of Chivalry And the Lords declared their opinion touching the Archbishop of York and the Earl Marshal though their Treasons were contained in the same Process also least Error might be found in their doings hereafter But whether they thought their Error to be that the King had not commanded them first to advise thereon touching the said Archbishop and the Earl Marshal as he had done touching the others Let the Reader Judge For my part I think that would have been error Could the Lords proceed upon Process elsewhere unless the King commands them 2 H. 6. The Judgment against John Mortimer is drawn up very briefly by John Hales one of the Justices of the Kings Bench wherein he first shews that the said Sir John Mortimer was Indicted in London sitting the Parliament before the Lord Mayor of London and other Commissioners appointed by the King For that the said Sir John being committed to the Tower for suspition of Treason corrupted his keeper and broke Prison That the said Indictment was returned into Chancery Ex mandato Dom. Regis and by the Chancery brought into the Parliament before the Duke of Gloucester the Kings Protector and the Lords Temporal the King being then an Infant And the Protector being Authorized by Commission to hold the Parliament de Precepto Dom. Regis That the said Sir John Mortymer by Vertue of the Writs was brought before the said Duke and Lords and Commons That the said Commons affirmed the said Indictment to be true and desired Judgment against him as convict of Treason and Felony And lastly That he was thereupon adjudged In this is set down all the essential parts of the Lords proceedings against Mortymer The Ceremonious or formal parts thereof are omitted as who complained of or accused Mortymer to the Parliament The King or the Commons did not for then there needed no Indictment And therefore it must move for the King either before the Indictment or rather upon the Return thereof unto the House For had the Accusation been before the Indictment it had been a shorter way to Arraign him also before the Commissioners in London he being no Member nor Peer of Parliament then to return the Indictment into the Chancery and then be brought into the Parliament Here is also omitted the Conference before hand between the Lords and Commons touching this matter For it is very unlikely that the Lords did suddainly send for the Commons and then abruptly read the Information before them and they as suddainly affirm the same all these are necessarily understood That the Commons affirmed the Indictment e. It appears that the Lords cannot of themselves Judge a Common Person for an Offence for he is no Peer according to that of 4 E. 3. Numb 26. The manner of Accusation by Information Ex parte Dom. Regis is when the Commons as any other private Person accuse any man unto the Lords in general but do not declare the Offences in particular other then by the Commandment of the King Articles are drawn up against the Delinquent Ex parte Dom. Regis The Precedents are these 2 R. 2. The Constable of the Tower was commanded to bring Gomeniz and Weston whose Offences were complained of in general by the Commons that they named before the Lords in Parliament to Answer to the Articles objected against them on the behalf of the King and they were severally arrained at the Commandment of the Lords c. Eodem anno Alice Pierce being complained of by the Commons was accused and commanded to come before the Lords in Parliament to Answer to certain things objected against her on the Kings behalf And here upon Sir Richard le Scroope Chief Steward of the Kings House by Comandment of the Lords rehersed in Parliment in the presence of the said Alice a certain Ordinance c. Made in the Parliament of 50 E. 3. against her And this Rehersal being made the said Steward surmised unto the said Alice That it seemed to the Lords of the Parliament that she had incurred the pain comprised in the said Ordinance in certain points and especially in two That is to say c. By these two Precedents it appears plain enough that the Lords commanded the Articles to be drawn and exhibited though ex parte Dom. Regis for all these are said to be done by their Commandment And the practise at this day is that out of the Complaints of the Commons as of Mompesson The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Tresurer and a Committee of the Lords did draw up the Charges But they wanted the words Ex parte Dom. Regis The reason why in this Cause the Articles are Ex parte Dom. Regis seemed to be this The Commons complain but impeach not Notwithstanding the Impeachment the Lords cannot proceed neither can they Impeach any to themselves So it rests that the party is to be Impeached at the Kings Suit It may be lawful for me to examine the proceedings of the Lords in the Complaint against Mompesson and to compare them with ancient Proceedings in like Cases And they will appear to differ much And touching Mompesson the Commons did not only complain but accuse him He fled in his absence they ought to have proceeded to Judgment against him before Proclamation first made for him to appear before the
the King and Lords deliberated The Judges of the Common Law and the Sages of the Civil Law were charged by the King to give their best Counsel to the Lords of the Parliament how to proceed in their Appeal rightly Who after long Consultation answered the Lords That the Appeal is in no point made and declared according to the Order of the Common or Civil Law The Lords after long Debate declared by the Assent of the King that the Offences being committed by the Peers the Cause should be determined in Parliament only and that by the Law and Order of Parliament only and adjudged the said Appeal with the Process thereon depending to be good according to the Laws and Course of Parliaments And the Default of Appearance was Recorded and Judgment given c. against those who made their default After which Sir Nicholas Brembre a Commoner was brought Prisoner before the King and the Lords at the request of the said Appellants And the said Articles being read he pleaded Not Guilty which he was ready to defend with his Body Whereupon the Commons of the Parliament said that they had seen and considered all the said Articles which they found to be true and that they likewise as much as in them lay did also accuse the said Appellees which they would have done and it appertained to them to have done had not the aforesaid Appellants pursued the said Appeals Whereupon was answered by the Lords of Parliament That the Battel doth not lie in this Case but that they upon examination of the Articles would proceed to Judgment Here I note That the Lords cannot proceed against a Commoner but upon a Complaint of the Commons But here is not expressed how the Commons came daily to have a sight of these Articles I deny not but after they were read in their presence for their presence is always understood in Judicature upon Life and Death prout postea they demanded a sight of the Articles and considered of them apart and then supplied the Defects thereof And this also is to be observed that the Commons accuse Commoners as the Lords do their own Peers I suppse that Brambre was denied the Battel because the Commons accused him also otherwise he ought to have it granted upon an Appeal Afterwards the Commons themselves accused and impeached divers Commoners prout 2 Mar. Sir Rob. Belknap L. Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir John Carey late Chief Baron and other Justices c. The Records were brought into the Parliament at the Demand of the Commons and the Commons accused the Justices for their untrue Answer made unto sundry Questions before the King at Nottingham to the emboldning of the aforesaid Offenders in their traiterous Designs and Attempts c. Unto which they answered c. were adjudged c. And then follows another Impeachment of the Commons thus The Accusements and Impeachments made by the Commons of the Realm against Simon de Burle Sir John Beauchamp Sir John Salisbury and Sir James Berners Knights do ensue underwritten whereof the Commons pray Judgment in this present Parliament Thus much touching the Appeal of 11 R. 2. But this begot another Appeal in the 21th of the said K. R. 2. in the Parliament begun Sept. 14. being the Feast of St. Oswald Edmond Earl of Rutland Tho. Earl of Kent John Earl of Hunt Tho. Earl of Nottingh Joh. Earl of Somerset Jo. Earl of Salisbury the Lord Despencer and William Scroop Chancellor unto our Lord the King in their proper persons delivered unto our Lord the King then sitting in the great Hall within the Castle at Nottingh in his Royal Estate with a Crown on his Head a Bill of Appeal against Tho. Duke of Gloucester Richard Earl of Arundel and Tho. Earl of Warwick The which Bill of Appeal is recited in that Parliament and as it seems per Copiam verborum inde was penned by the Advice of some Civil Lawyer It seems also they were very careful herein to avoid all Errors of the former Appeals For in that of 11 R. 2. they appealed divers Commoners but here the Lords appealed none but Peers then it was done by word of mouth they being called to the King upon some other occasion but now it was done solemnly in writing and was delivered to the King sitting in his Throne of State There they offer'd to prove their Accusation by Battel a thing not meet for the Parliament or in what course his Majesty would ordain it but here the Bill was read in Parliament and they said they have been and are ready to prove c. as you our thrice Redoubted King and this Honourable Court of Parliament should ordain Nor were they less careful in their proceeding to Judgment to avoid the Errors in the former prout in the Answer But these Appeals are now abolished by 1 H. 4. c. 14. and not without cause for as this Accusation was extraordinary so were the Proceedings carried with a strong hand the former by the Lords this by the King prout ex Chroniculis in quinto comparet cum Codice 1 Maij A Brief whereof so much as concerns this Appeal follows hereafter at large with the Precedents of 21 R. 2. Ad quod Parliamentum convenire jussit Rex omnes Dominos sibi adhaerentes cum Sagittariis viris armatis tanquam ad bellum contra hostes omnino progressuri fuissent Ipse vero Rex ut efficacius proficere possit nequam conceptus malefactores de Comit ' Cestr ' congregari fecit ad velandum locum stramine c. Erexerat autem Rex quandam domum amplissimam in Palatio Westmonaster ' quae pene totum Palatii spatium occupavit in qua sibi Thronus parabatur altissimus pro cunctis Regni Statibus locus largus pro Appellantibus in uno latere locus specialiter deputatus in alio latere locus largus pro Responsu assignatus seorsim vero pro Nobilitatibus Parliamenti qui non fuerunt electi per Communitatem Et Forale nuncupatur Parliamentum Thus much of Accusation by Appeal which when any of the Lords accused others out of Parliament was summoned but God be thanked they are abolished 1 H. 4. c. 14. CHAP. III. The Parties Answer THe Party accused is to be brought to his Answer otherwise the whole Judgment will be erroneous as was Mortym 23 E. 3. Numb 10. and Spencer's 15 E. 2. and John Matrevers 21 E. 3. Numb 65. dors Although the Party be absent yet the Parliament hath used all means possible to have his Answer prout 21 R. 2. where the Lords Appellants and the Commons also accused Tho. Mortymer of Treason and the Commons said That it was notoriously known unto them that the King had sent his Mandate by W. D. a Serjeant at Arms unto the said Mortymer in Ireland commanding him upon his Allegiance to come before the King in all haste to answer c. And that the
that Judgment 21 H. 6. against Sir Jo. Mortymer upon an Indictment of Escape out of Prison being committed upon suspition of Treason the said Mortymer's Answer is not recorded yet it is said he was brought before the Lords and the said Indictment read in his presence that he made an Answer unto it though not mentioned And this proves that the Party is to be brought to his Answer else Mortymer's presence had not been necessary Anno 7 R. 2. Numb 2. The Duke of Lancaster and Gloucester complained to the King That Sir Tho. Talbot with others conspired the Death of the said two Dukes and prayed the Parliament to judge thereof The Fact is judged High Treason and Writs sent to divers Sheriffs to apprehend him which Writs were retornable into the King's-Bench And upon Proclamation made in Westminster-Hall That upon the Sheriffs Return and the not-Appearance of the said Thomas he should be convicted of Treason and forfeit c. This was extraordinary in terrorem But what may not the whole Parliament do They may alter Law much easier than Form In the Answer is to be considered First In what Causes the Party is to answer as a Prisoner and in what as a Freeman Secondly When Councel shall be allowed him and when not Touching the First The Parliament hath guided their Proccedings therein secundum Legem terrae Judicium Parium According to the 2th Chapter of Magna Charta Nullus liber homo capietur vel imprisonetur c. nisi per legale judicium Parium suorum vel per legem Terrae And therefore in Causes Capital whether the Party accused be a Lord of the Parliament or a Commoner he is brought a Prisoner to his Answer secundum legem terrae prout 4 E. 3. Numb 1. c. The Lord Berkley accused by the King for Murder of E. 2. Anno 1 R. 1. Jo. Lo. Gomeniz and W. Weston Upon the Demand of the Commons for surrendring Forts beyond the Seas An. 4. R. 2. Sir Ra. Ferrers Knight was apprehended for suspition of Treason Anno 28 H. 6. Although the Lords refused to commit the Duke of Suffolk upon the Commons complaint of him of a common Fame of Treason yet when they accused him of particular Treason he was Committed and brought Prisoner to his Answer But in Cases of Misdemeanors it is otherwise then the Party accused whether Lord or Commoner answers as a Freeman The Lord within his Place the Commoner at the Bar and they are not committed till Judgment unless upon the Answer of a Commoner the Lords find cause to commit him till he find Sureties to attend c. lest he should fly prout Jo. Cavendish upon the Lord Chancellor's Demand of Justice against him for his false Accusation was Committed after his Answer until he put in Bail Anno 7 R. 2. And before Judgment And so Michael de la Poole the said Chancellor 10 R. 2. after his Answer and many Replies of the Commons was Committed and presently Bayled Anno 50 E. 3. William Lord Latymer and John Lord Nevill being impeached by the Commons answered in their Place so did the Bishop of Norwich and the Lord Chancellor 7 R. 2. And the said Lord Chancellor too 10 R. 2. answered in his Place though afterwards he was committed before Judgment upon Request of the Commons The Bishop of Bristol 1 Jac. and the Duke of Buck. 1 Car. 1. All these answered as Freemen in their Places their Offences not being Capital And the like Precedents there are of Commoners Anno 50 E. 3. Richard Lyons William Ellis and John Beecher did answer as Freemen being impeached by the Commons And whereas the Commons did that year also accuse Adam de Bury who was absent the Lords sent for him to come but he contemned their Authority and came not Then the Lords as it seemeth by the Record sent to apprehend him and he could not be found wherefore they awarded that all his Goods should be put in Arrest Ibid. N. 17. It is briefly entred Adam was sent unto to come and answer in Parliament he came not nor could be found Wherefore it was awarded c. Which is sufficient to prove A Commoner is not to be brought a Prisoner to his Answer for a Misdemeanor if he will appear 5 R. 2. The Mayor and Bayliffs by name and the Townsmen of Cambridge were complained of in Parliament for many Outrages against the Scholars there and the Lords sent one Writ to the Mayor and Bayliffs that then were and to the Commonalty to appear and answer and another Writ to the Mayor and Bayliffs that did the Outrage and they appeared in person and the Commonalty by their Attorney This was the Ancient Course Yet even in these Days viz. 15 R. 2. the Peer of Holland complained of a great Riot committed by Henry Tibb and divers others in the Parsonage-House of one Williams Whereupon a Sergeant at Arms by vertue of a Commission to him made brought up the said Tibb and one more only the principal doers therein before the Lords in Parliament who upon the Return of the Examination confessed nhe whole Matter and were committed But I suppose the Sergeant at Arms was sent for haply they would have obeyed no Writ and yet he was sent for two of the principal Offenders only At this Day if the Commons accuse a Commoner of Misdemeanors in such a state of Liberty or restraint as he is in when the Commons complain of him in such he is to answer prout 18 Jac. Sir Francis Michell and Sir John Bennet were both committed by the Commons before their complaint to the Lords and so they answered as Prisoners But that in a sort may be called Judicium Parium suorum 18 Jac. The Earl of Middlesex being then Lord Treasurer and accused of Misdemeanors only absented himself from the House His Charge was sent to him in writing and he answered in writing At the Day prefixed for his Trial he was summoned by the great Usher to appear He came without his Staff and kneeled until the Lord Keeper willed him to stand up There he protested That he ought not to answer in that Place and desired others might not be prejudiced thereby And I hope they will not The Earl did himself the first wrong by absenting himself from the House for he might have stayed there until Judgment unless when his own Cause came in agitation §. 2. Touching Councel In all Causes of Felony Treason c. Councel antiently was denied to the Party accused prout Anno 4. R. 2. Numb 21. Sir Ralph Ferrers was brought to the Parliament under the Guard of the Marshal of England and arraigned at the King's behalf for suspition of Treason who prayed to the King and to the Lords to have Councel in that Case Unto whom it was said That in all Matters wherein Councel ought to be granted by the Law of the Land the King or Lords would allow it And it was further
their Answers to all other matters Numb 57. And the King by assent of the whole Parliament granted the assize of Bread and all weights Measures c. to the Scholars and to the rest of the Burgesses yielding and increase of Rent 59. 6. And there is no farther proceeding against them for other Crimes yet this also proves Counsel ought to be allowed in Cases of Misdemeanor §. Next to the Answer follows the Replication and that in my opinion belongs to the Party whose Suit it is If the Commons impeach any man it belongs to them if they will reply And to this end either they are all or some of them to be present when the Party makes his Answer and to consider thereof apart by themselves and to reply if they see cause Or else a Copy of an Answer is to be sent them and their Replication expected before any other Proceedings be If they do not reply the Lords may But if the Articles against the Party be so drawn ex parte Domini Regis then it belongs to the King and the Lords alone And the Commons can neither reply nor de Jure demand the Party to be put to his Answer All this will appear in the ancient Precedents which follow Anno 50 E. 3. They impeached Rich. Lyons for procuring Patents and Licenses c. to carry c. to other places than to Calice For divers other new Impositions upon Wools c. For levying the same to his own use without view of a Comptroller for 20000 Marks in London for the King and causing the King to repay 30000 Marks For buying of Debts of the King at the 20th penny and less and causing the King to pay the whole Debt In general words For many Extortions c. His Answer is First to the third part and pleads Not Guilty which he is ready to prove To which nothing is replied To the several Impositions He confessed he levied 12 d. on every Sack of Wool licensed to his own use but by express Commandment of the King and Assent of the Merchants And for other several Impositions That he had paid them wholly to the King's Chamber and fully accompted for the whole year Unto this part of his Answer also there is no Replication recorded it is drawn up so briefly yet these which follow shew somewhat of what was replied viz. And it was said unto the said Richard that he should bring forth his Warrant by what Authority he did these things But he shewed no Warrant in Parliament under the King's Seal nor otherwise but only he said he had Command from the King himself and his Councel to do it Now whether the Lords willed Lyons to shew forth his Warrant upon the Reply of the Commons or otherwise it appears not by conjecture out of other Precedents Eodem Anno The Commons impeach the Lord Latymer That contrary to the Proclamation upon the last Truce with the French he and his Lieutenants and Officers have taken divers Victuals by force without paying for the same and that he extorted great Fines and Ransoms of divers Persons and Parishes of Betherel in Brittayn whilst he was Captain there for which he hath answered nothing to the King And for the Loan of 20000 Marks made to the King by him and Richard Lyons to transport Wool c. And also through his ill Government the Fort of St. Saviours in Normandy and the said Fort in Normandy called Betherel and many more are lost And also that he of his own Authority discharged Spies and Fellows imprisoned by the King wherein he encroached to himself Power Royal. This is the Effect of the Impeachment the Answer follows First He said That saving to himself so much as ought to be saved unto him as one of the Peers of the Realm as well in giving Judgment as otherwise in time to come And if it please the King and Lords here Assembled he will willingly give his Answer unto him who will in special object any other thing against him It should seem that the Commons advised hereon for it followeth Et puis presentes Forasmuch as no person would in special openly accuse the said Lord vouching the said things in Parliament but that the Commons would maintain the said Judgment in common he answered to each Particular 1. Touching the Ransoms that he hath been before impeached for and the Sums of Money he received it appeareth that he owed the King 2000 l. which he confessed and submitted himself to the King's Grace for the same And soon after this the Commons having heard this Answer of Submission prayed the Lords that Execution might be had of the said 2000 l. presently against the said L. Latymer as a thing past by the said Submission being made by him as aforesaid for it shews not any agreement made with the King nor any Pardon or other Discharge And the Lords answered That his Answer should be reported to the King and thereupon Right shall be done for the King 2. Touching the Acts done by his Lieutenants he said That he is altogether innocent c. For he was then in England by the King's Command and he had no part thereof c. And the Commons thereunto replying said That although he be innocent yet his Lieutenants receiv'd it in his Name and therefore prayed he might answer to the King for his Lieutenants if they be not able c. 3. Touching the Loans of 20000 Marks he absolutely denied he had any share or advice therein he made in a manner a Negative Answer to all the rest offering Proofs whereupon witnesses were examined but no other Replications of the Commons mentioned Eodem Anno 50 E. 3. W. Ellis was impeached by the Commons for that he being Farmer to the King of the Petty Customs in Yarmouth and Deputy-Farmer to Rich. Lyons of Tonnage and Poundage c. he extorted several Sums of Money from the Merchants and particularly 33 l. from a Scotish Merchant at Kirkbread who was driven in thither by a Tempest but unladed no Merchandize there The said Ellis answered in general He had never taken any thing of the said Merchants by way of extortion which he was ready to prove The Commons brought in four Witnesses who justified the Extortion upon Oath and then demanded Judgment And W. Ellis rejoyn'd to this Replication confessed the Receipt of the 33 l. and avoided the Extortion Eodem Anno John Nevile was impeached by the Commons for that he as Officer to the King and one of his Privy Councel had brought divers Tallies of Assignments made by our Lord the King unto divers persons unto whom he was Debtor and had thereof due allowances in the Exchequer but the Parties had of him little or nothing and especially of the Lady Rovensholme who is deceased and of Reignald Love And after he was impeached for that in this late Voyage into Britayn in the King's Wages in great number
Declaratio Judicium Per quod cousider atum fuit in praesenti Parliamento per praedictos Dominos tunc ibidem existentes de assensu dicti Domini Regis quod praefatus nunc Comes nihil capiat per Petitionem aut Prosecutionem suam praedictam Et ulterius tam Domini Spirituales quam Temporales praedicti Judicium Declarationem praedictam versus dictum Johannem quondam Comitem Sarum ut praemittitur habita sive reddita de assensu ipsius Domini Regis asserunt fore esse bona justa legalia Et ea pro hujusmodi ex abundanti decreverunt adjudicaverunt Out of the last recited Precedent of 2 H. 5. may be observed That the Temporal Lords by Assent of the King may give Judgment on Offenders for capital Crimes and therefore Whereas it is said 2 H. 4. That the Judgment belongs only to the King and Lords that is herein explained The King's Assent ought to be to Capital Judgments and the Lords Temporal to be only Judges therein and not the Lords Spiritual But in Misdemeanors the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are equal Judges and the King's Assent is not necessary as shall appear §. 2. In what Cases the King's Assent is necessarily required Touching the King's Assent it is expressed in divers Judgments on Capital Offences 4 E. 3. against Mortimer Anno eodem against Simon de Bereford And there be divers other Judgments that year of this Nature wherein the King's Assent is not expressed but against John Matrevers Les Judices Peeres de la terre Judges de Parlement adjudgent agardant que le dit John be drawn hanged c. not mentioning the King's Assent And there are two other Precedents of the same Nature briefly Recorded Estre ou tiel Judgment est accorde que soit sait de Burges de Bayons John Dever And Item outiel Judgment est accorde de Tho. de Gurney W. de Ogle not mentioning by whom the said Judgments of Death were given 2 H. 4. The Judgment against the Earl of Salisbury and others for Treason is by the King's Assent and so is the Judgment of H. 4. against the Earl of Northumberland and 11 21 R. 2. upon those several Appeals In all which the King's Assent is recorded And so the Articles objected against Simon de Burley without the King's Assent and against his will which I shall here recite Item The aforesaid Dukes Earls of Arundel and Warwick Anno 50 E. 3. Richard Lyons pleading a Warrant from the King which he could not shew followeth thus c. And Tho. Mortimer continueth his traiterous purpose and by force of men took and imprisoned divers men your Liege c. Amongst others Simon de Burley Knight and him they carried in the Parliament at Westminster held the Morrow after the Purification of our Lady in the 11th year of your Reign and there were surmised against him divers points of Crime and Treason and thereupon was demanded of every Lord there present in Parliament his Advice of the said Simon touching the said Crime And afterwards the said Dukes and Earls of Arundel and Warwick would know your Advice Thrice Redoubted Lord. You answer plainly That the said Simon de Burley was not guilty of any the said Points and then they took upon them traiterously to have constrained you to have given your Assent to the Judgment which they have purchased against the said Simon upon the Points aforesaid And you Thrice Redoughted Lord would not consent to any Judgment to be given against the said Simon And yet notwithstanding the aforesaid Dukes and Earls took upon them Royal Power in prejudice of you and derogation of your Crown and without your Assent and against your Will and in your Absence and in the Absence of many other Peers of Parliament and without their Assent and against their Will awarded that that said Simon should be drawn c. and thereupon caused him to be beheaded but traiterously against your Crown Peace and Dignity This I have recited at large Unto which the Duke of Gloucester made no Answer being dead before the said Earl of Arundel pleaded the King's Pardon which was not allowed him The said Earl of Warwick confessed all the Articles in the said Appeal and put himself upon the King's Grace and the said Tho. Mortimer could not be found This Parliament begun at Westminster Die Lunae post Festum Exaltationis Sanctae Crucis and was adjourned to Shrewsbury And on Tuesday 28 January the Parliament there shewed unto the King how that they in the said Parliament at Westminster had accused and impeached John de Cobham in the 11th year of the King's Reign with others convicted in this Parliament accroaching to himself Royal Power in Judgment Awarded that the Lieges of the King Simon de Burley and James de Barners Knights should be Drawn Hanged and Beheaded without Assent of the King and against his will and in his absence and in the absence of many other Peers of Parliament who with held themselves and would not sit in such Judgment and against their will traiterously against the Peace of the King his Crown and Dignity And prayed our Lord the King to cause the said John de Cobham to joyn in this present Parliament to answer to the things aforesaid and to ordain such Judgment against the said John de Cobham as the Cause demands The said Jo. de Cobham was brought c. And touching the said Judgment awarded against the said Simon and James the said Joh. de Cobham said That it was told him by them who were present then That it was the King's Will to make such Judgment against the said Simon and James convicted of the said Judgment and Award which he had so given against the said Simon and James notwithstanding his Answer Whereupon c. Judgment was given against him and he adjudged a Traytor Here is objected That the Judgment against Simon de Burley was given by the Lords without the King's consent Secondly Against his Will Thirdly In the King's Absence Fourthly In the Absence of many of the Peers and against their wills Touching the First viz. The King 's not Assenting It may be Objected That the Lords gave Judgment against Weston 1 R. 2. without the King's Assent but yet not against the King's Will for they respited the Execution until the King might be informed thereof And the Reason then given for the said Respite was For that the King is not yet informed of the manner of this Judgment But whether the Lords proceeded to that Judgment against Weston before they informed the King because the King's Assent is not necessary or for that it being the last Day of the Parliament they had no leisure to inform his Majesty thereof let the Reader judge yet it seemeth to me that the King's Assent is necessarily required in Capital Causes and Judgments for these two Reasons First For that all
Precedents mention the King's Assent in Capital Judgments except that one against Matrevers 4 E. 3. which might be the omission of the Clerks who drew up the Roll for it is said directly afterwards in the said Bill Numb 6. That the Peers gave those Judgments in the presence of our Lord the K. and by his Assent And except that of 1 R. 2. against Weston in the last Day of the Parliament and it was 3. in the Afternoon that Day before the Lords had determined what to do in that Business so that it may be the Lords were prevented of time herein to have which they respited Execution for that the King was not informed of the manner thereof Secondly For that the Lords Appellants 11 R. 2. who had then great Forces about them were so earnest with the King for his Assent to the Judgment against Burley That the Duke of Gloucest told him as appeareth by his own Confession 21 R. 2. That if he would be King he should not intreat for Simon de Burley to save him from Death And in the end when his Majesty would not assent to their Judgment yet they wrought so that Messengers were sent unto him and brought word not before they gave Judgment against Simon and the King's Assent is mentioned in the said Judgment All which the said Lords would not have done had not the King's Assent been necessary And afterwards in the Parliament of 21 R. 2 The Lord Cobham being accused for giving Judgment without the King's Assent answered That the Messenger brought word That his Majesty had assented And yet because he did not gainsay that the King did deny his Assent the Commons immediately demanded Judgment All which seem to imply That the King's Assent is necessary in Judgments upon Capital Offences Touching the Second viz. Judgment against the King 's Will. It is all one with Judgment without the King's Assent Touching the Third viz. In the Absence of the King The Judgments of this kind are good notwithstanding so as the King doth assent as that of Simon de Burley 11 R. 2. Touching the Absence of many of the Peers That is to say of many of them and against their will This cannot invalid their Judgment so as the greater number of the Lords be then present accompting the Proxies of the absent Lords for it is not material whether some Lords do absent themselves or disassent The chiefest Matter is the Assent of the Lords who are present either in Person or by Proxy The others are to Answer for their Absence without a just Cause shewn or a proper Assent § 2. In Judgment on Misdemeanors the King's Assent is not required 50 E. 3. The Lords judged divers Commoners for Misdemeanors and the King's Assent not mentioned as Richard Lyons William Lord Latymer a Privy Councellor John Lord Nevil a Privy Councellor Jo. Peecher and others The King was then sick at his Mannor of Eltham and on the last day of the Parliament the Lords Prelates and Commons came before him there and he heard the Petitioners and their Answers for most part read and also Judgment given on the Privy Councellors and others dont ils se leyron franchement le respons de mesme nostre Seignior le Roy Numb 15. Which shews that the King had not assented to them 7 R. 2. The Bishop of Norwich was accused of Misdemeanors and judged in 10 R. 2. The Lord Chancellor Mich. de la Poole was judged by the Lords for Misdemeanors and Speed fol. saith That the King was much displeased thereat for it appeareth he gave not his consent And it was one of the Questions demanded of Tresilian and others 11 R. 2. Whether the Judgment were erroneous or not and resolved to be erroneous yet it was not objected against any the Lords Appellors that the Judges proceeded without the King's Assent §. 3. The King's Presence in Parliament In 4 E. 3. The King commanded the Lords to do right and lawful Judgment on Mortimer The which Earls Barons and Peers having examined the Articles came again before the King and said c. Ibidem The King commanded them to give Judgment on Simon de Bereford The which Earls Barons and Peers came again before the King and said c. And so the King was present at their Judgment but not at their Consultations 10 R. 2. The King was present when the Commons accused the Lord Chaneellor William de la Poole of Misdemeanors but he was not present at his Trial for he demanded if he ought to answer sans presence de dit Roy being Chancellor and in the end he answered notwithstanding 21 R. 2. In the cruel Parliament of the Lords Appellants the King was present at the Parlies Non constat whether he was present at the Consultation of the Lords 5 H. 4. The King was present when the Earl of Northumberland was to be tried upon his own Petition and so were the Commons And the King delivered the Petition to the Judges for their Opinion but the Lords claimed their Right But this was on the Wednesday and the Friday following the King and Commons met there again and the Chancellor rehearseth First What was done the first Day and the Lords having had competent deliberation on the said Petition and having heard and considered the Statute They adjudged c. It is plain the King was not present at this Consultation of the Lords though at their Judgment 7 H. 4. He commanded the Lords to advise what manner of Process shall be made and what Judgment shall be rendred against Henry de Peircy Earl of Northumberland and a Week after the Lords declared their Opinion to the King And it appeareth in that Roll very clearly that all Evidences and Examinations were shewn and taken by the Lords in the absence of the King and their Advice also agreed on in his Absence but the Judgment reversed in his Presence To conclude The King may be present if he please at the Parties Answer in Capital Causes and at the Judgments given prout c. But he was never present at other times of Proceeding against the Delinquent nor at any Answer for Misdemeanors for ought I have yet seen §. 4. The Presence of the Lords Spiritual In Cases of Misdemeanors the Lords Spiritual have ever been present but never in Offences Capital This is so generally-received of all men that it is not worth the Labour to prove it yet I will vouch the Precedents For it may be out of one or other of them somewhat may occur worthy the Observation In Misdemeanors In 1 R. 2. Alice Peirce was brought before the Prelates and Lords in Parliament to Answer and the Prelates and Lords did ordain 42 E. 3. Numb 20 c. John at Lee was put to Reason before the Prelates Lords Dukes Earls Barons and some of the Commons 7 R. 2. Jo. Cavendish accused the Lord Chancellor of Bribery before the Prelates and Lords in