with Impunity but the preference was given to the person more particularly concerned and the Kings Indictment must stay till the year and day were out to see whether they will proceed in their suits And so says My Lord Chief Justice Hales in his Pleas of the Crown 2442 45. Then à minori admajus does the Law so regard the interest of the Wife or the Heir c. in their suit and has it no regard to the suit of all the Commons of England For manifestly an Impeachment is the suit of the people and not the Kings suit That 's the 2. Reason another Reason I shall urge is that which was touched by Mr. Williams Suppose this man should be tryed here and be acquitted Is it to be presumed that he can plead this acquittal in Barr to the Impeachment before the Lords My Lord I believe there is no considering man in England that has regard either to the Jurisdiction of Parliament or to the Nature of the suit will affirm that it would be a good Plea and that he could barr the great Court of the Kingdom from proceeding against him by saying he was acquitted by a Jury in Westminster Hall after the suit was first well commenced in that Court My Lord I say with reverence to the Court that should you proceed in this Tryal it may fall out that contrary to a Fundamental Rule of Law a man shall be twice put in danger of his Life for one offence which by the Law he cannot be and therefore I urge that as a reason why you cannot proceed here on this Indictment My Lord I will now mention two or three Precedents which will prove that this Impeachment is according to the Course and Law of Parliaments though it may seem needless after the Kings Learned Council have agreed it My Lord I shall first mention the Case of Michael de La Poole Rot. Par. 18 or 28 H. 6. n. 18 He was a very great man and came to the House of Lords voluntarily and said there was a Rumour that he was Guilty of horrible things Lord Chief Justice Where did you take this Case out of Cotton it is mentioned there But I have seen a Copy of the Roll. Sir Fran. Win. Yes My Lord There upon the Commons pray he may be committed upon his own confession and that the thing being Debated in the House the Lords said we know not what was meant by those words horrible things it may import only Misdemeanours if it had been said Treason we had known how to have proceeded thereupon And thereupon within a few days after the Commons came and accused him of Treason and there 't is said that the Course of Parliament is to find out the Truth by Circumstances and such degrees as the Nature of the thing will bear and they are not confined to the strict rules of other Courts I will not cite any more ancient Cases though there are many to be found of general Impeachments for we are not disputing what is the right and course of Impeachments which is confessed upon the pleading but we have had several Cases of late the Earl of Clarendon was Impeached generally and the Commons took time to bring in their Articles and I have had the experience in 3 or 4 a Parliaments wherein we have been pretty well busied with Impeachments though we have had no great success in them That though the Commons may if they please carry up particular Articles at first yet the Law and course is for the Lords to receive the general Impeachment and the Commons say that in due time they will bring in their Articles So it was done in the Case of the Popish Lords some particular Member was appointed to go up and Impeach them of High Treason in General and in that Case though the Parliament was Dissolved before any Articles sent up yet afterwards in the next Parliament the Articles upon the former Impeachments were sent up and receiv'd and My Lord â—â—â—fford since executed upon his Conviction upon that Impeachment yet Indictments were exhibited against them before ever any Impeachment was sent up by the Commons and preparations were made for their Tryals But from that day to this there hath been no attempt to Try them upon their Indictments though there have been several Intervals of Parliament Our Case is stronger than that of the Lords for in the Case at the Bar the first suit was in the House of Lords by the Commons whilst in the other Case the first was the suit of the King by Indictment and yet by a subsequent Impeachment that was stop'd and the Lords continue yet Prisoners in the Tower Our time hath been so short that we could not see the Copies of Orders which we might otherwise have made use of for maintaining this Plea we sent to the House of Lords but the Officers were out of Town and we could come at the sight of nothing there we have been told the opinion of the Judges was delivered at Council concerning these very Lords that the Impeachments being lodged in Parliament no other prosecution could be against them till the prosecution of the Commons was determined So far the Courts below have always been from meddling with the Jurisdiction of Parliament that even many times in Questions upon Acts of Parliament they have gone up to the Parliament to know what was meant by it And I remember it was said by the Court in that Case of My Lord of Shaftsbury where it was agreed by all that the Commitment was too general for it was only for a Contempt whereas the Crime ought particularly to appear in the Warrant that it being in a Case of Commitment by the Parliament at least while that Parliament was continuing they ought not to meddle with it nor could they inquire into the formality of the Warrant My Lord I must mention one thing touching the Case of My Lord Hollis which was cited by Mr. Williams and I have but a word to add It is in the Appendit to the first part of Rushworth's Col. and also in Croke Car. fol. 181. It was there pleaded to the Jurisdiction of this Court that it was a matter done in Parliament In our Case his pleaded that an Impeachment is depending in Parliament that was but a prosecution for a Misdemeanor this is a Case of High Treason it fell out in that Case the Court here did adjudge that the Information did lye but upon a Writ of Error it was agreed by the Lords unanimously that the judgement was Erroneous and that the Parties should be restored to all which they had lost by reason of it but if this man should lose his Life by your judgment what help would there be upon a Writ of Error The danger of such a thing requires great consideration and it would be of fatal consequence if the Lords should hereafter adjudge that this Court had no Jurisdiction As for Mr. Attorneys objection to day
is in Croke Car. I confess 't is not in the first Impression but it is in the 2. Edition that I have and these are the expressions in it Lord Chief Justice What Case is that Mr. Williams 'T is in Croke Car. but the Reversal was in 19 of this King Lord Chief Justice Was the judgment given do you say 19. of this King Can a Case of that time be reported in Croke Mr. Williams I don't say so absurd a thing If your Lordship will have patience to hear me I 'le tell you what I say My Book which is the 2. Impression of Croke reflecting upon that Case in 5 Caroli does publish the Votes of the House of Commons about it and the Reversal of the judgment in the 19. of this King There the proceeding is this Information is given to the House of Commons that there was such a Case published which did Derogate much from the priviledge of Parliament invading the Liberty of speech and the House of Commons considering the Consequence ordered the book to be sent for and read and taken into Consideration and debated and upon Debate the House came to this resolution That the judgment against Elliott and others is an illegal judgment and against the freedom and Liberty of speech and this Vote they send up to the Lords where 't is confirmed and resolved in agreement with the Vote of the Commons And by the way in Answer to a Paper that is commonly spread about by the name of the Observator I say the Commons come to a Resolution and pass a Vote which is not indeed a Law and when they have done that they may transmit their opinions to the Lords and desire them to concur then the Lords and Commons have a Conference upon it and at the Conference the Commons reasons are delivered which the Lords take up with them to their House and debate them Then they come to a Resolution to agree with the Commons Afterwards upon this Resolution of both Houses they go regularly to work by Writ of Error to reverse the judgement And if it should fall out in this Case that your Lordship should give judgment against the Plea and this person should be obstinate and not plead over and thereupon your Lordship give judgment of death upon him it may come to be a very hard Case if a Writ of Error should be brought in Parliament to reverse this judgment and it should be reversed when the party is dead Therefore it will be of great Consequence in that particular My Lord I 'le mind you of one old Case it was 20 of Ri. 2. a person there presents a Petition to the Commons in Parliament and it seems there was something suggested in the Petition which did amount to High Treason as there may be some Petition or some Complaint against a great Minister that may contain an Insinuation as it were of High Treason he was indicted out of Parliament for High Treason and was found Guilty and by the grace of the Prince he was pardoned but because the Commons would not lye under that Precedent of an Invasion of their Priviledge though he was a person without doors that prepared the Petition and no more hurt done to him but the prosecution he being pardoned the judgment was voided Lord Chief Justice Where is that Authority Mr. Williams 20. Ri. 2. Ro. Parl. 12. And you will find it in the Argument of Selden's Case published in Rushworth's Collections fol. 47. and 48. And now My Lord I have done with the substance of the Case with my reasons for the matter and for the form In this Case here is the Life of a person before you here is the right of the Commons to Impeach in Parliament before you here is the Judicature of the Lords to determine that Impeachment before you here is the Method and proceedings of Parliament before you and how far you will lay your hands upon this Case thus circumstantiated we must submit to you but I hope you will proceed no further on the Indictment Lord Ch. Just Pray Gentlemen let us a little direct you not to spend our time about that which is not to the purpose or that is not in the Case here is nothing of the Commons Right to Impeach in Parliament before us nor of the Lords Jurisdiction nor the Methods of Parliament in this Case they are things quite foreign to the Case and the matter in hand which is whether this Plea as thus pleaded be sufficient to protect the Prisoner from being questioned in this Court for the Treasonable matter in this Indictment before us Therefore you ought not to spend time in things that are not before us to be considered being out of the Case For we have nothing to do with any Priviledge of Parliament or of either of the Houses here at this time Mr. Justice Jones And Gentlemen there is nothing at all here of any fact done in Parliament that can be insisted on here nor is there any Complaint against Mr. Fitz Harris for any thing he hath done in Parliament All Mr Williams Precedents run to that but this is for a thing done without doors Lord Chief Justice We speak to you to come to the point which is the duty of all Courts to keep Counsel to the points before them The Sole matter before us is whether this be a good Plea to Ouste this Court of a Jurisdiction which otherwise unquestionably we have of this matter Mr. Williams 'T is a hard matter for the Barr to answer the Bench My Lord. Sr. Fra. Wnning My Lord I shall pursue your direction as well as my understanding will give me leave and save your time as much as I can but the Court having assigned us of Counsel you will give us leave to use our discretion keeping as near as we can to the points of the Case and to the Pleading But if upon the reasoning of this Case other Parliament Cases fall in I hope you will give me leave to cite them for maintaining our Plea The Plea here is to the Jurisdiction and consists of two parts first matter of Record which is that an Impeachment is depending in the House of Lords for so it must be taken upon the pleading as I shall manifestly prove the second is matter in pais viz. the Averment that the Impeachment and Indictment are for one and the same Treason and the Plea is made up of these 2 parts together with an Averment that the person is the same The Kings Attorney hath been pleased to Demur generally to us and I am sure that if our Plea be well and formally pleaded all the matter of fact is confessed by the Demurrer Mr. Attorney did to my apprehension make but one Objection the other day and he still insists upon it That here is a Record too generally pleaded and they compare it to the common Case of an auter foitz acquit upon another Indictment but I hope to make it
Stafford and the other Lords in the Tower and so is the ancient course of Parliament with submission I will be bold to say the Impeachments are all so that ever I met with And it appears by them that they all conclude contra Coronam dignitatem Regis in the form of Indictments laying some Overt-Acts and the special particular Crimes for which the person is impeached as Overt-Acts for Treason required by the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. And I hope they will not say That without an Overt-Act laid in the Impeachment the Impeachment can be good If then this be so general that it cannot make the Crime appear to the Court and is so insufficient that the Court cannot give Judgment I take it you will go on upon the Indictment which chargeth him with a particular Crime My Lord Mr. Pollexfen does put the case of Barretry where such Averment is allowable but that is a special certain and particular Crime but High-Treason is â—ot so there are abundance of special sorts of High-Treason there is but one sort of Barretry and there are no sub-divisions therefore there is nothing to be averred but the special facts that make that Barretry Then there was another Authority out of the Book of Assizes cited by Sir Fra. Winnington and greatly relied upon A man is indicted for the murder of J. S. and afterwards for the murder of J. N. the former was pleaded to the second with an Averment that it is the same person that is but according to the common form of Averments to be of matter of fact For if J. S. was known as well by the name of J. N. as of J. S. the Indictment was for the murder of the same person and there 't is pure fact averred But where 't is Essential as this case is that the particular Treason do appear to say that it is the same particular Treason and to say that matter of fact aver'd shall enlarge a Record I think is impossible to be found any where And of all the Cases that I have seen or heard I confess none of the Instances come up to it For the Case in Moor King and Howard cited by Sir Francis Winnington that is an authority as expresly against him that nothing can be more For if there be an Indictment for Felony in such a particular act and then he is indicted again he cannot come and plead a general Indictment of Felony and then aver 't is for the particular Felony and so to make the fact enlarge the Record and put matter of Record to be tried by a Jury Mr. Wallop was of opinion that upon this Averment the Jury may try the Fact What a pretty case would it be that a Jury should judge upon the whole Debates of the House of Commons whether it be the same matter or no for those Debates must be given in evidence if such an issue be tried I did demur with all the care that I could to bring nothing of that in question but your Lorship knows if they have never so much in particular against a man when they come to make good their Impeachment they must ascertain it to a particular Crime and the Overt-acts must be alleadged in the Impeachment or else there is another way to hang a Subject than what is the Kings high-way all over England And admit there was an intimation of a purpose to Impeach a Message sent up and any Judgement given thereupon pray consider what may be the consequence as to the Government a very great matter depends upon this if there be any Record of that Parliament then is the French Act gone for so is the Resolution in 12 Jacobi where the Journal-book was full of proceedings yet because there was no Judgement passed nor no Record of a Judgement in a Writ of Errour they adjudged it no Session but if any Judgement had been given then it had been otherwise So that the consequences of these things are not easily seen when men debate upon touchy matters But that which is before your Lordship is this point upon the pleading and I conceive I have answered all the Presidents they have cited therefore my Lord I do take it with submission there is nothing of that matter before you concerning an Impeachment depending before the Parliament but whatsoever was done 't is so imperfectly pleaded that this Court cannot take any notice of it Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I shall endeavour to be short and shall confine my self because I am tender of your time to the point in Question which is whether this Plea be sufficient in point of Form There have been many things said on the other side which I must crave leave to take notice of so far onely as to shew they are not in question before you Those are what relate to the matter of the Plea for they argue 't is good both in matter and form and from the matter of the Plea they have taken occasion to debate whether a Commoner may be impeached Whether this Court hath power to judge of the priviledges and course of Parliament none of which Questions will arise upon our case now Therefore I will not now debate whether Magna Charta which hath ordained that every man shall be tried by his Peers and the Statute of 4 Edw. 3. which says that the Lords shall not be compelled nor shall have power to give Judgement upon a Commoner have sufficiently secured the Liberty of the Subject from Impeachments Nor is it the question before your Lordship whether you shall judge of any matter that is a right or priviledge of Parliament here is nothing before you that was done in Parliament but this is an Indictment for High-Treason committed by Fitz-Harris in this County Now my Lord as that is not the Question neither will it be the Question Whether an Impeachment depending in the House of Lords against a Commoner by the House of Commons will bar this Court of its Jurisdiction For though they have entred upon it and debated it at large and seemed to obviate the Objections made to that if it had been a Question as by saying that the King hath no Election because this is not the suit of the King but the suit of the Subject I will not now ex instituto argue that point but I will humbly offer a few things to your Lordships consideration and I shall take my hints from them They say the House of Commons are the grand Inquest of the Nation to enquire of Treasons and other high Crimes and they make these Presentments to the House of Lords Now when such a Presentment is made 't is worthy consideration whether it be not a Presentment for the King for an Impeachment does not conclude as an Appeal does but contra Ligeantiae suae debitum Coronam Dignitatem Domini Regis so far 't is the Kings suit In an Impeachment the Witnesses for the Prisoner are not sworn the Prisoner hath
general Act of Parliament but if he will plead a particular Act he must set forth the Matter of it to bring his Case under the Judgment of the Court And whether this be so pleaded or no we submit it to you L. Ch. J. Pray let me speak two or three Words to you Do you speak it against our receiving of the Plea Mr. Attor Gen. Yes my Lord We hope you will not admit such a Plea L. Ch. J. That will be hard Pray then consider with your self whether if it be an insufficient Plea for we 'll say nothing at present to that and if the Plea be such that no Issue can be taken upon it admitting it were so whether you should not demur to it before you demand our Judgment that we may have somewhat upon the whole before us to judg upon And I speak it to you Mr. Attorney to this purpose that you may consider whether you shall think fit to demur to this Plea or whether you shall think convenient to take Issue upon it or to Reply to it That it may come judicially for our Opinion for in a regular way if a Plea be admitted it must be either demurred to or replyed to Pray consider of it in this Case and we will give you time to consider if you please Mr. Serj. Maynard Under favour My Lord If a Plea be apparently vitious when it is upon Record we need not demur to it nor take Issue for else the mischief will be we shall admit all that is well pleaded to be true Mr. Serj. Jefferies My Lord If your Lordship please I do confess that according to the usual Course and Practice if there be a doubt upon a Plea that is read whereon any Point in Law may arise you do put the Party to demur or take Issue but according to the common Course of this Court in common Cases and much more in extraordinary Cases and especially in Capital Cases and most of all in a Case of High Treason such as this if it do appear to the Court and your Lordship That the Plea is in its Nature a frivolous Plea you do usually refuse to admit such a Plea and give Judgment upon it Now we would acquaint your Lordship with our Apprehensions in this Case and we would pray you to consider what the danger may be upon us to demur if this Plea be frivolous as it appears to be For whether an Indictment in this Court or an Indictment in another Court be for one and the same Offence and so a Bar to the Jurisdiction we are not so much as admitted into the Question of that as this Plea is Whereas according to the Course in other Pleas we pray you would be pleased to see the inconvenience if we should be put to demur to it for then we do admit by this Demurrer that this Impeachment is for one and the same thing and we humbly conceive my Lord that is a little dangerous How then will it be possible for you ever to judg That the Impeachment which in Fact is otherwise and the Indictment is for the same thing unless you will put them to pursue the common Methods how it was in the House of Lords by shewing forth the Record and what can we do otherwise it being apparently against the common Form of Pleas and manifestly for delay only then Pray the Judgment of the Court which we hope will be to reject this Plea Lord Chief Justice Brother Jefferies You need not be afraid that you shall be concluded by this Demurrer that there is such an Impeachment in the Lords House for the same Offence There will be no colour for it And Brother Maynard Formerly I confess when they pleaded Pleas Ore tenus and took their Exceptions Ore tenus too they would demand Judgment of a Plea presently and so it was in the Bishop of Winchester's Case 3 Edw. 3. where there was an Indictment against the Bishop here in this Court for going away from the Parliament at Shrewsbury without the leave of the Lords There Shard comes in and Pleads Ore tenus this Matter and says This is a thing that concerns the Lords in Parliament of which they have Cognizance only and so prays the Judgment of the Court presently Whether they have Jurisdiction of the Cause or no and he pleads it in abatement There they over-ruled him presently without any more to do because their Pleadings were not as now they are now they are grown into a formal Way all entred upon Record or at least written in Paper and what should be the Reason why you should not do according to the common course of the Court I leave it to you to consider of it Mr. Serj. Maynard It is very true my Lord antiently the Course was so my Lord and the Law was so too to plead Ore tenus but pleading in Paper is the same thing and the Course of the Court hath been when they saw it in Paper to be a frivolous Plea to give Judgment presently and you have the same Priviledg upon this account as they had when Pleas were by Word of Mouth If there be a Demurrer it may hang longer than is convenient this Cause should do Lord Ch. Just Do not speak of that Brother Maynard as to delay you shall take as short a day as you will Mr. Attor General I have looked upon all the Precedents and could never meet with one Demurrer where the Plea was to the Jurisdiction but I pray your Judgment upon the first Matter Whether whosoever pleads to the Jurisdiction ought not to have the Record in poigne to justify his Plea In a Plea in Bar indeed it may come in by Mittimus but in a Plea in Abatement the Party ought always to be ready with those Matters that are to out the Court of their Jurisdiction and besides the Court is to maintain their own Jurisdiction the King's Counsel have nothing to do to assert that but they ought to avoid all things that may be to the Kings Prejudice and therefore it ought to be by the Judgment of the Court in this Case set aside But I do think you will never find a Demurrer that was to a Plea to the Jurisdiction L. Ch. J. Pray consider of that Mr. Attor Gen. But if it appear to be a frivolous Plea in the Form or in the Matter you will not put us sure to Demur L. Ch. J. If you do insist upon it that you won't demur nor do nothing we will give Judgment but we will take time to consider it if you won't Demur nor take Issue or Reply Sir Fra. Withins Will your Lordship please to spare me one Word As it hath been observed to your Lordship This is a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court and if they do plead a Plea of that Nature the Court always expects the Plea should be substantially good otherwise it is not to be received now it is not substantially good here For
fond of a Man's Life that hath been Guilty of such a Fact as this For Example sake surely if that be the thing in question we ought to have speedy Justice executed upon a Man that deserves no Mercy Your Lordship was pleased to take notice of another Circumstance in the Case of Plunket He was Indicted he was Arraigned and was to have had his Tryal in Ireland and was to fetch his Witnesses from thence all these things were in that Case He desired time to consider what he should plead but your Lordship finding an Indictment found against him according to the Rules of Justice over-ruled that matter he suggested and made him plead Not Guily before ever you admitted him to debate any thing of that Fact And then it appearing to your Lordship to be in another Kingdom and that it was impossible in regard of the hazards of the Winds and Seas to get over his Witnesses in a little time your Lordship gave him time but you gave him as strait a time as could be consistent with the Rules of Justice and as his Case would bear Now my Lord this being offered in a Case of that expectation which the Case before you seems to have We desire the dispatch of it as much as we can In case the Man be Innocent God forbid but he should be acquitted but if he be Guilty God forbid he should live a Minute L. Ch. J. Surely you don't take the Case Gentlemen to be a Case of so much Difficulty as to deserve long Consideration we did expect truly that you would have been ready to have maitained your Plea Mr. Williams My Lord we do not desire any long time be pleased to give us a day or two or three as you please L. Ch. J. 'T is said 't is in a Case wherein the Life of a Man is concerned 't is true here is the Life a Man of whom till he be found Guilty we ought to have Consideration as we would of any other whatsoever For we have no reason to conclude him Guilty till we hear him and we are to be indifferent till we hear the Evidence therefore notwithstanding the Indictment we ought to weigh his Life as we would another Man's till he be found Guilty We in our selves do not see there is any so great matter of Necessity for time to consider of this Case yet I must tell you since they pray it Mr. Attorney we are inclineable to give them a day or two's time to consider of it and see what they can say to maintain this Plea But then Gentlemen if we do so you must take notice we will call you to plead presently after our Judgment upon the Plea Mr. Williams My Lord we have nothing to do with the Fact of this Case we are only to speak to the Plea Mr. Serj. Maynard Pray how then is your Life in question upon the decision of this Plea L. Ch. J. Brother they do not speak as to this Plea that it hazards his Life but the subjecta materiae upon the decision of it supposing Judgment be against the Plea Therefore Mr. Attorney we do think fit to give him till Friday Morning and he shall be brought hither then again by the Lieutenant of the Tower then we will hear these Gentlemen and if they do not shew us any considerable Matter to maintain the Plea they must expect Judgment presently Mr. Attor Gen. That certainly will be too long a time pray my Lord they ought to have been ready now if they will be pleased to be ready to Morrow Morning I pray it may go off to no further time Mr. Just Jones There is a necessity my Lord I think that it should be so for there is a long Tryal at the Bar here on Friday Mr. Williams That is a very short time indeed Mr. Just Jones You must be ready to Morrow Morning Mr. Williams Unless my Lord you will give us a little more time you had as good give us no time L. Ch. J. It seems the business of the Court is such on Friday Morning you can't be heard Mr. Just Jones Either it must be to Morrow Morning or Saturday and that is Exchequer-Chamber day Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I believe they are not in haste L. Ch. J. Mr. Attorney We would give them a reasonable time but yet we would do nothing that might make unnecessary delays in this Case Mr. Attor Gen. I pray my Lord let it be no longer than till to Morrow and that is more than ever was given in such a Case I know it was denyed in my Lord Stafford's Case they would not give the Counsel any time but would make them argue presently L. Ch. J. As to that Mr. Attorney every Case stands upon its own Bottom Mr. Serj. Jefferies My Lord we have your direction for to Morrow Morning Sir Fra. Win. No No my Lord we hope not so L. Ch. J. Look you Gentlemen to accommodate you the Court does think fit thus to do we will be here on Saturday by seven a Clock in the Morning on Friday we can do nothing for there is a long Tryal at Bar that will take up our time But on Saturday we will be here by eight a Clock sitting and expect you to be here by that time and we cannot afford you then long time to argue in because it is an Exchequer Chamber day Mr. Attor Gen. If Judgment be against the Plea they must plead presently then that we may not lose the Term for a Tryal L. Ch. J. You must take notice of that by the Rules of the Court they must do it Mr. Attorney If our Judgment be against them the course of the Court is so we can't rule it one way or another Mr. Serj. Jefferies But then they ought not to pretend they have no notice their Witnesses are out of the way and so hinder the Tryal Mr. Just Jones No No. Mr. Fitz-Harris My Lord I desire I may have these Lords come to me my Lord of Essex my Lord Salisbury my Lord Mayor your Lordship and Sir Robert Clayton to perfect my Discovery I have something to discover to your Lordship and them L. Ch. J. Your Discovery of what do you mean Mr. Fitz Harris Of the Plot and of the Murder of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey L. Ch. J. We did examine you about the Murder of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey Mr. Fitz-Harris Your Lordship went away in haste before I had told all I could say L. Ch. J. We asked you ten times whether you had any more to say and you said No. Mr. Fitz-Harris My Lord I was in Confusion and Consternation I scarce knew what your Lordship said to me L. Ch. J. We were not in haste we asked you often that Question Mr. Fitz-Harris It was haste to me because I was not provided of the Questions you asked me Mr. Just Dolben To some of the Questions we asked you you answered readily and freely but to some we could not get
they have denied to answer when their Advice has been demanded and insisted upon it that they were not proper Judges of such matters as in 31 H 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Par. N. 26. For there among other things the Judges were demand 〈◊〉 â—…ether the Speaker of the House during the Adjournment of Parliament might be arrested they desired to be excused from giving any opinion for said they in this great matter they ought not interpose it being a matter of Parliament In the great Council primo secundo Jacobi about the Union of both Kingdoms the Judges refused to give their opinions upon several Questions put to them desiring to be excused for that such things did not belong to them but were matters fit for Parliament only My meaning is to infer from hence that since it is pleaded here to be according to the Law and course of Parliaments and Mr. Attorney hath acknowledged it that now your Lordship is foreclosed from further meddling with this Case it appearing upon record to be a matter whereof you cannot judge But the objection is that admit the Impeachment should be taken to be according to the course of Parliament yet it is so general that the Court cannot judge upon it I answer that 't is evident the Impeachment was not for nothing 't is most certainly to be presumed that such a body of men as the House of Commons would not Impeach a man for no Crime Fitz Harris Avers by his Plea that it was for the same Treason for which the Jury have found this Bill against him Now this Averment makes the matter as clear to the Court as if the Impeachment had mentioned the particular Treason Every days Experience shews that Averments which are consistent with the Record are good and are of necessity to clear the Fact to the Court so that the Judges may give a judgment upon it If the Defendant will plead a Recovery in a formal action in bar to an action of Debt or other action it is not enough for him to set out the Record he must Aver also that the Cauuses of the action are the same and that it is the same person who is mentioned in one Record and in the other Records and this shews that the most special and particular are of no use without Averments My Lord there is a Case that I find directly to this purpose which goes further than the Case I did but now put and that is 26. Assiz pl. 15. It is also mentioned in Stamf. Pla. Cor. 105. Where a man was indicted for the Murder of I. S. and he pleads a Record of acquittal where he was indicted for the Murder of I. N. But he Avers that I. S. in this Indictment is the same person with I. N. in the other Indictment and that was adjuged a good Plea and the party was acquitted though the Averment there seemed to be a contradiction to the Record This makes it clear that if an Averment may consist with the Record the Law will allow it In Mores Rep. 823. Pl. 1112. The King against Howard it is said that if an Act of Parliament be certified into Chancery no Averment lies to say this is no Act of Parliament because the Commons did not assent to it but if it appears in the Body of the Act that the Commons did not assent as if it was ordained by the King and Lords and without mentioning any assent of the Commons There it may be Aver'd to be no Act for this being a matter consistent with the Record is Averrable And so it is agreed in 33 H. 6. fol. 18. Pilkingtons Case Now Mr. Attorney has his Election here as it is in all such Cases either to plead Null tiel Record and then we must have produced it and if we had fail'd it had been against us as to the whole Plea Or if he would not deny the Record as indeed he could not he might have taken issue upon our Averment that it was not for one and the same offence but he has Demurred and thereby confessed there is such a Record and confessed the Averment to be true that he was Impeached for the same Crime and that he is the same person and now it is plain to your Lordship that I stated the Question right at first My Lord I shall cite you one Precedent out of Rast Ent. fol. 384. and 385. Where a man was Indicted and acquitted before certain Justices and being Indicted de novo Lord Chief Justice It is Title Gaole delivery is it not Sir Fran. Win. Yes My Lord it is And he pleads that he was Indicted coram aliis Justitiarlis for the same fellony and upon this Plea the entry is made Quia testatum est hic in Cur. in praefatâ—s Justiciarios that the said party was acquitted of the fellony in manner and form as he had alledged in his Plea Therefore 't is adjudged that he should be discharged and go without day My Lord I do not altogether rely upon this Precedent for Law but I find it in that book Now My Lord I shall offer some Reasons in general First that when once the Commons in Parliament in the name of themselves and of all the Commons of England have lodged an Impeachment against any man it seems to me against natural Justice that should ever any Commoners afterwards come to try or judge that man for that fact I speak this because every man in England that is a Commoner is a party to the accusation and so we have pleaded by such an Impeachment a man is subjected to another sort of Tryal Magna Charta says that every man shall be tryed by his Peers or by the Law of the Land And by the Law of the Land there are several sorts of Tryal some by Juries others not by Juries This is one of those sorts where the Tryal is by the Law of the Land but not by his Peers for it would be hard that any man should come to Try or to give judgement upon a person who hath been his accuser before And in effect hath already given his judgment that he is Guilty by the accusation of him and so stands not indifferent By this means the Tryal by Jury is gone And the Lords who are the Peers of the Realm are Judges in point of fact as well as Law Here is an enormous offence against which all the Nation cryes for so they do in the Impeachment Then says the Law it is not fit that you should try him who are parties but the Lords are the proper Judges they shall Try him per testes and the Commoners may come in as Witnesses but not as Judges My Lord another reason is this that if an Appeal of death or any other Appeal were depending before the Statute of 3 H. 7. cap. 1. The King could not proceed upon an Indictment for the same fact because the King as the Common parent does only take care that such Offenders should not go away
but the Impeachment that was just mentioned before But what they mean by this to say this is not the same Impeachment when the Words are positive that 't is the same I must confess I cannot Fathom My Lord there was another thing spoken the last day but they have not mentioned it now if there be any thing stirred in it I hope your Lordship will be pleased to hear us before you give your Judgment in it That it was not said to be sub pede sigilâ—i but I know they won't insist upon it therefore I say nothing to that But the great Question now is whether or no this be not too general the alledging that he was Impeached in Parliament and not saying how or for what Crime tho there be an Averment afterwards that 't is for the said Crime Whether this be not so general as that therefore this Plea should be naught First for this of the Averment I take it with submission let the Crimes be never so particularly specified in the Record that is pleaded and in that upon which the party is brought in Judicature yet always there must be an Averment and that Averment is so much the substantial part of the Plea That let the matter never somuch appear to be the same without an Averment it would be naught And it must come to be tryed per paâ—â— whether the offence be the same or not for if a man plead one Indictment for the murder of I. S. to another Indictment for the murder of I. S. tho' they bear the same Name he must Aver they are one and the same Person For else Non constat to the Court but there may be two I. S. Therefore all Averments are still the substance of the Plea to bring the Identity of the matter into Judgment and are to be tryed by the Country so then the Objection to the Generality is not an Objection to the substance but rather an Objection to the form on their side Because the substance is alledged in the Plea that it is for the same Treason which substance if Mr. Attorney had thought not fit to have demurred to but taken Issue on must have been tryed per pais Having thus spoken to the Averment My Lord Let me speak to the general Allegation that he was Impeached for Treason and not saying particularly what the fact was My Lord If they admit the Law that an Impeachment in Parliament does suspend or take away the Jurisdiction of this Court then they have admitted a great part of the fact and then the matter in Question will be what Impeachment in Parliament it is that will take away the Jurisdiction of the Court and there can be but two sorts the one at large where the whole Offence is specified the other not at large but only in general Words the Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament Assembled in the Name of themselves and of all the Commons of England do Impeach such an one of High Treason Now my Lord if so be such Impeachment in Parliament be a good Impeachment then have We I think the most plain Case pleaded that can be as plain as the Fact that this is an Impeachment in Parliament and then this Court is outed of its Jurisdiction They that have gone before have said which I must pray your Lordship to remember That the Court and we are to take notice of the proceedings in other Courts as other Courts are bound to take notice of the proceedings of this Then I would suppose in other familiar Cases there is generally as 't is true in Sparry's Case the Writ or the Declaration which does in all civil Causes set forth the particularity of the thing in Question yet in some Cases we are sure it does not do so but the Course and practice of some Courts admits general proceedings Now where-ever that is so the party cannot mend himself by making their Course otherwise than it is For he must not say it is more particular than the Course of the Courrt does make it Therefore he hath no other way by the Law to bring his matter on and help himself but by an Averment that 't is the same I will suppose a Case of such a Nature as this a man brings an Account in London upon Concessit Solvere and he does not particularize in the Count any thing what or how his Debt did arise But after he brings another Account or delivery aspecial Declaration in an Account of Debt shall not I because the first Declaration is in general Words Aver that this is the same matter that he sued for by the Concessit Solvere which he now sues for in this particular Declaration Or suppose a man in this Court does bring an Account for divers wares and Merchandises sold and does not express any particulars but that he was indebted in general Words for Wares sold and afterwards he comes and brings another Account and says it is for such and such Wares so much for Cloth so much for Wine c. tho' his first Declaration be in general not expressing what the Wares were and the last is particular shall not I come and plead in Abatement to the second Declaration that the first and second were for one and the same thing Suppose again an Indictment of Barrelry be found against a man which is an Offence that is only general and hath no particulars alledged in the Indictment Should not a man that is the second time Indicted come and say this is one and the same My Lord under favour in all these and such like Cases the Law must be Govern'd by its own proceedings and take notice of the Nature of the things depending before the Court. And if so be upon Consideration of the Nature of the thing there is as much of certainty set forth as the Case will admit and is possible to be had we must permit the party to plead as he can and help himself by the Averment Then my Lord the Question is whether an Impeachment generally in Parliament without particularly setting forth for what be a good Impeachment there or no. If they say it is not then the bottom of the Plea is naught and all is quite gone but if they say it is then I have Pleaded my matter as it is For I cannot say that that is particular or make that particular that is not and I have done all that is possible for me to do in my Case I have Pleaded what is in the Record and as 't is in the Record from which my Plea must not vary and I have Averred 'tis for the same matter and you have Confessed it by the Demurrer My Lord I would not intangle the Question but I must Confess I do not see how they can extricate themselves out of this Dilemma if they do admit a General Impeachment is a good Impeachment Then there are fresh Instances of this considerable in the Case as that which hath been particularized
Parliament was Pleaded and the day of the Parliament mistaken there was a general Demurrer and it was resolved that it was naught and Judgment given against the Bishop though no Exception was taken in particular because the days of the beginning and ending Parliaments are of publick Notice and the Judges take notice when a Parliament is in being and when not That 's a sufficient Answer to that matter Then for those many Cautions that have been given you what a difficult thing it is for two Jurisdictions to interfeir Mr. Fitz Harris is much concerned in that matter who hath forfeited his Life to the Law as a most notorious Offendor that certainly deserves nothing but punishment yet he would fain live a little longer and is much concerned that the Judicature of Parliament should be preserved If it be not Law he shall not be oppressed in it but if it be Law fiat Justitia Certainly no Consideration whatsoever ought to put Courts of Justice out of their steady Course but they ought to proceed according to the Laws of the Land My Lord I observe 't is an unusual Plea and perhaps they had some reason to put it so It concludes si curia procedere vult I wonder they did not put in aut debeat that is the usual form of such Pleas for you have no Will but the Law and if you cannot give Judgment you ought not to be pressed in it but it being according to Law that great Offendors and Malefactors should be brought to Condign punishment we must press it whatsoever the Consequences are And if we did not take it to be the Interest of all the Kingdom and of the Commons too as well as of the King my Lord I should not press it but it is all their Interest that so notorious a Malefactor that hath certainly been Guilty of Treason in the highest Degree and that for the utmost Advancement of the late Popish Plot should not escape or the truth be stifled but brought into Examination in the face of the Sun that all men may see what a Villanous thing hath been Attempted to raise up the whole Kingdom against the King but they say if it be not Law you will not proceed it Ties your hands But with Submission they have not given you one Instance to make good what they say Many things have been that a Plea pending in a Superiour Court is Pleadable to the Jurisdiction of an Inferior Court for my Lord that is it we put upon them to shew if it had been Pleaded in Abatement it would have had its weight and been considered of as in Sparry's Case where it was no Plea to the Jurisdiction Put the Case it had been a good Impeachment and he had been Arraigned upon it and acquitted If he had afterwards come to be Indicted in this Court and the Prisoner will not plead this in Bar but to the Jurisdiction of the Court it would not have been a good Plea But he had lost his Advantage by mispleading If then an Arraignment and an acquittal or Conviction thereupon not a good Plea to the Jurisdiction then certainly an Impeachment depending singly cannot be a good Plea to the Jurisdiction This Court hath a full Jurisdiction of this Case and of this Person both of the Crime and of the party who is a Commoner and not only to find the Indictment but to proceed to Justice and this you had at the time of the fact Committed For certainly we need not put Cases for to prove that the King's Bench especially since the Statute for trying Treason beyond the Seas hath an universal Jurisdiction of all Persons and Offences Pray then what is it that must out this Court of their Jurisdiction For all the Cases that have been or can be put about matters which are not originally examinable in this Court make not to the matter in Question there 't is true the Court may be by Plea outed of its Jurisdiction as at Common Law where a fact is done super altum mare and so Pleaded that puts it out of the Courts Jurisdiction and that was my Lord Hollis and Sir J. Eliots Case and so that was my Lord Shaftsbury's Case too the fact was done out of their Jurisdiction and that may be Pleaded to the Jurisdiction because they had no Original Jurisdiction of the fact but where the Crime and the Person were absolutly within the Jurisdiction of the Court and the Court may Originally take Cognizance of it as this Court had of the present Case I would fain know what can out that Jurisdiction less than an Act of Parliament I will be bold to say the King by his Great-seal cannot do it nor can an Act of either House or both Houses together without the King out the Jurisdiction To say their proceedings ought to be a Bar that is an other Case the party hath his Advantage and may plead it in abatement or Bar as the Case requires for if there had been an Acquittal or Conviction the party could not plead it to the Jurisdiction Therefore for those Cases they put when you come to examine the reason of them you see how they stand viz. that the Court had no Original Jurisdiction My Lord Shaftsbury was committed by the Lords for a Crime in that House a Contempt to that House he is brought here and it appears to be a Commitment in Execution My Lord that was out of your Jurisdiction and if you had bailed him what would you have done would you have bailed him to be tryed here No you could not do it and therefore you proceeded not in that Case And so in the other Cases for there is not one of their Cases that have been cited of the other side but where it was out of the Jurisdiction of the Court originally and not at all within it As for the Case of the five Lords in the Tower because they say it will have a mighty influence upon them and they put the Case That there was in December an Indictment and afterwards an Impeachment from the Commons and they cite some Opinion given at the Council-board which I hope these Gentlemen will not say was a Judicial Opinion or any way affects this Cause But for that my Lord I observe the Lords took care that these Indictments should be all removed into the Lords House so they did foresee that the King might have proceeded upon the Indictments if they had not been removed thither But our Case now is quite another thing for those Lords were not fully within your Jurisdiction You cannot try a Peer of the Realm for Treason and besides the Lords have pleaded in full Parliament where by the Law of Parliament all the Peers are to be their Judges and so you can't out them of that Right And the reason is plain because thereby you must do them an apparent prejudice they having pleaded there all the whole Peerage are their Tryers But upon Tryal before
you if you have any thing wherein you can amend it either in matter or form If you will let us know it we shall consider of it But if you have not if you abide by this Plea then we do think 't is not reasonable nor will be expected of us in a matter of this consequence to give our Judgment concerning this Plea presently All the Cases cited concerning Facts done in Parliament and where they have endeavoured to have them examined here are nothing to the purpose at all For plainly we do not assume to our selves a Jurisdiction to inquire of such matters for words spoken or Facts done in the Commons-House or in the Lords we call none to question here nor for any thing of that nature which takes off most of the Instances you have given but our Question is barely upon the pleading before us whether we have a sufficient pleading of such an Impeachment as can foreclose the hands of the Court And as to that we shall take some reasonable time to consider of it we will not precipitate in such a Case but deliberate well upon it before we give our Judgment Take back your Prisoner Mr. Att. Gen. Before he goes away we hope you will set a reasonable time as short as you can to have him come again for your Judgment L. C. J. Mr. Attorney we can send for him when we please to come hither by Rule you see this business is come on in the busy part of a Term and 't is impossible for the Court to attend nothing but this we will take some reasonable time Then Fitz-Harris was carried back to the Tower On Tuesday May 10. Mr. Attorney moved the Court to appoint a day for their Judgment on the Plea and for Fitz-Harris to be brought up which they appointed to be the next morning And accordingly on Wednesday morning May. 11. he was brought from the Tower to Westminster-Hall Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I pray that Fitz-harris may be brought to the Barr. L. C. J. Where is the Lieutenant of the Tower bid him bring Fitz-harris to the Barr which was done Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I pray your Judgment on the Plea L. C. J. Why Mr. Fitz-Harris you have been Arraigned here for High-Treason and it is for endeavouring and compassing the Kings death and other Treasons specially mentioned in this Indictment you have pleaded here to the Jurisdiction of this Court that there was an Impeachment against you by the Commons of England in Parliament before the Lords for the Crime of High-Treason and you do say that that Impeachment is yet in force and you do say by way of averment that this Treason whereof you are now Indicted and the Treason whereof you were Impeached by the Commons of England before the Lords are one and the same Treason And upon this the Attorney General for the King hath Demurred and you have joyned in Demurrer And we have here the arguments of your Counsel whom we assigned to argue it for you we have heard them at large and have considered of your Case among our selves and upon still consideration and deliberation concerning your Case and all that hath been said by your Counsel and upon conference that we have had with some other of the Judges we are three of us of Opinion that your Plea is not sufficient to bar this Court of its Jurisdiction my Brother Jones my Brother Raymond and my Self are of Opinion that your Plea is insufficient my Brother Dolben not being resolved but doubting concerning it And therefore the Court does order and award That you shall answer over to this Treason Cl. of Cr. Edward Fitz-Harris Hold up thy hand Mr. Fitz-Harris My Lord I desire I may have Liberty to advise with my Counsel before I plead L. C. J. Mr. Fitz-Harris When you proposed a difficulty you had in a matter of Law the Court were willing to assigne you Counsel because 't is known you cannot be a fitting person to advise your self concerning the Law But as to this we cannot assigne you Counsel 't is only a matter of Fact whether you be Guilty or not Guilty Therefore in this Case you can't have Counsel allow'd to advise you Mr. Fitz-Harris My Lord I desire before I plead or do any thing of that nature that I may make an end of my Confession before your Lordship and some of the Privy Council L. C. J. Look you Sir For that you have trifled with us already you pretended you had some scruples of Conscience and that you were now become another man and would reveal and discover the whole of this design and Plot that you are said to be Guilty of here but you have trifled several times concerning it and we can say nothing concerning that now we must now have your Plea if afterwards you have a mind to confess and be ingenious you may do it but now you must either plead or not plead Mr. Fitz-Harris My Lord I have some Witnesses a great way off and I desire time to have them ready for my defence Cl. of Cr. Edward Fitz-harris Hold up thy hand which he did Thou hast been Indicted of High-Treason upon that Indictment thou hast been Arraigned and hast Pleaded to the Jurisdiction of this Court To which Plea His Majesties Attorney-General hath Demurred and thou hast joyned therein And upon the whole matter this Court upon mature and considerate deliberation is of opinion that thou oughtest to answer Over How saist thou Art thou guilty of the High-Treason whereof thou hast been Indicted and hast been Arraigned or not Guilty Mr. Fitz-Harris Not Guilty Cl. of Cr. Cul. Prist c. How wilt thou be tryed Mr. Fitz-Harris By God and my Country Cl. of Cr. God send thee a good deliverance L. C. J. Now if you have any thing to move do it We could not hear your motion till you had pleaded for the method of the Court must be observed Mr. Fitz-Harris I have some Witnesses at a distance my Lord. L. C. J. Where are your Witnesses Mr. Fitz-Harris I have one Witness in Holland a very material one that I am much concerned to have for my Life Mr. Just Jones What is his Name Mr. Fitz-Harris His Name is Steward my Lord. L. C. J. Look you Mr. Fitz-Harris I 'le tell you reasonable time is allowed to all men to make their defence in but when a man is in Holland I know not what time you will take for that Mr. Fitz-Harris What time your Lordship thinks fit for a man to return from thence hither L. C. J. Look you Mr. Attorney Why should not we allow Mr. Fitz-Harris time for his Trial till next Term Mr. Attorn Gen. I think he hath not offered any thing to entitle him to it he doth not tell us And I would fain know what the Witnesses will prove Mr. Just Dolben It may be Mr. Attorney will confess what t is that Witness can prove Mr. Att. General For the