Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	error_n	reverse_v	rot_v	1,690	5	12.8480	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91243	A plea for the Lords: or, A short, yet full and necessary vindication of the judiciary and legislative power of the House of Peeres, and the hereditary just right of the lords and barons of this realme, to sit, vote and judge in the high Court of Parliament. Against the late seditious anti-Parliamentary printed petitions, libells and pamphlets of Anabaptists, Levellers, agitators, Lilburne, Overton, and their dangerous confederates, who endeavour the utter subversion both of parliaments, King and peers, to set up an arbitrary polarchy and anarchy of their own new-modelling. / By William Prynne Esquire, a well-wisher to both Houses of Parliament, and the republike; now exceedingly shaken and indangered in their very foundations.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1648 (1648)	Wing P4032; Thomason E430_8; ESTC R204735	72,921	83

this to the Lords not only against Peers but Commoners of which there are hundreds of presidents this very Parl Therefore the House of Lords hath the proper right of judicatory vested in them not the Commons who are rather informers prosecutors and Grand-Jury men to inform and impeach then Judges to hear censure or determine Seventhly those who are proper Judges in any Court of justice whiles the cause is judging sit in their * 25 E. 3. c. 2. 20 R 2. c. 3. 6 R. 2. c. 5. 14 H. 6. c. 3. ● R. 2. c. 3. 2 R. 2. c. 10. Robes covered on the bench not stand bare at the bar swear examine the witnesses in the cause not produce them or manage the evidence when the cause is fully heard argue and debate the businesse between themselves and give the definitive sentence But in cases that are to be tried judged in Parl the Lords only sit covered and in their Robes upon the Bench but the Comons stand bare at the Bar the Lords only swear and examine the witnesses and judge of their testimony the Commons only u Coke 4. Instit p. 24. produce the witnesses or presse and manage the evidence and when the businesse is fully heard the Lords only debate the businesse among themselves and give the finall Sentence and Judgment without the Cōmons and that both in cases of Comoners and Peers Therefore the Lords or house of Peers are sole Judges in Parl not the Cōmons And that they are and alwaies have been so de facto unlesse by way of Bil of Attainder or in such extraordinary cases when their concurrence hath been desired I shall prove by most clear and infallible evidence To pretermit the * Mr. Seldens Titles of Honor part 7. c. 5 p. 632 633 705 706. judgment of the Earls Barons in Parl in the case of Earl Goodwin for the murther of Alfred in K. Edw. Conf. reign before the Conquest and the judgment of the Barons the Lords in Parl against Tho Becket Arch-b of Can. in K. Hen. 2. raign cited by M. Selden of which you may chuse the same with the punctuall authority of Andr. Horne in his Mirror of Justices c. 1. § 2. forecited First in Pleas of the Crown and other Common Pleas plainly ●●able in Parl as well between Cōmoners as Peers the Pleas have been exhibited heard and judgement given upon them by the King and Lords joyntly or the King alone by which the Lords assent or by the Lords themselves without the Cōmons as is evident by the Parli Rolls and Pleas in Parl in K. Ed. 1. 2. 3. 4. Ric. 2. Hen. 4. 5. 6. where there are hundreds of instances to confirm it some of them printed in Sir Edw. Cokes 3 Instit c. 1 2. and M. St Johns Argument in Law upon the Bill of Attainder against the Earl of Strafford Secondly in all * 18 E. 1. rot Parl. t. 4 E. 3. n. 13. 21 E. 3. n. 65. 28 E. 3. n. 11 12. 50 E. 3. n. 48. 1 R. 2. n. 28 29 104. 2 R. 2. n. 36 37 31 32 33. Parl. 2. n. 21 to 27. 3 R. 2. n. 19 20 21. 7 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 23 24. 8 R. 2. n. 14 15. 13 R. 2. n. 15 16. 15 R. 2. 22 23. 17 R. 2. n. 13 14 15 19. 18 R. 2. n. 11 10 16. 21 R. 2. n. 25 55 to 66. 1 H. 4. n. 91. 2 H. 4 n. 47 48. 5 H. 4. n. 40. 6 H. 4. n. 31 61 62. 3 H. 5. n. 19. 10 H. 6. n. 51. Writs of Error brought in Parl by Peers or Cōmoners to reverse any erroneous judgements touching their reall or personall Estates lives or attainders The KING LORDS ONLY ARE JUDGES and the proceedings upon such Writs are ONLY BEFORE THE LORDS IN THE UPPER House secundum Legem co●suetudinem Parliamenti So Sr Ed. Coke in direct terms in his 4. Instit p. 21 22 23. where he produceth divers presidents of such writs of Error out of the Parl Rolls and present experience manifests as much in all the the writs of Error brought this Parl adjudged and determined by the King and Lords alone without the privity of interposition of the Cōmons A truth so clear that Lilburne himself in his Argument against the Lords Jurisidiction confesseth it and the Parl Rolls quoted in the Margine with sundry others resolve past all dispute If then the Lords be the sole Judges in all writs of Error concerning the goods estates free-holds inheritances lives and attainders of the Commoners of England notwithstanding the statute of Magna Charta c. 29. No Free-man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his Free-holder Liberties of Free-customes nor outlawed nor exiled neither will we passe upon him nor condemn him but by THE LAWFUL IUDGMENT OF HIS PEERS c. the grand and principall objection against their Iudicature then by the self-same reason they are and may lawfully proceed against them in all other civill or criminall causes especially breaches of ther own priviledges of which themselves are the sole and only Iudges the cases of Lilburne and Overton properly triable in Parliament Thirdly in all Petitions and complaints against Cōmoners for redresse of grievances the King and Lords are the sole and proper Tuns and Judges not the Cōmoners as appears by all the Parl Rolls in former times wherein we find in the beginning of every Parl some Assistants of the Lords house appointed by them to be receivers of the Petitions of England Ireland Wales Scotland others appointed receivers of the Petitions of Gascoyne other parts beyond the Seas and the Isles of Jersy and Gernsey c. And some Lords appointed tryers of those Petitions who had power given them to call the L d Chancellor Treasurer Steward Chamberlain the Judges Kings Serjeants and others to their assistance prescribing also by what day the Petitions should all be exhibited and the place where they should be examined All particular persons usually presenting all their grievances and petitions immediately to the King Lords without any addresse to the Cōmons by Petitions as now of late there being no Petitions of record in the Parl Rolls addressed immediately and originally to the Commons that I can find And towards the end of the Parl Rolls there is this Title usually The Petitions of the Cōmoners containing all Petitions of the Cōmons house for redresse of publick or particular injuries and grievances presented to the King in the Lords house and answered by the King alone with the consent of the Prelats Counts Barons with which answers the Commons rested satisfied whether granted or denied as ofttimes they were Of which you may read somthing in Sr E. Cokes 4. Instit p. 16. more in the Records themselves Fourthly in all criminal causes in Parl by way of accusation impeachment or indictment the King Lords were the proper Judges as is evident by Placita Coronae coram

awarded him to the custody of the Marshall and to make fine and ransome at the Kings pleasure Whereupon the Commons REQUIRED by way of petition that he might lose all his Offices and no longer be of the Kings Councell which the King granted The Commons not joyning at all with the Lords in his judgement neither could they so joyne he being a Peer And for the Lord Nevill in that Parliament num 33. he was only accused not judged by the Commons Sixthly The case of 2. H. 5. rot Parl. num 15. that Error is there assigned that the Lords gave judgement without Petition or assent of the Commons is a grosse mistake For the record only recites That Thomas Mountague Earle of Salisbury Sonne and Heire of Iohn Mountague Earle of Salisbury exhibited his petition in Parliament to reverse a judgement given against his said father in the Parliament at Westminster in the second year of King Henry the fourth Whereupon he exhibited certaine reversals of Judgements given in Parliament as making on his behalfe to the Lords consideration reversed for some errors assigned in those jadgements to wit one judgement given against Thomas heretofore Earle of Lancaster before King Edward the second at Pomfract the monday before the feast of the Annuntiation in the fifteenth yeare of his reigne and another Judgement against Roger de Mortymer late Earle of March in the Parliament of King Edward the third the Monday after the Feast of St. Katherine in the fourth yeare of his reigne at Westminster Which judgements being distinctly and openly read and fully understood Jo seemed TO THE KING and LORDS that the case of the death and execution of the said John late Earle of Sarum and of the judgement aforesaid against him given is not nor was like to the case of the executing of the said Thomas heretofore Earle of Lancaster nor to the case of the killing of Roger Earle of March nor to any judgement given against the said Thomas and Roger as aforesaid but that the judgement and declaration had and given against the said Iohn late Earle of Sarum WERE A GOOD JUST and LEGALL DECLARATION and JUDGEMENT Per quod CONSIDERATUM FUIT in praesenti Parliamento PER PRAEDICTOS DOMINOS tunc ibidem existentes DE ASSINSU dicti Domini nostri Regis quod praefatus nunc COMES Sarum NIHIL CAPIAT PER PETITIONEM aut prosecutionem suam praedictam Et ulterius TAM DOMINI SPIRITUALES QUAM TEMPORALE supradicti JUDICIUMET DECLARATIONEM praedicta versus dictum Ioannem quondam Comitem Sarum ut praem●ttitur habita five reddita DE ASSENSU IPSIUS DOMINI REGIS AFFIRMARUNT FORE ET ESSE BONA JUSTA ET REGALIA et ea pro hujusmodi EX ABUNDANTI DISCREVERUNT ADJUDICARUNT TUNC IBIDEM This is all that is mentioned in this Parliament Roll concerning this businesse It appeares by the Parliament Roll of 2 H. 4. num 30. That Thomas Holland Earl of Kent Iohn Holland Earle of huntingdo● Iohn Mountagne Earle of Sarum Thomas Lord de Dispencer and Ralph omely Knight were impeached of high treason before the King and Lords in Parliament for levying actuall Warre against the King to destroy the King and his Subjects and for this taken and beheade and hereupon ALL ●●E LORDS TEMPORALL BEING IN PARLIAMENT BY ASSENT OF THE KING DECLARED AND ADJVDGED all the said persons TRAITORS for leavying Warre against the King and that as Traytors they should forfeit all the lands they had in fee simple the 5 day of Jannary the first yeare of the raigne of the King or after according to the Law of the Land with all their goods and chattells notwithstanding they were slaine upon the said levying of Warre without processe of Law So this Record To reverse this judgement was this Petition of Thomas Earle o● Sarisbury in 2. H. 5. exhibited without the errour assigned as appeares by the Par●iament roll but if it were that the Lords only gave Judgement without Petition or assent of the Commons as Sir Edward Cooke imagins 〈◊〉 the King and Lords who upon solemned bate over-ruled the errour abuses and Petitions and found this judg●ment and Declaration of 2. H. 4. given by the Lords alone with the Kings assent without the Commons TO BE GOOD JVST and LEGALL as they did ex abund●nti is a most undeniable proofe of the King and Lords sole right of JVDGEING and DECLARING HIGH TREASON in Parliament without the Commons as well in case of Commoners as Lords Ralph Lomely being but a Commoner and Knight though the rest were Peers and yet all joyntly adjudged Traytors and declared such only by the King and Lords without the Commons and the Judgement assured to be good by the Commons who in the Parliament of 13. H. 4. num 19. Petitioned the Iohn Lomley might be restored by act of Parliament and made capable to inherit his fathers lands thus attainted to which the King by ASSENT OF THE LORDS SPIRITVALL and TEMPORALL consented Seventhly the Parliament Roll of 28. H. 6. num 18. c. containes onely an Impeachment of High Treason against the King and other great misdemeanors against the Kingdome and wrongs to particular persons comprised by way of Articles in two distinct Bills brought up by the Commons and presented by William Tresham their Speaker to the King in the Lords House the 7. day of February against William de la Pole Duke of Suffolke to which they desired the Duke might give in his Answer by a certaine day which he did absolutly denying the Treason against the King and denying and excusing himselfe of the rest without putting himselfe upon the Tryall of his Peeres The Chiefe Iustice thereupon the 14. day of March by the Kings command asked this Question of the LORDS WHAT ADVISE THEY WOULD GIVE THE KING what is to doe futrher in this matter which advise was deferred till Monday then next following whereon nothing was done in that matter On Tuesday the 17. of March the King sent for all the Lords Spirituall and Temporall then being in Towne being 42. in all into his Inner Chamber within his Palace of Westminster where when they were all assembled hee then sent for the Duke thither who comming into the Kings presence kneeled downe and continued kneeling till the Chancellour of England had delivered the Kings command to him and demanded of him what he said to the Commons Articles not having put himselfe upon his Peerage Whereupon the Duke denyed all the Articles touching the Kings Person and state of the Realme as false and scandalous And so not departing from his said Answers submitted himselfe wholly to the Kings Rule and Governance without putting himselfe upon his Peerage Where thus the Chancellour told him That as touching the great and horrible things contained in the first Bill the King holdeth him neither declared nor charged And as touching the second Bill containing misprisons which are not criminall the King by force of his submission by his owne advise and

Earle of Richmond adhered to the French against his Allegiance This Paradox therefore of his is against all Statutes Law-Books and Presidents whatsoever and Magna Charta it selfe There is onely one objection more of moment remaining Object 3. which is this If the House of Peers may without the Commons fine and imprison Commoners then if their fine and imprisonment be unjust and illegall they shall bee remedilesse there being no superiour Courr to appeale unto which will bee an intollerable slavery and grievance not to bee indured among free-borne people I answer Answ first that no injustice shall or ought to be presumed in the highest Court of Iustice till it bee apparantly manifested Secondly If any such censure be given the party as in Chancery upon just grounds shewed may Petition the House of Peers for a reveiw and new-hearing of the cause which they in justice neither will nor can deny and if they doe then the party grieved may petition the House ef Commons to interceed in his behal●e to the Peers for a rehearing but to discharge or free any Commoner judicially censured by the Lords I have hitherto met with no President in former Parliaments nor power in the House of Commons to doe it who cannot reverse Euro●ous judgements in any inferiour Courts by writ of Errour but the Lords alone much lesse then the judgements of the Higher House of Peers which is par●mount them Though I conceive the House of Peers being the Superiour Authority and onely Iudicatory in Parliament may relieve or release any Commoners unjustly imprisoned or censured by the Commons house or any of their Committees and ought in justice to doe it or else there will be the same mischiefe or a greater in admitting the House of Commons to bee judges of Commoners if there bee no appeale from them to the Lords in case their sentences bee illegall or unjust Thirdly This mischiefe is but rare Cook 4. instit p. 21 22. 4. ● 3. n. 14. Brook and C●nmptons jurisdiction and all Statutes for repealing former Parliaments Acts Iudgements or Attaindors and you may object the same against a sentence given or Law made in Parliament by the King and both Houses because there is no appeale from it or redresse of it but onely in the next Parliament that shall be summoned by petition And there is a greater greevance in ill publique Acts which concerne many then in ●● judgements which concerne but one or two particular persons which yet cannot be repealed but by another Parliament as the Errours and decrees of one generall Counsell cannot bee rectified or reversed but by and till another Generall Counsell meets to doe it The same mischiefe was and is in Errous Iudgements and Decrees given in the Kings Bench Chancery and illegall commitments there for which there is no reliefe out of Parliament but towait till a Parliament be called Finally Hee that suffers by and under an unjust censure will have the comfort of a good Conscience to support him till he bee relieved and therefore he e Luk. ●1 19. 1 Pet 3. 14. He. ●0 32 33 34. must possesse his soule with Patience and rejoyce under his crosse and not raile murmur and play the Bedlam as Lilburne and his Companions Overton Larner and other Sectaries doe against our f ● Pet. 2. 15. to 21 c. 4. ●6 I●●● 53. Saviours owne precept and example then God in his due season will g Psal 3● 37. 46. relieve right them in a legall way whereas their impatience raving and libellous railing Pamphlets and Petitions not savouring of a Christian meek and humble spirit will but create them new troubles expose them unto just and heavy censures and rob them both of the comfort and glory of all their former suffrings against Law and Right Having answered these Objections I shall now earnestly desire all Lilburnes and Overtons seduced Disciples whether Members or others seriously to weigh and consider the premises that so they may see how grossely they have been deluded abused and misled by these two Ignes fatui or New-lights of the Law and Circumscribers of the Lords and Parliaments Iurisdictions which God knowes they no more know nor understand then Balams Asse as the premises demonstrate and I shall seriously adjure them if they have any grace shame or remainder of ingenuity left in them ingeniously to recant and publiquely to retract all their seditiou● rayling Libels and Scurrilous Invectives against the Lords undoubted Priviledges Iurisdiction and Iudicature which I have here unanswerably made good by undeniable Testimonies Histories Records and the grounds of policy and right reason which they are unable to gaine say to undeceive the many ignorant over-credulous poore soules they have corrupted and misled to the publique destrubance of our Kingdomes Peace Isay 9. 16. and let all their followers consider well of our Saviours caution Mat. 15. 14. If the blinde lead the blinde as these blinde-guides doe you both of them shall fall into the ditch and there perish together O consider therefore what I have here written to undeceive your judgements and reforme your practise consider that Dominion Principality Regality Magistracy and Nobility are founded in the very Law of Nature and Gods owne institution who subjected not onely all beasts and living creatures to the soveraigne Lordship of man to whom hee gave Dominion over them Gen. 1. 28 29. c. 9. 2 3 5. by vertue whereof men enjoy farre greater Priviledges then beasts but likewise one man unto another as i Gen. 3. 16. Exod. 20. 12. Ephes 5. 22. to 30. c. 6. 1. to 10. Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Tit. 3. 1. Col. 3. 20 22. 1 Pet. ● 13 14 18 c. 3. 15. Heb. 13. 17. Iosh 1. 16 17 18. Matth. 8 9. children to their Parents Wives to their Husbands Servants to their Masters Subjects to their Kings Princes Magistrates Souldiers to their Captaines Mariners to their Ship-Masters Schollers to their Tutors People to their Ministers which order if denied or disturbed will bring absolute and speedy confusion in all Families Corporations States Kingdomes Armies Garrisons Schooles Churches and dissolve all humane Societies which subsist by order and subordination onely to one another and seeing Monarchy Royalty Principality Nobility yea Titles of Honour and Nobility as Kings Princes Dukes Lords c. are as ancient almost as the world it selfe universally received approved among all Nations whatsoever under heaven See M●st●r Seldens Titles of honour Dr. Hu●●●●es and others of Nob●l●ty Catane●s C●ologus gloriae mundi and honoured with speciall Priviledges as not only all k● eminent Authours and experience manitest but these ensuing Scripture Texts Gen. 12. 15. c. 14. 1. to 10. c. 17. 6. 16. c. 20. 2. c. 21 22 23. c. 25. 16. c. 26. 1. 8. 26. c. 36. 15 16 17 18 29 30 31 to ●3 c. 9. 1 2. c. 41. 40 to 47. c. 47. 2● 26. Exod. 1. 8. Numb 20. 14 c. c 21 1 1● 21 33. c. 22. 7 10 14 15 40. c. 23. 17. c. 7. 2 3 10. c. 16. 2. c. 27. 2. c. 32. 2. Dent. 17. 14 15 16. Iosh 1. 16 17 18. c. 5. 1. c. 8. 9 10 11 12. Iudg. 9. 6 18. 1 Sam. 8. 5 6. 2 sam 11. 2. 1 Kin. 4. 34. c. 10 15 28 29. c. 20. 16. c. 23. 22. Iob. 3. 14. c. 36. 7. Psal 2. 2. 10. Ps 62. 12 14 29. Ps 72. 10. Ps 102. 15. Ps 136. 17 18. Ps 138. 4. Prov. 8. 15 16. Prov. 30. 31. Eccles 10 16 17. Iudg. 3. 5. c. 16. 8 1 Sam. 5. 11. c. 29. 2 6 7. Dan. 4. 36. c. 5. 9 10 23. c. 6. 27. Mat. 8. 9 Mar. 6. 21. c. 10. 42. 1 Cor. 8. 5. Rom. 61. 1 2 3 4. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. Tit. 3. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14 15. Acts 9. 27. which I wish our Sectaries Lovellers and Lilburnists to consider and study with the others forecited it will be a meer desperate folly and madnesse in any man to prove Antipodes to this instituiion of God Nature Nations to run quite contrary to all meu and to levell the head neck shoulders to the feet the tallect Cedars to the lowest Shru●s the roofe of every building to the foundation stones the Su●ne Moone Starres Heavens to the very Earth and center and even men themselves to the meanest beasts I shall therefore conclude with Saint Pauls serious admonition which these refractory persons have quite forgotten Rom. 13. 1 2 3. Let every soul be subject to the higher Power for there is no po●er but of God the powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therfore resisteth much more oppugneth abolisheth the Power resisteth oppugneth abolisheth THE ORDINANCE OF GOD and t●ey that resist oppugne or endeavour to abolish these powers shall receive to themselves DAMNATION for Rulers are not a terrour to good workes but to the evill and wherefore YE MVST NEEDS BE SVBIECT NOT ONLY FOR WRATH but also FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE And for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually on this very thing Render therefore to all such higher Powers their dues tribute to whom ribute custome to whom custome feare to whom feare HONOVR to whom HONOVR IS DUE which Saint Peter likewise seconds almost in the selfe-same words which you may doe well to peruse and study 1 Pet. 2. 12. to 20. and then you will never dare to question or dispute any more the Power Iudicatory Priviledges of the Right Honourable House of Peers much lesse to Revile and Libell against their persons as now you doe to the infinite Scandall of your Schismaticall faction and Religion it selfe which you professe onely in shew but deny in deed and practise FINIS

Iudicature and this is all which is proved by 15. E. 2. Hugh Spencers case who was judged and banished by an Act of Parliament intituled Exilium Hugonis le Spencer printed in old Magna Chartaes as Sir Edward Cooke himselfe reports in Calvins case 7. Report f. 11. b. and the Lord Audlyes case 12. E. 2. is the same the Commons having no right to judge them being Peers by the very * See Cooke 2. Instit f. 49. 50. 51. Statute of Magna Charta c. 29. but only the Peer except in a Legislative way by Act or Bill Secondly That in all cases of difficultie where the King shall please to demand the advise and opinions of both Houses of Parliament joyntly there both of them may and ought to joyne in delivering their opinions and Judgements of the case or thing propounded and this is all that * Cooke 3. I●q● p 7. where is Case of ●●grave is cited at large Sir Nicholas de Seagraves case proves 31. E. 1. rot 33. Who being charged in Parliament in presence of the King Earles Barons and OTHERS OF THE KINGS COUNCEL not the Commons or Burgesses but the Iudges and Kings learned Councell at Law * See the Free-holders Grand Inquest 2. 39. 40. 41. 42. and Privy Councell who were assistants to the Lords as I conceive and others of his Privy Councell which Sir Edward Cooke would have to expresse the Commons in Parliament then and there present that the King in the wars of Scotland being among his enemies Nicholas Seagrave his leigman who held of the King by Homage and fealty and served him for his ayd in that warre did maliciously move discord and contention without cause with John de Crombewell charging him with many enormous crimes and offered to prove it upon his body To whom the said John answered that hee would answer him in the Kings Court c. and thereupon gave him his faith After which Nicholas withdrew himselfe from the Kings host and ayd leaving the King in danger of his enemies and adjourned the said John to defend himselfe in the Court of the King of France and prefixed him a certaine day and so as much as in him was subjected and submitted the Dominion of the King and Kingdome to the subjection of the King of France and to effect this hee tooke his journey towards Dover to passe over into France All which he confessed and submitted himselfe therein de alto et basso to the Kings pleasure And hereupon the King willing HABERE AVISAMENIUM to have the advise of the EARLES BARONS LORDS magnatum and OTHERS OF HIS COUNCELL enjoyned them upon the Homage fealty and allegiance wherewith they were obliged to him quod ipsi fideliter CONSVLERENT they should faithfully ADVISE HIM what punishment should be inflicted for such a fact thus confessed Qui omnes habito super hoc diligenti tractatu avisamento c. Who all having had thereupon diligent debate and advise having considered and understood all things contained in the said fact DICVNT not by way of Iudgement judicially pronounced but of answer to the Kings question propounded and as their opinion of the cause Said that this fact DESERVES losse of life and members c. So as this offence notes Sir Edward Cooke was then adjudged in Parliament to be High Treason But under his favour First here was no Judgement at all given against the party himselfe but only an opinion and advise touching his case not pending judicially in Parliament by way of Inditement or Impeachment but voluntarily proposed by the King in answer to the Kings question and so it can be no proofe of any actuall proper Judicature vested in both Houses Secondly For ought appeares this question was only propounded to the Earles Lords Barons and the Kings Councell that assisted them and so only to the House of Peers not to the commons and answered resolved only by them * See the Freeholders grand Inquest p. 39. 40. 41. 42. aliorum de Concilio suo not expressing nor including the Commons as I apprehend being never so intitled in any Parliament Records for ought I can find And then it followes that the LORDS ONLY IN THAT AGE were the Judges even of Commoners cases Thirdly Admit the Commons were included yet it proves only a right of advising and delivering their opinions with the Lords when required by the King not of judging or pronouncing sentence Fourthly Sir Edward Cooke citing this president to prove That both Houses together have power of Iudicature must grant that even in 33. E. 1. there were two distinct Houses of Parliament who upon speciall occasions as now at conferences c. met and advised together and therefore the division of the Houses was before Edward the third his raigne and very probable as ancient as this summoning of Knights Citizens and Burgesses of the Parliament which some make no ancienter then King Henry the first or King Henry the third In the 40. yeare of his reigne Father to King Edward the first So as this president makes quite against the Levellers and Lilburnians designes The Freeholders Garnd Inquest p. 13. 14. 15. and opinions Fourthly Sir Iohn at Lees case 42. E. 3. num 20. said to be adjudged by the Lords and Commons is somewhat mistaken For the record only mentions That the 21 day of May the King gave thanks to the Lords and Commons for their coming and ayd granted on which day ALL THE LORDS SVNDRY OF THE COMMONS dined with the ●ing After which dinner Sir Iohn at Lee was brought before the King LORDS COMMONS next aforesaid who dined with the King to answer certaine objections made against him by William Latymer about the wardship of Robert Latymer that Sir John being of power had sent for him to London where by duresse of imprisonment he inforced the said William to surrender his estate unto him which done some other Articles were ob●ected against the said Sir Iohn Of which for that he could not sufficiently purge himselfe HE was committed to the Tower of London there to remaine till he had made fine and ransome at the Kings pleasure and command given to the Constable of the Tower to keep him accordingly And then the said Lords and Commons departed After which he was brought before the Kings Councell at Westminster which COVNSELL ORDERED the said ward to be released into the Kings hands So as this record proves not this judgement was given in the Parliament house nor that the Lords and Commons adjudged Sir Iohn but rather the King and his Councell in the presence of the Lords and Commons Fifthly The judgement given against the Lord Latymer 15. E. 3. Parl. rot num 27. which was for his default in government against the profit of the King and Realm procuring of grants to the destruction of the Staple and Towne of Calayes and levying Impositions upon woolls was given in full Parliament BY THE BISHOPS and LORDS who

not reporting him to the advice of the Lords nor by way of judgement for he is not in place of judgement putteth you to his rule and governance that before the first of May next comming hee should absent himselfe out of the Kingdome of England and all other his Dominions in France or elsewhere for five yeares space and that hee nor no man for him should shew or waite any malice nor hate to any person of what degree soever of the Commons in the Parliament in no manner of wise for any thing done to him in this Parliament or elsewhere And forthwith Viscount Peamont in behalfe of the said LORDS both Spirituall and Temporall and BY THEIR ADVICE ASSENT AND DESIRE said and declared to the Kings Highnesse that this that so was decreed and done by his Excellencie concerning the person of the said Duke PROCEEDED NOT BY TH●IR ADVICE AND COVNSELS but was done by the Kings owne demeanour and rule Wherefore they besought the King that this their saying MIGHT BE ENACTED IN THE PARLIAMENT ROLL FOR THEIR MORE DECLARATION HEREAFTER WITH THIS PROTESTATION THAT IT SHOVLD NOT BE NOR TVRNE IN PREJVDICE NOR DEROGATION OF THEM THEIR HEYRS NE OF THEIR SVCCESSOVRS IN TIME COMMING but that they may HAVE AND INJOY THEIR LIBERTY AS THEY OR ANY OF THEIR ANCESTORS PREDECESSORS HAD AND ENIOYED BEFORE THIS TIME This is the sum of this large record which makes nothing to the purpose for which it is cited that it is errour when both Houses joyne not in ●udgement For first here is nothing but an impeachment onely by the Commons of a Peere who ought to be tryed judged by his Peerage not by Commoners Secondly there was no judgement given in Parliament in this case but only a private Award made by the King out of the Parliament House in his owne Chamber in presence of the Lords Thirdly the Lords entred a speciall protestation against it as not made by their advice or consent Fourthly they en●er a speciall claime in the Parliament Roll for the preservation of their Right and Freedome of Peerage for hereafter both of being tryed and judged onely by their Peeres in Parliament and so an expresse resolution that they in Parliament are and ought to be Iudges not the Commons The last Records I have cited at large lest Sir Edward Cookes briefe quotation and mis-recitall of them should deceive the credulous or ignorant Reader Eighthly the cases of Sir Giles Monpesson Sir John Michell Viscount S. Alban and the Earle of Middlesex whom the Commons onely impeached and the Lords alone without the Commons votes or presence judged and sentenced are direct proofes that the power of Iudicature and Censure as well of impeached Commoners as Lords resides onely in the Lords House the Commons being but generall Inquisitors to search out and present both Lords and Commoners publike offences to the Lords to whom they transmit the charge and witnesses the Lords the onely Iudges to heare and determine the charge examine the witnesses upon oath and passe and record the sentence and see it executed and no more Iudges in the Parliament then the grand enquest are Iudges at the Assizes or Sessions The second and principall objection insisted upon by that Ignoramu● Object 2. Lilburne and his disciples the Levellers is the Statute of Magna Charta chap. 29. That no Free man shall be imprisoned outlawed exiled or any other way destroyed Nor we shall not passe upon him nor condemne him but BY THE LAWFVLL IVDGMENT OF HIS PEERES or BY THE LAW OF THE LAND Whence thus they argue The Lords in Parliament are not Commoners Peers but the Commons only therefore they cannot be judged in Parliament by the Lords but by the Commons alone and if Peers there judge Commoners it is a tyranny and usurpation even against Magna Charta it selfe though it be in case of priviledge To take away this grand seeming objection Answ and give it a satisfactory answer I say First in generall that there is scarce one Parliament ever since Magna Charta was first confirmed but the Lords have sentenced and given judgment against some Commoners capitally or penally in body or purse or both without the Commons and did so doubtlesse before Magna Charta was made as I have already manifested yet never did the Commons in any one of those Parliaments till this present complain of it as a violation of Magna Charta or a tyrannicall usurpation as Lilburne and Overton stile it but acknowledged it as a just right in the Lords even in 3. Caroli it selfe when the Petition of Right was passed in the Lords Iudgment and Sentence against Doctor Manwaring a Commoner impeached by the Commons And therefore for this one Ignoramus alone against the judgements of all the Commons in Parliament in all ages to averre this a breach of Magna Charta for imprisoning and fining him for the highest affront and breach of priviledge over offered to any Parliament is the extremity of ignorance malice and singularity Secondly I answer that the Statute of Magna Charta extendeth not to nor was ever intended of the high Court of Parliaments Iudgements and Proceedings but onely to the proceedings and Iudgements in the Kings great Courts of Iustice at Westminster Hall the Exchequer his Privy Councell and other inferiour Courts held before Judges Iustices of Assize and other Officers as is evident by comparing this objected Chapter with c. 11 12 13 14 18. 28 ●0 3● 37. by the Statutes of 25. E. 3. Stat. 5. c. 4. 28. E. 3. c. 3. 37. E. 3. ● 18. 38. E. 3. c. 9. 42. E. 3. c. 3. 17. ●2 c. 6. and the Petition of Right it selfe 3. Caroli which so expound it there being never any complaint against the Parliament it selfe or House of Peeres in any age for breach of Magna Charta in censuring or imprisoning Commoners till now Therefore this misapplying of this Law to the Parliament and House of Peers is a grosse oversight Thirdly the very literall sence of this Law is much mistaken by the Objectors For that any Freeman of England is a Peer to another Freeman quatenus such a one within this Law though of an higher degree in point of honour dignity office and estate and this clause * 〈…〉 No Freeman shall be imprisoned and but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers extends onely to exclude villaines and those who are not Freeholders from being Iudges of Freemen and Freeholders in tryalls by Iury whence the Writs to the Sheriffes to summon Iurors require them alwayes to returne Liberos Legales homines not to exclude Lords or Peeres who are Freemen in the higest degree to be Iudges of Commoners who are Freemen So as the Argument from the true meaning of this Law can be but this villaines and those who are no Freemen are not to be Iudges or impannelled in Iuries to condemne Freemen because they are not their Peeres nor Freemen as well as they Therefore