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
son serement Auxint pur lour malveis covetise et par poiar roial a eux acroche ne susterent nostre seignor le roy doier ne droit fair ' as grandes de la terre sur la demonstrance que ilz fesoient a luy pur luy et pur eux de la disheritance de la corone et de eux touchant les terres que furent as templers Et issint par yoiar roial a eux accroche ont ils mesne nostre seignour le roy son counseil et ses prelatz que des choses touchant eux ou lour alies ount emprise et embrace par eux que droit ne poet estre fait forsquea lour volunte et a dammage et a dishonour de nostre dit seigneur et peryl de son serement et dishinheritaunce et destruction de plusours autres grandes du people de son royalme Et auxint de eslues as evesque abbes et priours que devoient de droit estre resceux de nostre seignour le roy lou ils sont en due maner estues ne poient approcher a nostre seignour le roy ne one luy parler de querer sa grace tanque ils avoient fait sine et fret Sir Hugh le fitz a sa volunte Ne nul que eust grant aquere de nostre seignour le roy ne poet a nul grant atteinder avantque ilz avoient faitfine a luy Estre ceo lou John de Lacchelegh et autres fuerent agardes a la prisone pur un trespas que ils avoient fait a la dame de Merk a damag ' de la dist dame de M. Centz marcz dont ils furent atteintz devant mon Sir Robert de Middyngle er ses compaignons Justices assignes a oier et terminer cel temps cel trespas et le dit John feust en la prison de Colcestre par la gard suisdit Sir Hugh le fitz accrochantz a luy roial poiar amesna le diâ— Iohn hors de la prison contre leye de la teâ—re eius que il avoir fait gree a la dit dame des damages avantditz et luy fist vender sa terre a luy et â—ever sur ceo un fine Claus 16 E. 2. m. 5. There is this memorable case recorded The King being at Bishops Thorpe near York held a Council with his Lords divers of which are there named concerning the Truce with Scotland inter quâ—s Nobiles Hen. de Bellamont Baro de Magno et secreto Concillo ipsi Domino Regi juratus vocatus fuit ibidem venit Being there preâ—ed by the King to give his advice herein quodam motu excessius animo quasi irreverents dicto Domino Regi saepe respondit quod sibi consulere noluit in hac parte Whereupon the King commanded him thence Upon which he went out of the Council and said He had rather be absent than there Upon which contemptuous carriage and words consideration being had by the Lords and Council by all the Iudges Barons of the Exchequer being there amongst others to wit as assistants in regard he was sworn and had taken the Oath of a privy Counsellor to the King being called in again Committitur Scalae Prisonae pro contemptu inobedientia praedictis After which he was let to mainprise and a truce being there concluded with the Scots thereupon the writs ad arma c. were revoked that were formerly iâ—sued to the Tenants by Escuage and Knights service In the Parliament held at Winchester Ann. 2 E. 3. Edmund Earl of Kent the Kings Uncle by the instigation and power of Roger Mortimer Earl of March was arrested impeached condemned and executâ—d for conspiring and attempting to rescue his Brother King Edward the 2. and saying he was alive after the time he was murdered which Treason was said to be manifestly proved by Letters found about him and by his own voluntary confession before the Coroner recorded in Walsingham and the Clause Roll of 4 E. 3. which Letters and confession were openly read in Parliament pur que oue le assent des Countz Barons et autres Grantz et Nobles â—n mesme le Parliament par agard dicelle estoiet le dit Count come Nostre Trayture et Traiture de Royalm adjudge a la mort as the King himself recites in his Writs and Letters to all Sherifs Claus 4 E. 3. m. 16. dorso Demorte Edmundi nuper Comitis Cantii publicanda commanding them to publish this as the cause and manner of his death and to arrest all those that said King Edward the 2. was alive or that the said Earl of Kent was otherwise put to death So that by this record being a Peer he was adjudged to death only by the Earls Barons Great men and Nobles in Parliament without the Commons not named in this record And therefore the Kings Letter to the Pope in 4 E. 3. relating the proceedings and judgement against the Earl in these words if truly recited Comitibus Magnatibus Baronibus aliis de COMMUNITATE dicti regni ad PARLIAMENTUM illud congregatis injunximus ut super hiis DISCERNERENT ET JUDICARENT quid rationi justitiae conveni et habentes prae oculis solum deum qui eum CONCORDI ET UNANIMI SENTENTIA tanquam reum criminis laesae Majestatis ADJUDICARENT ejus sententiae c. Objected by Sir Robert Cotton to prove the Commons to have a share and voice in judicatures in Parliament and that not in the case of a Commoner but this great Peer must needs be understood of an Attainder by Bill to confirm the judgement formerly given against him by the Earls Barons and Lords alone in this Parliament as in the case of the two Spencers not long before not of his original sentence given only by the Lords Barons and other Great men and Nobles as the Clause Roll and all Writs to the Sheriffs record Which the Parliament Roll in 4 E. 3. n. 11 12. doth likewise intimate where Earl Edmonds eldest Son and Margaret Countesse of this Earl of Kent by their Petitions prayed that THE RECORD or Bill against the said Earl might be reversed for errors therein appearing and he to be restored to blood and lands of his Father and she to her Dower which was granted and ordered by Parliament saying to the King the wardship of the same during his minority and thereupon it was further enacted That no Peer of the land nor other persons should be impeached for the death of the Earl of Kent but only the said Mortimer and 3 more then impeached and condemned of High Treason for his murder as well of the deposed Kings and that his Countess should have her Dower as Claus 5 E. 3. part 1. m. 24. assures us In the Parliament of 4 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 14. Edward the eldest Son of Edward Earl of Arundel condemned and beheaded without any legal trial by his
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
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
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.
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
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
ut rex ipsis omnibus qui in eorum comitiva arma moverant literas patentes indemnitatis concederet ne pro transgressionibus transactis vel praesentibus a rege seu quovis alio futuris temâ—oribus punireâ—ur Ad haec dominus rex respondit quod Hugo le Spencer pater in suo negotio mare transierat Hugo junior in mari ad custodiendum quinque Portus prout ex officio renebatur qui de jure vel consuetudine exulare non debent ante responsa data per eosdem Adâ—câ— praeâ—ereâ— quod eorum petitio juris rationis fundamento carebat eo maxime quod dicti Hugo senior Hugo junior parati semper fuerant omnibus de se conquerentibus in forma juris respondere si probare possent eos in aliquo statuta terrae laesisse parati semper suerant legibus regni parere Postremo cum juramento addidit quod noluerit sacramentum violare ad quod astrictus fuerat in Coronatione sua concedendo literas pacis et indulgentiae tam notorie delinquentibus in suae personae contemptum et totius regni perturbationem et majestatis regiae laesionem Hiis auditis Proceres acti in â—uâ—iam confesâ—im ad arma rosiliunt milites quidam super armatura cotiâ—cas induerunt vocatas quarteloys Armigeri vero indumenta bendas habuerunâ— quibus indumentis expost induti tracti sunt suspensi plurimide procerum Comitiva Cum fastu igitur pompa nimia Barones Londonias adierunt hospitatique in suburbia civitatis manebant pacifice donec licentiam ingredi civitatem obtinuissent obtento a rege civitatis ingressu Magnates sicut prius in petitione sua fortiter perstiterunt Tandem interveniente regina praefatis episcopis laudabiliter mediantibus rex inductus est propter werrae periculum evitandum ut condescenderet votis petitionibus Procerum praedictorum Edictoque super hiis per comitem Herefordiae in aula Westmonasterii publicato Hugo senior in exilium actus est Sed Hugo junior in diversis locis latitans in Anglia in mari permansit The Clause Roll of 14 E. 2. m. 17. Schedula records the proceedings with this addition that King Edward the 2. having summoned the Lords to come to a Parliament with the rest of the Council at Glocester Humfry de Boun Roger de Mortimer and their confederates refused to come upon the Summons for fear of Hugh Spencer who was made Chamberlain in pleno Parliamento 12 E. 2. at York desiring that he might be committed and kept in safe custody till the Parliament for they weâ—e unwilling to come to him so long as he was with the King The King said he much wondred at this their carriage in regard Spencer was never questioned in any other Parliament since he was made Chamberlain for any misdemeanour ignorare non debetis nec potestis quod mandata nostra omnibus singulis ad Nos ad hujusmodi mandata nostra convenientibus protectâ—o desensio sunt debent secundum legem et consuetudinem Regni nostri As for removing Spencer from him which they desired he said it were unjust and of ill example aliis Ministris nostris sâ—ipsum amoveremas à Nobis totaliter sine causâ— Praefâ— uâ— vero Hugonem sive quemaâ—is alium Custodiae sine causa committere non possumus nec debemus cum hoc esset conira tenorem Magnae Chartae de libertatibus Angliae et contra Communem Legem Regni nostri ac contra Ordinationes made by himself and the Lords in Parliament Idem enim Hugo se protulit plane ac publice coram Nobis ad respondendum in Parliamento nostro alibi prout debuit querelis nostri siâ—gulorum aâ— ipso conqueretium volentium ad standum inde recto c. And thereupon he commands them to come and treat cum caeteris de Concilio at Oxford whereas it appears by the Dorse of this Roll he had formerly summoned them and the rest of the Council to Glocester whether these Earls refused to come Claus 15 E. 2. dorso 32. The whole proceedings against the Spencers in Parliamen are at large recorded but cancelled by order of the Parliament at York They were sent to every Court to be inrolled and the writ recites thar their judgement was per pares in praesentia Regis Soon after the same year the King summoned a Parliament at York on the 3. of September where this judgement against the Spencers was questioned as erronious and being referred to the consideration of the Provincial Council of Canterbury they conceived it to be erronice factum because the Spiritual Lords never assented to it neither could they doe it because it was Jndicium sanguinis for if they submitted not to the exile they were to be proceeded against as Enemies to the King and Realm After which the King and some of the Lords had the sentence read to them and they said It was erroniâ—ous The Earls of Richmond Pembroke and Arundel said They gave their voyces for fear of the other Noble mens power and the Judges said Consideratio praedicta fuit contra Legem consuetudinom regni The King writes down all this and then sends to some of the Bishops that were absent from the Council to know their minds 4 Januarii who concurring in judgement with the rest thereupon the Process Judgement and Act against the Spencers was nulled and made void before the King Lords and Commons who were consenting to it before 1. Because they were not called to it to make their defence 2ly Because the Lords Spiritual who were Peers assented not to it 3ly Because against MAGNA CHARTA the franchises of England Nullus liber homo utlagetur c. 4ly Because the Faults were not sufficiently proved 5ly Because the Lords in the Kings absence of their proper authority usurping to themselves royal power had given the judgement of his royal assent with the assent of the Lorâ—s and Commons without his privity and against his will The judgement and process of this repeal and nulling their sentence were sent by Writ into every County to proclaim and to null and cancel the first judgement A little before which Parliament Thomas Earl of Lancaster and sundry other Lords Knights and Gentlemen for adhering to him and levying war against the king were arraigned impeached before the Lords and commanded to be hanged drawn quartered and beheaded Comitum et Baronum Consilio as Walsingham relates without the Commons peculiar assent and accordingly executed Anno 1326. Hugh Spencer the younger notwithstanding the repeal of his exile being taken by the Kings forces was brought to Hereford and there arraigned publiquely before William Trussel a Judge His inditement is at large recorded in the Chronicle of Leicester and in Henry de Knyghton de Eventibus Angliae l. 3. c. 15. col 2547. c. beginning thus Hugo de Dispencere En Parlement nostre
of Attainders in cases of high Treason did not institute them Judges of these persons nor give them any share in the judicial right and power of Parliaments 1. Because most of these persons thus attainted by Bill were Queens Dukes Earls Lords Barons and Peers of the Realm who were triable to be judged only by their Peers none else by the Common Law of England Magna Charta c. 29. and sundry other Acts not by the Commons who are not their Peers 2ly Because most of these parties thus attainted by those Bills were first attainted tried judged condemned in Parliament by the Lords alone as their proper Judges upon the complaints or impeachments of the Lords Appellants or of the Commons themselves or else before some other Judges upon indictments and legal tryals and those Acts did only confirm and ratifie their precedent attainders recited in them 3ly Because in many of these Acts the Commons did only petition that their Attainders might be ratified by Bill and the King and Lords assents thereto which was done at their request as Petioners not Judges 4ly Because their Judgements and Attainders passed formerly by the Lords and Judges were good in Law though thus ratified afterwards by Bill for the greater terror certainty and satisfaction and these Bills did pass no new Judgements and Attainders upon the parties but only ratifie the old and in cases where there was no precedent Attainder they attaint them only by vertue of their Legislative power without any indictment tryal or hearing of the parties themselves as Judges of them some of them being dead when attainted taking all the charges in the Bills pro confesso and notoriously true and proved such by some other precedent legal convictions and evidences 2ly There is a formal proper Judgement given in our Parliaments both in criminal and civil causes upon complaints Articles Petitions Impeachments Inditements Informations Writs Appeals Reports References and that either against or concerning Peers themselves or against or concerning Commoners and other Laicks or Clergy-men And in all such cases proceedings the King and Lords alone have a proper judiciary power or right of Judicature without the Commons vested in and executed by them which I shall abundantly evidence and make good by sundry memorable Presidents out of our Histories and Records in all ages not vulgarly known and for the most part never yet remembred by any who have wriâ—ten of our Parliaments and the proceedings in them whose Treatises are very slight unsatisfactory and in many things of this nature erronious I shall begin first with presidents concerning Ecclesiastical Temporal Lords alone proceeded against impeached judged censured in our Parliaments for sundry criminal causes Offences Treasons wherin the House of Commons can challenge no share or voice in the Judicature especially in the case of Temporal Lords who are such in their own right and sit in Parliament ratione Nobilitatis but the Lords alone and that by the express Letter and Resolution of the Great Chariers of King John and of King Henry 3. and Ed. 1. c. 14.29.15 E. 3. c. 2 3 4. and roâ— Parl. n. 6.8.11 R. 2. rot Parl. n. 6 7.5 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 12.28 H. 6. ror Parl. n. 51 52 53. 20 H. 6. c. 9.26 H. 8. c. 13.28 H. 8. c. 7.18.31 H. 8. c. 12.32 H. 8. c. 4.33 H. 8. c. 12 20 23.35 H. 8. c. 2.1 Ed. 6. cap. 12. 1 Mar. c. 6.1 2 Phil. Mar. c. 3.4 5 Phil. Mar. c. 4.1 Eliz. c. 1.5.5 Eliz. c. 11.13 Eliz. c. 1.14 Eliz. c. 1 2 3. 18 El. c. 1.23 El. c. 1 2.27 El. c. 2.3 E. 3.19 Fit Corone 16â— 1 H. 4.1.10 E. 4.6 Brooke Trial 142. Stamford l. 3. c. 1. f. 152.33 H. 8. Brookâ— Trial 142.34 H. 8. Bro Corone 172.13 H. 8.11 Br. Treasons 29.38 H. 8. Br. Treasons 2.33 Dyer 99.107.208.360 Cook 6 Rep. f. 52.9 Rep. f. 30.87 and Cooks 2 Instit f. 28 29 48 49 50. and his 3 Instit c. 1. 2. p. 27 28 29.30 31. All which declare enact resolve That the Peers of this Realm shall not be tried or proceeded against but only by the lawfull judgement and verdict of their Peers The Lords and Barons of Parliaments trial by Peers alone of their own rank being so essential that they cannot waive nor put themselves upon the trial of the Country by 12. ordinary Freeholders as was resolved in the Lord Dacres case Pa. 26 H. 8. Cooks 3 Institutes f. 30. much less then can they waive their Peerage it self and sit as Commoners in the Commons house as I have formerly proved The first president I meet with in our Histories of this nature is in the reign of Cassibelan the British King who having repulsed Julius Caesar upon his first landing in this Island and forced him to return into France Edictum fecit ut omnes Proceres Britanniae convenirent to the City of â—roynovant now London where Evelin nephew to Androgens Duke of Troynovant slaying Heralgas nephew to Cassibelan upon a sudden quarrel as they were playing together Cassibelan thereupon commanded Evelin to be brought before him talem sententiam quam Proceres regni judicarent subire which Androgeus opposing â—aying sese suam Curiam habere in illa diffiniri debere quicquid aliquis in homines suos clamaret thereupon Cassibelan threatned to waste his Country with fire and sword if he refused to deliver up his Nephew to justice to undergo the sentencâ— quam Proceres dictarent which he accordingly executed for refusing to put his Nephew upon the Trial and Judgement of the Nobles for this murder The next president I find is that of Wilfrid Archbishop of York who for refusing to divide his Bishoprick into two Bishopricks more and for endeavouring to perswade Queen Emburga to become a Nun and desert her husband Egfrid King of Northumberland was through that Queens malice and prosecution in two several Parliamentary Councils Anno 678. 692. twice deprived of his Archbishoprick and banished the Realm by King Egfrid Theodor Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest oâ— the Bishops and Nobles of the Realm assembled in these Councils and at last restored to his Archbishoprick again in another Council An. 705. by King Osred his will and consent About the year of our Lord 924. Elfred a Nobleman who opposed Aethelstans title and election to the Crown though in vain intended to seise upon him at Winchester and put out his eyes but his Treason being discovered he was apprehended and sent to Rome to purge himself thereof by Oath where he abjuring the fact before the Altar of St. Peter in the presence of Pope John the 10th fell down suddenly to the ground as dead and being thereupon carried away thence to the English School he there expired within 3 dayes after The Pope acquainting the King therewith and craving his advice what to do with him and whether he should have Christian burial the King thereupon
preserve to the King and his heirs for ever and Archbishop Becket amongst the rest The 11 Article was this Archiepiscopi Episcopi universae personae regni qui de rege tenent in capite habent possessiones suas de Domino Rege sicut Baroniam c. sicuâ— Barones caeteri debent interesse judiciis curiae Regis to wiâ— of his Court of Parliament as the protestation of the Archbishop and Prelates in the Parliament of 11 R. 2. rot Patl. n. 9.11 resolves it cum Baronibus quousque perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem Membrorum vel ad mortem An unanswerable authority thaâ— rhe Barons and Peers in Parliament had antiently in the reigns of Henry the 1. and 2. and long before a judicial power even in criminal as well as canonical causes deserving loss of Member or death and that as well in cases of Commons as Peers It is observable that though according to this Article the Bishops in those days did not pronounce sentence nor were not actually present at the giving of judgement by the other Barons in cases of blood yet they took upon them the name of Barons and were present on that account at all the debates in criminal causes and gave their votes therein in our Parliamentary Councils absenting themselves only from the sentence and execution for which Petrus Blesensis Archdeacon of Bath under king Henry the 2. thus justly censures them Quidam Episcopi Regum munificentias eleemosinas antiquorum abusive BARONIAS REGALIA VOCANT in occasione turpissimae servitutis SEIPSOS BARONES appellant vereor ne de illis quereletur Dominus dicat Ipsi regnaverunt et non ex me Principes extiterunt ego non cognovi Scias te assumpsisse Pastoris officium NON BARONES Cerâ—e Joseph in Aegypto patrem suum fratres instruxit ut dicerent Pharoni viri pastores sumus Maluit eos profiteri Pastoris officium quam PRINCIPIS aut BARONIS c. Vacuum a secularibus oportet esse animum divinae servituâ—is obsequio consecratum c. Illud coelestem exasperat iram et plerisque discrimâ—n aeternae damnationis accumulat quod quidam Principes Sacerdotum et Seniores populi licet non dictent judicia sanguinis eadem tamen tractant disputando ac disceptando de illis seque adeo immunes a culpa reputant quod mortis aut truncationis Membrorum judicium decernentes a pronuntiatione duntaxat et executione paenalis sententiae se absentant The very words of this Article of Clarindon Sed quid hac simulatione perniciosius est Nunquid discutere diffinire licitum est quod pronunciare non licet Certe Saul de morte David multiplici machinatione tractabat let others observe it ut malitiam suam sub umbra innocentiae palliaret dicebat Non sit manus mea in eum sed sit super eum manus Philistinorum Sane quantum haec dissimulatio ipsum excusabat apud homines tantum apud Deum eundem damnabilius accusabat Expressa fimilitudinis forma in CONSITORIO illo in quo Christus ad mortem damnatus est Pharisaei Scribae dicebant Nobis non licet interficere quemquam cumque tamen clamarent dicentes crucifige sententiam in eo occisionis cruentae malignitate dictabant Quem occidebant gladio linguae publice protestabantur sibi occidere non licere eorumque iniquitas eo ipso detestabilior erat quia ut evaderent humanum judicium eam simulatione innocentiae occultebant Animabus praelatus es non corporibus nihil Praelato commune est cum Pilato Christi villicus es Vicarius Petri nec respondere oportet Coesari de commissa tibi jurisdictione sed Christo Quidam tamen per usurpatas seculi administrationes se vinculo curiali obnoxiant quasi renunciaverint suae privilegio dignitatis calculum durioris eventus expectant These Articles of Clarindon were not only sworn to but likewise subscribed and sealed by all the Bishops except Archbishop Becket who refused to sign or set his seal unto them unlesse the Pope would first confirm them by his Bill The King hereupon sent two Embassadors to Rome unto the Pope to crave his allowance of these Laws but Becket had so dealt with the Pope before hand who knew the cause to be more his own than Beckets that he rejected the sute and withall absolved Becket and the other Bishops from the Oath of allegiance they had taken to observe them Whereupon the King being highly offended with Becket summoned a Great Parliamentary Council of the Prelates and Nobles at Northampton wherein he demanded an account of 30000 l which came to Beckets hands during his Chancellorship which he excusing and refusing punctually to answer unto the PEERS and BISHOPS condemned all his moveables to the Kings mercy After which the Lords and Peers by joynt consent adjudged him guilty of perjury for not yeelding temporal obedience to the King according to his Oath taken at the Council of Clarindon The Bishops thenceforwards openly disclaiming all obedience to him as their Archbishop The next day whiles THE BISHOPS PEERS were consulting of some further course to be taken with him Becket caused to be sung before him at the Altar The Princes set and speak against me and the Ungodly persecute me c. And forthwith taking his silver Crosier in his hands a thing strange and unheard of before entred armed therewith into the Kings presence though earnestly disswaded from it by all who wished him well wherewith the King being inraged commanded the Peers there assembled in a Parliamentary Council to sit in judgement upon him as on a Traytor or perjured person who accordingly adjudged him both a Traytor and perjured Rebel and that he should be forthwith apprehended and cast into prison as such a one and forfeit all his goods and temporalties The Earls of Cornwal and Leicester who SATE AS JUDGES citing him forthwith to hear his sentence pronounced he immediately appealed to the See of Rome as holding them no competent Judges Whereupon all the Prelates and Nobles reviling him with the name of Traytor and perjured person he replyed That were it not for his function he would enter the duel or combate with them in the field to acquit himself from Treason and Perjury And so speeding away from them for fear of imprisonment and disguising himself under the name and habit of Dereman fled in a small Fisher boat into Flanders Thereupon the King seised all his goods and temporalties into his hands and sent Embassadors to the Earl of Flanders the French King and Pope praying them in no wise to suffer or foster within their Dominions one that was such a notorious Traytor to him The Proceedings against this Traytor Archbishop Becket In this Magnum et solenne Concilium held at Northampton Anno 1165. being very memorable and more fully relating the manner of our Parliamentary Process in that age and the
omnes qui contra Regem cum Comite Simoni ' steterunt exhaeredicabantur quoram terras Rex suis sideli bus tradidit sineâ— mora pensatis meritis singulorum The Execution of this Sentence appears in the Patent Roll of 50 H. 3. m. 10. Schedula Where the Lands and Menors of Simon de Montfort and other Rebels adhering to him against the King are confiscated to the King and granted by him to sundry others there mentioned as the Lands of the Barons adhering to King Lewis against King John their native Soveraign were in like manner forfeited to and granted by him Claus 17 Johan Regis dors 7 10 11. By these two last Parliamentary presidents and proceedings against the Londoners Simon Montfort the Baronâ— and aâ— other his Confederates whether Peers or Commoners in case of Treason and Rebellion against the King to the forfeiting of their antient Customs and Liberties imprisoning and fining of their persons confiscation of their goods disinheriting them of their Lands and Freeholds by judgment and â—entence of the King and Lords it is undeniable that the King and Lords have an antient undoubted right to judge and censure both Peers and Commoners too in Parliament in cases of Treason and other misdemeanours there properly triable In the year 1266. King Henry the 3d. REGIONIS NOBILES assembling together at Westminster at Christmas to treat about setling the Peace of the realm after the accustomed manner there issued out an Edict against Earl Ferrers who was perpetually depriâ—ed of his Earldom according to the form of his Obligation for his Treason and rebellion against the King and Edward the Kings son was put in possession of two Counties or Earldoms to wit Derby and Leicester The same year after divers skirmishes between the disinherited Baroâ—s and persons and the Kings forces to settle a firm peace upon the Legates motion there was another Parliament held at Kenelworth wherein by the accord and consent of the King and Lords the persons disinherited whose Lands the King had confiscated for their Treason and Rebellion in the two former Parliaments were notwithstanding admitted upon their submission to the King for reasonable fines and compositions reduced to a certainty by Bishops and other Lords Commissioners both to their Pardons Liberties Charters and Inheritanceâ— 3. only excâ—pted their fines not exceeding 3. years value nor to be under one without any imprisonment or loss of Memberâ— as you may read at large in the accord between them and the King at Kenelworth printed in the Statutes at large See Par. 50 H. 3. dors 9. the Patent Charter and Claus Roâ—s of 50 51 52 53. of Henry the 3. and Claus 4 E. 1. m. 15. dâ—rso In the Parliament of 21 E. 1. John Archbishop of Yorke was impleaded and complained against for excommunicating the Bishop of Durham being juxta latus Regis per ipsius praecepâ—um against the dignity of the King and for imprisoning William of Willicon and John Rowman two of the Bishops servants in the Castle of Durham being excommunicated by him in his Ecclesiastical Court for the Wardship of certain Lands to which the Archbishop pretendâ—d a Right the Custody of which lands being a Temporal matter belonged not to Ecclesiastical cognisance The Archbishop protesâ—ing that although he ought not to answer for this matter in the Court of our Lord the King yet he was willing to answer And thereupon allegeth that the Bishop of Durham was his Subject and Suffragan and shews the whole matter and manner of the proceedings against him and his Servants in his Court and justifies the same To which Richard de Breelwell who prosecuted for the King answered that the Bishop of Durham was to be considered in a twofold estate one as a Bishop the often as an Earl in respect of his Temporalties and Tenements In which lâ—ter respect he was not subject to his Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction to which the Archbishop replied After much and â—ong debate it was adjudged and resolved by the Lords in Parliament that for this offence the Archbishop should be committed to prison and likewise agreed that in like cases it should ever be so this his Excommunication of them in his Ecclesiastical Court for a temporal matter being an high contempt against the King to the disinherison of his Crown and dignity Moreover he was adjudged to make his submission to the King and to pay a fine of 4000 maerks to the King for this offence The Archbishop hereupon makes his submission aend after much mediation to the King by his friends his imprisonment was remitted but the King would not abate one penny of his sine for the due payment whereof he was enforced presently to enter into a Recognisance and so dismissed The Record is very long worthy perusal but this is the summary of it Anno 1283. after the feast of St. Michael in PARLIAMENTO tento Salopiae David quondam frater Lewlini Principis Walliae per Potentiores Angliae judicatus judicialiter condemnatus ad caudas equorum per municipium Salopiae tractus et suspensus est visceribusque combustis corpus capite truncatum in quatuor partes est divisum quibus in Civitatibus Angliae Nobilioribus suspensis caput Londoniis super palum fixum est ad terrorem consimilium proditorum King Edward the 1. Ann. 1297. the 14. of his reign holding a Parliament at St. Edmonds where there was granted him an 8. part of the goods of Cities and Boroughs and a 12. part of the rest of the people the Clergy by reason of the Constitution of Pope Boniface made that year prohibiting under pain of Excommunication that no Taxes nor exactionâ— should by any means be exacted from the Clergy by secular Princes or payd by them of the goods of the Church denyed the King a Subsidy which he demanded of them to maintain his wars Whereupon the King that they might deliberate of a better answer deferred the business to another Parliament to be held at London the next day after St. Hillary An. 1298. The Parliament then assembling the Clergy therein persisted in their denyal of a Subsidy upon the foresaid ground The King thereupon by his Nobles advice excluded them from his protection and prohibited any Lawyers to plead for them in the Exchequer or before any other Regular Judge as being unworthy of his peace and seised all the goods movables and immovables of Clergy men found in Lay fees and confiscated them To redeem which Protection many of the Clergy by themselves and many by Mediators afterwards gave the King a fift part of their goods The King finding the Archbishop more rigid than the rest seised all his lands and commanded all his debts found in the Rolls of the Exchequer to be speedily levied on his goods For the same Archbishop by the assent of the Clergy had procured from the Pope an Inhibition Ne quis Clericorum Regi respiceret de bonis Ecclesiae The
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
to them in all ordinary Civil and criminal causes For prooâ— whereof you may peruse at leisure M. Seldens Titles of Honour Part 2. c 5. Sect. 5. Sir Edw. Cooks Institutes on Magna Charta c. 35. His 4. Institutes c. 53. the Laws of King Edgar and Edward there cited Spelmanni Glossarium Tit. Comites Mr. Lambards Archaion f. 135. Horns Mirrour of Justices c. 1. Sect. 2 3. If then they were Judges of the Commons and people in every County by reason of their Honours Dignities even in antientest times in ordinary Causes there is great right and reason too they should be their Judges also in all their extraordinary causes as well criminal as civil even in Parliament 3ly The Lords Peers and great Officers of State in respect of their education learning experience in all proceedings of Justice and Law are more able fit to be Iudges of Commons in Parliament than ordinary Citizens and Burgesses especially if chosen out of the Cities and Boroughs themselves for which they serve as antiently they were and still ought to be by the Statutes of 1 H. 5. c. 1. 32 H. 6. c. 15. and by the very purports of the writs for their election at this very day de qualibet Civitate Com. praedict DVOS CIVES de quolibet Burgo DUOS BVRGENSES who have better knowledg skill in Merchandise and their several Trades than in matters of Judicature or Law Therefore the Right of Judicature was thought meet even after the Commons admission to our Parliaments to be still lodged and vested in the House of Peers as before who are the ablest and fittest of the two rather than in the Commons House 4ly Since the division of the Houses one from another if ever they sate together which cannot be proved the House of Peers are dis-ingaged and indifferent parties between the King and Commons and so fittest of all to he Judges between them as the Mirrour of Justices c. 1. resolves so it hath been stil furnished with the ablest Temporal and Spiritual persons for their Assistants in judgement and advice to wit with all the Judges of the Realm Barons of the Exchequer of the Coyâ— the Kings learned Counsel the Masters of the Chancery who are Civilians or Lawyers the Master of the Rolls the Principal Secretaries of State with other eminent persons for parts and learning and the Procuratores Gleri all which are called by Writ to assist and give their attendance in the upper House of Parliament where they have no voices but are to give their counsel and advice only to the Lords when they require their assistance especially in cases of Law and Judicature For proof whereof you may consult the Statutes of 31 H. 8. c. 10. The Register of Writs f. 261. Fitz. Nat. Brev. f. 229. a. b. M. Seldens Titles of Honor part 2. c. 5. Sir Edw. Cooks 4 Instit p. 4 5 6 44 45 46. and the Parliament Rolls and Authorities there cited by them seconded by our present experience Now the House of Peers being thus assisted with the advice of all the Judges of England the Kings learned Counsel and others ablest to advise them in all Criminal Civil or Ecclesiastical matters cases that come before them were in this regard thought fittest by our Ancestors and the Commons themselves who have no such assistants to have the principal and sole power of Judicature in all civil and criminal causes as well of Commoners as Peers that are proper for the Parliaments Judicature by way of censure or redress 5ly There can be no judgement given in any of the Kings Courts in Criminal causes but where the King is personally or representatively present sitting upon the Tribunal and where the proceedings are Coram Rege And therefore in the end of most antient Parliament Rolls we find the Title of Placita Coronae CORAM DOMINO REGE IN PARLIAMENTO SUO c. as in 4 E. 3. 21 R. 2. 1 H. 4. and other Parliaments Now as the Kings person is represented Judgements given Justice executed in all Criminal and Civil cases in the Kings Bench Eyres Goal Deliveries Oyers and Terminers and all his other Courts by his Judges and Justices in his absence So is it represented in our Parl. in the Lords house by his Commissioners and the Lords and Judgements given Justice executed by them in al criminal civil causes and no ways by the Commons who neither sit nor judge in the House of Peers Therefore the House of Peers only noâ— the Commons are the true and proper judicatoâ—y where the King the supream judge fits usually in Person and alwayes in representation in his absence 6ly There can be no legal trial or Judgement given in Parliament in Criminal causes or others without examination of witnesses upon Oath as in all other Courts of justice But the House of Peers alone have power to give and examine witnesses upon Oath and the whole House of Commons no such power but to take Informations without Oath which neither they nor their Committees can administer unless by special Order and Commission from the King or Lords Therefore the power of judicature in Parliament even in Commoners cases is inherent only in the House of Peers and not in the Commons House 7ly It is a rule both of Law and justice that no man can be an informer prosecutor and judge too of the persons prosecuted informed against it being contrary to all grounds of justice therefore he ought to complain and petition to others for Justice But the Commons in all ancient Parliaments and in this present have been informers and prosecutors in nature of a Grand Inquest to which some compare them being summoned from all parts of the kingdom to present publike Grievances and Delinquents to the King and Peers for their redress and thereupon have alwayes petitioned complained to the King and Lords for Iustice against all other Delinquents and offenders in Parliament not judged them themselves witness their many impeachments accusations complaints sent up and prosecuted by them in former Parliaments and this to the Lords not only against Peers but Commoners of which there are hundreds of presidents this very Parliament Therefore the House of Lords hath the proper right of judicatory vested in them even in Cases of Commoners not the Commons who are rather Informers Prosecutors and Grand Jury men to inform impeach than Judges to hear censure determine and give judgement as is resolved in 1 H. 4. n. 79. 8ly Those who are proper Judges in any Court of Justice whiles the cause is judging sit in their Robes and that covered on the Bench not stand bare at the bar sweat and examine the witnesses in the cause not produce them or manage the evidence and when the cause is fully heard argue and debate the businesse between themselves and then give the definitive sentence But in all cases that are to be tried and judged in Parl. the
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
it was shewed to the said John Lord of Gomynes by the said Steward how the said LORDS had assembled and considered of his answer and THAT IT SEEMED TO THE LORDS sitting in full Parliament that without duresse or default of victuals or other necessaries for the defence of the Town Castle of Arde and without the Kings Command he had evilly delivered and surrendred them to the Kings Enemies by his own default against all appearance of right or reason contrary to his undertaking safely to keep the same Wherefore THE LORDS aforesaid here in full Parlia-ADJUDGE YOU TO DEATH And because you are a Gentleman and a Baronet and have served the Kings Grandfather in his wars and are no Liege man of our Lord the King you shall be beheaded without having OTHER JUDGEMENT And because that our Lord the King is not yet informed of the manner of this Judgement the execution thereof shall be put in respite until our Lord the King be informed thereof Loe here two express Judgements given in Parliament by the LORDS alone without King or Commons in case of Treason even against Commoners themselves And an express acknowledgement by the Commons of the Lords right to award Iudgement in these cases without the King or them than which a fuller and clearer proof cannot be desired In the Parliament of 2 R. 2. n. 34 35. Sir Robert Howard knight was committed prisoner to the Tower upon the complaint of the Lady Nevil by the Lords in Parliament for a forcible imprisonment of her daughter to which he was accessory that she might not prosecute a divorce in Court Christian In the 50 year of King Edward the 3. in the Parliament called the good Parliament Sir John Anneslee Knight accused Thomas Katrington Esquire of Treason for selling the Castle of St. Saviour in the Isle of Constantine to the French for an inestimable sum of money cum nec defensio sibi nec victualia defuissent whereupon he was taken and imprisoned but in King Edwards sickness enlarged by the Lord Latymers means as was reported In the Parliament held at London Anno 1380. the 3. of R n. 2. he was again accused by Sir John Anneslee and there resolved that being a Treason done beyond Sea not in England it ought to be tried by duel before the Constable or Marshal of the Realm Whereupon a day of battel was appointed in the Court at Westminster the 7. of June and lists set up On which day in the morning they fought the battel in the presence of the KING Nobles and Commons of the Realm which Walsingham at large describes till both of them were tyred and lay tumbling on the ground where the Esquire got upon the Knight as if he had conquered him Others said the Knight would rise again and vanquish the Esquire Interea Rex pacem clamari prâ—cepit et militem erigâ— The Knight refused to be lifted up as the Esquire was desiring he might be laid upon him again for he was well and would gain the victory if he were laid upon him again When he could not obtain his request being lifted up he went chearfully to the King without help when as the Esquire could neither stand nor go but as two held him up and thereupon was set in a chair to rest himself The Knight when he came before the King rogavis Eum et Proceres ut sibi illam concederunt gratiam ut itâ—rum in loco quo prius posset reponi et armiger super eum Rex vero et Proceres cum vidissent miliâ—em tam animose â—am vivide bellum repetere et insuper magnam summam auri offerre publice ut id posset effici decreverunt eum iterum reponendum armigerum super eum modo universaliter servato quo â—acuerant ante prostrati But the Esquire in the mean time in a swoun fell out of the chair as dead between the hands of those who stood by him Whereupon many running to him chafed him with wine and water but could not recover him till they pulled off his arms Quod factum et Militem victorem probavit Arm gerum esse victum After some space the Esquire reviving opened his eyes and began to lift up his head and to look terribly on every one that stood round about him which the knight being informed of went presently to him in his arms which he never put off and speaking to him et Proditorem et falsum appellans quaerit si iterum audeat Duellum repetere Ille verò nec sensum nec spiritum habente respondendi â—lamatum est pugnam finitam et ut quisque ad propria remearet The Squire was carried to his bed senceless and died the next morning Here we have a Duel ordered by Parliament and the King and Lords Iudges in it not the Commons for a Treason done beyond the Seas not triable here by Law In the Parliament of 4 R. 2. n. 17. to 26. Sir Ralph Ferrers being arested for suspition of Treason on the borders of Scotland was brought into the Parliament before the Lords to answer the same where divers Letters under his hand and Seal as was pretended were produced and read against him sent to the Lord Admiral of France and other French Officers informing them that he in the behalf of the French had made a League and alliance with the Scots and desiring them to make payment of the monies promised him and of his own fee and inviting the French to invade England c. with discoveries of the Kings designs against the French and answers to them Sir Ralph desired Counsel in this case which was denied him These Letters were found by a beggar besides London divers of his familiars were called into the Parliament house before the Lords and likewise the beggar and the whole matter strictly examined The Letters sent by Sir Ralph to the parties beyond Seas and certain Letters sent by them in answer to his were all sealed together and all of one hand and the Seal larger than the Seal of the said Sir Ralph whereupon they seemed to be forged by some of his Enemies for his overthrow himself being once or twice urged to answer Whether the Letters were his or no answered that he did not remember they were his own Letters and that he was ready to approve as the Lords should think fit having formerly offered combate with any that would justifie it from which he was put In conclusion the Lords thought him to be innocent whereupon he was delivered to 4. Earls and 2. Lords who became pledges body for body to answer when he should be called between that and the next Parliament and so he was inlarged The Letters and his Seal were delivered to Sir John Cavendish Chief Justice of England and the beggar being thought privy to this falshood was committed to prison by THE LORDS In the Parliament of 5 R. 2. n. 44 45. Richard Clindow Esquire exhibited a Bill to
every temporal Lord being in full Parliament examined touching the answer of the said Sir William and the matters and evidences which they had examined said severally that the said William had done his message well and legally and that in the person of the said William there was no fault nor evil touching the said message nor any thing that he did to the person of the said Duke Whereupon Walter Clapton Chief Justice of the Kings Bench by command of the king adjudged and declared that the said William should be fully excused and acquitted for ever in time to come touching this matter 3ly The last day of this Parliament it was agreed by the King and Lords that all the remembrances called Raggemans or Blantâ—es Charters lately sealed in the City of London and divers Counties Cities and Burroughs of England should be sent to the City of London and from every County City and Burrough from whence they came and Writs sent to every of them rehearsing That the king held all the resiants and Inhabitants in them for his good and loyal Subjects and that no confession by them made comprised in the said remembrances are nor shall be in derogation of the estate of any such person and that the same remembrances shall be burnt and destroyed in the most open place of the said Counties Cities and Burroughs and if any thing remain of record in any Court or place the king wills that it shall be cancelled and totally adnulled revoked and repealed and held for no record and of no force nor value for time to come 4ly The 19th of November in the said Parliament Placita Coronae coram Domino Rege in Parliamento suo c. Anno regni Regis Henrici quarti post Conquestum primo n. 17. The Commons prayed she King that rhe pursute arrest and judgements made against Sir William le Scropâ— knight Henry Green knight and John Bassy knight might be affirmed and held good Whereupon Sir Richard Scroop humbly prayed the King that nothing which should be done in this Parliament might turn to his or his Childrens dis-inherison Of which Sir Richard it was demanded whether the said pursute arrest and judgements were good or not who answered that he feared not to say and must confesse that when they were made thâ—y were good and profitable for the King and Realm and that his Son was one of them for which he was very sorrowfull Whereupon the king rehearsed that he claimed the Realm and Crown of England with all their members and appurietenances as heir of the bloud by the right line of king Henry the 3d. and although through the right which God had sent him by the aid of his Parents and friends he recovered the said Realm which was at the point to be undone by default of government and defesance of the Laws and customs of the Realm yet it was not his will that any should think that by way of Conquest he would disinherit any man of his heritage franchise or other right which he ought to have nor out any man of that which he had or should have by the good Laws or Customs of the Realm except these who had been against the good purpose and common profit of the Realm of which only the King held the said Sir William Henry and John for such and guilty of all the evil which had come upon the Realm and therefore he would have and hold all the Lands and Tenements they had within the Realm of England or elsewhere by conquest Whereupon fuist demande de touts les Seigniors temporellez lour advys de les pursuite arreste juggem 〈◊〉 suiâ—diâ—z Les queux Seigniors touz de â—ne accorde disorent que mesmes les pursuite arreste juggement quinâ—que fuist fait come defuist dit uist bons et les affirmente Piur bons et profitables 5ly In the case of John Hall 1 H. 4. Placita Coronae n. 11 to 17. who being in custody of the Marshal of Englana was brought by him before the Lords in Parliament and there charged before them by Walter Clapton Lord Chief Justice by the King command with having a hand in the murther of the Duke of Glocester who was smothered to death with a Featherbed at Calues by king Richard the seconds command the whole transaction whereof he confessed at large and put in writing before James Billingford Clerk of the Crown which was read before the Lords upon reading thereof the King and all the temporal Lords in Parliament resolved that the said John Hall by his own confession deserved to have as hard a death as they could adjudge him to because the Duke of Glocester was so high a Person and thereupon toutes les Seigneiors temporelz per assent du Roy adjuggerent all the temporal Lords by assent of the King ADJVDGED that the said Jo. Hall should be drawn from Tower hill unto the Gallows at Tiburn and there bowelled and his bowels laid before him and after he should be hanged beheaded and quartered and his head sent to Calice where the murther was committed and his quarters sent to other places where the king should please and thereupon command was given to the Marshal of England to make execution accordingly and it was so done the same day Lo here the Lords in Parliament gave judgement against a Commoner in case of a murther done at Calice and so not â—riable in the Kings Bench but in Parliament and passe a Judgement of High Treason on him for murthering of a great Peer only In the Parliament of 2 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 23 24. The Commons shewed to the King that William Bagot had been impeached of many horrible deeds and misprisions the which if they had been true the Commons supposed the the King aad ths Lords would have had good notice thereof for that they had made many examinations thereof whiles the said William was in distress And therefore the said Commons prayed the King that the said Sir William being in Flanders and no offence found in his person upon the slanders in his impeachment aforesaid that he would be pleased to restore him to his lands To which prayer was answered in the Kings behalf that although the said Sir William upon the said impeachment made the last Parliament was put to his answer before the King and the Lords and there pleaded a general Charter of pardon against which Charter it seemed to all the Lords then present that the said Sir William ought not to be impeached nor put to answer by the King on his part for that the said Sir William was not attainted of any impeachment suggested against him and that the King had done him justice in this behalf therefore he would in the same manner doe him justice in the residue at the Commons request A most full proof of the Kings and Lords judicial power in Parliaments even in case of a Commoner The same Parliament 2. H. 4. num 29. William
by their Speaker acknowledge the right of judicature in the case of a Commoner to be only and wholly in the Lords even in a criminal cause and thereupon pray the Lords to give judgement against him upon their Impeachment which they did accordingly in their robes as Judges by the mouth of the Lord Keeper their Speaker In this very Parliament now sitting Decemb. 21. Jan. 14. Febr. 11. 1640. and July 6. 1641. The Commons House by their Members impeached Sir John Bramston Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir John Finch Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Humphry Davenport Chief Baron Judge Berkly Judge Crawly Baron Weston and Baron Trever of high Treason and other misdemeanors for that they had trayterously and wickedly endeavoured to subvert the fundamental Laws and established Government of the Realm of England and instead thereof to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical Government against Law which they had declared by trayterous words opinions and judgement in the point of SHIP MONY by their subscriptions and judgement given against them in the case of Mr. Hamden in the Exchequer Chamber Which Impeachments they transmitted to the Lords House praying THE LORDS to put them to answer the premises and upon their examinations and trial to give such judgement upon every of them as is agreeable to Law and Justice To avoid which judgement Sir John Finch fled the Realm and the rest of them made fines and compositions to the publike and were most of them removed from their Judges places After this the Lords themselves as Judges in Parliament passed several judgements and censures against Dr. John Pocklington for his Sunday no Sabbath and other Books and against Dr. Bray for licensing them In October 1643. The Lords fined and imprisoned Clement Walker Esq in the Tower for some scandalous words against the Lord Viscount Say a Member of he House of Peers After that the Lords alone without any Impeachment of the Commons on their privity imprisoned fined and censured one Morrice upon complaint of Sir Adam Littleton after a full hearing at which I was present for forging an Act of Parliament with four or five more of his confederates therein which was most clearly proved by Witnesses upon Oath whereby he would have defrauded Sir Adam of some Lands in Essex And at least one hundred more Commoners have been committed by THE LORDS this Parliament and fined by them for several offences Misdemeanors and Breaches of their Privileges as well as Lilburn and Overton yet none of them ever excepted against or demurred to their Jurisdiction nor did the Commons House ever yet except against them for these their proceedings as injurious or illegal but approved and applauded this their Justice Finally John Lilburn himself in his printed Pamphlet intituled Innocency and Truth justified p. 74 75. relates that on May 4. 1641. himself was accused of High Treason and brought before the Lords Barr for his life where one Littleton swore point-blank against him But he having Liberty given to speak for himself without any demurring to their Jurisdiction because we was a Commoner desired that his Witnesses might be heard to clear him was upon Mr. Andrews Oath acquitted at the Barr of the whole house And thereupon concludes I am resolved to speak well of those who have done me JUSTICE From all these punctual successive presidents impeachments and clear confessions of the Commons House themselves in many former and late Parliam and in this now sitting it is undeniable That the King and Lords joyntly and the Lords severally without the King have an indubitable right of Iudicature without the Commons vested in them not only over Peers themselves but likewise Commoners in all extraordinary criminal cases of Treason Felony Trespass and other Misdemeanors triable only in Parliament which hath been constantly acknowledged practised submitted to in all ages without dispute much more then have they such a just judicial rightfull power in cases of breach of their own privileges of which none are or can be Judges but themselves alone as Sir Edw. Cook resolves they being the supremest Court. And to deny them such a power is to make the Highest Court of Judicature in the Realm inferiour to the Kings Bench and all other Courts of Justice who have power to judge and try the persons causes of Commoners yea to commit and fine them for contempts and breaches of their Privileges as our Law books resolve and every mans experience can testifie The Lords right of Iudicature both over Peers and Commoners in criminal causes being thus fully evicted against the falseâ— ignorant pretences of illiterate Sectaries altogether unacquainted with our Histories and Records of Parliament which they never yet read nor understood there remains nothing but to answer some Authorities Presidents and Objections produced against it These presidents in Sir Edward Cooke Sir Robert Cotton and others are of 3 Sores 1. Such as are produced by them only to prove that the Commons have a Copartnership and joynt Authority with the King and Lords in the power and right of Judicature in our Parliaments 2ly Such as are objected to evidence they have a sole power of Judicature in themselves in some cases without the K. and Lords 3ly Such as are urged to prove they have no right of Judicature in Parliament in the cases of Commoners that are capital or criminal I shall propose and answer them all in order 1. Sir Edward Cook and Sir Robert Cotton produce these presidents to prove That the Commons have a Joint inâ—erest right and share with the King and Lords in the Iudicatory or Judicial power of Parliaments which I shall propound according to their Antiquity The 1. President alleged for it is that of Adomar Bishop of Winchester elect cited by Sir Robert Cotton in his Post-humous Discourse concerning the Power of the Peers Commons in Parliament in point of Iudicature who An. 44 H. 3. as affirms he was then exiled by the Ioint Sentence of the King Lords and COMMONS as appears by the Letter sent to Pope Alexander the 4th Si Dominus Rex et Regni Majores hoc vellent meaning Adomars revocation COMMUNITAS tamen ipsius ingressum jam nullatenus sustineret The Peers subsign this answer with their names and Peter de Moâ—tfort vice totius COMMUNITATIS as Speaker or Proctor of the Commons I answer under the favour of this renowned learned Antiquary that this president is full of gross mistakes For 1. Bishop Adomar was not banished the Realm at all either by King Lords or Commons but fled out of it voluntarily for fear to avoid the Barons who purâ—iâ—ed him with forces as Mat. Paris with others relate which the Nobles and Generality of the Barons in direct terms inform this Pope in another Letter sent together with this objected Maxime cum ipse a regno expuisus non extiterit sed sponte cesserit non ausus exhibitionem justiâ—iae quae
diu consultati sed inconsulti Equidem meum est posse et velle conferre gratiam cui voluero miserebor Nec propter vos amplius quam pro cane Quis in gratiam meam se submisit repulsam passus est Veruntamen vestrum judicium in scriptura redigatur et pro lege amodo teneatur Proinde dictus miles ad carcerem ducebatur ne impunitas armareâ— audaciam et rigor caeteris timorem incuteret contemnendi Et post paucos dies elaborantibus multis nobilioâ—ibus regni et ostendentibus se 30 suis paribus cinctis gladiis corpus pro corpore et bona pro bonis una in solidum quoquo die Rex eum vocaverit nec adesset liberatus est et per regem cunctis facultatibus suis restitutus So this Historian which compared with the Record infallibly proves that this resolution was given by the Earls Barons Lords and Judges advice who were the only aliorum de Concilio as assistants to the Lords then in all matters of Law as now they are not the Commons of which there is no mention in the records or this Historian that they were parties to it And this is likewise evident by the case of Margery the Wife of Thomas Weyland an abjured Judge in the Parliament of 19 E. 1. Cooks 1. Institutes f. 133. n. Where the Barons of the Exchequer and Justices of the Kings Courts were called to advise and assist the King and his Council of Lords in Parliament in a difficulty of Law therein to be resolved by their advice And therfore it follows that the LORDS ONLY IN THAT AGE were the Judges even of Commoners cases Thirdly Admit the Commons were included yet it proves only a right of advising and delivering their opinions with the Lords when required by the King not of judging or pronouncing sentence Fourthly Sir Edward Cook citing this president to prove That both Houses together have power of judicature must grant that even in 33 E. 1. there were two distinct Houses of Parliament who upon special occasions as now at conferences c. met and advised together and therefore the division of the Houses was before Edward the third his reign and very probable as antient as the summoning of Knights Citizens and Burgesses to the Parliament which some make as antient as King Henry the first or King Henry the 2. others not before King Henry the third in the 49 year his reign Father to King Edward the first So as this president makes quite against the Levellers and Lilburnians designs and opinions The 3 and 4. Presidents are those of Hugh Audley his Wife Claus 12 E. 2. m. 5. of Gaverston and the two Spencers Exiles 15 E. 2. forecited wherein the Commons gave their assents to the attainders and exiles of Gaverston and the Spencers and to the reversal of them But this I have already proved to be only by way of Bills not judicature by the legislative not judicial power of Parliament and that they were judicially condemned only by the Lords therefore these are nothing to the purpose and against the Objectors The 5. and 6. are the depositions of King Ed. the 2. and Richard the 2. for their mis-government wherin the Commons had a joynt vote and concurrence with the Lords which I shall hereafter answer in the supplement p. 429. to 460. The seventh President is that of Eliz. Burgh Widow in the Parliament of 1 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 11. who complained by Petition to the King that in the reign of King Edward the 2. she was by his Writ commanded to come unto him to Yorke and there by Hugh Spencer the younger and Robert Baldock and William Cliff his instruments inforced by duresse to enter into an Obligation to this effect that if she received any who were contrary to the King or maried any man without the Kings consent or if she gave any lands or tenements which she held in fee or in dower to any man living without the Kings license that for any of these she should forfeit all her Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels to the King as appeared by the transcript of the Bond annexed to her Bill whereupon she prayed Grace and remedy against this duresse and acquittance of our Lord the King from this Obligation Hereupon a Writ was sent to the Clerk of the Privy Seal in whose custody the Obligation was to bring it without delay Coram Concilio nostro in Parliamento ad faciendum inde ulteriut quod per idem Concilium nostrum contige it ordinari which being brought and delivered accordingly the 5 of March and deliberately read in full Parliament and agreeing with the transcript annexed to her Petition in all things Pur ceo que avys est as Archievesques Evesques Counts BARONS auires Grandes et a TOVTELA COMMONALTIE de la terre que lo dit escrit est fait contre ley de la terre enconter tout manere de reason si fuist le dit escrit PER AGARD DEL PARLIAMENT dampne illeoques livera ala dit Elizabeth I answer 1. That this judgement was given only in a civil case touching an Obligation made by duress not in a criminal 2ly That this Petition was directed only to the King and his Council not to the Commons in Parliament and the businesse heard before them 3ly That this being a Common case there being then many Petitions and complaints that Parliament of bonds of this nature the Commons joyning with the King and Lords in this judgement of Parliament in her case was only by way of Bill not in an ordinary way of judgement they exhibiting passing a Bill for that purpose as well as a Petition as is clear by the words of the Roll and by the printed Statute of 1 E. 3. c. 3. That fines sales and gifts of land and recognizances of debt made by force and duress to this Sir Hugh Spencer Robert Baldocke c. or to any of them be defeated And Parl. 2. ch 15. Whereas many of the Realm in the time of the Kings Father that now is by means of his false and evil Counsellors have been excited by divers to bind themselves to come to the K. with force and arms whensoever they should be sent for upon pain of life and limb and to forfeit all that ever they might forfeit by vertue of which writings divers of his land have been often destroyed The King considering that such writings were made to the Kings dishonour sithence that every man is bound to doe to the King as to his Liege Lord all that pertaineth to him without any manner of writing will that from henceforth no such writing be made And that such as be made by the sight of the Chancellor and Treasurer shall be shewed to the King and the K. shall cause all such as be made against right reason to be cancelled So that this main president meerly falls to the ground being
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
presidents are but few never judicially argued and rather connived at than approved by the King and Lords taken up with other more publike businesses therefore passing sub silentio they can make no Law rule or right as is resolved in Long. 5 E. 4. f. 110. Cooks 4. Reports f. 93 94. Slades case 6 Report f. 75. Druries case 5ly There are many express antient Presidents Statutes Judgements in most former Parliaments to the contrary sundry of them upon the Commons own Petitions and complaints which will over-ballance and controll these few late Presidents warranted by no old Records or Statutes whatsoever but contradicted by the constant practice of former ages To clear which truth beyond contradiction I shall shew you the very Original of the Commons summons to Parliament by the Kings writs out of meer grace not antient right or custom with the several varieties of Writs Statures touching elections of Knights Citizens Burgesses and chief cases resolved in Parliaments touching Elections breaches of Privileges relating to Members or their menial Servants that I finde upon record which will abundantly clear this point and refute these irregular puny presidents The original of our Parliaments as now constituted of King Lords and Commons is by several of our Historians Antiquaries and Writers referred to the 16. or 17. year of King Henry the 1. or at least to Henry the 2. his reign which I have already refuted by a particular list of all the Parliaments under them Yet many of this opinion affirm that the Commons were not constantly summoned to our Parliaments but only the Lords Spiritual and Temporal before the 49. of King Henry the 3. and beginning of Edward the 1. his reign neither had they a Speaker till 51 E. 3. Therefore no power of Judicature over their Members The first Writ I finde extant that savors of summoning Knights to Parliament is that in the 15. year of King Iohn wherein this King sent a Writ to the Sherif of Oxon in these words Rex Vicecomiti Oxon salutem Praecipimus tibi quod omnes Milites Ballivae tuae qui summoniti fuerunt esse apud Oxoniam ad Nos à die Omnium Sanctorum in 15. dies venire facias cum armis suis Corpora vero Baronum sine armis singulariter et IV. DISCRETOS MILITES DE COMITATU TUO illuc venire facias ad Nos ad eundem terminum AD LO QUENDUM NOBISCUN DE NEGOTIIS REGNI NOSTRI Teste meipso apud Witten 11 die Novembris Eodem modo scribitur omnibus Vicecomitibus This is no Writ of Summons to Parliament as some take it but rather to a Military Council as I conceive it For 1. There is no mention of any Bishops Abbots Priors Spiritual Lords Citizens or Burgesses summoned thereto but only of Barons without arms and Knights with arms 2ly Of all knights they had formerly summoned to appear there 3ly Of 4. not 2. discreet Knights out of every County and that not ad Parliamentum nostrum but ad Nos venire facias 4ly They were not to be elected by the people but immediately summoned elected and sent by the Sherifs themselves 5ly They were to come ad loquendum nobiscum not ad faciendum consentiendum hiis c. as the usual Writs of Summons for Knights of Shires are since without any power of Judicature to fine seclude or question one anothers elections or returns as now The very first express writ extant in History or Records that I can meet with upon search for the calling of Knights Citizens and Burgesses to Parliament is in 49 â—3 where the King after the battel of Evesham by his Writs summoned no less than 64 Abbots 36 Priors besides the Bishops and 5. Deans of Cathedrals and the Temporal Earls and Barons only 23. in number the rest being slain in the field or in actual rebellion After their Writs of Summons and name â—ollows this Writ or Note of summons for Knights Citizens and Burgesses and Barons of the Cinqueports Item mandatum est singulis Vicecomitibus per Angliam quod VENIRE not elâ—gi FACIANT duos Milites de Legalioribus Probioribus et discretioribus Militibus singulorum Comitatuum AD REGEM Londoniis in Octabis praedictis in forma supradicta Item in forma praedicta scribitur CIVIBUS Eborum Civâ—bus Lincoln caeteris Burgis Angliae quod mittant in forma praedict DUOS DE DISCRETIORIBUS LEGALIORIBVS PROBIORIBUS TAM CIVIBUS QUAM BURGENSIBUS SUIS Item in forma praedicta mandatuÌ„ est Baronibus et probis hominibus Quinque Portuum prout continetur in brevi inrotulato inferius Here the King 1. limited both the number and quality of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses when first summoned to our Parliaments 2ly He directed particular Writs to all Sherifs to summon not to elect by the choice of the Freeholders two of the legallest honestest discreetest Knights in their Counties which they alone were then to make choice of 3ly He sends particular Writs to some not all Cities and the rest of the Burroughs of England to send two of their discreetest legallest and honestest Citizens and so to the Cinqueports to send such Barons to this Parliament And if they returned any not thus qualified against the form of these Writs no doubt the King himself might refuse seclude them and he with his Lords were the sole Judges of their fitness for that service not they themselves to judge of their own or their fellow Members fitness or incapacity The first seclusion of any Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament and electing others in their places was by the King himself with his Councils advice not by the Commons themselves for wilfull absence Claus 5 â— â— m. 26 dorso where divers Knights of Shires Citizens and Burgesses departing from the Parliament held at London without the Kings special license the King thereupon issued out Writs to the Sherifs of Yorkshire and other Counties to summon all such Knights Citizens and Burgesses within their Bayliwicks to return to the Parliament vel alios ad hoc idoneos loco ipsorum si ad hoc vacare non possunt eligere c. or to cause others who were fit to be elected in their places if they could not attend the Parliament with sufficient authority from the Counties Cities and Boroughs to consent to those things which should be ordained at the next Session of Parliament then prorogued to a certain day Here the King alone by his Writ takes authority to discharge those Knights Citizens and Burgesses who departed from the Parliament without his license and would or could not attend it without the Commons votes or assents and to command the Sherif to elect other sit persons in their places Claus 4 E. 3. m. 13 Dorso The King having issued out writs of Summons to Parliament dated Octob. 23. The 3 of November following he sent writs to all Sherifs to proclaim in all places That he being
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
was again resolved in another Parliamentary Assembly held that year by King Henry the first the Bishops Abbots Great men and Nobles of the Realme as you read before p. 173. Anno 1109. there sprung up another â—ot contest between Arch-Bishop Anselme and Thomas Elect of York about the oath of subjection and canonical obedience which was again debated and after Anselmes death again debated and finally setled in another Parliamentary Council by the King Bishops Nobles and Barons of the Realme of which at large before p. 174 175 176 177. The same Debate coming again between Ralph Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Thurstan of York after his returne from Exile Anno 1121. was again concluded omnium Concilio Episcoporum Principum Procerum Regni p. 180. After many years intestine bloody wars between the perjured Usurper King Stephen Mawde and Duke Henry her Son for the Crown of England Anno 1153. apud Walingford in conventu Episcoporum et aliorum Regni Optimatum there was a final accord made between Stephen and Henry touching the inheritance and descent of the Crown that Stephen should adopt and constitute Henry for his son heir and successor to the Crown of England immediately after his death which Stephen should enjoy during his life yet so as that Henry should bee chief Justice and Ruler of the Kingdome under him This accord made between them by the Prelates Earles and Barons of the Realme was ratified by King Stephens Charter and subscribed by all the Bishops Earles and Barons in their Parliamentary Council at Walingford The difference and suit between King Henry the 2d and Roderic King of Conact in Ireland touching his Kingship Royalties Dominions Services Homage Loyalty and Tribute to King Henry were heard decided and a final agreement made between them in a great Parliamentary COUNCIL held at Windeshores Anno 1175. wherein King Henry the 2d and his Son with the Arch-bishops Bishops Earles and Barons of England without any Commons were present who made and subscribed this agreement recorded at large in Houeden where you may peruse it King Henry the 2d Anno 1177. Celebrato generali CONCILIO apud Northampton after the feast of St. Hilary by the advice of his Nobles restored to Robert Earl of Leicester all his Lands on this side and beyond the Sea as hee had them fifteen daies before the Warre except the Castles of Mounsorel and Pasci Hee likewise therein restored to Hugh Earle of Chester all the lands which hee had fifteen daies before the warre and gave to William de Abbine Son of William Earle of Arundel in the County of Southsex And in the same Council Deane Guido resigned into the hand of Richard Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the deanery of Walteham and all his right which hee had in the Church of Walteham quietum clamavit simpliciter absolute similiter fecerunt canonici seculares de Walteham de praebendis suis resignantes eas in manis Archiepiscopi sed Dominus Rex dedit eis inde plenariam recompensationem ad Domini Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi aestimationem Deinde Dominus Rex authoritate Papae Domini instituit in eadem Ecclesia de Walteham canonicos regulares de diversis domibus Angliae sumptos constituit Walterum de Garent canonicum sumptum de Ecclesia de Osencie Abbatem primum super congregationem illam magnis redditibus domibus pulcherrimis dotavit illos And then hee expelled the Nunnes out of the Monastery of Ambresbury for their incontinency and distributed them into other Nunneries there to bee kept more strictly under restraint and gave the Abby of Ambresbury to the Abbesse and house of Frum Everoit to hold it for ever Sanctius King of Navar and Alfonso King of Castile in the year 1177. submitted the differences between them concerning certain Lands Territories Towns and Castles to the determination of King Henry the 2d who thereupon summoned a Parliamentary Council of his Bishops Earles Nobles and Barons to hear and decide it by their advice Wherein the case being propounded debated and opened before them by the Ambassadours and Advocates of both Kings appeared to be this That King Sanctius during the minority of King Alphonsus an Orphant his Nephew Pupil and innocent from any crime unjustly and forcedly took from him without any demand hearing or Title divers Territories Towns and Lands there specified which his Ancestors had enjoyed and of right descended to him which hee forcibly detained Whereof hee demanded restitution and dammages On the other side Sanctius complained that Alphonsus the Emperour Father of this Alphonsus had by force of armes unjustly dispossessed his Grandfather of the Kingdome of Navarre after whose death Garsias his Nephew and next heir by the help of his friends and subjects recovered the greatest part thereof from the Emperour but not all Who dying leaving his Son Alphonso an infant with whom Sanctius made a league for ten years Alphonso during the League took by force of armes divers Castles Towns and Lands from Sanctius being his inheritance who thereupon demanded restitution both of the Castles Towns Lands and Territories taken from his Grandfather by Alphonsus his Father and from himself by Alphonsus together with the maine profit of the latter quia sine ordine judiciario ejectus est King Henry having fully heard their cases by the Advice and Assent of his Bishops Earles and Barons adjudged that both these Kings should make mutual restitution of what had been forcibly taken from either party together with the mean profits and dammages for part of them by an award and judgement under his Great Seal subscribed by all his Bishops Earles and Barons which recites super quaerelis vero praetaxatis de castellis terris cum omnibus terris pertinentis suis hinc inde violenter et injuste ablatis cum nichil contra Violentiam utrinque objectam à parte alterutra alteri responderetur nec quicquam quo minus restitutiones quas petebant faciendas essent alligaretur Plenariam utrinque parti supradictorum quae in jure petita erant fieri restitutionem adjudicabimus A clear Parliamentary resolution and judgement in point That Territories Lands Towns Castles injuriously taken by one King from another by force of armes and warre without just Title to them ought in Law and Justice to bee restored to the right heirs and owners of them and that Conquest and the longest Sword are no good Titles in Law or conscience against the right heir or inheriter which I desire those Sword-men and Lawyers who now pretend us a conquered Nation determine Conquest or the longest Sword a just Title to the Crowns Lands Revenues Offices Inheritances Houses Estates of other men now sadly to consider together with the sacred Texts Hab. 7. Micha 2.1 2 3 4 5. Job 20.10 18 19 20. Obad. 10. to 17. Ezek. ch 19. 35. Isa 33.1 1 King 21.1 to 25. Matth. 21.33 to 41. Luk. 20.14 to 17. ch 19.8
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
Christ beseeching all that fear God to behave themselves as obedient Subjects to the Queens Highness and the superiour powers which are ordained under her rather after their example to give their heads to the block than in any point to rebell against the Lords anointed Queen Mary in no point consenting to any Rebellion or sedition against her Highness but where they cannot obey but must disobey God there to submit themselves with all patience and humility to suffer as the will and pleasure of the higher powers shall adjudge Against the doctrine practice of some new Saints of this iron age who will ward off Christs wooden Cross with their iron swords and rather bring their Soveraigns heads to the block than submit their own heads unto it for their very Treasons and Rebellions against them So farr are they from believing practising the very first Alphabetical Lesson of our Saviours prescription and real Christanity Mat. 16.24 If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me The Duke of Northumberland for that he was appointed General of the Army in this Quarrel of the Lady Jane though Queen de facto was arrested of High Treason together with 3. of his Sons the Marquess of Northampton the Earl of Huntindon with sundry Knights Gentlemen and sent prisoners to the Tower of London The 16. of August next following the said Duke and Nobles were publikely arraigned of High Treason in Westminster hall before Thomas Duke of Norfolk High Steward of England being brought to the bar the D. used great reverence to his Judges professing his faith and allegiance to the Queens Majesty whom he confessed he had grievously offeâ—ded saying that he meant not to speak any thing in defence of his face but would first understand the opinion of the Court in 2. points 1. Whether a man doing any Act or thing by authority of the Princes Councel and by Warrant of the Great Seal of England and nothing doing without the same may be charged with TREASON for doing any thing by such Warrant Which question was grounded on this very Statute of 11 H. 7. c. 1. 2. Whether any such persons as were equally culpable in that crime and those by whose Letters and Commandment he was directed in all his doings might be his Iudges or passe upon his Tryal as his PEERS To the 1. was answered mark it That the Great Seal he had for his Wâ—rrant was not the Seal of the Lawfull Qu. of the Realm nor pâ—ssed by her Authority but the Seal of an Vsurper and therefore could be no Warrant to him To the 2. That if any were as deeply to be touched in that Case as himself yet so long as no attainder was of Record against them they were nevertheless persons able in Law to pass upon any tryal and not to be challenged therefore but at the Princes pleasure After which the Duke and the rest of the Lords using but few words declaring their earnest repentance and imploring the Queens mercy confessed this Indictment of Treason and thereupon had Iudgement passed upon them as Traytors And the Duke with Sir Iohn Gates and Sir Thomas Palmer were accordingly executed on Tower Hill August 22. confessing the Iustice both of their Iudgement and Execution as TRAYTORS and not justifying themselves by the Act of 11 H. 7. After this Archbishop Cranmer though at first he refused to subscribe K. Eds. will to dis-inherit Queen Mary alleging many reasons against it yet was committed Prisoner to the Tower indicted arraigned condemned of High Treason in November following for aiding the Earl of Northumb. with Horse and Men against Queen Mary And Queen Jane herself though Queen de facto meerly passive not active in this case never aspiring after the Crown being proclaimed Queen against her will with the Lord Guyldsord her husband were both indicted arraigned condemned of High Treason and accordingly executed as Traytors Feb. 12. 1 Mariae the one for usurpation of the royal Estate AS QVEEN OF ENGLAND the other as principal adherent to her in that case both of them confessing that BY THE LAW THEY WERE JUSTLY CONDEMNED After which the Duke of Suffolk her father and sundry others were condemned of High Treason executed upon the same account and that by the judgement of all the several Peers Nobles Judges Lawyers and Great Officers of Engl. though guilty of the same crime seconded with the Judgement of the whole Parl. of 1 Mar. c. 16. which confirmed their Attainders as JUST and LEGAL notwithstanding the Statute of 11 H. 7. c. 1. which extends only to indemnifie those Subjects who doe their true duty and service of allegiance to their King and Soveraign Lord which none certainly do who adhere and joyn with an apparent Usurper in possession against their lawfull undoubted King and Soveraign Lord as they here adjudged and the Parliaments of 1 4 and 14 of King Edward the 4th long before no Acts of Parliament whatsoever being able to secure Usurpers Titles though Kings de facto to themselves or their posterity or to save their own or their adherents Heads from the block or their estates from confiscation as the recited tragical Presidents and Judgements prove against the absurd opinions of many Grandees of the Law in great reputation who take all Sir Edward Cooks and others Dotages for Oracles and well deserve a part in Ignoramus for being ignorant of these late notorious Judgements and authorities against their erronious opinions wherewith they seduce their silly Clyents and young Students of the Law to their great peril for whose better information I have the larger insisted on this point to rectifie this dangerous capital mistake which may hazard both their lives estates and souls to boot And so much in answer to the objected Presidents of Edward and Richard the 2d to prove the Commons Right of Judicature in Parliaments c. As good an evidence as that grave Sir E. Cook produceth to prove this House of Commons who had no Journal Book till â— Ed. 6. to be a distinct Court of Iudicature because upon signification of the Kings pleasure to the Speaker they do and may prorogue or adjourn themselves and are not prorogued adjourned by the House of Lords By which reason he might prove every Committee of the Lords or Commons House to be a distinct Court because they may adjourn and prorogue themselves without the House and all Commissioners for examination of Witnesses Charitable uses the petty Sessions of Justices of Peace all Country Committees Archdeacons and other visitors all Auditors of Accounts Arbitrators Referrees c. to be Courts because they may all adjourn themselves from one day and place to another when as their presenting of their own Speakers in and the Kings calling them into the Lords House at the beginning and end of every Parliament or Session and at the passing of Bills and their dissolution in the Lords
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