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
Grammar an Adjective for a Substantive but I take it to be as well as any man can plead in this Case For what says the Prisoner The Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament assembled did Impeach me which Impeachment is still in force before the Lords I take it to be as plain as can be If they did impeach me then there was an Impeachment it can bear no other sence My Lord another Exception and which was thought a strong one the other day and strongly urged is that the King may chuse his Court and they compared it with the other Courts but there is the mistake that runs all along in this Case 'T is no doubt the King may chose his Court for his own action and suit but the Impeachment is an Impeachment of the Commons and their suit is to be tryed no where else but in Parliament And the Case that was the other day cited by Mr. Attorney for this purpose is true of the person that was arraigned for Treason and had been Indicted and arraigned in Ireland and he may be arraigned and tryed here there is no Question of it but to say therefore that this is a Consequence from that Rule that therefore he will chuse whether he will proceed in Parliament upon the Commons Impeachment and put a stop to the proceeding of the Parliament by proceeding in this Court I take to be a great Non sequitur My Lord I have offered these Reasons as to the form of the Plea to maintain it Now as to the Precedents I would a little speak what hath been done in the like Case where this Court hath taken hold of Causes and the prosecution of the Court hath been stop'd by Pleas to the Jurisdiction and what hath been done upon those Pleas What doom they have had I will hint some of them to you There was a Case mentioned by your Lordship the other day the Bishop of Winchesters Case 3 Edw. 3. I dare not say that I have looked upon the Parliament Roll but my Lord Coke tells us he hath recited the Record de verbo in verbum in the 2. Institutes fol 15. there are all the proceedings it was not an Indictment for my Lord Coke contradicts that and says it was a declaration there the Record at large sets forth that the Bishop of Winchester was attached to answer the King for that whereas at a Parliament held at Sarum it was ordained per ipsum Regem ne quis ad dom Parliament summonitus ab eodem recederet sine licentia Regis And that this Bishop in contempt of the King recessit without leave of the King I think 't is rather an action than a Criminal proceeding what says the Bishop to this He comes and says si quis deliquerit erga Dominum Regem in Parliamento aliquo in Parliamento debet corrigi emendari non alibi in minore Curia quam in Parliamento c. What becomes of this Plea 't is strange there should be such an Inhibition that no man should depart without leave of the King and the Bishop be punished for it we do not find any Judgement was given nor would they venture to do it My Lord Coke hath a mark upon it for this very reason it looked as if there was a design to weaken the Parliaments by bringing their proceedings into Westminster-hall but they would not do it they would give no judgment for the King but for ought appears the Plea stood Then there is the other Case of Mr. Plowden and many more in primo secundo Phil. and Mar. where a great many of them some whereof were Burgesses and they submitted but he did not The Information there is this that these persons were summoned to the Parliament and departed from thence without the leave of the King and Queen though it was prohibited by them that any should depart most of them submit to a Fine and if it had rested there it might have turned to the prejudice of the Commons as an example But Mr. Plowden he pleads as one that understood himself and the power of Parliaments and their proceedings very well and considers the time to have pleaded in says he continued in the Parliament from the beginning to the end of the Parliament but he relies not there but he brings a traverse full of pregnancy and if our Plea be faulty theirs was 100 times as faulty Absque hoc that he the said Edmond Plowden the said day and year during the said Parliament without License of the said King and Queen and the Court aforesaid did contemtuously depart in Contempt of the said King and Queen and their Commandment and inhibition and to the great detriment of the Common-Weal and State of this Kingdom c. All these things he pleads which your Lordship knows to be a very ill traverse and yet this Case continued all the time of that Queen and the Court would never give judgement in it This was in primo secundo and yet it appearing upon the face of the Information that it was a Case that concerned the Commons the Court would not give judgement for or against the Commons as long as the King and Queen lived There is a later Case and that is Elliots Case 5 Car. there is an Information against My Lord Hollis Sir John Elliot and many more and there is a Plea put in to the Jurisdiction of the Court I have a Copy of My Lord Hollis's Plea and 't is in a manner as faulty as Plowdens Plea but the Court in that Case does go not upon the insufficiency of the Plea but gives judgement generally that this Court had a Jurisdiction the assault happen'd in Parliament and the words were spoken there and upon the Demurrer they gave judgment upon the whole matter what became of that judgement We know very well it was reversed 19 of this King And pray observe the proceedings in the reversal of that judgment Judgment wâ—s given against My Lord Hollis and the rest of the Gentlemen of the House of Commons though there was no prospect of a Parliament yet they were obstinate and would not plead for they thought the judgment to be a very hard judgment and this being a Plea in abatement judgment was given for want of a Plea over It may fall out in this Case that this person may be obstinate and not plead over if you should give your judgment against this Plea In Elliots Case they were fined severly and they continued under this judgment in Prison and in execution for the Fine a great while and they were delivered by what I cannot indeed justifie in all its proceedings I mean the long Parliament but what was done in 19 of this King I think is good authority which none can say but was a Parliament as useful to the King and Kingdom as ever could be In that Parliament the Commons examined this judgment I speak because I have it in my printed Book t
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
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
Commissioners they must have but a select number of Peers to be their Tryers But in none of those Cases hath any Judicial Opinion been given for the Case of 11 R. 2. first cited by Sir Fran. Winnington and then by Mr. Pollexfen a Declaration in Parliament That they proceeded according to the Law of Parliament and not according to the Common-Law nor according to the practice of Inferiour Courts that will be nothing to our purpose at all that was in case of the Lords Appellants a proceeding contrary to Magna Charta contrary to the Statute of Edw. 3. and the known Priviledge of the Subject But those proceedings had a countenance in Parliament for there was an Oath taken by all the Lords in Parliament That they would stand by the Lords Appellants And thereupon they would be controuled by none and they would not be advised by the Judges but proceed to the trying of Peers and Commoners according to their own will and pleasure And between that time of 11 R. 2. and 1 H. 4. see what havock they made by those illegal proceedings and in 1 H. 4. you will see that these very Lords were sentenced except one or two of them who were pardoned and then it was expresly resolved by Act of Parliament That no more Appeals of that nature nor any Appeals whatsoever should be any more in Parliament And if so these Gentlemen had best consider how they make an Impeachment like an Appeal for in that Statute 't is said There shall be no more Appeals And the Petition upon which this Act is founded runs thus They pray that no Impeachment or Appeal may be in Parliament But when the King came to make the Grant he grants onely for Appeals and principally to out those Lords Appellants who were condemned by that very Parliament So that 't is a very pretty matter at this time of day to liken an Impeachment to an Appeal But my Lord the other great point is this There is nothing at all certainly disclosed to you by this Plea therefore there is nothing confessed by us onely the Fact that is well pleaded therefore I shall come to consider what is said by them as to the form of it They say my Lord that they have pleaded it to be secundum legem Consuetudinem Parliamenti and if that be sufficient let them have said what they would that would have healed all But I say my Lord with submission they must disclose to you what is the Law and Custom of Parliament in such case or else you must take it upon you upon your own knowledge or you cannot give Judgment 'T is very well known what this Lex Consuetudo Parliamenti is no person versed in the Records but knows it that by course of Parliament a Message goes up with a Declaration to impeach the party generally and then after there are Articles or a Bill of Impeachment produced Now till that be produced sure there is no Counsel of the other side will say that ever the party can be called to answer And because these Gentlemen do pretend to urge their knowledge herein I would observe there are three things to be considered of the Parliament the Legislative part the matters of Priviledge and the Judicial part proper to this Case For the Legislative part and matters of Priviledge both Houses do proceed onely secundum legem Consuetudinem Parliamenti but for the Judicial part does any man question but that in all times they have been guided and directed by the Statutes and Laws of the Land and have been outed of a Jurisdiction in several Cases as by the Statute of 4 Edw. 3. and 1 H. 4. And the Lords in all Writs of Errour and all matters of Judgment proceed secundum legem Terrae and so for Life and Death And there is not one Law in Westminster-hall as to matters of Judgment and another in the Court of the Lords above But I will not trouble your Lordship any farther to pursue these things But it is not sufficiently disclosed to you that there is any such thing as an Impeachment depending there 't is onely alleadged that he was impeached and so much the News-book told us that he was impeached but to infer thence that there was an Impeachment carried up and lodged for the same High-Treason is no consequence And then 't is alleadged Quae quidem Impetitio when no Impeachment is before set forth but onely that he was impeached generally And as I observed before a person might go up with a Message to impeach but that cannot be said to be an Impeachment to which the party is compelled to answer it must be an Impeachment on Record and appearing on the face of the Record for what Crime it is and so they ought to have set it forth Now that this is too general that is alleadged here I take it the Books are very full When a Record is pleaded in Bar or in Abatement the Crimes ought to be set out to appear the same and so my Lord are all the Presidents of Coke's Entries 53. Holdcroft and Burgh's Case and Watts and Brays Case in 41 and 42 of Q. Eliz. Coke's Ent. 59. Wrott and Wigg's Case 4 Rep. 45. and in Lewes and Scholastica's Case and Dives and Manning's Case The Record must be set out that the Court may judge upon it and the Record must not be tryed per Pais but by it self But for what they say plead it never so certainly there must be an Averment it must be so 't is true but that is for another purpose than they urge it The reason is because if it be for another Fact that he hath committed he may be indicted again though it be of the same nature but whether of the same nature or not of the same nature is the thing must appear upon the Record pleaded because the Court must be ascertained that it was sufficient for the party to answer to it for if it were insufficient he may be again proceeded against as if an Indictment be pleaded which was insufficient though the party pleads an Acquittal or Conviction upon it it will not avail him for the Court will proceed on the other Indictment And so is the Resolution in Vaulx's Case and in Wigg's Case though there was a Judgment given of Acquittal yet he was tryed again So that my Lord that is one great reason why it must appear that the Court may judge whether it be sufficient for the party to answer And you have now that here before you if this be such an Impeachment as they have pleaded it as this person could not answer to by any Law of Parliament or other Court then 't is not sufficient to out you of your Jurisdiction And I do think that by no Law they are or can be compellable to answer to a general Impeachment of High-Treason And to give you authority in that there are many might be cited as the Cases of my Lord