to do this and confess it was contrary to the Law of the Land Secondly to preserve their own Right to Judge none but the Peers in Case of Life and Death For then the Kings Steward is to sit in the Chancellors place and the Lords are to be Tryers and Judges And so by judging others then their Peers descended below their degrees For none but Peers are so to be Tryed and Judged It is otherwise in Cases of misdemenors then the Chancellor keeps his Place and the Lords are only Judges and not Tryers they may command a Jury to be Impannelled For Tryal of the Facts if the truth appear not by the Parties answer the Testimonies are Exhibited as 1 R. 2. in the Case of Alice Peirce Here ariseth a Question Whether the Spiritual Lords de Jure are tryable by their Peers or no Out of Parliament they are not to be Tryed by the Peers But the doubt is whether in time of Parliament they are to be so Tryed or no To me it seems they may if the matter be moved against them in time of Parliament For as it is in the Parliament at York 15 E. 2. in the Act for the Repeal of the Spencers banishment they are Peers in Parliament Note that the Petition for the Repeal saith that the Bishops are Peers in Parliament The Bishops name themselves Peers of the Land And the Chancellor to the King And the Act stile them Peers of the Land in Parliment There be divers Presidents also of the Tryal of Bishops by their Peers in Parliament as well for Capital offences as misdemenors whereof they have been accused in Parliament As the Archbishop of Canterbury 15 E. 3. N. 6 7 8. Et ibid. postea 44 39. Et ibid. 17 E. 3. 22. And the Bishop of Norwich 7. R. 2. for misdemeanors So were the Bishops of York and Chichester Tryed for Treason by their Peers in Parliament upon the Appeal of the Lords Appellants 11 R. 2. Anno 21 R. 2. The Commons accused the Archbishop of Canterbury of Treason and the temporal Lords judged him a Traytor and banished him But if the Bishop be accused out of Parliament he is to be tryed by an Ordinary Jury of Free-holders for his honour is not inheritable as is the temporal Peers out of Parliament save that only of their Tryal As no day of Grace to be granted against them in any Suit A Knight to be returned upon the Pannel where a Bishop is party and no Process in a civil action to be awarded against his body and the like And by this it appeareth what Persons are de Jure tryable by the Lords in Parliament viz. their Peers only Touching the nature of the Offence Herein the complaint and accusation as well of the Party delinquent as offence is to be considered For upon the Information of the King at his Commandment or upon complaint of private Persons the Lords may not by the Law try any but their Peers for Capital offences And the Lords have ever referred offences of other nature complained of by private Persons to the Common-Law if there be remedy unless some special cause appear fit for their own Judgment But upon complaints and accusations of the Commons the Lords may proceed in Judgment against the Delinquent of what degree soever and what nature soever the offence be For where the Commons complain the Lords do not assume to themselves tryal at Common-Law Neither do the Lords at the tryal of a Common Impeachment by the Commons decedere de jure suo For the Commons are then in stead of a Jury and the Parties answer and examination of witnesses are to be in their Presence or they to have Copies thereof And the Judgment is not to be given but upon their demand which is in stead of a verdict so the Lords do only judg not try the Delinquent In the Lords proceedings in Judicature is observed also a certain form which varieth according to the nature of the complaint and the matter complained of so that no general Rules can be given therein though many Judgments have been reversed for errors whereof there be many Precedents And the Execution upon life and death hath been stayed at the Request of the Commons the proceedings being illegal whereof I have seen only one Precedent touching the Duke of Clarence tempore E. 4. Wherefore for our better understanding of the Form of Judicature let us first consider the several causes wherein Judicature belongs to the Parliament and then the ancient way of proceedings in each Cause CHAP. II. In what Cases Judicature belongs to the Parliament JUdicature belongs to the Parliament in these six Cases 1. In Judgments against Delinquents as well for Capital crimes as misdemeanors wherein is to be considered 1. The Accusation 2. The Parties Answer 3. The Replication 4. The proof by Examination of witnesses or otherwise 5. The Judgment 6. The Execution 2. In the Reversing erronious Judgments in Parliament are to be considered 1. The Petition 2. The bringing in the Record 3. The Assignment of Errors 4. The Reversal thereof 3. In the Reversing of erronious Judgments given in the Kings Bench are to be considered 1. The Petition 2. The Writ of Error 3. The bringing in the Record 4. The Assignment of Errors 5. The Writ of Scire facias 6. The Defendants answer 7. The Reversal of the Judgment 4. In deciding of Suits long depending either for difficulty or delay wherein is to be considered 1. The Petition 2. The advice with the Judges 3. The determination of the Lords 5. In hearing complaints of particular Persons on Petitions wherein is to be considered 1. The Petition 2. The Defendants answer 3. The Proof 4. The Orders of the Lords 6. In setting at Liberty any of their own Members or Servants imprisoned and in staying the proceedings at the Common-Law during the Priviledge of Parliament wherein consider 1. The Quality of the Person Imprisoned 2. The Parties Answer at whose Suit he is imprisoned 3. The manner of his Charge In certifying the Elections and Returns of Knights and Citizens for the Parliament But now the Commons alone determine of this Wherefore I will only shew that the Commons did heretofore Petition to the Lords for redress herein and what course was then taken I leave it to the Clerk of that House to shew how the Commons proceed herein at this day Of the rest in Order And first Of Judgments on Delinquents § 1. In Judgment against Delinquents is first to be considered the Accusation For as in the Kings Bench the Justices proceed not to the Arraignment of any Offender without an Indictment So the Lords have not proceeded to Judgment unless the Crimes have first been presented to them by way of Accusation If otherwise their Judgments have been reputed erronious as that against the Spencers was in 15 E. 2. Rot. 2. claus lit penden For the same Persons cannot be both Accusers
said Mortymer having notice thereof withdrew himself among the wild Irish where the same Serjeant nor any other Officer of the King 's durst come for fear of Death Wherefore and for that his Offences are notoriously known both to the Lords and them they prayed Judgment c. The King the Lords and the Procurators of the Clergy considered of the Request of the Commons with good deliberation and then the Lords with the said Procurators by the assent of the King and Commons did award that Proclamation should be made through England and Ireland commanding the said Tho. Mortymer to render himself in proper Person to the King in what place soever it shall be in England within three Months after the 23th Day of December next coming to be at his Answer and they farther awarded That if he came not c. that then he shall be judged Traytor and Convict of of all Treasons whereof he is accused and shall forfeit c. Then the King adjourned the Parliament and the Appellants to the 15th of Hilary next at Shrewsbury on which Day the said Appellants declared to the King That it was awarded that Proclamation should be made c. ut supra The Commons did the like And for that the said Tho. Mortymer came not they had judgment In 7 H. 4. The Lords agreed this Judgment against the E. of North. and the Lord Bardolph who were fled to the Rebels in Wales and Proclamation ut supra throughout England At the day prefixed they examined the Returns of the Proclamations in the presence of the Commons and so the Judgment was agreed on in their presence also and so it ought to be in all Cases of Life and Death And finding a small Error they awarded new Proclamations in London only and the Return thereof was again viewed and considered in the presence of the Commons and then on the next day Judgment was given Eodem Anno 21 R. 2. The Lords Appellants accused also the Duke of Gloucester of Treason and although they knew he was dead they prayed the King that he might be brought to his Answer Whereupon the King sent his Writ to the Council of Calice unto whose Custody he committed the said Duke to bring him into the Parliament to his Answer The Captain returned his Writ That the Duke is dead the which Writ and Return being read the said Appellants prayed Judgment and the Commons shewed That the Dukes Levying War against the King's Person is notoriously known to all the States of Parliament and therefore they desired Judgment also and had it And what may not the whole Parliament do when they joyn in one Yet notwithstanding the King fearing some Error as it seems the Lords Appellants besought the King that if there were any thing on Record be it by Confession or otherwise which concerned their Appeal that it might be openly known and shewn in full Parliament Whereupon by the King's Commandment was read a Commission granted unto William Richal Justice of the Common-Pleas and a Confession of the Duke of Gloucester made before him by vertue of the said Commission yea and Richal himself being commanded did justifie that the Duke did write the Confession with his own hand in his absence and afterwards read it unto him so careful they were to have something to supply an Answer I marvel that Richal was acquitted of his Proceedings herein at the next Parliament of 1 H. 4. where he affirmed that much of this Dukes Confession was altered after he had returned his Commission He well deserved to die in that he spake not of it Yet there is one Precedent directly contrary to all this viz. 11 R. 2. in that Appeal which happened on this occasion The aforenamed Duke of Gloucester and four other Lords went to the King and accused the Duke of Ireland the Archbishop of York Michael de la Poole and others of Treason the King adjourned them to the next Parliament promising them Justice there and in the mean time conveyed away the Parties accused and then by Proclamation Part 8. fol. 603. in the next Parliament 11 R. 2. the Articles of the Appeal being read the Duke and other Appellants offered to make proof thereof and required that the Parties appealed might be brought to their Answers and for default of Appearance demanded Judgment Whereupon the King did deliberate with the Lords and commanded the Justices and other Sages of the Law to give their best Counsel to the Lords how to proceed rightly in this Matter of Appeal who after Consultation therein had answered the Lords That they had seen and considered the Tenor of this Appeal which they said was in no point made and declared according to the Order of the Common or Civil Law But they gave no Answer touching the Demand of Judgment for default of Appearance whereupon the Lords deliberated and after by the Lords assent declared that this Cause committed by the Peers against the Person of the King and State of the Realm shall be determined in the Parliament only and by no other Law than by the Law and Course of the Parliament And that it belongs to the Lords only to judge in such Cases And with the assent of the King they did judge the same Appeal and the Process thereupon depending to be good according to the Law and Course of Parliament Then the Lords Appellants proceeded and desired to have the fault of Appearance recorded and Judgment given and so it was So likewise 21 R. 2. After the King had given the full power of Parliament to determine all Matters begun into the Hands of twelve Lords or six and six Commoners or any three He adjourned the Parliament from Westminster to Shrewsbury in 15 Hil. and there on March 22. It was shewed to the King how that Robert Possington was impeached at the Parliament at Westminster for being with the Duke of Gloucester in levy at Herring An. 11 R. 2. For which the said Duke was adjudged as Traytor and therefore they brought the King to ordain the like Judgment against Robert Possington though he was dead Whereupon our Lord the King by the assent of the Lords and Knights of Counties having power c. awarded the said Robert guilty c. And that he shall forfeit c. But these extraordinary Precedents cannot lead us into the ordinary course of Proceedings and I alledge them only so as their Errors may be avoided § To conclude it is the just and constant Course of Parliament to bring the Party accused to his Answer yea though he fly Justice yet to send out Proclamations into the Countries that he appear at a Day or else such and such Judgments shall be given against him I confess this Course was omitted in the Judgment against Mompesson 18 Jac. and haply it was not then thought upon the Judicature of Parliament being so long out of use and therefore that cannot be alledged as a leading Precedent And in
the Particulars in form of a Charge they were sent to the Lord Chancellor and his answer required to each particular In the same manner in the same Parliament they accused John Bennet Judge of the Prerogative Court of Bribery and Corruption in his Office In the same manner they accused and impeached Lyonel Earl of Middlesex and Lord Treasurer of England of Bribery and Extortion and Impositions on French Wines and Grocery which being reported to the House a Committee was appointed to consider of the Commons complaint and also of a Committee who had reported to the House a great want of Powder in the Stores through the Lord Treasurer's negligence A Committee appointed to consider thereof did after many Examinations taken draw up out of the whole Complaint of the Commons a Charge against him as also out of the Report of the Committee for Munition touching the want of Powder and of a Complaint made to the House by Sir Thomas Dallison and of some Misdemeanors whereof they are informed in the great Wardrobe and Court of Wards Which Charge the House sent unto the Treasurer and required his Answer 21 Jac. In eodem Parl. 21 Jac. The Commons at a Conference accused and impeached by word of Mouth the Bishop of Norwich of some Misdemeanors which being reported to the House the said Bishop made a present Answer thereunto as it was In the Parliament 1 Car. 1. Febr. 6. The Commons at a Conference accused and impeached George Duke of Buckingham of many Misdemeanors and delivered their Declaration in Writing that the said Duke might be put to his Answer § 2. The second manner of Accusation is Ex parte Domini Regis which is threefold The two first are immediately from the King and the third from the Commandment of the Lords by a formal Information exhibited in Parliament by the King's Attorney or Council learned as was that of E. 3. against Roger Mortimer Earl of March and divers others and 4 R. 2. against Sir Ralph Ferrers K t and 1 Car. 1. against the Earl of Bristol By the King's Commandment either upon the Petition of the Delinquent and upon the return and view of any the Proceedings taken elsewhere as against the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph upon former Proceedings against them in the Court of Chancery And 2 H. 6. upon request of the Commons against Sir John Mortimer Knight indicted in London In these Cases no Articles are exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis as in the former By Articles exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis Ex parte Dominorum against such as the Complaint is made upon in general by the Commons prout 1 R. 2. against Gomeniz Weston and Alice Peirce 7 R. 2. against the Bishop of Norwich and divers others Which Articles though drawn and exhibited Per mandatum Dominorum yet were the Parties charged therewith Ex parte Domini Regis Of Accusation by Information Ex parte Domini Regis In Rot. claus 4 E. 3. There is a Proclamation of the death of Edmond Earl of Kent where it is said certain Letters of his containing Treason were shewed to the King wherefore he was Arrested and freely acknowledged the same before the Earls Barons and other Grandees and Nobles of the Realm in the Parliament at Winchester 4 E. 3. Here appears plainly that Articles of Treason are exhibited in Parliament against the Earl of Kent In the next Parliament in the same year Edmond Son and Heir of the said Edmond exhibited his Petition praying the King that the Record and Process whereupon the said Earl was put to death might be brought before him in Parliament and if Errors be found that Right be done Numb 11. The which being read before the King Prelates Earls Barons and other Grandees in the said Parliament the King by his Royal Power and Dignity by assent in Parlialiament repealed the said Judgment Numb 12. Note That in this Repeal no Error was alledged nor any Exceptions taken for this that the Lords proceeded upon the Articles only which were objected against him the said Earl This is out of the Close Roll. The first Precedents recorded in our Parliament Rolls of Accusations in this kind are these of 4 E. 3. in the Parliament at Westminster which are added at large amongst divers others at the end of this Discourse the effect whereof doth follow viz. These are the Treasons Felonies and ill Deeds done to our Lord the King and to his People by Roger de Mortimer and others of his Covin reciting them all and concludeth thus Whereas our Lord the King doth charge you the Earls Barons and other Peers of this Realm that for as much as these things touch him principally and you and all the People of this Realm That you do unto the said Roger right and lawful Judgment as is fit for such an one to have who is very guilty of all the crimes above written for that he believed the said things are notorious and known for truth unto you and to all the People of the Realm Numb 1. The followeth the Judgment against him Item In the said manner our Lord the King charged the said Earls Barons and Peeres to give right and lawful Judgment on Simon de Bereford Knight who was ayding and counselling unto the said Roger de Mortimer in all treasons and ill deeds for which the said Roger was so awarded and done to death as the thing that is known and notorious to the said Peers as the King believeth Then followeth the Judgment against him also Then followeth the Judgment against John Matrevers Thomas de Gurney and William de Ogle Numb 5. But no particular accusations are recorded against any of them unless they were comprised in those general words of that against Mortimer viz. And other of his Coyn. For some of the same Crimes are mentioned in the Judgments yet no doubt but the Kings Attourny did exhibit Articles against every of them upon which the Lords proceeded to Judgment Here I do ingenuously confess my own Error when I said that this Judgment against Roger de Mortimer was afterwards reversed for that he was put to death without any Accusation which I conceived to be so upon first view of the Repeal thereof Anno 21. E. 3. Numb 10. Where the Petitioners Roger de Mortimer the Grandchild assigneth for that the said Earl was put to death and he disinhereted Sans Accusament Et sans estre masone in Judgment ou en Respons By which words sans accusament I gave you to understand that the Articles were no accusation whereas now upon better Consideration I do find that these words do intend no accusation by witnesses or otherwise to prove the said Articles objected against him For these Articles are a legal accusation in Parliment and frequently used as appears by many Precedents of the like nature But there was no other proof offered by the Lords to prove the same then that the King believeth them
and that they are notorious and known for truth unto the Lords and all the People of the Realm And the Lords also having examined these Articles said all these things contained therein are notorious and known They speak not a word of any one witness examined or any other proof then the common fame For this Cause and for that the said Earl was not brought to Judgment nor to answer but condemned unseen and unheard upon common Fame only without any legal Proof The whole Parliament did very justly Repeal the said Judgment and Record declaring it to be erronious and defective in all points And the Lords were willing to damn the whole Record in all points least haply it might be alledged against themselves another time for Precedent Anno 15. E. 2. The Lords and Commons joyned in the Accusations against the Spencers and for that the Lords had no Record in their own pursuit upon the Cause contained in their award and they ought not to be their own Judges c. having been Accusors no exceptions were taken to the Articles but other Errors assigned quod vide where it is said to be sans Accusament so that they repealed it not for that there was no Accusation but for that he was not brought to his Answer Again That those words Sans accusament should simply signify no Accusation is only the Averment of the Petition The Judgment doth not say that there was no accusation but that it was erronious in all points And so it was no proof being produced but common Fame to prove the Answer And this first error bred a second I do not well understand the meaning of these words Sans accusament That a Peer ought to be Indicted for Capital offences in Parliament But having perused all the Judgments I do not find any one Peer indicted in Parliament In 11. R. 2. Numb 7. All the Lords Spiritual and Temporal claimed as their liberty and franchise that the great matters moved in this Parliament and to be moved in other Parliaments in time to come touching the Peers of the Land ought to be admeasured adjudged and discussed by the course of the Parliament and not by the Civil-Law nor by the Law of the Land used in the more base Courts of the Realm which the King granted in full Parliament eodem Anno Rot. Appeal 290. This is said to be their ancient custom viz. To be adjudged according to the use of the Parliament only Then no Peer can be indicted in Parliament for that it is contrary to the use of Parliament Let this suffice for the confession and rectifying mine own former Error herein But a Lord of Parliament may be indicted out of Parliament and by the Kings command proceeded against in the next Parliament upon the same indictment as in these Subsequent In the same Parliament the Lord Berkley was arraigned for the death of Ed. 2. and whether out of his humility or otherwise he waved his Peerage and put himself on the Tryal of his Country the Articles against him though not expressed but by the Inference out of his Arraignment are for the murder of King Ed. 2. at Berkley Castle in the County of Gloucester unto which he answered that he was then sick at Bradley in Worcestershire and pleaded not guilty of the death of the said King Et de hoc de bono malo ponit se super Patriam The Precedent shall hereafter be added at large It begins thus Placita Coronae tenta coram Dom. Rege Ed. 3. post conquestum Angliae in pleno Parliamento suo predicto Et allocutus de hoc quod cum Dominus Edwardus nuper Rex Angliae Pater Dom. Regis nunc in custodiam Thomae cujusdam Johannis Matrevers extitit deliberatus ad salvo custodiendum Castro ipsius Thomae de Berkley in Com. Gloucester in eodem Castro in custodia ipsorum murderatus extitit interfectus qualiter se velit de morte ipsius Regis acquietare dicit c. Numb 16. Then follows his Answer Here the cause why the Lord Berkley was tryed is mentioned but the Articles objected against him and by whom he was accused who questioned him whether the Chancellor or Steward of England or who else All these circumstances are omitted It appears not I say in what manner this crime of the Lord Berkley was presented to the Lords whether by the former general Information against Mortimer autres de la Covyn or by some such Particular Information against him alone which I rather believe Some such Information there must be of necessity else how could he be question'd for his crime in Parliament But here it appeareth that the Lords brought him to his Answer which they omitted to Mortimer and in that Point their Proceedings against Mortimer were erronious And had his manner of Accusation been erronious also No doubt but the Lords would have avoyded that error now against Berkley The manner how Berkley was arraigned here in pleno Parliamento is explained in the Precedent of 1 R. 2. Gomeniz and Weston who were brought Prisoners by the Constable of the Tower before the Lords in full Parliament sitting in the white Chamber where they were arraigned at the commandment of the said Lords in full Parliament by Sir Richard le Scroop Knight Steward of the Kings House The words full Parliament signify the Lords and Commons For that Record saith the Commons prayed that all such that have surrendred any Forts c. might be put to their Answer before the Lords and Commons c. Whereupon they were brought to their Answers in full Parliament for that Offence So here I conceive the Lord Berkley being accused by the King for the murder of King E. 2. was brought before the Lords and Commons For the Commons are to be present at such arraignment as shall be shewn hereafter and the Clerk of the Crown having read the Accusation against him Allocutus fuit That is the Lord Steward of England recited the Fact whereof he was accused and demanded of him how he could acquit himself This I conceive to be the manner thereof Vide the Appeals 21 R. 2. for the form thereof I marvel the Lords permitted the Lord Berkley to wave his Peerage and put himself super Patriam Anno 4 R. 2. Sir Ra. Ferrers Knight was brought into Parliament under the guard of the Marshal of England and there arraigned on the Kings behalf for suspition of Treason c. Numb 21. In the Process against him is recorded that for suspition of Treason surmised against him he was arrested in the Marches of Scotland by Monsieur de Lancaster and other Lords Temporal there being in the said Marches and that he was brought under the said Arrest by commandment of the Lords to Answer in this Parliament to that which shall be surmised against him in special concerning certain Letters which were found and sent to the King and his Councel The Letters
Conferences wherein his Majesty by Testimony becometh a Witness and in case the Earl should be convicted his Commission cometh to the Crown c. he desired their Lordships to put his Majesty in mind thereof for the declining his Accusation and Testimony 9 Maij These Questions were proposed to the Judges 1. Whether in Treason or Felony the King's Testimony is to be admitted or not 2. Whether Words spoken to the Prince who afterwards is King make any alteration in the Case And the Judges were to deliver their Opinion therein on the 13th Day of the said Month of May. And on Saturday Morning being the said 13th Day the Judges were desired to deliver their Opinions The Lord Chief Justice said They appointed to meet and to consider thereof and Mr. Attorney desired to know the time of their Meeting and before that time he brought them a Message from the King viz. That his Majesty was so sensible of his Honour that he would not suffer the Right of his Crown which may justly be preserved to be dampnified in his time That they might deliver their opinion in any particular Questions concerning the Earl of Bristol but not in the general Questions whereof his Majesty could not discern the consequence which might happen to rhe prejudice of the Crown Every particular Case varying according to the circumstances 4 E. 3. The Articles were read against Roger Mortimer and it followeth thus Wherefore our Lord the King doth charge our Earls and Barons Peers of this Realm That forasmuch as these touch him principally and all the People of this Realm That you do unto the said Roger Mortimer right and lawful Judgment such as appertaineth to such an one to have who of all the faults abovesaid is very guilty as he believeth And for that the said things are notorious and known to be true unto you and to all the People of the Realm This was all the Proof produced against Roger Mortimer The Lords hereupon judged him But afterwards Anno 28 E. 3. Numb 10. they reversed it as erroneous so that although the King's Testimony confirmed by the common Fame was 4 E. 3. received against Roger Mortimer yet it was afterwards adjudged Nul Accusament in the 28th of the said King E. 3. In that Parliament of 18 Jac. divers Witnesses were examined in open House in the Causes of Mompesson and the Lord Chancellor upon Interrogatories agreed on beforehand and divers at a Committee And it was resolved That none might be examined upon any thing that might accuse Whereupon the Earl of Southampton one of the said Committee signified That a Scruple did arise Whether Sir Ralph Horsey should be examined what Bribe he gave to the Lord Chancellor and upon the Vote it was agreed he should dissentiente Comite Dorset Eodem Anno The Lords did find that the Testimony of divers of the House of Commons was necessary touching the Complaint against Mompesson and therefore sent a Message to this effect The House of Commons before their Complaint exhibited against the Lord Cobham and Doctor Feild for a Bribe concerning Egerton's Case 18 Jac. examined one Davenport but not upon Oath The Lords when they had examined Davenport found that the Case was not so foul as he related it unto the Commons and therefore sent his Examination again unto them and then punished him for his false Relation CHAP. V. The Judgment FIrst Unto whom the Judgment belongeth and the King's Assent and of the Presence of the Spiritual Lords the Commons and the Judges Secondly The Judgment it self and by whom it was demanded and by whom rendred In making of our Antient Laws the Commons did Petere the Lords Assentire and the King Concludere So in Judgments on Delinquents in Parliament the Commons might accusare petere Judicium the King assentire and the Lords only did judicare §. 1. That the Judgment belongeth only to the Lords appeareth by all the old Records that I have seen prout 4 E. 3. against Mortymer The Earls Barons and Peers did Award and Judge by assent of the King c. 7 H. 4. In the Case of the Earl of Northumberland Protestation was made by the Lords That the Judgment belonged unto them only For the clearing of this Point That the Judgment belongeth to the Lords only vide the Protestation of the Commons 1 H. 7. which excludes the Commons from any Right thereunto viz. On Monday Novemb. 3. The Commons made their Protestation in manner as they did in the beginning of this Parliament and then further declared to the King That no Record in Parliament be made against the Commons That they are or shall be Parties to any Judgment given or hereafter to be given in Parliament Unto which it was then answered by the Archbishop of Canterbury by Command of the King That the Commons are Petitioners and not Demanders and that the King and the Lords have ever had and of Right shall have the Judgment in Parliament in manner as the Commons themselves have declared saving in Statutes to be made and in Grants of Subsidies and the like though to be done for the common profit of the Realm the King will have especially their Advice and Assent And that this Order be held and kept at all times to come This excludes the Commons from all Right to Judgment But whereas it faith the Judgments in Parliament belong only to the King and Lords That is to be understood touching the King's Assent only as apppeareth by the Replication of the Parliament in this Point in 2. H. 5. which was thus In the Parliament at Leicester 2 H. 5. Numb 11. Tho. Earl of Salisbury Petitioneth to reverse a Judgment in Parliament against John Earl of Salisbury his Father in 2 H. 4. and one of the Errors assigned was for that the Judgment was not given by the King but by the Lords Temporal only whereupon the Earls of the Parliament at the King's Commandment gave Copies of the said Judgment of 2 H. 4. and of the said Errors assigned unto the Kings Serjeants at Law then present Ad sequentem solutionem Juris Regni in hac parte avisarentur Super quod Servientes ad Legem crastino die Domino Regi ac Dominis Spiritualibus Temporalibus praedictis hoc in Parliamento petierunt scrutinium pro Domino Rege in hac parte Quibus dictum erat ex parte Domini Regis Quod ipsi procederent ulterius absque aliquo scrutinio habendo quoad declarationem judicium super supradicta c. And afterwards Day was given at the next Parliament which was held at Westminster eodem Anno 2 H. 5. In which Parliament the said Judgment of 2 H. 4. being examined and discussed at full videbatur tam dicto Domino nostro Regi quam etiam Dominis suis antedictis c. quod idem Judicium Declaratio praedicta versus eundem Johannem c. sunt fuerunt bona legalia
Parliament The Chancellor Answered before the Prelates and Lords In Offences Capital In 4 E. 3. The Earl of Kent was brought before the Counts Barons autres Grandees and Nobles en mesme Parlement c. for Treason dors Numb 38. Eodem Anno The Articles of Treason being read against Mortimer the King charged les Counts Barons les Peeres de son Realme to give Judgment And Judgment was given per les dits Counts Barons Peeres come Judges del Parlement Item The King commanded les dits Counts Barons Assembled in Parliament to give Judgment on c. and so were four others tried in the same Parliament all for Treason and not one word of the Prelates either when the Articles were read or at the Judgment 6 E. 3. Numb 11 12. Post Festum Sancti Gregorii The Parliament being commanded to consult of the keeping of the Peace and Punishment for the breaking thereof the Prelates departed pur ceo que aviz fuit dits Prelates que ne attinet pas a eux consuler de guard de la Pees ne de chastisament de tiel yet afterwards when they heard what was ordained touching those Malefactors for the apprehension of them by Hue and Cry c. to bring them before certain Commissioners to be tried according to Law the Prelates gave their Consents also to the Act and added also Excommunication by the Assent of King Lords and Commons Anno 10 R. 2. The Commons prayed That such as gave up Forts puissent estre a respons cest Parlement Et selon leur desert puis per guard les Seigniors Baronage And thereupon John Gomeniz William Weston were brought before the Lords aforesaid in full Parliament c. It is to be understood before the Temporal Lords for the Bishops are never comprized in the Word Baronage Anno 11 R. 2. Divers Lords and others being appealed of Treason other misdemeanors the Prelates absented themselves during the Tryal having first made Protestation saving their Right to be present in Parliament Regni more solito considerare tractare ordinare statuere definire caetera excercere cum caeteris Paribus c. Verum quia in praesenti Parliamento de nonnullis materiis agitur in quibus non licet nobis juxta Canonum Sacrorum instituta quomodo libet interesse Eo propter pro nobis nostrum quolibet Protestatur quod non intendimus nec volumus sicuti de jure non possumus nec debemus nec intenditur nec vult aliquis nostrum in Parliamento dum de hujusmodi rebus agitatur vel agitur quomodo libet interesse sed nos nostrum quemlibet in ea parte penitus absentare Jure Paritatis nostrae cujuslibet nostrum interessend in dicto Parliamento quoad omnia singula ibidem excercenda juris eorum quilibet statu Ordine in omnibus semper salvo Ad haec insuper protestamur nostrum quilibet protestatur quod propter hujusmodi absentiam non intendimus nec volumus nec nostrum aliquis intendit nec vult quod processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parliamento super materiis antedictis in quibus nec possumus nec debemus ut praemittitur interesse quantum ad nos nostrum quem libet attinet futuris temporibus quomodo libet impugnentur infirmentur seu etiam revertentur This was read in full Parliament and enrolled at the Request of the Commons I mean the Prelates by the Kings Command and assent of the Lords Temporal and Commons Here the Protestation saith de jure interesse non debemus but I think it intends that they could not be present by reason of the Common-Law and by reason of an Ordinance made at the Councell at Westminster in 21. H. 2. By which all Clergy-men were forbidden agitare Judicium sanguinis upon pain to be deprived both of Dignities and Orders For surely as I think they might otherwise have been present both by the Common-Law and by the Law of God But by such their long constant absence even from our first Parliaments upon Record The Lords Temporal have only heard and determined all matters concerning Capital offences which hath continued in them so long that it is become their Right c. So that now it will be a wrong unto them the Lords Temporal if the Bishops do any way meddle with such Judicatures either touching the Answers the Replyes the Proofs or the Judgement For where they may not adjudg they may not do any thing as a Judge that doth conduce to judgment And therefore as heretofore they would be absent Now they cannot be present whilst the Matter is in hand but are to be absent altogether dum de hujusmodi materiis agitatur For some or other matter may happen to be Voted in their presence concerning the Answer Replication c. or concerning the Form of Judicature herein And by the Voices of the Spiritual Lords that Vote may pass against the major part of the Temporal Lords who should sustain wrong therein Can they be present and not Vote I know that at all Assizes and Sessions divers of the Clergy are present till Judgment be given in such Cases but their Presence cannot prejudice the Judge at the Assizes by Vote as in Parliament And at Sessions the Lay and Clergy are equally in Authority to hear and determine Eodem Anno 11 R. 2. A Special Act passed at the Request of the Commons to make good those Appeals and Judgments notwithstanding that the Spiritual Lords pur benefit salvatioun de lour Estate Cap. 3. in Parl. Roll N. 28. This Act I conceive was occasioned by the Clause in the said Protes 〈…〉 of the Prelates Ad haec insuper Protest 〈…〉 c. quod processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parliamento super Materiis praedictis in quibus nec possumus nec debemus interesse ut praemittitur quantum ad nos attinet futuris temporibus non impugnentur c. For there is no such Act to make good any former Judgment notwithstanding their Absence And 2 H. 5. Upon the Petition of the E. of Salisbury the King Lords Temporal adjudged the Judgment against his Father in Parliament 2 H. 4. to be good notwithstanding that it was rendred without the consent of the Lords Spiritual which yet the said Earl alledged as Error in his Petition so that by the Judgment of the whole House neither the Presence nor Absence of the Spiritual Lords in necessary in such Judgments In 21. R. 2. The first Petition that the Commons offered was That before this time many Judgments and Ordinances made in the time of the Kings Ancestors in Parliament have been repealed because the Clergy was not present in Parliament at the making of the Judgments and therefore they desired that the Clergy might make a Proctor with a suffici 〈…〉 to consent in their wants 〈…〉 Things and Ordinances to be done in this
Parliament Numb 9. Whereupon the Prelates and Clergy being severally examined deputed for them all Tho. de Piercy But in ancient times in libro Mailicess Numb 9. which hath written somewhat largely of this Parliament It is said The Pardon 's granted to the Earls of Arundel were first repealed by the Assent of the Prelates for which he blames them much saying Dederunt ergo locum Praelati Judicio Sanguinis in hoc facto ita quod dubitatur à pluribus si incurrunt irregularitatem pro negotio memorato unde contigit quod propter istud minus peccatum consequentur nam exactum est ab iis vellent nollent ut Laicam Personam constituerent ad Judicium Sanguinis dandum in dicto Parliamento si necesse foret occasio emersisset I have perused all Judgments and Ordinances in Parliament and do not yet find one whereto any Exceptions were taken for the Absence of the Prelates and Clergy I find an Exception to the Judgment of the Exile in 15 E. 2. for that it was made without the Assent of the Prelates who were present and protested in writing against it And one of the Errors whereupon it was repealed is for that it was made without the Assent of them who were Peers of the Realm in Parliament But this Repeal was per duress force c. prout 1 E. 3. c. 2. So as this cannot be alledged for a Legal Precedent 5 H. 4. The Earl of Northumberland came before the King the Lords and Commons in Parliament The Lords made Protestation that the Judgment belonged to them only c. The Petition being read before the King and the said Lords as Peers of the Parliament unto whom such Judgments do of Right belong considering c. adjudged that it was neither Treason nor Felony c. Note That all this Parliament the Bishop of was Chancellor and he as Chancellor delivered the Opinion of the Lords when they had acquitted the said Earl of Treason Whereby it seems that He and the other Bishops were present at the Trial of Life and Death wherefore though the Record doth here say the Lords indefinitely we must understand the Lords Temporal only especially since they claimed the said Judgment to belong to them In 4 E. 3. Judgment was given by the Earls Barons and Peers as Judges in Parliament in point of Treason where the Prelates are not named and therefore understood of the Temporal Lords only This will be explained by the next of 7 H. 4. Rot. Process coram Domino Rege c. The King commanded the Lords Temporal Peers of this Realm to advise what Process to make and what Judgment to render against the Earl of Northumberland and the Lord Bardolph The Lords advised thereupon and reported their Opinions to the King The said Lords Peers of the Realm by Assent of the King Ordain That Proclamation should be made for the said Earl and Lord Bardolph to appear or else to be Convicted by Award of the Peers in Parliament The King did farther demand the Opinion of the said Lords Temporal touching the Archbishop of York unto whom the said Lords Temporal said c. The Commons prayed the King that they might have Cognizance c. Whereupon by Advice of the Lords Temporal the Returns of the former Proclamations were made at the Parliament-door for the said Earl and Lord to appear By Advice of the said Lords Temporal the Returns of the former Proclamations were examined the said Lords Temporal considered of the Errors therein By the said Lords Temporal with the Assent of the King by their Authority New Proclamation is granted the Return whereof is read in full Parliament before the King and the said Lords Temporal Whereupon the said Lords Temporal then being in the said Parliament by Advice and Assent of our Lord the King by their Authority in Parliament Awarded the said c. Convict of Treason Here all was done by the Lords Temporal from the first beginning of the Trial until the Judgment and yet the Judgment is said to be in Full Parliament notwithstanding the Spiritual Lords are not once mentioned nor intended to be present at any time whilst the Matter of Treason was handled §. 5. Touching the Presence of the Commons in Cases Capital I observe the Presence of the Commons to be necessary at the Parties Answer and Judgment in Cases Capital Now one Reason for the King's Assent and the Commons presence in such Judgments may be this Both King and People are to be satisfied for the death of the Subject therefore all Trials for Life and Death are publick in the full Assembly of the Court And how can it be said in Full Parliament when the Commons one of the States are absent For this purpose the Court of Requests called Camera Alba was prepared for such Trials where both Lords and Commons might meet more conveniently yet though the Commons were present at such times they had no Voice there But at their Return to their own Assembly they considered among themselves if the Proceedings were Legal and might come again and shew it and require a Rehearsing of that Cause as they did at the Judgment of the Duke of Clarence 18 E. 3. Nor are the Commons to be present when the Lords do consider of the Delinquent's Answer and the Proofs and do determine of their Judgment The Precedents are these 10 R. 2. Gomeniz and Weston were brought before the Lords and Commons seaux a la blanch Chambre and Answered on Friday 27 Novemb. and there they were delivered to the Constable of the Tower who was commanded to bring them again the next Morning In the mean time the Earls Barons and Baronets assembled and advised from the time that the said Answers were given in Parliament on Friday until part of Saturday to the hour of Three of the things touching the Answer aforesaid and then the Prisoners were brought in to the Parliament 10 R. 2. Rot. de Pardonatione Haxei 7 Febr. Anno praedicto Praedictus Tho. Haxei coram Nobis omnibus Dominis Parliamenti Nostri existentibus in Alba Camera adductus fuit Billa praedicta coram praefato Thoma ibidem per Praeceptum Nostrum lecta fuit Quaesitum fuit per Charissimum Avunculum Nostrum Ducem Aquitain Lanc. Seneschallum Angliae à praefato Thoma si ipse dictum praefatum Communibus tradidit 5 H. 4. The Earl of Northumberland was brought to his Trial on Wednesday Then the Commons were present but I do not find that they were present with the Lords between Wednesday and Friday when the Lords advised on the Earl's Petition This Record mentions not where the Assembly was Numb 7. H. 4. Quint. of his Reign After the Lords had Awarded Proclamation against the Earl of Northumberland and the Lord Bardolph to appear at a Day or Judgment to be given The Commons not being acquainted therewith they came and prayed the King they might
were also recorded and read in Parliament Numb 17. 18 19 20. but the Information exhibited against him whereupon he was arraigned is not recorded It is only said He was arraigned Ex parte Domini Regis §. 3. Here might be two Questions First Whether was this Sir Ra. Ferrers legally brought to his Answer in Parliament by the commandment of the Duke of Lancaster and those other Lords who were then with him in the Marches of Scotland Secondly Whether he being no Baron or Lord of Parliament for he never had Summons might be legally arraigned in Parliament for life and death upon an Information Ex parte Dom. Regis which is contrary to the Law as was resolved in Parliament 4 E. 3. Numb 2. and 6. For resolutions of these doubts I am of opinion that the Duke of Lancaster might send Sir Ra. Ferrers to the Parliament because it was then sitting and might examine the Treason whereof he was suspected though they could not proceed to Judgment against him without the Commons he being a Commoner and not their Peer And it fell out in the Examination of this business they found the Letters to be counterfeited and so he was acquitted thereof And so far their proceeding was not illegal For the Parliament may entertain and examine any Cause and then direct the Judgment thereof to its own proper Court if it belong not unto them as they did in 5 R. 2. Numb 43. 44. Here Sir William Cogan Knight being accused by Sir Richard Clurdon of matter sounding to Treason After the Lords had heard the Cause they remitted both the parties to the Common-Law And in this Case of Sir Ra. Ferrers if they had found he had been guilty they might have proceeded to Judgment against him according to the Precedent of Sir Tho. Mortimer in 2 H. 4. who was indicted in London and the Indictment returned into the Chancery and thence brought into the Parliament where the Commons affirmed the same and prayed Judgment against him Anno 2 H. 4. The Lords Temporal gave Judgment on one Tho. Holland Earl of Kent John Holland late Earl of Huntington John Mountague late Earl of Salisbury the late Lord de Spencer and Ralph Lumley who were beheaded in a War they had Trayterously raised against the King This Judgment is entred but not the Information Ex parte Dom. Regis which is necessary to be understood for had it been omitted his Son Thomas would without doubt have assigned that for one of the errors in his Petition to reverse the said Judgment 2 H. 5. apud Leicester which he did not though he assigned for an Error That his Father was put to death without an accusation In the Parliament begun at Westminster Feb. 6. 1 Car. 1. and continued until June 25. Anno 2. ejusdem Regis John Earl of Bristol was charged with High Treason in this manner viz. Primo die Maii. The said Earl of Bristol being brought to the Bar and kneeling till the Lord Keeper wished him to stand up The Lord Keeper told him he was sent for to hear his Charge of High Treason And Mr. Attorney General being at the Clerks Table began to open his Charge but being interrupted by the said Earl who with much importunity exhibited Articles against the Duke of Buckingham then present which as he said he conceived to be Treason and required of the Lords that his Testimony against the Duke and the Lord Conway against whom he then also delivered Articles might not be made invalid no more then the Charge against himself which he affirmes was procured by the said Duke yet notwithstanding the head of the Kings Charge were opened against him by Mr. Attorney and then the said Articles against the said Duke and against the Lord Conway were read And it was ordered by the Lords of the Parliament that the Kings Charge against the said Earl should be first heard and afterwards the Earls Charge against the Duke c. But yet so as the Earls Testimony against the said Duke be not prevented prejudiced hindred or impeached Secundo die Maii. The House was moved that the Earl of Buckingham might be indicted according to the Stat. of 35 H. 8. the Treasons committed being beyond the Seas as was objected and that being certified to both Houses they to proceed against him by Tryal of Peers But their Lordships did not resolve on the manner of proceeding Then the Houses were moved that Mr. Attorney might provide an Indictment against the said Earl to be returned to the House on Saturday next Maii 6. And if he doubt of the Form to confer thereof with the Judges And if any great difficulty appear to resort to their Lordships and acquaint them with it And it was ordered that Mr. Attorney proceed with the preparation but the Houses not to be concluded at their next meeting on Thursday And the Sub-Committee for Priviledges c. to search for Precedents in the mean time Die Jovis Maii 4. The Sub-Committee for Priviledges reported one onely President viz. the Tryal of the Earl of Northumberland 5 H. 4. which the Clark read unto them out of the Parliament Roll of that year Whereupon after long debate It was ordered first that Mr. Attorney prepare the heads of the Charge against the Earl of Bristol and to bring them in on Saturday next Secondly The Earl then to receive his Charge at the Bar. Thirdly That when the Earl hath heard his Charge the Lords will determine when he shall Answer But he is not to be inhibited if he will Answer presently Fourthly The Cause of the Earl of Bristol is to be retained wholly in this House After the Earls Charge is brought in and his Answer then their Lordships to proceed to hear Mr. Attornies proofs amongst themselves and then to put the Cause into a way of Proceeding in this House Die Sabati Maii 6. The Lord Keeper shewed how Mr. Atturney desired that in regard the House hath already heard the nature of the crimes objected against the said Earl of Bristol That the Clark of the Crown in the Kings Bench may attend the reading of the Charge here according to a Precedent of former times which was denyed in regard the Clark of the Crown in the Kings bench is no Minister of this Court And also for that it was ordered May 4. that this Cause was wholly to be retained within this House The said Order being read the Earl was brought to the Bar and the Lord Keeper commanded Mr. Attorney to read the Charge against him who read the same out of a Parchment ingrossed in Court-hand and signed by himself Ro. Heath It containeth diverse Articles of High Treason and other great Enormities Crimes Offences and contempts committed by the said Earl c. prout postea Thus much touching the Charge against the said Earl by Information in the Kings behalf A Question was demanded of me and others in private the last Parliament
against Henry late Earl of Northumberland and Tho. Bardolph late Lord Baron for certain ill deeds which they had lately committed contrary to their Allegiance At their meeting the Constable of England shewed them the Process made in the Court of Chivalry against Henry de Peircy upon the Articles of Treason committed by him and others of his Covyn In which Articles are named the Arch-Bishop of York Tho. Newberry Earl Marshal the said Earl of Northumberland the said Lord Bardolph and many others and their several Treasons are therein contained The Lords having advised therein and considered the proofs delivered their opinion to the King touching the said Earl of Northumberland and the said Lord Bardolph only and proceeded to Judgment against them Then the King caused to be demanded of the Lords Temporal Peers of the Realm what they would say touching the Act of the said late Arch-Bishop of York and of the said Earl Marshal who lately with a great multitude of people were armed and trained in the field within the Realm of England with Banners displayed c. Unto which demand the said Lords Temporal said That according to the Information to them given by the said Constable It seemeth unto them to be Treason yet notwithstanding the Lords desired that with good deliberation when they next returned to the Parliament they might speak thereof unto our Lord the King as no error might be found in their doings in time to come This was done on that day the Parliament was adjorned Here the Lords had no other Accusation against those two Peers but the Kings commandment upon view of former Process against them in the Court of Chivalry And the Lords declared their opinion touching the Archbishop of York and the Earl Marshal though their Treasons were contained in the same Process also least Error might be found in their doings hereafter But whether they thought their Error to be that the King had not commanded them first to advise thereon touching the said Archbishop and the Earl Marshal as he had done touching the others Let the Reader Judge For my part I think that would have been error Could the Lords proceed upon Process elsewhere unless the King commands them 2 H. 6. The Judgment against John Mortimer is drawn up very briefly by John Hales one of the Justices of the Kings Bench wherein he first shews that the said Sir John Mortimer was Indicted in London sitting the Parliament before the Lord Mayor of London and other Commissioners appointed by the King For that the said Sir John being committed to the Tower for suspition of Treason corrupted his keeper and broke Prison That the said Indictment was returned into Chancery Ex mandato Dom. Regis and by the Chancery brought into the Parliament before the Duke of Gloucester the Kings Protector and the Lords Temporal the King being then an Infant And the Protector being Authorized by Commission to hold the Parliament de Precepto Dom. Regis That the said Sir John Mortymer by Vertue of the Writs was brought before the said Duke and Lords and Commons That the said Commons affirmed the said Indictment to be true and desired Judgment against him as convict of Treason and Felony And lastly That he was thereupon adjudged In this is set down all the essential parts of the Lords proceedings against Mortymer The Ceremonious or formal parts thereof are omitted as who complained of or accused Mortymer to the Parliament The King or the Commons did not for then there needed no Indictment And therefore it must move for the King either before the Indictment or rather upon the Return thereof unto the House For had the Accusation been before the Indictment it had been a shorter way to Arraign him also before the Commissioners in London he being no Member nor Peer of Parliament then to return the Indictment into the Chancery and then be brought into the Parliament Here is also omitted the Conference before hand between the Lords and Commons touching this matter For it is very unlikely that the Lords did suddainly send for the Commons and then abruptly read the Information before them and they as suddainly affirm the same all these are necessarily understood That the Commons affirmed the Indictment e. It appears that the Lords cannot of themselves Judge a Common Person for an Offence for he is no Peer according to that of 4 E. 3. Numb 26. The manner of Accusation by Information Ex parte Dom. Regis is when the Commons as any other private Person accuse any man unto the Lords in general but do not declare the Offences in particular other then by the Commandment of the King Articles are drawn up against the Delinquent Ex parte Dom. Regis The Precedents are these 2 R. 2. The Constable of the Tower was commanded to bring Gomeniz and Weston whose Offences were complained of in general by the Commons that they named before the Lords in Parliament to Answer to the Articles objected against them on the behalf of the King and they were severally arrained at the Commandment of the Lords c. Eodem anno Alice Pierce being complained of by the Commons was accused and commanded to come before the Lords in Parliament to Answer to certain things objected against her on the Kings behalf And here upon Sir Richard le Scroope Chief Steward of the Kings House by Comandment of the Lords rehersed in Parliment in the presence of the said Alice a certain Ordinance c. Made in the Parliament of 50 E. 3. against her And this Rehersal being made the said Steward surmised unto the said Alice That it seemed to the Lords of the Parliament that she had incurred the pain comprised in the said Ordinance in certain points and especially in two That is to say c. By these two Precedents it appears plain enough that the Lords commanded the Articles to be drawn and exhibited though ex parte Dom. Regis for all these are said to be done by their Commandment And the practise at this day is that out of the Complaints of the Commons as of Mompesson The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Tresurer and a Committee of the Lords did draw up the Charges But they wanted the words Ex parte Dom. Regis The reason why in this Cause the Articles are Ex parte Dom. Regis seemed to be this The Commons complain but impeach not Notwithstanding the Impeachment the Lords cannot proceed neither can they Impeach any to themselves So it rests that the party is to be Impeached at the Kings Suit It may be lawful for me to examine the proceedings of the Lords in the Complaint against Mompesson and to compare them with ancient Proceedings in like Cases And they will appear to differ much And touching Mompesson the Commons did not only complain but accuse him He fled in his absence they ought to have proceeded to Judgment against him before Proclamation first made for him to appear before the
King and then at a day the ancient use in such Cases was this The Lords considered of the Complaint and examined the Proofs produced by the Commons Then agreed on their Judgment and caused Proclamation to be made throughout England for the party to appear at a day else Judgment shall be pronounced against him with which the Commons are to be acqnainted before the Proclamations are sent for Then the Return of the Proclamations to be reviewed and examined and if any Errors be therein new Proclamations are to be made in the next Shire only for the party to appear at a short day If they find no Errors in the Return then Judgment is to be pronounced and not before Thus it was in 21 R. 2. in Thomas Mortymors Case c. In 7 H. 4. in the Earl of Northumberlands Case But there needed no Articles to be drawn up Ex parte Dom. Regis out of the Impeachment of the Commons for the Suit is theirs and not the Kings Touching the Lord Treasurer First the Commons did swerve from the Ancient Course in this they delivered not their Accusation in writing he being absent Had it been in the open House an Impeachment by word of mouth had been sufficient and the Suit had been theirs but it being at a Committee how could the Lord Treasurer take notice of their Impeachment wherefore the Lords of necessity did draw up a Charge against him out of their Accusation and then it became the Kings Suit and they were abridged of their power to reply or demand Judgment Prout in Weston Gomeniz Case 1. R. 2. And Alice Peirce ibid. Neither was it now necessary for the Commons to be acquainted with the Delinquent's Answer or any of the Proceedings for that they neither demanded he might be put to his Answer before the Lords and them nor impeached by word in open House nor in Writing One of which is required in an Impeachment And the Lords they varied in this that they did mingle other Complaints with these of the Commons when each should have been apart of it self prout 43 E. 3. Sir Joh. at Lees Case Neither did the Lords anciently use to omit any part of the Commons Complaint and Accusation as they did the Imposition on the French-Wines And the Articles of the Charge they sent to the Lord Treasurer ought to have been examined ex parte Domini Regis prout in the former Precedents of 1 R. 2. The next Precedent is 7 R. 2. upon the Demand of the Commons against the Bishop of Norwich and others §. 5. Of Accusation by Complaint of private Persons I do not remember any Precedent of this manner of Accusation for publick Offences unless the Parties Complainant be particularly interessed therein yet I doubt not but such Complaints have been and may be received and the Parties proceeded against in Parliament or else that High Court should not have so much Authority to receive Information pro Domino Rege from private persons as the Inferiour Courts have But what hath been done shall appear I will omit all Complaints of particular wrongs evcept it be of Bribery Extortion or Oppression in Men of Authority Anno 43. E. 3. William Latimer exhibited his Petition in Parliament unto our Lord the King and to his Council shewing that he had the Wardship and Marriage of the Heir of Robert Latymer by mean Grant from the King and held the same until Monsieur John at Lee then Steward of the King's House sent a Serjeant at Arms to bring them to London and commanded him being come not to depart without his leave upon payment of 1000 l. and afterwards would not give him leave to depart until he had surrendred the Body of the said Heir and the King's Patent unto him the said Monsieur John at Lee and thereupon the said John was put to reason before the Lords c. no. 20 21. and also the said John was put to reason before them for this When he was Steward of the King's House he caused divers to be attached by their Bodies some by Serjeants at Arms and some otherwise as W. Latymer and others to be brought before the King's Council c. n. 22. and also for executing the Authority of Steward out of the Verge n. 23. and also for discharging out of Newgate by his own Authority and against the Judges Commandment Hugh Levenham an Approver who had appealed several men of Felonies c. n. 24. and also that he being sworn by the King's Councel did bargain with Nicholas Levayn for the Mannor of Cainham in Kent which the faid Nicholas claimed to hold during the Minority of John Staynton whereas the said John at Lee knew the same was never holden of the King in Chief of the Castle of Dover n. 25. These be the Particulars wherewith the said John at Lee was Charged It appeareth W. Latymer accused him at the first but not the rest and I imagine that the Commons accused him of the Second and other Particulars for that they are said somewhat generally and are offences against the Liberties of the Commons and also for that divers of the Commons were present at the hearing And for the Fourth and Fifth Particulars I conceive the King's Councel accused him thereof for that one is an Offence against the legal Proceedings of Justice which then was that of the Approver viz. He which accuseth any one of Felony c. should remain in Prison as well as the accused until Trial. Of later times the Accuser puts in Sureties to prosecute and the other Offence is a partiticular wrong done unto the King in his Revenues And had any private person accused him of this their Petitions would have been recorded as well as Latymer's But the Lords proceeded against him upon Latimer's Accusation and then upon the rest severally and they did not mingle one with another Anno 50 E. 3. The Commons accused and impeached W. Ellis n. 31. and afterwards John Botheil and W. Cooper exhibited their Bills against him to this effect To their Thrice Redoubted King and to his Sage Councel sheweth John Botheil of London That the Monday next after the Ascention in the Fortieth Year of our Lord the King that now is a Ship of Scotland in Pruse was chased by Tempest into Likebread whereof the Master's Name is Henry Luce Charged with divers Merchandizes c. and that the same day one William Savage Clerk and Servant to William Ellis by Command of the said William took of the said Ship for the Merchandizes not discharged there 17 Nobles and a Last of c. and because that W. Ellis knew that W. Cooper was to come to the Parliament and shew these and other Grievances in aid of the Merchants and also to shew how the great Prices of Herrings might be amended in aid of the whole Realm the said W. Ellis by false suggestion caused the said W. Cooper to be Arrested and put in Prison in