Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	baron_n	knight_n	lord_n	3,870	5	4.7067	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38203	Articles of accusation, exhibited by the Commons House of Parliament now assembled, against Sr. John Bramston Knight, Sr. Robert Berkley Knight, justices of His Majesties Bench, Sr. Francis Crawley Knight, one of the justices of the Common-Pleas, Sr. Humphrey Davenport Knight, Sr. Richard Weston Knight, and Sr. Thomas Trevor Knight, barons of His Majesties Exchequer	England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.; Bramston, John, Sir, 1577-1654.; Berkeley, Robert, Sir, 1584-1656.; Crawley, Francis, Sir, 1573 or 4-1649.; Davenport, Humphrey, Sir, 1566-1645.; Weston, Richard, Sir, 1579?-1652.; Trevor, Thomas, Sir, 1586-1656.	1641 (1641)	Wing E2521; ESTC R6725	30,776	51

such case your Majestie is the sole Iudge both of the danger and when and how the same is to bee prevented and avoyded Iohn Brampston Iohn Finch Humphrey Davenport Iohn Denham Richard Hutton William Iones George Crooke Thomas Trevor George Vernon Robert Berkley Francis Crawley Richard Weston 3 That he then being one of the Iustices of the said Court of Common-pleas delivered an opinion in the Exchequer Chamber against Iohn Hampden Esquire in case of Ship-money that hee the said Iohn Hampden upon the matter and substance of the case was chargeable with the money then in question a Copie of which proceedings and judgement the Commons of this present Parliament have already delivered to your Lordships 4 That hee then being one of the Justices of the said Court of Common-pleas declared and published in the Exchequer Chamber and Westminster Circuits where he went Judge That the Kings Right to Ship-money was so inherent a Right in the Crown as an Act of Parliament could not take it away And with divers malitious speeches enveighed against threatned and discountenanced such as refused to pay Ship-money All which opinions and judgements contained in the first second and third Articles are destructive to the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme the Subjects right of propertie and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament and to the Petition of Right which said resolutions and Petition of Right were well known to him And the said Commons by protestation saving to themselves only the Liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Francis Crawley and also of replying to the answer that he the said Sir Francis Crawley shall make unto the said Articles or any of them or of offering proofe of the premisses or of any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them as the Case shall according to the course of Parliaments require Doe pray that the said Sir Francis Crawley one of the Justices of the said Court of Common-pleas may bee put to answer to all and every the premisses and that such proceedings examinations trialls and judgements may bee upon every of them had and used as is agreeable to Law and Justice Articles of the House of Commons in the name of themselves and of all the Commons of England against Sir Humphrey Davenport Knight Lord chiefe Baron of his Majesties Court of Exchequer impeaching him as followeth THat whereas in the moneth of October in the fourth yeare of his Majesties Reigne the Farmours and Officers of the Custome-house having seized great quantities of Currants being the goods of Samuel Vassall Merchant and having conveyed them into certaine Store-houses at the Custome-house and detained them because the said Samuel Vassall refused to pay an imposition of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of the said Currants pretended to be due and demanded by the said Farmours and Officers on his Majesties behalfe for the said Currants whereas no such imposition was due or payable for the same but the said imposition was and is against the Lawes of this Realme And whereas also in Michaelmas Terme in the said fourth yeare of his Majesties Reigne his Majesties then Attorney generall exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer against the said Samuel Vassall setting forth that King James by his Letters Patents dated tertio Novem. in the second yeare of his Reigne did command the said imposition of 5. s. 6. d. upon every hundred weight of Currants should bee demanded and received And that his Majestie that now is by his Letters Patents dated the six and twentieth day of July in the second yeare of his Reigne did by advise of his Privie Councell declare his will and pleasure be that Subsidies Customes and Impost should be levied in such manner as they were in the time of King James and the same and the Farmes thereof to continue untill it might receive a setling by Parliament and commanded the levying and receiving the same accordingly and that the said Samuel Vassall before the said first day of October then last before the said Information exhibited did bring into the port of London in ships foure thousand six hundred thirty eight hundred weight of Currants and that Richard Carmarthen Surveyour in the said port of London the said first day of October demanded of the said Samuel Vassall the said Imposition of five shillings six pence for every hundred weight of the said Currants and that the said Samuel Vassall refused to pay the said imposition and unjustly detained it from the King To which Information the said Samuel Vassall appeared and pleaded the Statute of Magna Charta and the Statute of De Tallagio non concedendo and that he was a Subject borne under the Kings Allegiance and a Merchant of London using that trade and that the said summe of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of Currants was and is malum taluetum and not antiqua seu recta consuetudo and that it was imposed without assent of Parliament to which Plea the said Attourney Generall demurred in Law and the said Samuel Vassall joyned in demurer with him and when the said cause came to bee argued viz. in Trinity Terme in the sixth yeare of his Majesties Reigne the said Sir Humphrey Davenport being then Lord chiefe Baron of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer did contrary to his oath and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme and to the great impoverishment of the said Samuel Vassall publickly deny to heare the Counsell of the said Samuel Vassall to argue for him and said that the Case of the said Samuel Vassall would fall under the same rule with the case of one Bates and therefore was already judged and when the Councell of the said Samuel Vassall answering that they had nothing to doe with Bates his Case but desired to argue for M. Vassall the said Sir Humphrey Davenport replied that they knew the opinion of the Court and should be heard no further and said that the King was in possession and that they meaning the said Court of Exchequer would keep him in possession And the said Sir Humphrey Davenport shortly after did together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer imprison the said Samuel Vassall for not paying such summes of money as were pretended by the said Officers of the Custome-house to bee due to his Majestie and did delay the said Samuel Vassall from time to time from having restitution of his said goods being often in Court moved thereto with intention to force the said Samuel Vassall to pay the said unlawfull imposition and did also give his opinion and judgement upon the said Information for the King and against the said Samuel Vassall and by severall orders for that purpose made did continue the possession of the said goods in the King and the said Samuel Vassall could never obtaine any restitution at all of his said goods whereas it

to compell those who are of able body and of able estates to arme themselves and such as should not be able of bodies but of ability in estate to assesse them according to their estates to contribute towards the charge of arraying and arming others being able of body and not able in estate to arme themselves And such persons as should be contrariant to commit to prison there to remaine untill the King should take further order therein And whereas the Earle of Exeter by vertue of his Majesties Commission to him directed for the arraying and arming of a certaine number of persons in the County of Northampton hath assest William Pargiter being a man unfit of body for that service but being of estate and ability fit to contribute amongst others to pay the summe of five shillings towards the arraying and arming of others of able bodies and wanting ability to array and arme themselves And whereas we have received information from the said Earle that the said William Pargiter hath not onely in a wilfull and disobedient manner refused to pay the said money assessed upon him towards so important a service to the disturbance and hinderance of the necessary defence of this kingdome but also by his ill example hath mis-led many others and as we have just cause to beleeve hath practised to seduce others from that ready obedience which they owe and would otherwise have yeelded to his Majesties just command for the publike defence of his person and kingdom which we purpose with all convenient speed to enquire further of and examine These are therefore to will and require you to take into your custody the persons of the said William Pargiter and Samuel Danvers and them safely to keepe prisoners till further order from this Board or untill by due course of Law they shall be delivered Yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley being desired to baile the said Pargiter and Danvers remitted them where they remained prisoners till the ninth of November last or thereabouts although the said Jennings Pargiter and Danvers on all and every the said returnes were cleerly baileable by Law and the Councell of the said Jennings Pargiter and Danvers offered in Court very sufficient baile And he the said Sir Robert Berkley being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench denied to grant his Majesties Writs of Habeas Corpus to very many others his Majesties subjects and when he had granted the said Writs of Habeas Corpus to very many others his Majesties subjects and on the returne no cause appeared or such onely as was clearly baileable by Law yet he remanded them where they remained prisoners very long which said deferring to grant the said Writs of Habeas Corpus and refusals and delayes to discharge prisoners or suffer them to be bailed contained in this Article are destructive to the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament and to the petition of Right which said resolutions and petition of Right were well knowne to him the said Sir Robert Berkley and were resolved on and enacted when he was the Kings Serjeant at Law and Attendant in the Lords House in Parliament 11 That wheras there was a cause depending in the Court Christian at Norwich betweene Samuel Booty Clerke and 〈◊〉 Collard for 2 s in the l. for tithes for rents and houses in Norwich and the said Collard moved by his Councell in the Court of Kings Bench for a prohibition to stay proceedings in the Court Christian at Norwich and delivered into the said Court of Kings Bench his suggestions that the said cause in the said Court Christian was onely for tythes for rents of houses in Norwich which was determinable by the Common Law onely yet hee the said Sir Robert Berkley being one of the Justices of the said Court of Kings Bench and sitting in the said Court deferred to grant a Prohibition to the said Court Christian in the said cause although the Councell did move in the said Court many severall times and severall termes for a Prohibition And he the said Sir Bobert Berkley deferred to grant his Majesties writ of Prohibition to severall other Courts on the motions of divers others of his Majesties subjects where the same by the Lawes of this Realme ought to have been granted contrary to the Laws of this Realme and his owne knowledge All which words opinions and actions were so spoken and done by him the said Sir Robert Berkley traiterously and wickedly to alienate the hearts of his Majesties liege people from his Majestie and to set a division betwixt them and to subvert the fundamentall Lawes and established government of his Majesties Realme of England For which they doe impeach him the said Sir Robert Berkley one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench of high treason against our Soveraigne Lord the King his Crowne and Dignity and of the misdemeanours above-mentioned And the said Commons by protestation saving to themselves onely the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Robert Berkley and also of replying to the answer that he the said Sir Robert Berkley shal make to the said Articles or any of them or of offering proofe of the premisses or any other impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them as the Case shall according to the course of Parliaments require Doe pray that the said Sir Robert Berkley one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench may be put to answer to all and every the premisses and that such proceedings examinations trialls judgements and executions may be upon every of them had and used as is agreeable to Law and Justice Articles of the House of Commons in the name of themselves and all the Commons of England against Sir Iohn Brampston Knight Lord chiefe Iustice of the Court of Kings Bench impeaching him as followeth 1. THat the said Sir Iohn Brampston then being Lord Chiefe Iustice of the Court of Kings Bench and having taken an oath for the due administration of justice to his Majesties liege people according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme did on or about the last of November 1635. subscribe his name to an opinion in haec verba I am of opinion that as where the benefit doth more peculiarly redound to the good of the Ports or Maritime ports as in case of Pyracie or Depredations upon the Seas there the charge hath beene and may be lawfully imposed upon them according to presidents of former times so where the good and safety of the kingdome in generall is concerned and the whole kingdome in danger of which his Majestie is the onely Iudge there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the realme in generall this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason 2 That hee the said Sir Iohn Brampston then being Lord cheife Iustice of the Court of Kings Bench about the Moneth of February

1635. did subscribe an extrajudiciall opinion in answer to questions in a letter from his Majestie which letter questions and answer follow in haec verba Charles R. When the good and safetie of the Kingdome in generall is concerned and the whole kingdome in danger whether may not the King by writ under the great Seale of England command all the Subjects of this kingdome at their charge to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men Victuall and Munition and for such time as hee shall thinke fit for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome from such danger and perill and by Law compell the doing thereof in case of refusall or refractorinesse And whether in such case is not the King the sole Judge both of the danger and when and how the same is to be prevented and avoided C. R. May it please your most excellent Majestie We have according to your Majesties command severally every man by himselfe and all of us together taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your Majestie and inclosed in your Royall letter and wee are of opinion that when the good and safety of the kingdome in generall is concerned and the whole kingdome in danger your Majestie may by writ under the great Seale of England command all the Subjects of this your kingdome at their charge to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men Victuall and Munition and for such time as your Majestie shall thinke fit for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome from such danger and perill and that by Law your Majestie may compell the doing thereof in case of refusall or refractorinesse And we are also of opinion that in such case your Majesty is the sole Judge both of the danger and when and how the same is to bee prevented and avoided John Brampston John Finch Humphrey Davenport John Denham Richard Hutton William Jones George Crooke Thomus Trevor George Vernon Robert Berkley Francis Crawley Richard Weston Which said opinions contained in the first and second Articles are destructive to the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme the subjects right of property and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament and to the petition of right 3 That he the said Sir John Brampston then Lord chief Justice of the Court of Kings Bench about Trinity Terme 1637. refused to baile or discharge Alexander Jennings prisoner in the Fleet brought by Habeas Corpus to the barre before him the returne of this Commitment being two severall warrants from the Lords of the Councell dated the fifth of November 1635. the first expressing no cause the other for not paying messengers fees and untill he should bring certificate that he had paid his Assessement for ship-money in the County of Bucks And the said Sir John Brampston the first warrant being onely read then said The cause of this Commitment did not appeare and it was not fit for every Goaler to be made acquainted by the Lords of the Councell why they committed and therfore remitted him and in Michaelmas Terme after the said Jennings being brought by another Habeas Corpus as aforesaid and the same returned yet hee the said Sir John Brampston refused to discharge or baile him but remitted him And in Easter Terme next after severall rules for his Majesties Councell to shew cause why he the said Jennings should not be bailed a fourth rule was made for the said Jennings to let his Majesties Attorney have notice which notice was given accordingly yet he remitted him And the said Jennings by another Habeas Corpus brought to the Barre as aforesaid in Trinity Terme after and the same returne with the addition of a new Commitment of the fourth of May 1638. suggested that he the said Jennings had used divers scandalous words in derogation and disparagement of his Majesties government after severall rules in the end of the said Trinity Terme hee againe remitted him to prison And he the said Sir John Brampston about the ninth of July after at his chamber in Serjeants Inne being desired by Master Meautis one of the Clerkes of the Councell-board to discharge the said Jennings for that he the said Jennings had entred into a Bond of 1000. pounds to appeare before the Lords of the Councell the next Michelmas Terme after and to attend de die in diem yet hee the said Sir John Brampston refused to discharge the said Jennings untill hee entered into Recognizance to appeare the next Terme and in the meane time to bee of his good behaviour And the said Jennings was continued on his said Recognizance till Easter Terme after And the said Sir Iohn Brampston did on the 5. of June 1640. deferre to grant his Majesties writ of habeas Corpus for Samuel Danvers and William Pargiter Esquires prisoners in the Gate-house and in the Fleet and when hee had granted the said writ the said eighth of Iune after the returne being the order of the Councell Table not expressing any cause hee the said Sir Iohn Brampston deferred to baile the said Pargiter And the eighteenth of Iune after made a rule for a new returne to bee received which was returned the five and twentieth of the said Iune in haec verba Whereas his Majesty finding that his Subjects of Scotland have in rebellious and hostile manner assembled themselves together and intend not onely to shake off their obedience unto his Majesty but also as enemies to invade and infest this his Kingdome of England to the danger of his royall person c. For prevention whereof his Majesty hath by the advice of his Councell-board given speciall commandement to all the Lord Lievtenants of all the Counties of his Realme with expedition to array and arme a certaine number of able men in each County to be prepared and ready to be conducted to such place as should be appointed for their Randezvouz in their severall and respective Counties there to be conducted and drawne together into a body for this service And whereas his Majesty according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme and the constant custome of his Predecessours Kings and Queenes of this Realme hath power for the defence of this Kingdome and resisting the force of the enemies thereof to grant forth Commissions under his great Seale to such fit persons as he shall make choice of to array and arme the subjects of this Kingdome and to compell those who are of able bodies and of able estates to arme themselves and such as should not be of able bodies but of ability in estate to assesse them according to their estates to contribute towards the charge of arraying and arming others being able of body and not able in estate to arme themselves And such persons as should be contrariant to commit to prison there to remaine untill the King should take further order therein And whereas the Earle of Exeter by vertue of his Majesties Commission to him directed for the arraying and arming of a certaine number

was commanded to the Sheriffe of the County of York by Writ under the Seale of his Majesties Court of Exchequer dated the sixteenth day of May in the seventh yeare of his Majesties Reigne that now is That he should distraine James Maleverer Esquire to appeare before the Barons of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer in the Octaves of the holy Trinity then next following to make fine to the King for his trespasse and contempt in not comming to the presence of the King before the 31. day of January in the first yeare of his said Majesties Reigne to take upon him the order of Knighthood according to the forme of a Proclamation in that behalfe formerly made At which day of the said Octaves of the holy Trinity the said J. Maleverer did appeare and pleaded to the said Writs that although his said Majesty the said 31. day of January and for three yeeres next before the said 31. day of January was resident and remaining at his Pallace at White-hall in the County of Middlesex and that the said James Maleverer the said one and thirtieth day of January and three dayes next before the said one and thirtieth day of January was resident and remaining at Ancliffe in the said County of York which is distant from the said Palace of White-hall the space of one hundred and fourescore miles and that the said James Maleverer the said one and thirtieth day of January aforesaid or at any time before had no lands or rents in his own hands or in the hands of Peoffees to his use out of the said County of York and that that part of the said County of York which is neerest to the said Palace of White-hall is distant from the said Palace of White-hall the space of one hundred and thirty miles and that no Proclamation by vertue of any Writ of Proclamation for the appearance of any persons whatsoever to take the said Order of Knighthood was made in any part of the said County of York before the thirtieth day of January in the said first yeare of his Majesties Reigne by reason whereof the said James Maleverer could not personally come to the presence of his said Majestie to take the said Order of Knighthood before the said one and thirtieth day of January in the said first yeare of his Majesties said Reigne yet the said James Maleverer for his fine in the premisses did humbly submit himselfe to the said Court and demanded to bee discharged of the said issues returned and imposed upon him by reason of the premisses yet notwithstanding the said Plea and submission of the said James Maleverer and after the same was made as aforesaid and entred upon Record in his Majesties said Court of Exchequer and the said Court moved for stay of the Processe and discharge of the issues the said Sir Humphrey Davenport being then Lord chiefe Baron of the said Court of Exchequer contrary to his oath and contrary to the Laws of this Realme and to the great impoverishing of the said James Maleverer did together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court refuse to impose any Fine whatsoever upon the said James Maleverer and told him that the said Court had no power to Fine him and that hee must compound with certain Commissioners for that purpose appointed And did farther order and direct severall other Writs of Distringas to issue forth of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer under the Seale of the said Court directed to the severall high Sheriffes of the said County of York whereby the said Sheriffes were commanded further to distraine the said Iames Maleverer to appeare as aforesaid upon which said Writs of Distringas severall great and excessive issues were returned upon the Lands of the said Iames Maleverer amounting to the summe of two thousand pounds or there abouts a great part whereof the said Iames Maleverer was enforced to pay and in like manner the said Sir Humphrey Davenport together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer did order and direct such and the like unjust and undue proceedings and the said proceedings were had and made accordingly against Thomas Moyser Esquire and against severall other persons his Majesties Subjects in severall parts of this Realme to the utter undoing of many of them 2 That a sentence of Degradation being given by the high Commissioners of the Province of York against Peter Smart Clerk one of the Prebends of the Church of Durham for a Sermon by him formerly preached against some Innovations in the Church of Durham a tryall was afterwards had viz. in August in the seventh yeer of his said Majesties Reign before the said Sir Humphrey Davenport Knight then one of the Judges of Assizes and Nisi prius for the County Palatine of Durham concerning the Corps of the Prebend of the said M. Smart which was then pretended to be voyd by the said sentence of Degradation the said Sir Humphrey Davenport contrary to his oath and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme and to the destruction of the said Master Smart upon reading the Writ de haeretico comburendo did publickly on the Bench in the presence of divers his Majesties Subjects then attending declare his opinion to be that the said Prebends place was voyd and gave direction to the Jury then at Barre to finde accordingly and being then informed that although the said Master Smart had been dead or deprived yet the profits of his Prebend had been due to his Executors till the Michaelmas following the said Sir Humphrey Davenport then answered though the said Master Smart was not dead yet if he had had his desert he had been dead long agoe for hee deserved to have been hanged for the said Sermon and that he was as wicked a man as any lived in the world call him no more Master Smart but plaine Smart And when the said Jurie had found against the said Master Smart the said Sir Humphrey Davenport in scandall of his Majesties Government and Justice and of the proceedings of his Majesties Iudges did publickly as aforesaid speak words to this effect That the said Iurie had well done and that the said Smart had do remedy save by appeale to the King and there hee should finde but cold comfort for the King would not goe against his own Prerogative upon which the Iudges and high Commissioners did depend and therefore would not contradict one anothers Acts That the said Sir Humphrey Davenport about the Month of November Anno Dom. 1635. then being Lord chiefe Barron of his Majesties Court of Exchequer and having taken an oath for the due administration of justice to his Majesties Liege people according to the Lawes and Statures of this Realm subscribed his name to an opinion in haec verba I am of opinion that as where the benefit doth more particulary redound to the good of the Ports or Maritime parts as in Case of Pyracie or Depredations upon the Seas there the

demurrer yet remains not over-ruled but the said Sir Humphrey Davenport with the said other Barons without over-ruling the demurrer ordered because Warner had put in a demurrer and not answered to the said Information that he should not proceede upon the action of Trover The Proprietor being thus prevented of his remedy by Action at Law sued forth a Replevin and upon pretence of viewing the said goods caused them to be brought forth of a Cellar hired by a deputie to the Farmours to that use and being brought forth they were taken by the Sheriffes of London by vertue of the said Replevin and upon oath made of the manner of the taking as aforesaid before the Barons and upon view of the President inrolls his case the said Sir Humphrey Davenport with the said other Barons adjudged that the said goods were not Replevisable and granted an Injunction to maintaine possession of them as they were before And the said house of Commons by protestations saving to themselves onely the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Humphrey Davenport and also of replying to the answer that hee the said Sir Humphrey Davenport shall make unto the said Articles or any of them or of offering proofe of the premisses or any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them as the Case shall according to the course of Parliaments require doe pray that the said Sir Humphrey Davenport Lord chiefe Baron of his Majesties Court of Exchequer may be put to answer to all and every the premisses and that such proceedings examinations trials and judgements may be upon every of them had and used as is agreeable to Law and Justice Articles of the House of Commons in the name of themselves and all the Commons of England against Sir Richard Weston Knight one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer impeaching him as followeth 1 THat the said Sir Richard Weston about the moneth of November Anno Domini 1635. then being one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer and having taken an oath for the due Administration of Justice to his Majesties liege people according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme subscribed his name to an opinion in haec verba I am of opinion c. ut suprà in Sir Robert Berkley's Charge pag. 4. 2 That in or about the moneth of February Anno Domini 1636. the said Sir Richard Weston being then one of the Barons of the said Court of Exchequer subscribed an extrajudiciall opinion in answer to questions in a Letter from his Majestie in haec verba Charles R. When the good and safety of the Kingdome in generall is concerned c. ut suprà pag. 4. 3 That the said Sir Richard Weston being then one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer did deliver his opinion and judgement in the Exchequer Chamber against John Hampden Esquire in the Case of Ship-money That he the said John Hampden c. as in Judge Crawley's Charge pag. 23. 4 That whereas in the moneth of Aprill 16. Caroli the Officers of the Custome-house having seized a ship of one Samuel Warner's laden with Tobacco being the goods of the said Warner the bulke of the said ship not being broken and no information exhibited for the King according to the course the Exchequer for any duty the Barons were moved that the said ship might bee restored to the proprietors giving security to pay such duties as did belong to the King But upon the allegation of the Kings Attorney that there needed no information because there was no penalty the said Sir Richard Weston being then one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court did contrary to his oath and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme deny the restitution of the said ship unlesse all the duties demanded by the Farmours of the Custome-house were first paid Hereupon the said Warner brought an action of Trover upon the case in the Office of Pleas in the Exchequer against the said Officers that seized his ship and goods Whereupon the Kings Attorney Generall exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber against the said Warner setting forth that Customes and Subsidies upon Merchandize were a great part of the Kings revennue and payable to him and that the said ship was seized for non-payment of the aforesaid duties notwithstanding the said Warner the proprietor prosecuted the Officers upon a Suit at Law and prayes that he may answer the said Information before any further proceedings be had at Law Thereupon the said Sir Richard Weston together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer ordered that the proprietor moving for delivery of his said goods should first answer to the Information after which the said Warner demurred to the said Information in regard no title for any certaine duty was set forth by the Information Which demurrer yet remaines not over-ruled but the said Sir Richard Weston with the said other Barons without over-ruling the demurrer ordered because Warner had put in a demurrer and not answered to the said Information that he should not proceed upon the action of Trover The proprietor being thus prevented of his remedy by Action at Law sued forth a Replevin and upon pretence of viewing the said goods caused them to be brought forth of a cellar hired by a Deputy to the Farmers to that use and being brought forth they were taken by the Sheriffs of London by vertue of the said Replevin and upon oath made of the manner of the taking as aforesaid before the Barons and upon view of the president inrolls his case the said Sir Richard Weston with the said other Barons adjudged that the said goods were not replevisable and granted an Injunction to maintaine the possession of them as they were before And the said house of Commons by Protestation saving to themselves onely the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Richard Weston and also of replying to the answer that he the said Sir Richard Weston shall make unto the said Articles or any of them or of offering proofe of the premisses or any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them as the case shall according to the course of Parliaments require do pray that the said Sir Richard Weston one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer may be put to answer c. Articles of the House of Commons in the name of themselves and of all the Commons of England against Sir Thomas Trevor Knight one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer impeaching him as followeth 1. THat in or about November 4. Car. divers goods and merchandizes whereof John Rolls George Moore and other Merchants of London were Proprietors being seized and conveyed into

order and direct such and the like proceedings and the said proceedings were had and made accordingly against Thomas Moyser Esquire and against severall other persons his Majesties subjects in severall parts of this Kingdome to the utter undoing of many of them 5 That he the said Sir Thomas Trevor about the moneth of November Anno Domini 1635. then being one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer and having taken an oath for the due administration of Justice to his Majesties liege people according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme subscribed his name to an opinion in haec verba I am of opinion c. ut suprà in Baron Davenports Charge pag. 30. 6 That in or about the moneth of February Anno Dom. 1636. then being one of the Barons of the said Court of Exchequer he subscribed an extrajudicial opinion in answer to questions in a letter from his Majesty in haec verba Charles R. When the good and safety of the kingdome in generall is concerned c. ut suprà loco citato and subscribed ut priùs 7 That the said Sir Thomas Trevor being then one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer did deliver his opinion and judgement in the Exchequer chamber against John Hampden Esquire in the Case of Ship-money That he the said John Hampden upon the matter and substance of the Case was chargeable with the money then in question a copie of which proceedings and judgement the Commons in this present Parliament have already delivered to your Lordships 8 That whereas in the moneth of April 16. Car. the Officers of the Custome-house having seized a Ship of one Samuel Warner's laden with Tobacco being the goods of the said Warner the Bulke of the said Ship not being broken and no information exhibited for the King according to the course of the Exchequer for any duty the Barons were moved that the said Ship might be restored to the Proprietor giving security to pay such duties as did belong to the King But upon the allegation of the Kings Attorney that there needed no information because there was no penaltie the said Sir Thomas Trevor being then one of the Barons of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court did contrary to his oath and contrary to the Laws of this Realme deny the restitution of the said Ship unlesse all the duties demanded by the Farmours of the Custome-house were first paid Hereupon the said Warner brought an action of Trover in the office of Pleas in the Exchequer against the said Officers that seized his Ship and goods whereupon the Kings Attorney generall exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer chamber against the said Warner setting forth that Customes and Subsidies upon Merchandize were a great part of the Kings revennue and payable to him and that the said Ship was seized for non-payment of the aforesaid duties notwithstanding the said Warner then Proprietor prosecuted the Officers upon a suit at Law and prayes that hee may answer the said Information before any further proceedings be had at Law Thereupon the said Sir Thomas Trevor together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer ordered that the Proprietor moving for delivery of the said goods should first answer to the said Information after which the said Warner demurred to the said Information in regard no title for any certaine dutie was set forth by the Information which demurrer yet remains not over-ruled but the said Sir Thomas Trevor with the said other Barons without over-ruling the demurrer ordered because Warner had put in a demurrer and not answered to the said Information that hee should not proceede upon the action of Trover The Proprietor being thus prevented of his remedie by action at Law sued forth a Replevin and upon pretence of viewing the said goods caused them to be brought forth of a Cellar hired by a deputie of the Farmours to that use and being brought forth they were taken by the Sheriffe of London by vertue of the said Replevin and upon oath made of the manner of the taking as aforesaid before the Barons and upon view of the President inrolls his case the said Sir Thomas Trevor with the said other Barons adjudged that the said goods were not Replevisable and granted an Injunction to maintain the possession of them as they were before And the said house of Commons by protestation saving to themselves only the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Thomas Trevor and also of replying to the answer that he the said Sir Thomas Trevor shall make unto the said Articles or any of them or of offering proof of the premisses or any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them as the Case shall according to the course of Parliaments require doe pray that the said Sir Thomas Trevor one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer may be put to answer to all and every the premisses and that such proceedings examinations trialls and judgements may be upon every of them had and used as is agreeable to Law and Justice FINIS