in Parliament The Right Honorable Vicount Dunbar Deputy Justice in Oyer to the Earl of Rutland from Trent Northward and a Commissioner of Sewers and a Deputy Lieutenant within the East-Riding of Yorkshire his Lordship is presented to be a Popish Recusant and his Indictment removed into the Kings-Bench and his Wife Mother and the greatest part of his Family are Popish Recusants and some of them convicted William Lord Eury in Commission for the Sewers in the East-Riding a convict Popish Recusant Henry Lord Abergaveney John Lord Tenham Edward Lord Wotton in Commission for Sewers justly suspected for Popery Henry Lord Morley Commissioner of Sewers in Com. Lanc. himself suspected and his wife a Recusant Iohn Lord Mordant Commissioner of the Peace Sewers and Subsidie in Com. Northampton Iohn Lord St Iohn of Basing Captain of Lidley Castle in Com. Southampton indicted for a Popish Recusant Em. Lord Scroop Lord President of his Majesties Council in the North Lord Lieutenant of the County and City of York Com. Eborac Ville Kingston super Hull presented the last time and continuing still to give suspition of his ill-affection in Religion 1. By never coming to the Cathedral Church upon those dayes wherein former Presidents have been accustomed 2. By never receiving the Sacrament upon Common dayes as other Presidents were accustomed but publickly departing out of the Church with his servants upon those dayes when the rest of the Council Lord Major and Aldermen do receive 3. By never or very seldom repairing to the Fasts but often publickly riding abroad with his Hawkes on those dayes 4. By causing such as are known to be firm on those dayes in the Religion established to be left out of Commission which is instanced in Henry Alured Esquire by his Lordships procurement put out of the Commission of Sewers or else by keeping them from executing their places which is instanced in Dr. Hudson Doctor in Divinity to whom his Lorship hath refused to give the Oath being appointed 5. By putting divers other ill-affected persons in Commission of the Council of Oyer and Terminer and of the Sewers and into other Places of Trust contrary to his Majesties gracious Answer to the late Parliament 6. In October last 1625. being certified of divers Spanish ships of War upon the Coasts of Scarborough his Lordship went thither and took with him the Lord Dunbar Sir Thomas Metham and William Alford and lay at the house of the Lord Eury whom he knew to be a convict Recusant and did notwithstanding refuse to disarm him although he had received Letters from the Lords of the Council to that effect and did likewise refuse to shew the Commissioners who were to be imployed for disarming of Popish Recusants the original Letters of the Privy-Council or to deliver them any Copies as they desired and as his Predecessors in that place were wont to do 7. By giving Order to the Lord Dunbar Sir William Wetham and Sir William Alford to view the Forts and Store of Munition in the Town of Kingston upon Hull who made one Kerton a convict Recusant and suspected to be a Priest their Clerk in that service 8. By denying to accept a Plea tendred according to the Law by Sir William Hilliard Defendant against Isabel Simpson Plaintiff in an Action of Trover that she was a convict Popish Recusant and forcing him to pay costs 9. By the great increase of Recusants since his Lordships coming to that Government in Ianuary 1619. It appearing by the Records of the Sessions that there are in the East-Riding onely One thousand six hundred and seventy more convicted then were before which is conceived to be an effect of his favor and countenance towards them William Langdale Esquire convict of Popish Recusancy Iordan Metham Henry Holm Michael Partington Esquires George Creswell Thomas Danby Commissioners of the Sewers and put in Commission by procurement of the Lord Scroop Lord President of the North and who have all Popish Recusants to their wives Ralph Bridgeman a Non-Communicant Nicholas Girlington whose wife comes seldom to Church Sir Marmaduke Wycel Knight and Baronet presented the last Parliament his wife being a convict Popish Recusant and still continuing so Sir Thomas Metham Knight Deputy Lieutenant made by the Lord Scroop in Commission of the Council of the North and of Oyer and Terminer and other Commissions of Trust all by procurement of the same Lord President since the Kings Answer never known to have received the Communion his two onely Daughters brought up to be Popish and one of them lately married to Thomas Doleman Esquire a Popish Recusant Anthony Vicount Montague in Commission of the Sewers in Com. Sussex his Lorship a Recusant Papist Sir William Wray Knight Deputy Lieutenant Colonel to a Regiment his wife a Recusant Sir Edw. Musgrave Sir Tho. Lampleigh Justices of Peace and Quorum Sir Thomas Savage Deputy Lieutenant and Justice of Peace his wife and children Recusants Sir Richard Egerton a Non-Communicant Thomas Savage Esquire a Deputy Lieutenant a Recusant and his wife indicted and presented William Whitmore Commissioner of the Subsidy his wife and children Recusants Sir Hugh Beeston Commissioner of the Subsidy his Daughter and many of his Servants Recusants Sir William Massie Commissioner for the Subsidy his Lady indicted for Recusancy and his children Papists Sir William Courtney Knight Vice-Warden of the Stannery and Deputy Lieutenant a Popish Recusant Sir Thomas Ridley Knight Justice of the Peace his wife a Popish Recusant and eldest son Sir Ralph Conyers Knight Justice of Peace his wife a Popish Recusant Iames Lawson Esquire a Justice of Peace and one of the Captains of the Trained-band his children Popish Recusants and servants Non-Communicants Sir Iohn Shelley Knight and Baronet a Recusant William Scot Esq a Recusant Iohn Finch Esquire not convict but comes not to Church in Commission of the Sewers These are all convicted Recusants or suspected of Popery Sir William Mollineux Deputy Lieutenant and Justice of Peace his wife a Recusant Sir Richard Honghton Knight Deputy Lieutenant his wife and some of his daughters Recusants Sir William Norris Captain of the general Forces and Justice of Peace a Recusant Sir Gilbert Ireland Justice of Peace a Recusant Iames Anderton Esquire Justice of Peace and one of his Majesties Receivers his wife a Non-Communicant his son and heir a great Recusant and himself suspected Edward Rigby Esquire Clerk of the Crown Justice of Peace himself a good Communicant but his wife and daughters Popish Recusants Edward Criswell Esquire Justice of Peace his wife a Popish Recusant Iohn Parker Gentleman Muster-Master for the County suspected for a Popish Recusant George Ireland Esquire Justice of Peace his wife a Popish Recusant Iohn Preston Esquire Bow-bearer for his Majesty in Westmorland Forest a Recusant Thomas Covill Esquire Jaylor Justice of Peace and Quorum his Daughter a Recusant married Sir Cuthbert Halsal Justice of Peace his wife a Recusant Richard Sherborn Esquire Justice of Peace himself
Non-resident his wife and son Recusants Sir George Hennage Knight Sir Francis Metcalf Knight Robert Thorall Esquire Anthony Mounson Esquire William Dallison Esquire in Commissioner of the Sewers and are justly suspected for Popish Recusants Sir Henry Spiller Knight in Commission of Peace for Middlesex and Westminster and Deputy Lieutenant Valentine Saunders Esquire one of the six Clerks both which are justly suspected to be ill-affected in Religion according to the Acts of State Charles Jones Knight Deputy Lieutenant and Justice of Peace George Milburne Esquire Justice of Peace Edward Morgan Esquire their wives are all Popish Recusants William Jones Deputy Lieutenant Justice of Peace his wife suspected to be a Popish Recusant Iohn Vaughan Captain of the Horse suspected for Recusancy Benedict Hall Receiver and Steward of the Dutchy of Lancaster he and his wife are Popish Recusants Sir Thomas Brudenel Knight and Baronet Deputy Lieutenant a Popish Recusant Cuthbert Herone Esquire now Sheriff of Northumberland Justice of the Peace his wife a Recusant Sir William Selby Junior Knight Justice of Peace his wife a Recusant Sir Iohn Canning Knight Justice of the Peace his wife a suspected Recusant Sir Ephraim Widdrington Knight Justice of Peace suspected to be a Recusant Sir Thomas Riddall Knight Justice of Peace his wife and eldest son are Recusants Iohn Widdrington Esquire who came out of the same County before his Majesties Proclamation was published and is now at London attending the Council Table by Commandment and yet not dismist Sir Robert Pierpoint Esquire Justice of Peace his wife a Recusant Sir Anthony Brown Knight Justice of Peace thought to be a Recusant but not convict Sir Henry Beddingfield Knight Deputy Lieutenant and Justice in Oyer and Terminer and in Commission of Sewers Justice of Peace and Captain of a foot Company his wife nor any of his children as is informed come to the Church Thomas Sayer Captain of the Horse his wife comes not to Church Sir William Yelverton Baronet and Justice of Peace not suspected himself but his eldest son and one of his daughters are known Recusants Sir Henry Minne Knight Justice of Peace and Quorum neither he his wife or daughters can be known to have received the Communion and have been presented at the Sessions for Non-conformity Robert Warren Clerk a Justice of Peace justly suspected and that for these Reasons 1. He being in trust for one Ratcliff of Bury deceased for the educating of his son he took him from the School at Twelve years old and sent him beyond the Seas to be brought up there in a Popish Seminary where he hath remained six or seven years as was generally reported 2. One of his Parishioners doubted in some points of Religion being sick and desired to be satisfied by him who confirmed him in the Religion of the Church of Rome which he told to his brothers before his death who are ready to affirm the same but this was divers years since 3. There being Letters directed to four Knights of that County to call the Ministers and other officers before them and to cause them to present all such as absented themselves from the Church and were Popishly affected he was desired to present those within his Parish Church of Welford which he accordingly did but left out at the least one half and being asked why he did so he answered that he was no Informer And being asked of some particulars whether they came to the Church or not his Answer was they did not and why then did he not present them he said they might be Anabaptists or Brownists and would not present them and this certified by three Members of the House 4. He having a brother dwelling in Sudbury that was presented for not coming to the Church he came to one of the Ministers and told him that he took it ill they presented his brother who answered he did it not but if he had known of it he would whereupon he replied He was glad he had a brother of any Religion 5 One of his Parish named Fage having intelligence that there was one in the said Parish that could inform of a Private place where Arms were in a Recusants House in the Parish came to some of the Deputy Lieutenants in Commission for a Warrant to bring the same in form before them to be examined concerning the same and the said Fage delivered the Warrant to the Constable he carried him before the said Mr Warren who rated the said Fage for that he did not come to him first telling him that he was a factious fellow and laid him by the heels for two hours which the said Fage is ready to affirm Sir Benjamin Titchburne Knight and Baronet Justice of Oyer and Terminer Justice of Peace and Deputy Lieutenant and in Commission for the Subsidue his wife children and servants indicted for popish Recusancy Sir Richard Tichburne Knight Justice of Peace his wife presented the last Sessions for having absented her self from the Church for the space of two moneths Sir Henry Compton Knight Deputy Lieutenant Justice of Peace and Commissioner for the Sewers Sir Iohn Shelly Knight and Baronet himself and his Lady Recusants Sir Iohn Gage Knight and Baronet a Papist Recusant Sir Iohn Guilfor Knight Their Ladies come not to Church Sir Edward Francis Knight Their Ladies come not to Church Sir Genet Kempe Knight some of his children come not to Church Edward Gage Esq a Recusant Papist Commissioners of the Sewers Tho Middlemore comes not to Church Commissioners of the Sewers Iames Rolls William Scot Commissioners of Sewers both Recusants Papists Robert Spiller comes not to Church Sir Henry Guilford in Commission for Piracies and for the Sewers and Iohn Thatcher Esquire Commissioner for the Sewers they are either persons convicted or justly suspected Sir Richard Sandford Knight Richard Brewthwait Esquire Gawen Brewthwait Esquire their wives are Recusants Sir William Ambrey Knight Justice of Peace a Recusant Rees Williams a Justice of Peace his wife a convict Recusant and his children Popishly bred as is informed Sir Iohn Coney Knight a Justice of Peace and Deputy Lieutenant his wife a Popish Recusant Morgan Voyle Esquire Justice of Peace his wife presented for not coming to Church but whether she is a Popish Recusant is not known Iohn Warren Captain of the Trained-band one of his sons suspected to be Popishly affected Wherefore they humbly beseech your Majesty not to suffer your loving Subjects to continue any longer discouraged by the apparent sence of that increase both in number and power which by the favor and countenance of such like ill-affected Governors accreweth to the Popish Party but that according to your own wisdom goodness and piety whereof they rest assured you will be graciously pleased to command that Answer of your Majesties to be effectally observed and the Parties above named and all such others to be put out of such Commissions and Places of Authority wherein they now are in your Majesties Realm of England contrary
and condition he died in Summer 1658. being about the age of seventy years Trinity 5. Car. Banco Regis The first day of this Term upon a Habeas Corpus to Sir Allen Apsley the Lieutenant of the Tower to bring here the body of Iohn Selden Esq with the cause of Detencer he returned the same cause as was in Mr. Stroods Case And Mr. Littleton of the Inner-Temple of Counsel with Mr. Selden moved that the Return was insufficient in substance therefore pray'd that he might be bayled and said that it was a matter of great consequence both to the Crown of the King and to the Liberty of the Subject But as for the difficulty of Law contained in it he said under favour the Case cannot be said Grand And so proceeded to his Argument which for the Reasons before mentioned we have postponed and concluded that the Prisoner ought to be bailed The same day Sir Miles Hubbord Benjamin Valentine Denzil Holles Esq were at the Bar upon the Habeas Corpus directed to several Prisons And their Counsel were ready at the Bar to have argued the Case for them also But because the same Return was made for them as for Mr. Selden they all Declared they would rely on this Argument made by Mr. Littleton Some few days after Sir Robert Heath the Kings Atturney General argued that this Return was good and that Mr. Selden and the rest of the parties ought not to be bailed and that within the Return there appears good cause of their commitment and of their detaining also He said The Case is great in expectation consequence and concerns the Liberty of the Subject on one part whereof the Argument is plausible and on the other part it concerns the safety and Soveraignty of the King which he said is a thing of greater weight and that the consideration of both pertains to you the Judges without flighting the one or too much elevating the other and so proceeded to his Argument of which more at large hereafter and concluded that the Prisoners ought to be remanded When the Court was ready to have delivered their opinions in this great business the Prisoners were not brought to the Bar according to the Rule of the Court. Therefore Proclamation was made for the keepers of the several Prisons to bring in their Prisoners but none of them appeared but the Marshal of the Kings Bench who informed the Court that Mr. Strood who was in his custody was removed yesterday and put in the Tower of London by the Kings own warrant and so it was done with the other Prisoners for each of them was removed out of his prison in which he was before But notwithstanding it was pray'd by the Counsel for the Prisoners that the Court would deliver their opinion as to the matter in Law but the Court refused to do that because it was to no purpose for the Prisoners being absent they could not be bailed delivered or remanded The evening before there came a Letter to the Judges of this Court from the King himself informing the Court with the Reasons wherefore the Prisoners were not suffered to come at the day appointed for the resolution of the Judges These were the words of the Letter To our Trusty and welbeloved Our Chief Justice and the rest of Our Justices of Our Bench. C. R. TRusty and welbeloved we Greet you well Whereas by our special commandment we have lately removed Sir Miles Hubard Walter Long and William Stroud from the several prisons where they were formerly committed and have now sent them to our Tower of London understanding there are various constructions made thereof according to the several apprehensions of those who discourse of it as if we had done it to decline the course of Iustice We have therefore thought fit to let you know the true Reason and occasion thereof as also why we commanded those and the other Prisoners should not come before you the last day We having heard how most of them a while since did carry themselves insolently and unmannerly both towards us and your Lordships were and are very sensible thereof and though we hear your selves gave them some admonition for that miscariage yet we could not but resent our Honour and the Honour of so great a Court of Iustice so far as to let the world know how much we dislike the same And having understood that your Lordships and the rest of our Iudges and Barons of our Court of Common Pleas and Exchequer whose advices and judgments we have desired in this great business so much concerning our Government have not yet resolved the main Question we did not think the presence of those Prisoners necessary and until we should find their temper and discretions to be such as may deserve it we were not willing to afford them favour Nevertheless the respect we bear to the proceedings of that Court hath caused us to give way that Selden and Valentine should attend you tomorrow they being sufficient to appear before you since you cannot as yet give any resolute opinion in the main point in Question Given under our Signet at Our Mannor at Greenwich this 24 Iunii in the 5 yeer of our Reign Within three hours after the receit of those Letters other Letters were brought unto the said Judges as followeth To Our trusty and well-beloved Our Chief Justices and the rest of Our Justices of Our Bench. C. R. TRusty and well-beloved we greet you well Whereas by our Letters of this days date we gave you to understand our pleasure That of those prisoners which by our Commandment are kept in our Tower of London Selden and Valentine should be brought tomorrow before you now upon more mature Deliberation we have resolved That all of them shall receive the same treatment and that none shall come before you until we have cause given us to believe they will make a better demonstration of their Modesty and Civility both towards us and your Lordships then at their last appearance they did Given under our Signet at our Mannor at Greenwich this 24 day of Iune in the fifth year of our Reign So the Court this Term delivered no opinion and the imprisoned Gentlemen continued in restraint all the long Vacation Note That in this Term a Habeas Corpus was prayed to the Pursevant of Arms for four Constables of Hertfordshire to whose custody they were committed by the Lords of the Privy-Council and the Habeas Corpus was granted on their behalf but then they were committed to the Custody of other Pursevants and so upon every Habeas Corpus they were removed from Pursevant to Pursevant and could have no fruit of their Habeas Corpus all this Term. There wanted not some who upon the Kings dissolution of this Parliament and his ill success in two former Parliaments did advise that his Majestie for the future might be no more troubled with the impertinencies of Parliaments holding out for example the like
upon the suddain as occasion is offered And there is no necessity that the King should expect a new Parliament The Lords may grant Commissions to determine matters after the Parliament ended but the House of Commons cannot do so And also a new House of Commons consists of new Men which have no conusance of these offences 1 H. 4. The Bishop of Carlile for words spoken in the Parliament that the King had not right to the Crown was arraigned in this Court of high-treason and then he did not plead his priviledge of Parliament but said That he was Episcopus unctus c. 5 ly 4 H. 8. Strode's case hath been objected But this is but a particular act although it be in print for Rastall intitles it by the name of Strode so the title Body and proviso of the Act are particular 6 ly That this is an inferiour Court to the Parliament therefore c. To this I say That even sitting the Parliament this Court of B. R. and other Courts may judge of their priviledges as of a Parliament-man put in execution c. and other cases It is true that the Iudges have oft-times declined to give their iudgment upon the privileges of Parliament sitting the Court But from this it followes not that when the offence is committed there and not punished and the said Court dissolved that therefore the said matter shall not be questioned in this Court 7 ly By this means the priviledges of Parliament shall be in great danger if this Court may judge of them But I answer That there is no danger at all for this Court may judge of Acts of Parliament 8 ly Perhaps these matters were done by the Uotes of the House or if they be offences it is an imputation to the House to say that they had neglected to punish them But this matter doth not appear And if the truth were so these matters might be given in evidence 9 ly There is no president in the case which is a great presumption of Law But to this I answer That there was never any president of such a fact therefore there cannot be a president of such a judgment And yet in the time of Queen Elizabeth it was resolved by Brown and many other Iustices that offences done in Parliament may be punished out of Parliament by imprisonment or otherwise And the case of 3 E. 3.19 is taken for good Law by Stamf. and Fitzh And 22 E. 3. and 1 Mar. accord directly with it But it hath been objected that there was no plea made to the Iurisdiction But it is to be obser-served that Ployden that was a learned man was one of the Defendanâ—s and he pleaded not to the Iurisdiction but pleaded license to depart And the said Information depended during all the Reigne of Queen Mary during which time there were four Parliaments and they never questioned this matter But it hath been further objected That the said case differs from our case because that there the offence was done out of the House and this was done within the House But in the said case if license to depart be pleaded it ought to be tryed in Parliament as well as these offences here Therefore c. And the same day the Iudges spake briefly to the case and agreed with one voice That the Court as this case is shall have Iurisdiction although that these offences were committed in Parliament Afterwards the Parliament which met the 3d. of Novemb. 1640. upon Report made by Mr. Recorder Glyn of the state of the severall and respective cases of Mr. Hollis Mr. Selden and the rest of the imprisoned Members of the Parliament in tertio Caroli touching their extraordinary sufferings for their constant affections to the Liberties of the Kingdom expressed in that Parliament And upon Arguments made in the House thereupon did upon the 6th of July 1641. passe these ensuing Votes which in respect of the reference they have in these last mentioned proceedings we have thought fit though out of order of time to insert viz. Iuly the 6th 1641. REsolved upon the Question that the issuing out of the Warrants from the Lords and others of the Privy Councill compelling Mr. Hollis and the rest of the Members of that Parliament 3. Car. during the Parliament to appeare before them is a breach of the priviledge of Parliament by those Privy Counsellours Resolved c. That the Committing of Mr. Hollis and the rest â—f the Lords and others of the Privy Councill dureing the Parliament is a breach of the priviledge of Parliament by those Lords and others Resolved c. That the searching and sealing of the Chamber Study and Papers of Mr. Hollis Mr. Selden and Sir Iohn Eliot being Members of this House and dureing the Parliament and issuing of warrants to that purpose was a breach of the priviledge of Parliament and by those that executed the same Resolved c. That the exhibiting of an Information in the Court of Star-Chamber against Mr. Hollis and the rest for matters done by them in Parliament being members of Parliament and the same so appearing in the Information is a breach of the priviledge in Parliament Resolved c. That Sir Robert Heath and Sir Humphrey Davenport Sir Hennage Finch Mr. Hudson and Sir Robert Berkly that subscribed their names to the Information are guilty thereby of the breach of priviledge of Parliament Resolved c. That there was delay of Justice towards Mr. Hollis and the rest that appeared upon the Ha. Corp. in that they were not bayled in Easter and Trinity Tearm 5. Car. Resolved c. That Sir Nicholas Hide then chief Justice of the Kings Bench is guilty of this delay Resolved c. That Sir William Jones then being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench is guilty of this delay Resolved c. That Sir Iames Whitlock Knight then one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench is not guilty of this delay Ordered That the further debate of this shall be taken into Consideration on to morrow Morning Iuly the 8th 1641. Resolved upon the Question That Sir George Crook Knight then one of the Judges of the Kings Bench is not guilty of this delay That the continuance of Mr. Hollis and the rest of the Members of Parliament 3. Car. in Prison by the then Judges of the Kings Bench for not putting in sureties of the good behaviour was without just or legall cause That the exhibiting of the Information against Mr. Hollis Sir Iohn Eliot and Mr. Valentine in the Kings Bench being members of Parliament for matters done in Parliament was a breach of the priviledge of Parliament That the over-ruling of the plea pleaded by Mr. Hollis Sir Iohn Eliot and Mr. Valentine upon the Information to the Jurisdiction of the Court was against the Law and priviledge of Parliament That the Judgement given upon a Nihil dicit against Mr. Hollis Sir Iohn Eliot and Mr. Valentine and fine thereupon imposed and
d. interfecit I. S. upon prepensed malice is good for the nature of the thing is expressed although the formall word be wanting but out of the Return the substance of the offence ought alwaies to appear which appears not here But it hath been said by the other side That let the cause in the Return be as it will yet is it not traversable 9 H. 6.54 and I confesse it But as C. 11. James Baggs case is the Return ought to have certainty so much in it that if it be false the party grieved may have his action upon the case And the grievance complained of in the Petition of Right is that upon such Return no cause was certified that is no such cause upon which any Indictment might be drawn up for we never understand that the party shall be tryed upon the Habeas Corpus but that upon the matter contained within it and Indictment shall be made and he shall have his tryall upon it And yet it is clear and it hath been agreed of all hands in the Argument of the grand Habeas corpus Mich. 3. Car. in this Court that if the cause be certified upon the Return of the Habeas corpus that the Court may judge of the legality of that cause 2. Consider the parts of this Return as they are coupled together for notable contempts by him committed against Our Self and Our Government and for stirring of sedition against Us Upon the entire Return the King joynes sedition with notable contempts so that it is as much as if he had said that Sedition is one of the notable contempts mentioned in the first part of the Return so that he makes it but a contempt For the generality and incertainty of the Return I refer my self to the cases put by Mr. Ask and I will not waive any of them True it is if the Return had been that it was for Treason he had not been bailable but by the discretion of the Court and such Return would have been good but it is not so of sedition Gard. 157. Treason is applyed to a petty offence to the breach of trust by a Guardian in Socage but it is not treason And so sedition is of far lesse nature then treason and is oftentimes taken of a trespasse it is not treason of it self nor seditiosè was never used in an Indictment of treason It was not treason before the 25 of Edw. 3. nor can it be treason for 25 E. 3. is a flat Barre as I have said before to all other offences to be treason which are not contained within the said Act or declared by any Statute afterwards And there are offences which are more heinous in their nature then sedition is which are not treason as Insurrections c. which see in the Statute 11 H. 7. cap. 7. 2 H. 5. cap. 9. 8 H. 6. cap. 14. 5 R. 2. cap. 6. 17 R. 2. cap. 8. and by 3 and 4 E. 6. cap. 5. the assembly of twelve persons to attempt the alteration of any Law and the continuance together by the space of an hour being commanded to return is made treason which Act was continued by the Statute of 1 Mar. cap. 12. and 1 Eliz. cap. 16. but now is expired by her death and is not now in force although the contrary be conceived by some which I pray may be well observed By the Statute of 14 Eliz. cap. 1. rebellious taking of the Castles of the King is made treason if they be not delivered c. which shewes clearly that such taking of Castles in its nature was not treason But the said Statute is now expired and also all Statutes creating new treasons are now repealed But for a conclusion of this part of my Argument I will cite a case which I think expresse in the point or more strong then the case in question And it was M. 9. E. 3. roll 39. B. R. Peter Russells case he was committed to prison by the Deputy-Iustice of North-Wales because he was accused by one William Solyman of sedition and other things touching the King And hereupon a Commission issued out of the Chancery to enquire if the said Peter Russell behaved himselfe well or seditiously against the King and by the Inquisition it was found that he behaved himself well And upon an Habeas Corpus out of this Court his body was returned but no cause But the said Inquisition was brought hither out of Chancery and for that no cause of his caption was returned he prayed Delivery but the Court would not deliver him till it knew the cause of his Commitment Therefore taking no regard of the said Inquisition they now send a Writ to the now Iustice of Wales to certifie the cause of his commitment And thereupon he made this Return That the foresaid Peter Russell was taken because one William Solyman charged him that he had committed divers seditions against the Lord the King and for that cause he was detained and for no other And because the Return mentions not what sedition in speciall he was bayled but not discharged And I desire the baylment of the prisoner onely and not his deliverance I desire that the case be well observed In the said case there was an actuall sedition against the King here is onely a stirring up of sedition The words of the said Award are Videtur curiae which are the solemn words of a Iudgment given upon great deliberation There it was for other things concerning Us This is all one as if it had said for other things against Us Concerning the King and Against the King are all one as appears by 25 E. 3. c. 4. de Clero Stamf. 124. Westm. 1. c. 15. Bracton f. 119. 14 Eliz. c. 2. And the words of the Iudgment in the said case were not dimittitur but ideò dimittendus which imply the right of the party to be bayled The said case in some things was more particular then our case and more strong for there was an Accuser to boot which wants in our case There true it is that he was committed by the Iustice of Wales and here by the King himself but this makes no difference as to this Court for be the commitment by the King himself or by any other if it be not upon just cause the party may be bayled in this Court. And for the Inquisition which is mentioned it was no Tryall in the case nor did the Court give any regard thereto To detain the prisoner by the command of the King singly is against the Petition of Right but it being coupled with the cause the cause is to be considered and the truth of the cause is to be intended as well where it is mentioned to be by an inferiour Iudge as where by the King himself for it is traversable neither in the one nor other And 22 H. 8. roll 37. B. R. and 1 H. 8 roll 8. Harrisons case resolv'd that a man committed by the command of the King is