were first made never sate in Parliament Whereas this writ hath no operation or effect to enoble him or his posterity unless and until he actually sit in Parliament for if he die before he sit or sit not at all neither he nor his issue are Noble This distinction and concession of his contradicts his former opinion That the Writ it self doth not ennoble the person and his heirs for if it did then he and they should be ennobled by it though he died before he â—aâ—e in Parliament because they are thus ennobled by Letters Patents which create them Nobles or Peers and make them actually such though they never sit in Parliament 7ly Sir Edward Cook in his 4 Institutes p. 44 45. thus resolves If the King by his Writ calleth any Knight or Esquire to be a Lord of the Parliament he cannot refuse to serve the King there in communi illo confilio for the good of his Country But if the King had called an Abbot Peer or other regular Prelate by Writ to the Parliament to the Common Council of the Realm if he held not of the King per Baroniam he might refuse to sit in Parliament because quoad secularia he was mortuus in lege and therefore not capable to have a voice or place in Parliament unless he did hold per Baroniam and were to that Common Council called by Writ which made him capable And though such a Prelate regular had been often called by Writ and had de facto had place and voice in Parliament yet if in rei veritate he hold not per Baroniam HE OUGHT TO BE DISCHARGED OF THAT SERVICE AND TO SIT NO MORE For that the Abby of Leicester was founded by Robert Fitz Robert Earl of Leicester albeit the Patronage came to the Crown by the forfeiture of Simon de Mountford Earl of Leicester yet being of a Subjects foundation it could not be holden per Baroniam therefore the Abbot had no capacity to be called to the Parliament and thereupon the King did grant Quod idem Abbas successores sui de veniendo ad Parliamentum Concilia nostra vel haeredum nostrorum quieâ—i sint exonerati in perpetuum But all these Cases abovesaid and others that might be remembred touching this point as little Rivers do flow from the fountain of Modus tenendi Parliamentum where it is said Ad Parliamentum summoneri venire debent ratione tenurae suae omnes singuli Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Barones Priores alii Majores Cleri qui tenent PER COMITATUM VEL BARONIAM ratione hujusmodi tenurae nulli minores nisi eorum praesentia necessaria utilis reputetur To which purpose he likewise cites the Act of Parliament of 10 H. 2. called the Assize of Clarindon and the Great Charter of King John in the 17 year of his reign here forecited p. 21 30 31. For Modus tenendi Parliamentum here so much magnified I have already p. 20 sufficiently discovered it to be a late forgery and imposture out of the very Treatise it self by undeniable proofs which I wonder Sir Ed. Cook Mr. Agar and other pretended judicious Antiquaries observed nor being so obvious yet though it be an imposture and erronious in other things I shall grant it true in this particular here cited As to the point in controversie had Sir Ed. Cook here thus distinguished in the case of Laymen Knights Esquires as he doth in case of Abbots Priors and Religious persons that if the King had by his Writ called any Laymen Knight ot Esquire to the Lords House of Parliament by his general Writ who held of him in fee or fee tayl per Baroniam and was a Baron by tenure that this had enobled him and his posterity as Barons he could not refuse to serve the King as a Baron in this Common Councel for the good of his Country his opinion might have passed for good Law For such who had lands in fee or fee tayl of the King by an intire Barony being Barons and Peers of the Realm by their very tenures ought of right by the express words of the Statute of Clarindon the Great Charter of King John and by the Common Law and Custom of the Realm to be summoned as Barons by the Kings special writs directed to them to all Parliaments and great Councils of the Realm by vertue of their Tenures as well as Bishops Abbots Peers and other regular Prelates who held by Barony yet the writ in this case doth not make them and their heirs Barons by writ nor give them a right to sit and vote in Parliament but only declare them and their heirs to be Barons and to sit there as Barons by their Tenure not by vertue of the Writ it self But if the King by this general Writ summon any Layman Knight or Esquire to the Lords House who holds not by Barony this doth no more make him a Lord or Baron in perpetuity to him and his heirs nor no more oblige him or his heirs to sit there than Abbots but that they may refuse to serve in Parliam if he were no Peer before being not obliged by any Law to sit and serve therein as a Baron or Member of the House of Peers by the Writ alone which doth not bind an Abbot Prior or regular Prelate or ennoble him and his Successors to be Peers and Barons of the Realm though they hold only by Frankalmoign not by Barony the Tenure By Barony being that alone which obligeth both of them to sit and serve in Parliament unlesse they be created Dukes Earls Viscounts Lords Peers or Barons by Patent or else by a special Wrir wherein the estate and dignity of a Baron is both created and limited as in the Writ that created Sir Henry de Bromflet Baron of Vescey in the 27 year of King Henry the 6 where after the Nullatenus omittatiâ— this Clâ—se is inserted Volumus enim vos haeredes vestros maâ—culos de corpore vestro legitime exeuntes BARONES DE UESCY EXISTERE Teste c. If a Layman who holds not by Barony be created a Duke Earl Baron or other Peer of the Realm for life in tayl or in fee by Letters Patents or an Abbot or Prior who holds not by Barony and his Successors be created Lords of Parliament by a special Patent of the King as Richard Banham Abbot of Tavestoke and his Successors were bâ— King Hen. the 8. to whom the King granâ—ed by special words Ut eorum quilibet qui pro tempore fuerit Abbâ—s sit erit unus de Spiritualâ—bus religiosis DOMINIS PARLIAMENTI NOSTRI haeredum successorum nostrorum gaudendo honoreâ— Privilegio libertaribus ejusdem This obligeth them to appear and serve in Parliament upon every Writ of Summons and they their heirs males and Successors cannot refuse to serve or voluntarily absent themselves without cause or license under pain of being fined
omnes qui contra Regem cum Comite Simoni ' steterunt exhaeredicabantur quoram terras Rex suis sideli bus tradidit sineâ— mora pensatis meritis singulorum The Execution of this Sentence appears in the Patent Roll of 50 H. 3. m. 10. Schedula Where the Lands and Menors of Simon de Montfort and other Rebels adhering to him against the King are confiscated to the King and granted by him to sundry others there mentioned as the Lands of the Barons adhering to King Lewis against King John their native Soveraign were in like manner forfeited to and granted by him Claus 17 Johan Regis dors 7 10 11. By these two last Parliamentary presidents and proceedings against the Londoners Simon Montfort the Baronâ— and aâ— other his Confederates whether Peers or Commoners in case of Treason and Rebellion against the King to the forfeiting of their antient Customs and Liberties imprisoning and fining of their persons confiscation of their goods disinheriting them of their Lands and Freeholds by judgment and â—entence of the King and Lords it is undeniable that the King and Lords have an antient undoubted right to judge and censure both Peers and Commoners too in Parliament in cases of Treason and other misdemeanours there properly triable In the year 1266. King Henry the 3d. REGIONIS NOBILES assembling together at Westminster at Christmas to treat about setling the Peace of the realm after the accustomed manner there issued out an Edict against Earl Ferrers who was perpetually depriâ—ed of his Earldom according to the form of his Obligation for his Treason and rebellion against the King and Edward the Kings son was put in possession of two Counties or Earldoms to wit Derby and Leicester The same year after divers skirmishes between the disinherited Baroâ—s and persons and the Kings forces to settle a firm peace upon the Legates motion there was another Parliament held at Kenelworth wherein by the accord and consent of the King and Lords the persons disinherited whose Lands the King had confiscated for their Treason and Rebellion in the two former Parliaments were notwithstanding admitted upon their submission to the King for reasonable fines and compositions reduced to a certainty by Bishops and other Lords Commissioners both to their Pardons Liberties Charters and Inheritanceâ— 3. only excâ—pted their fines not exceeding 3. years value nor to be under one without any imprisonment or loss of Memberâ— as you may read at large in the accord between them and the King at Kenelworth printed in the Statutes at large See Par. 50 H. 3. dors 9. the Patent Charter and Claus Roâ—s of 50 51 52 53. of Henry the 3. and Claus 4 E. 1. m. 15. dâ—rso In the Parliament of 21 E. 1. John Archbishop of Yorke was impleaded and complained against for excommunicating the Bishop of Durham being juxta latus Regis per ipsius praecepâ—um against the dignity of the King and for imprisoning William of Willicon and John Rowman two of the Bishops servants in the Castle of Durham being excommunicated by him in his Ecclesiastical Court for the Wardship of certain Lands to which the Archbishop pretendâ—d a Right the Custody of which lands being a Temporal matter belonged not to Ecclesiastical cognisance The Archbishop protesâ—ing that although he ought not to answer for this matter in the Court of our Lord the King yet he was willing to answer And thereupon allegeth that the Bishop of Durham was his Subject and Suffragan and shews the whole matter and manner of the proceedings against him and his Servants in his Court and justifies the same To which Richard de Breelwell who prosecuted for the King answered that the Bishop of Durham was to be considered in a twofold estate one as a Bishop the often as an Earl in respect of his Temporalties and Tenements In which lâ—ter respect he was not subject to his Archiepiscopal Jurisdiction to which the Archbishop replied After much and â—ong debate it was adjudged and resolved by the Lords in Parliament that for this offence the Archbishop should be committed to prison and likewise agreed that in like cases it should ever be so this his Excommunication of them in his Ecclesiastical Court for a temporal matter being an high contempt against the King to the disinherison of his Crown and dignity Moreover he was adjudged to make his submission to the King and to pay a fine of 4000 maerks to the King for this offence The Archbishop hereupon makes his submission aend after much mediation to the King by his friends his imprisonment was remitted but the King would not abate one penny of his sine for the due payment whereof he was enforced presently to enter into a Recognisance and so dismissed The Record is very long worthy perusal but this is the summary of it Anno 1283. after the feast of St. Michael in PARLIAMENTO tento Salopiae David quondam frater Lewlini Principis Walliae per Potentiores Angliae judicatus judicialiter condemnatus ad caudas equorum per municipium Salopiae tractus et suspensus est visceribusque combustis corpus capite truncatum in quatuor partes est divisum quibus in Civitatibus Angliae Nobilioribus suspensis caput Londoniis super palum fixum est ad terrorem consimilium proditorum King Edward the 1. Ann. 1297. the 14. of his reign holding a Parliament at St. Edmonds where there was granted him an 8. part of the goods of Cities and Boroughs and a 12. part of the rest of the people the Clergy by reason of the Constitution of Pope Boniface made that year prohibiting under pain of Excommunication that no Taxes nor exactionâ— should by any means be exacted from the Clergy by secular Princes or payd by them of the goods of the Church denyed the King a Subsidy which he demanded of them to maintain his wars Whereupon the King that they might deliberate of a better answer deferred the business to another Parliament to be held at London the next day after St. Hillary An. 1298. The Parliament then assembling the Clergy therein persisted in their denyal of a Subsidy upon the foresaid ground The King thereupon by his Nobles advice excluded them from his protection and prohibited any Lawyers to plead for them in the Exchequer or before any other Regular Judge as being unworthy of his peace and seised all the goods movables and immovables of Clergy men found in Lay fees and confiscated them To redeem which Protection many of the Clergy by themselves and many by Mediators afterwards gave the King a fift part of their goods The King finding the Archbishop more rigid than the rest seised all his lands and commanded all his debts found in the Rolls of the Exchequer to be speedily levied on his goods For the same Archbishop by the assent of the Clergy had procured from the Pope an Inhibition Ne quis Clericorum Regi respiceret de bonis Ecclesiae The
Earl of Ireland Mâ—chael de la Poole Earl of Suffolk Robert Tresylam Chief Justice Nicholas Bramber Knight and other of their adherents of High Treason against the King and his Realm The Articles they exhibited against them were 36 in number at large recorded in Henry de Knyghton de Eventibus Angliae l. 5. col 2713. to 2727. with the whole proceedings thereupon for which many were attainted condemned executed BY JUDGEMENT OF THE LORDS notwithstanding the Kings intercession for some of them to the LORDS they are likewise mentioned in the printed Statutes at large of 11 R. 2. c. 1 3 4. in Walsingham Hist Angliae p. 359 to 367. and other vulgar Historians I shall therefore for brevity refer you to them Exactum est juramentum a rege ad standum REGULATIONI PROCERUM et non solum a rege sed a cunctis regni incolis idem juramentum est expetitum In the Parliament of 14 R. 2. n. 14. The King and Lords without the Commons declared That in the 7 year of this King the Earldom of Richmond with the appartenances WERE ADJUDGED BY THE KING AND LORDS to be forfeited to the King by reason of the adherence of John Duke of Britain then Earl of Richmond to the French against his allegiance to the King and his father king Edward the 3. which judgement was not then enrolled in the Rolls of Parliament for certain causes known to the King and LORDS but was now inrolled and the lands granted to the Earl of Westmerland which King Henry the 4th would not revoke upon the Commons Petition to restore them to the Duke 1 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 78. In the Parliament of 17 R. 2. n. 11 Richard Earl of Arundel in the presence of the KING and LORDS accused the Duke of Lancastre of 5 particular misdemeanors In which when the King had justified him it was awarded by the King BY THE ASSENTS OF ALL THE LORDS that the Earl should in full Parliament make a formal submission to the Duke and crave pardon for his false accusation In the Parliament of 21 R. 2. rot Parl. n. 12. to 17. the Commons impeached Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury of high Treason for procuring the Duke of Glocester and others there named to accroach to themselves regal power and execute the Commission of 10 R. 2. when he was Chancellor praying that he might be kept under safe custody with a protestation of making for her accusations during the Parliament against him and others After which they prayed the King to give judgement against the Archbishop according to his desert who submitted himself to the Kings mercy Whereupon the KING LORDS and Sir Thomas Piercy the general Proctor for the Bishops in this case adjudged the fact of the Archbishop to be Treason and himself a Traytor and that thereupon he should be banished his temporalties seised and all his lands in proper possession or use together with his goods forfeited to the King and presenting the day and place of his departure into exile After this in the same Parliament of 21 R. 2. the Lords Appellant therein named accused the Duke of Glocester the Earls of Arundel and Warwick and others of High Treason for procuring the Commission in 10 R. 2. for raising forces and coming to the Kings person armed For accroching to themselves royal power and adjudging some to death and executing them as Traytors in the Parliament of 11 R. 2. For intending to surrender up their Homage and allegeance to the King and then to depose him and saying they had good cause to depose him c. Hereupon the Earl of Arundel being brought in custody to the Parliament before the Lords by the Kings command and assent of the Lords had his charge read and declared before him by the Duke of Lancaster Steward of England to which he pleaded his pardon which plea being disallowed because his pardon was revoked by this Parliament and he relying on it without any other plea the Lords appellants prayed judgement against him as convict of the Treasons aforesaid Whereupon the Duke of Lancaster by assent of the KING Bishops Earles and LORDS adjudged him convict of the Articles aforesaid and thereby a Traytor to the King and Realm and that he should be therefore hanged drawn and quartered and forfeit all his Lands in fee or fee-tayl which he had in the 10. year of this King with all his goods and chattels But for that he was come of Noble bloud the King pardoned his execution of hanging drawing and quartering and granted that he should be beheaded which was accordingly executed the same day on Tower hill by the Marshal of England The 28. of September the Earl of Warwick was brought ao his Trial in the same manner as the Earl of Arundel who confessed all the Articles submitted to the Kings grace and had the same judgement pronounced against him in the same manner as the Earl of Arundel But the King at the Lords Appellants and others requests pardoned his execution granted him his life and banished him into the Isle of Man The Duke of Norfolk by assent and Act of Parliament was tried in a Court Martial by the King Lords and some Knights for words spoken against the King and judgement was there given that he should be banished into Hungary and his lands forfeited to the King Within one year after such is the vicissitude of all worldly honour and power in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. Plac. Coron n. 1. to 11. at the prayer of the Commons the great Lords Appellants Edward Duke of Albemarl Tho. Duke of Surry John Duke of Exeter John Marquess Dorset John Earl of Salisbury and Thomas Earl of Glocester were all questioned and brought to their several answers before the King and Lords for their Acts and proceedings in the Parliament of 21 R. 2. the records whereof being read before them in Parliament they made their several answers and excuses thereunto whereupon the King and Lords after consultation thereupon ADJUDGED that the said Dukes Marques and Earls should lose their several Titles and Dignities of Dukes Marquess and Earls with all the honor thereunto belonging and that they should forfeit all the Lands and goods which they or any of them had given them at the death of the Duke of Glocester or since and that if they or any of them should adhere to the quarrel or person of King Richard lately deposed that then the same should be Treason The which Judgement was pronounced against them by William Thurning Chief Justice of the Kings Bench in Parliament by the Kings command but in the Parliament of 2 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 33. upon the Petition of the Lords and Commons to the King the Earls of Rutland and Somerset were pardoned and restored by the King in Parliament In the Parliament of 2 H. 4. n. 14. the Bishop of Norwich was accused by Sir Thomas Erpingham the Kings
the said Thomas and Roger as aforesaid but that the judgement and declaration had and given against the said John late Earl of Sarum were a good just and legal Declaration and Iudgement Per quod consideratum suit in praesenti Parliamento per praedictos Dominos tunc ibidem existentes de assensu diâ— Domini nostri Regis quod praefatus nunc Comes Sarum nihil capiat per petitionem aut prosecutionem suam praedictam Et ulterius tam Domini spirituales quam temporales supradicti judicium et Declarationem pradicta versus dictum Joannem quondam Comitem Sarum ut praemittitur habita sive reddita de assensu ipsius Domini Regis affirmarunt fore et esse bona justa et legalia et ea pro hujusmodi ex abundanti decreverunt et adjudicarunt tuuc ibidem This is all that is mentioned in that Parliament Roll concerning this businesse Sir Edw. Cook who hath an excellent faculty above all others I have yet met with in mistaking mis-reciting and perversing Records and Law-books too oft times which he had no leisure to peruse which I desire all Lawyers and others to take notice of who deem all he writes to be Oracle lest they be seduced by him in his 4 Institutes p. 23. affirms with confidence That in this Rot. Parl. 2. H. 5. n. 13. Error was assigned to reverse this judgement that the Lords gave judgement without Petition or assent of the COMMONS citing it to prove that the COMMONS have a power of judicature together with the LORDS But under his favour I can assure ye Reader 1. That there is no such error at all either mentioned or intended in this Record nor any one syllable tending to that purpose 2ly The Petition mentions no error at all in this judgement but only remembers two presidents of judgement formerly reversed the first in the case of Thomas Earl of Lancaster in 15 E. 2. which judgement was given against him at Pomfret Castle which was afterwards reversed as Sir Edward Cooke himself informs us in his 3 Institutes c. 7. p. 52 53. in Pas 39 E. 3. Coram rege rot 92. for this only reason Qua contra Chartam de libertatibus cum dictus Thomas fuit unus PARIVM MAGNATUM Regni non imprisonetur c. nec dictus Rex super eum ibit nec super eum mittet nisi per legale judicium PARIUM SUORVM c. tamen tempore pacis absque juramento seu responsione seu legale judicio PARIUM SUORUM c. adjudicatus est morti The other was the judgement given against Roger Mortymer in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. reversed for the like reason in the Parliament of 28 E. 3. n. 10 11 12. forecited being condemned and executed by the Lords without any arraignment hearing trial or answer against the Great Charter Now these two Presidents are pointblank against this pretended error alleged by Sir Edward Cook That the Lords gave judgement without the assent of the Commons and it had been very improper for them to allege the reversal of them for want of a legal tryal by their Peers to prove that the Commons who are no Peers should have assented to the Earl of Salisburies judgement and because they did it not it was Error and reversible These presidents therefore might have minded him of his gross mistake 3ly The King and Lords upon consideration declared and adjudged these two cases and judgements upon perusal of them not to be like the case of the Earl of Salisbury who being slain in rebellion and actual war against the king could not be personally arraigned and condemned as the other two might and ought to have been and therefore the judgement given against him in this case by the King and Lords in Parliament who were his Peers was a good just and legal judgement and no ways against the great Charter 4ly The Commons themselves in the Parliament o 13 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 19. acknowledged this judgement to be good without their assents by their Petition to the Kâ—ng that John Lumly whose Father was attainted of Treason by it together with the Earl of Salisbury might be restored to blood and lands by Act of Parliament and the Kings grace notwithstanding this judgement of Treason against them Which the King by assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal consented unto 5 ly In the Parliament of 3 E. 4. n. 31 32. this judgement was made void and repealed out of the Kings Grace by a special act of Parliament and the heir restored but the judgement not reversed for any Error 6ly Had there been any such Error assigned as is alleged yet the King and Lords upon solemn debate and deliberation over-ruled and adjudged it to be no Error at all as he pretends it and thereupon abated the Petition and adjudged the Judgement and Declaration given by the Lords alone with the Kings assent in 2 H. 4. without the Commons Petition or assent to be GOOD JUST AND LEGAL reconfirming it a new on Record as such Therfore it was a gross oversight in him to assign and print it as an Error and a President of the Commons House or both Houses power of judicatures together when as it is a most undeniable double Parliamentary resolution of the Kings and Lords sole right of judicature of their declaring and judging in Parliament what is Treason and what not within the Statute of 25 E. 1. without the Commons assent or privity and an unanswerable refutation of his sole opinion to the contrary in his 3 Institutes c. 2. p. 22. which he opposeth against not only these two Parliamentary resolutions but likewise against 5 H. 4. n. 11 12.15 and 17 R. 2. rot Parl. n. 20. there quoted by him By this you may judge how little credit is to be given to Sir Edwards quotations and authority in matters concerning Parliamentary Judgements and Records In the Parliament of 28 H. 6. rot Parl. n. 14. to 53. The Commons generally accusing William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk to the King and Lords he thereupon required of the king that he might be specially accused and heard to answer to that which many men reported of him to be an untrue man making therewith a protestation of his manifold good services in the wars and as a Privy Counsellor for sundry years and so asking God mercy as he had been true to the King and his Realm required his purgation The 26 of January the Commons required that for this his Confession he might be committed to ward The Lords and Judges upon consultation thought there was no good cause for that unlesse some special matter were objected against him The 28 day of January the Speaker declared that the said Duke as it was said had sold the Realm to the French who had prepared to come hither and for his own defence had furnished Wallingford Castle with all warlike necessaries upon whose request the said Duke was then
Lords gave him remedy by a Writ out of the Chancery Claus 14. E. 2. m. 12. in the Schedula there is a Judgement in Parliament by King Lords and Council touching the Abby of Abingdon and a composition formerly made between the Abbot Prior and monks thereof reversed nulled because inconvenient Claus 14. E. 2. m. 17. dorso there is a case concerning a reprisal brought by appeal out of the Chancery into the Parliament before the King Lords and Council and there heard and decided And Claus 15. E. 2. there are many cases and Writs touching Reprises In the Parliament of 1. E. 3. there were many Judgements given in sundry civil cases upon petitions To the King and his Council by the King Lords and Council extant in the bundle of Petitions and Claus Rolls of that year and those things that were proper for the Courts of Law and Chancery were referred to them to be there ended Claus 1. E. 3. m. 1. Upon the petition of Alice Gill and Robert Carder to the King Council and Parliament that they buying Corne in Abevil in France to transport to London it was arrested by the Baily of St. Valeric to the value of one hundred pounds at the suit of Will de Countepy of Crotye in Picardy and delivered to him against their wills because the Ship of the said Will was taken upon the Sea by the men of Bayon which ship the petitioners finding in the port of London had arrested by writ out of the Chancery directed to the Sheriffes of London until the said hundred pounds was paid them by the Merchant the King and Council ordered upon their petition that the ship might not be discharged till the 100 l. was satisfied that a Writ should be directed out of the Chancery to the Sheriffes of London to do Justice upon the contents in the Petition according to the Law of Merchants The like case of Reprise upon the Petition of Hugh Samson is in 1. E. 3. rot 5. In Claus 1. E. 3. part 1. m. 10. There is a Judgement given by the Lords and Council for the Bishop of Durham touching the Liberties and Royalties of his Bishoprick against the Kings revocation where in sundry Petitions and answers in former Parliament under King Edward the 2d are rehearsed wherein hee could have no right Mem. 12. there is a Judgement given by the Lords and Council in Parliament for the Bishop of York his prisage and preemption of wines next after the King in the Port of Hull and in Claus 1. E. 3. Pâ— 2. m. 11. Claus 4. E. 3. m. 9. remembred in the year Book of 6. E. 3. f. 50. So Claus 2. E. 3. m. 20. in Schedula there is Placitum in Parliamento before the King and his Council of the Dean and Chapter of Litchfield touching their Title to Camock Claus 14. E. 3. part 1. m. 41. Upon the Petition of the Bishop of Carlisle it was resolved by the Lords and Council in that and sundry other Parliaments in the Reign of this King and his Father non esse â—uri consonum that Churches and other things spiritual annexed to Archbishopricks and Bishopricks should belong to the King and Gardians of the temporalties but to the Gardians of the spiritualties and so ordered accordingly yea so was it resolved upon the Petition of the Bishop of Winchester to the King and his Council in the Parliament of Claus 1. E. 3. rot 9. dorso Where coram Rege et Magno Concilio concessum est et concordatum quod custodâ—s temporalium Episcopatus non se intromittant amplius temporibus vacationum hujusmodi fructibus Ecclesiarum de Estanmer Hamoldan annexed to the Bishoprick of Winchester In the Parliament of 14. E. 3. Sir Geoffry Stantens case upon his Petition to the King and Lords in Parliament the Justices of the Common Pleas came with the record of his case which had long depended before them in the Court of Common Pleas which being read and debated in the presence of all the LORDS Justices and others of the Kings Council their assistants in this case of Law they resolved that the Sonne being a stranger might aver that his Father who levyed the fine had nothing in the Lands and that the Wife in this case could not vouch her Husband And thereupon a Writ under the great Seal was sent to the Judges by the Lords order to give judgement accordingly Claus 35. E. 3. m. 40. A villain commits fellony and is attainted after that the Lord had seised his goods whereupon his goods were prized and seised on for the King notwithstanding the Lords seisure upon a Petition in Parliament It was resolved by the Lords and Council that it was just the goods should be restored to the Lord if they were not seised fraudulently to prevent the Kings seisure of them And a Writ of Restitution was thereupon awarded per ipsum Regem et per Petitionem in Parliamento In the 6. year of King Richard the 2d it was agreed between the Duke of Lancaster and the Scots in the Marches that for the benefit of both parties ut â—de caterâ— ipsi nee Anglici vexarenâ—ur per tot labores expensas sed singulis annis certi utriusque gentis destinarentur ad Parliamentum Regni utriusque qui et injurias acceptas proferrent in medium emendas acciparent secundum quantitatem damuâ—rum per Judicium Dominorum here the Lords both in the Parliament of England and Scotland are made sole Judges of injuries and dammages done by Scots or English upon one another in the Marches Quia vero Scoti ad Parliamentum Londoniis Anno 1383. supersederunt venire juxta conductum insuper damna interim plura Borealibus praesumpserunt inferre c. decretum est per Parliamentum ut frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem Et concessae sunt Borealibus commissiones congregandi virtutem exercitus Scotis resistendi damna pro damnis inferendi quoties contingeret Scotos irrumpere vel hostili mâ—re partes illas intrare In the Parliament of 4. H. 4. n. 9. Upon the complaint of Sir Thomas Pomeroy and his Lady against Sir Philip Courtney and others forcible entry into several Lands and Mannors in the Country of Devon The King and Lords adjudged that the said Sir Thomas should enter into the said Mannors and Lands if his entry were lawful or bring his Assize without all delayes at his election In the Parliament of 5. H. 4. n. 41 42 43 44. in a case concerning Mannors and certain Lands in the County of Cornwal between the Prince and John Cornwal and the Countesse of Huntington his wife the King and Lords gave Iudgement that the Prince should â—e restored to the said Mannors and Lands being parcels of the Dutchey of Cornwal and that the Prince after seisin had should regrant them unto them which was done accordingly in Parliament In 6 H. 4 n. 28. Upon the Petition of
the Prior of Coventry the King granteth by Assent of the Bishops and Lords that no man do break the head of their Conduit nor cast any filth into their water called Sherbouâ—n on pain of ten pound and treble dammages to the Prior. In the Parliament of 9. H. 5. n. 12. Upon long debates of the Lords and Iustices it was resolved by them that the Abbot of Ramsy should have no prohibition against Walter Cook parson of Somersham who sued for Tithes of a Meadow called Crowland Mead in the hands of the Abbots Tenants In the great case of Precedency between the Earl Marshall and Earle of Warwick in the Parliament of 3. H. 6. n. 10 11. c. The Lords being to bee Iudges of the same suspended both of them from sitting in the house till their case was fully heard and they all voluntarily swore on the Gospel that they would uprightly judge the case leaving all affection In the Parliament of 11. H. 6. n. 32 33 34 35. Upon a Petition the King and Lords in Parliament adjudged the Dignity Seigniory Earledome of Arundel and the Castle and Lands thereunto belonging to John Earle of Arundel who proved his Title thereto by a deed of Entayle against the Title of John Duke of Norfolck who layed claim thereunto And in the Parliament of 39 H. 6. n. 10. to 33. The claime of the Duke of York and his Title to the Crown of England against the Title of King Henry the 6 th was exhibited to the Lords in full Parliament the Lords upon consultation willed it to be read amongst them but not to bee answered without the King The Lords upon long consultation declared this Title to the King who willed them to call his Justices Sergeants and Attorney to answer the same Who being called accordingly utterly refused to answer the same Order thereupon was taken That every Lord might therein freely utter his conceit without any impeachment to him In the end there were five objections made against the Dukes Title who put in an answer to every of them which done the Lords upon debate made this order and agreement between the King and Duke That the King should injoy the Crown of England during his life and the Duke and his heirs to succeed after him That the Duke and his two sons should bee sworne by no means to shorten the dayes or impaire the preheminence of the King during his life That the said Duke from thenceforth shall be reputed and stiled to bee the very Heir apparent to the Crown and shall injoy the same after the death or resignation of the said King That the said Duke shall have hereditaments allotted to him and his sons of the annual value of ten thousand marks That the compassing of the death of the said Duke shall bee Treason That all the Bishops and Lords in full Parliament shall swear to the Duke and to his heirs in forme aforesaid That the said Duke and his two sons shall swear to defend the Lords for this agreement The King by Assent of the Lords without the Commons agreeth to all the Ordinances and accords aforesaid and by the Assent of the Lords utterly repealeth the statute of intayle of the Crown made in 1. H. 4. so alwaies as hereafter there be no better Title proved for the defeating of their Title and this agreement by the King After all which the said Duke and the two Earles his sonnes came into the Parliament Chamber before the King and LORDS and sware to performe the award aforesaid with protestation if the King for his part duly observed the same the which the King promised to do All which was inrolled in the Parliament Rolls Lo here the Lords alone without the Commons judge and make an award between King Henry the 6th and the Duke of York in the highest point of right and title that could come in question before them even the right and title to the Crown of England then controverted and decided the King and Duke both submitting and assenting to their award and promising swearing mutually to perform it which award when made was confirmed by an Act passed that Parliament to which the Commons assented as they did to other Acts and Bills And here I cannot but take special notice of Gods admirable Providence and retaliating Justice in the translation of the Crown of England from one head family of the royal blood to another by blood force war treason and countenance of the Authority of the temporal and spiritual LORDS and COMMONS in Parliament in the two most signal presidents of King Edward and King Richard the 2 d. which some insist on to prove the Commons Copartnership with the Lords in the power of Judicature in our Parliaments the Histories of whose Resignations of their Regal Authority and subsequent depositions by Parliament I shall truly relate Anno 1326. the 19. of Ed. 2d Queen Isabel returning with her Son Prince Edward and some armed forces from beyond the Seas into England most of the Earles and Barons out of hatred to the Spencers and Kingâ— repaired to them and made up a very great army The King thereupon proclaimed that every man should resist oppose kill them except the Queen Prince and Earle of Kent which they should take prisoners if they could and neither hold any correspondency with them nor administer victuals nor any other assistance to them under pain of forfeiting their bodies estates But they prevailing and the King being deserted by most hee fled into Wales for shelter Whereupon Proclamation was made in the Queens army every day that the King should return and receive his Kingdome again if hee would conforme himself to his Leiges Quo non comparente Magnasâ—es Regni Hereâ—ordiae Concilium injeâ—unt in quo filius Regis Edwardus factus est Cusâ—os Angliae communi Decreto cui cuncti tanquam Regni custodi fidelitatem fecerunt per fidei sacramentum Deinde Episcopum Norwicensem fecerunt Cancellarium Episcopum vero Wintoniensem regni Thesaururium statuerunt Soon after the King himself with most of his evil Counsellors were taken prisoners being betrayed by the Welch in whom they most confided Hagh Spencer Simon Reding Baldoik and others of the Kings party being executed at Hereford Anno 1327. the King came to London about the feast of Epiphany where they were received with great joy and presents Then they held a Parliament wherein they all agreed the King was unworthy of the Crown and fit to be deposed for which end there were certain Articles drawn up against him which Adam de Orleton Bishop of Winchester thus relates in his Apology i Ea autem quae de Consilio et assensu omnium Praelatorum Comitum et Baronum et totius Communitatis dicti Regni concordata ordinata fuerunt contra dictum regem ad amotionem suam a regimine regni contenta sunt in instrumentis publicis Reverendo patre domino J. Dei
Gulielmus Nubrigensis relates Qâ—cunque Rege tyrannice occiderat eo ipso personam et potestatem Regiam induens suo quoque occisori tandem post modicum fortunam inveteratae consuetudinis lege relicturus Quippe ut dicitur à centum retrò annis et eo amplius cum Regum ibidem numerosa successio fuerit Nullus eorum senio aut morbo vitam finivit fed omnes ferro interiere suis interfectoribus tanquam legitimis successoribus regni fastigium relinquentes ut scilicet omnes qui tanto tempore ibidem imperasse noscuntur illud quod Scriptum est respicere videatur OCCIDISTI INSUPER ET POS SEDISTI Wherefore to prevent the dangerous Consequences of these false Glosses on the Statutes of 25 E. 3. c. 2. 11 H. 7. c. 1. I shall lay down these infallible grounds 1. That all publike Laws are and ought to be founded in Justice righteousnes and common honesty for the preserving securing the lives persons estates of all men especially of lawful Kings and Supreme Magistrates from all violence invasion force disseisins usurpations conspiracies assassinations being against all rules of Law and Justice Exod. 20.12 to 18. c. 21 22. 23. Mat. 5.17 to 48. c. 7. 12. Deut. 4.18 Psal 19.8.9 Ps 119.7.106 137 138·160 167. Rom. 7.12 Deut. 6.25 Ps 33.5 Ps 45.7 Ps 72.2 Ps 74.15 Prov. 8.18 Prov. 24.21 Rom. 13.1 to 7. Lu. 20.25 Tit. 3.1 2 3. 1 Tim 1.9 10. Job 20.19 c. 24.2 Mich. 2.1 2 3 4. Jer. 6.7 c. 20.8 c. 22.3.17 Ezech. 45. c. Hab. 1 2. to 10. Lu. 3.14 Whence Cicero thus defines Law Lex est ratio summa insita in natura quae jubet ea justa quae facienda sunt prohibe que contraria Therefore these 2. Statutes were purposely made for those great ends and ought to be interpreted onely for the best advantage of Lawfull Kings and their adherents not for the indemnity impunity encouragement of Traytors Rebels Intruders Usurpers 2ly What Tully writes of the Roman Senators we ought to doe the same of our English Parliaments and Legislators Ea virtute et sapientia majores nostri fuerunt ut legibus scribendis nihil sibi aliud quam salutem atque utilitatem reipublicae proponerent Whence he there inferrs A Legibus nihil convenit arbitrari nisi quod reipublicae conducat proficisci quoniam ejus causa sunt comparatae Therefore these Laws are to be interpreted for the best security safety preservation of the lawfull heads of the Commonwealth and their rightfull heirs and loyal dutifull subjects not for their destruction and the indemnity security of Usurpers Traytors Rebels aspiring after their Crowns Thrones Assassinations to the publike ruine 3ly All the branches of the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. made at the special request of the Lords and Commons and that by a lawful King at that season declare this Statute to be meant only of a lawful King whiles living whether in or out of actual possession of the Realm not of a bare Usurper in possession without right as Sir Edward Cooke expounds it else it will necessarily follow That it shall be no Treason at all to compasse or imagine the death of the King de jure if once dispossessed for a time by Violence and Treason or of his Queen or eldest son and heir or to violate his Queen or eldest daughter not married or to levy war against the lawfull King in his Realm or to be adherent to his Enemies within the Realm or elsewhere or to counterfeit his Great or Privy Seal or mony c. But high Treason in all these particulars in relation only to the Vsurper in possession without and against all right and Title which would put all our rightful Kings and Supreme Governors into a farr worser sadder condition than their Trayterous Vsurpers and into a worse plight than every Disseisee or lawfull heir intruded upon by abatement or dispossessed by torcions unjust or forcible entries for which our Common and Statute Laws have provided many speedy and effectual means of recovering their possessions and Damages too against Disseisorâ— Abators Intruders on their Inheritances Freeholds for exemplary punishment fining imprisonment of the Disseisors Abaters but no means of recovery at all for our dishinherited disposseâ—ed Kings or their heirs against Intruders Vsurpers of their Crowns nor punishments against them their Confederates or Adherents if our Laws concerning Treasons extend not unto them though Kings de jure but only to Usurpers de facto et non de jure and if the Statute of 11 H. 7. exempt them from all kinds of penalties forfeitures by the lawfull King when he regains possession of the Crown as some now expound them 4ly It is resolved both by our Statutes Judges Law-books over and over That there is no Inter-regnum in our hereditary kingdom or any other That so soon as the rightfull hereditary King dies the Crown and Realm immediatly descend unto and are actually vested in the person and possession of the right heir before either he be actually proclaimed or crowned King and that it is high Treason to attempt any thing against his Person or royal authority before his Coronation because he is both King de jure de facto too as was adjudged in Watsons and Clerks case Hill 1. Jacobi Hence upon the death of King Henry the 3. though Prince Edward his heir was absent out of the Realm in the holy wars where he received a dangerous wound by an assassinate and was not certainly known to be alive yet all the Nobility Clergy and people going to the high Altar at Westminster swore fealty and allegeance to him as their King appointed a New Seal and Officers under him qui thesauram Regis pacem regni fideliter custodirent Sicque pax Novi Regis Edwardi in cunctis finibus regni proclamatur Edwardo fidelitatem Jurantes qui si viveret penitus ignorarunt Besides it is both enacted resolved in our Statutes Lawbooks That Nullum tempus occurrit Regi and that when the King is once in legal possession of his Crown Lands or any Lands holden of him by reason of his Praerogative he who enters or intrudes uppon them shall gain no freehold thereby yea if the Kings Tenant dieth and his heir enter into the lands his ancestors held of the King before that he hath done his homage and received seisin of the King though he hath a right of inheritance to the Lands by Law yet he shall gain no freehold and if he die yet his wife shall not be indowed because he gained no freehold by his entry but only a naked possessioÌ„ much les then shal a meer Intruder gain any Freeheld or interest in the Crown or Crown lands it self to the prejudice of the rightfull King or his heirs This is most evident by the sacred presidents of K. David still King when unjustly dispossessed driven out of his
kingdom by his unnatural Son Absolon who made himself King de facto who was yet a traytor with all his Adherents and came to a tragical end 2. Sam. c. 15. to c. 20. by the case of Adonijah the Vsurper and his Adherents slain and degraded as Traytors and of the Usurper Athaliah who had near 7. years possession of the Throne and slew all the bloud royal but Ioash yet was shee dispossessed slain as a murderer traytor usurper and Ioash the right heir set upon the Throne and crowned King by Jehoiada the high Priest the Captains and Rulers of the host and Officers people of the Land who all rejoyced and the City was quiet after that they had slain Athaliah with the sword 2 Kings 11. 2 Chro. c. 23. And as this was Gods Law amongst the Jews So it was the antient Law of England under the antient Britons as is evident by the case of the Usurper Vortigern who afâ—er his Usurpation of the Crown by the murther of two rightfull Kings Constantine and Constance and near 20 years possession by usurpation the Britons calling in and crowning Aurelius Ambrosius the right heir for their lawfull King he was prosecuted by him as a Traytor both to his Father and Brother whom he caused to be murdered to gain the Crown besieged assaulied and burnt to death in the Castle of Genorium in Wales with all his adherents that were in it This Law continued not onely under our Saxon Kings but English too as is evident by the case of Qu. Maud reputed a lawfull Queen notwithstanding the usurpation Coronation and actual possession of King Stephen in her absence all whose grants of the Crown lands were resumed by her Son King Henry the 2. and King Stephens Charters and Grants of them resolved null and void against King Henry because made by a Usurper and Invader of the Crown King John in the year 1216. was renounced by most of his Nobles Barons people who elected crowned and swore allegeance to Lewes as their King and dispossessed King John of all or most of the Realm who thereupon at his death cum summa mentis amaritudine maledicens non valedicens omnibus Baronibus suis pauper omni thesauro destitutus nec etiam tantillum terrae in pace â—inens ut vere JOHANNIS EXTORRIS diceretur ex hac vita miserrime transmigravit Henricum primogenitum suum REGNI CONSTITUENS HAEREDEM Yet no sooner was he dead though Lewes was K. de facto and that by the Barons own election who called him in and crowned him but Gualo the Popes Legat and many of the Nobles and People asâ—embling at Glocester there crowned Henry his Son for their true and lawfull King at Glocester cogente necessitate quoniam Westmonasterium ubi locus est ex consuetudine regiae consecrationis deputatus tunc ab inimicis suis suit obsessum After his Coronation he received the homages and fealties of all the Bishops Earls Barons and others present at his Coronation Sicque Nobiles Universi Castellani eo multo fidelius quam regi Johanni adhaeserunt quia propria patris iniquitas UT CUNCTIS VIDEBATUR filio non debuit imputari After which most of the Nobles and English deserting Lewes submitted themselves to Henry as their lawfull Soveraign routed the French forces besieged Lewes in London forced him to swear that he would depart the Realm and never to return more into it during his life and presently restore all the Lands and Castles he had taken in England by warr and resign them to King Henry Which he accordingly performed Most of the Barons who adhered to Lewes and submitted themselves to King Henry were by agreement restored to all their rights inheritances and Liberties But some Bishops Abbots Priors Secular Canons and many Clergy-men qui Ludovico Baronibus consilium praestuerant et favorem and continued obstinare were excepted out of the composition between King Henry and Lewes and thereupon deprived of their livings goods and forced to make fines and compositions for adhering to the Usurper Lewes though King de facto for a season Therefore a King de facto gets neither a legal freehold against the King de Jure or his heirs nor can he indemnify his adherents against his Justice who are still Traytors by adhering to him though crowned and the King de jure may punish them as such 5ly Since the Statute of 25 E. 3. which altered not the Law in this point before it in the Parliaments of 1 E. 4. roâ— Parl. n. 8. to 37.4 E. 3. n. 28. to 41.14 E. 4. n. 34 35 36. King Henry the 6. himself though king de facto for 39. years and that by Act of Parliament and a double descent from Henry the 4th and 5th Usurpers and Intruders together with his Queen and sundry Dukes Earls Barons Nobles Knights Gentlemen who adhered to him in his wars against Richard Duke of Yorke and Edward the 4th King de jure were all attainted of high Treason all their lands goods chattels forfeited some of them executed as Traytors for adhering to Henry the 6. and assisting him in his wars against Edward the 4th king only de jure it being adjudged High Treason within the Statute of 25 E. 3. against Sir Edward Cooks fond opinion to the contrary As for the Year-book of 9 E. 4. f. 1. b. that the King de jure when restored to the Crown may punish Treason against the king de facto who usurped on him either by levying warr against him or compassing his death it was so farr from being reputed Law in any age being without and against all Presidents or in King Edward the fourths reign that those who levied war against Henry the 6. were advanced rewarded as loyal Subjects not punished as Traytors for it by King Edward the 4th when actually King It being not only a disparagement contradiction to the Justice Wisdom Title Policy and dangerous to the person safety of any King de jure to punish any of his Lieges Subjects for attempting the destroying deposing of an Vsuper of his Crown and Archtraytor to his person but an owning of that Usurper as a lawfull King against whom high Treason might be legally committed and a great discouragement to all loyal Subjects for the future to aid him against any Intruders that should attempt or invade his Throne for fear of being punished as Traytors for this their very loyalty and zeal unto his safety Moreover all the gifts grants made by Henry the 4 5 6. themselves or in and by any pretenced Parliaments under them were nulled declared void and resumed they being but meer Usurpers and kings de facto not de jure 6ly It is the judgement resolution of learned Polititians Historians Civilians Canonists Divines as well Protestants as Papists Jesuites and of some Levellers in this age that it is no Offence Murther Treason at all by the Laws of God
in electing Members both in antient Boroughs and Counties by subjecting them to new imprisonments forfeiteres of Estate life and trials by Marshal Law in sundry particulars against this Charter instead of easing them of their long-continued illegal Taxes Excises Imposts Imprisonments Confinements c. confirming their former Liberties Franchises Properties Parliamentary privileges punishing the manifold high violations of them with those ill Councellers Projectors who were the chief contrivers of these intollerable grievances and resuming the antitient dissipated Lands Revenues of the Crown which should defray al publik ordinary expences yea how instrumental some of them have been to promote the desperate designs Practises Conspiracies of the Pope and Jesuits themselves now swarming amongst us under sundry disguises to ruine both our Kings Parliaments Church and State is so experimentally visible and well known to them all that I hope the consideration thereof compared with the forecited Presidents of our noble Ancestors and Parliamenâ—s will strike such a confusion of face such a compunction of heart into them for this their degeneracy Apostacy and breach of publike trust that they will now at last to regain their own lost reputations publikely renounce and abhor their former Exorbitances and study to equalize out act those their heroick predecesors by regaining re-establishing our lost Great Charters Laws Properties Liberties Parliaments privileges Peerage and make us once more a free thereby a happy and united Kingdom Church Nation that so they may be deemed worthy to sit vote in our future Parliaments It is storied of our renowned victorious warlike King Edward the 1. that in a Parliament held at Westminster in July 1297. he ascended upon a wooden scaffold before the great hall there with his Son Prince Edward the Archbishop of Canterbury and Earl of Warwick and there before all the people standing by erumpentibus lach ymis veniam de commissis humiliter postulavit dicens se minus bene tranquilliter quam Regem deceret ipsos rexisse portiunculas facultatum suarum quas sibi dederaut seu quas ministri ejus ipso inscio extorserant ideo acceptasse ut in â—urâ—osos hostium conatus sitientium sanguinem Anglicanum sumpta Rei publicae particula massa quietius possidendo potentius expugnaret Et addens ecce expositurus meipsum discrimini propter vos peto si rediero suscipiatis me velut in presentia habetis ABLATA OMNIA REDDAM VOBIS c. If our late or present all-swaying Governors Officers Swordmen will now make but the self same ingenuous acknowledgement as he before all the people that they have not governed them so well and peaceably as they should have done and became them to do that they and their Officers have much oppressed extorted from them not small but great sums of Money by undue and exorbitant means against their wills though with a publike intention to conquer those Enemies more effectually who thirsted after English blood for whose safety they are still ready to adventure their lives That they have sought their own wealth advantage honour preferment more than the publike or peoples welfare thereupon shall with weeping eyes humbly beg pardon of the whole Nation and those particular persons they have any ways ruined or oppressed and promise them full reparation of their injuries and what ever they have unjustly taken from them as this noble King Edw. did and confirm and enlarge all their Great Charters Laws Liberties as fully as freely as he then did upon his Nobles importunity they may then expect that reciprocal Love and dutifull respect to them as the Archbishop with the people then promised to King Edward and his Son with stretched out hands and be deemed worthy to sit and vote in Parliament notwithstanding their former miscarriages exorbitant arbitrary Ordinances and Provisions of which if they repent not I fear in conclusion what Matthew Westminster records of the Barons provisions at Oxon. Lewes and London will be recorded of them to Posterity Haec de provisionibus imo DE PRODITIONIBUS Oxon Lewens Londini dicta sufficiant quae variis aequitatis justitiae fictionibus dealbatae intus autem plenae Versutiae Provisores suos pessime prodiderunt which some of our late swaying republican Legislators have already found true by sad experience Fourthly our Nobles are persons of greater Estates Families Fortunes than others contribute most to all publike Taxes charges and have more to keep and lose than other ordinary Commoners and therefore in respect of themselves their families kinred tenants reretainers allies have greater interest in the Common-wealth and State affairs than they We see by Common experience in all kingdoms Nations and our own Realm that mens great estates innoble and inable them to bear publike Titles Places of Honour Dignity Trust Power as to be Lords Knights Esq Privy Counsellors Justices Sherifs Mayors Aldermen and the like which persons of mean fortunes unable to support these Dignities Offices places of trust and expence likewise are uncapable or unable to bear or manage Wherefore our Ancestors thought it meet just equal that they should have this privilege among others above ordinary Commoners to be present in all our Parliaments by Patent and Tenure only and that of right ex debito justitiae not by election as Knights Citizens and Burgesses are being persons of meaner estate quality and present in Parliament only in the right of others who elect them not in their own rights as the Lords are whose estates antiently were and still are far more worth yea their publike payment greater than many whole Burroughs put together and their families retainers followers far more in number And so their engagements to maintain the Laws Liberties properties of the Subject farr greater than inferiour mens Upon which ground all Barons and Peers of the Realm in cases of debt and executions are free from arrests of their bodres because by reason of their estates and Dignities the Law intends they have lands and assets to satisfie all their debts Fifthly It is one principal property of Members of Parliament to be constant stout inflexible and not to be bowed or turned from the right the publike good or liberties by fear favour promises rewards Now Peers of noble birth education and more generous heroick spirits than the vulgar sort of men are not so apt to be over-awed with regal threats terrified with menaces tempted with honours preferments wealth which they already injoy in a higher proportion than others nor seduced with rewards and privat ends from the common good and interest wherein their honour wealth safety are imbarqued as ordinary Commoners and men of meaner rank and fortunes are which experience of former ages and this present manifests Therefore it was thought just and reasonable by our Ancestors that the Nobles in this regard should sit in all our Parliaments in their own rights without the peoples election and to leave the people to
vote down the Lord Mayor and Aldermen and reverse their Orders and Judgements in their Court upon appeals unto them They being in nature of Grand Jury men and the General Inquisitors of the Realm to inquire of present and impeach transmit delinquents of all sorts in Parliament to the Lords House their only Judges Cooks 4. Instit p. 24. 3ly That the King and House of Lords are now of right and still ought to be the only true and proper Judges of all Parliamentary Causes and Controversies Civil Ecclesiastical or Criminal whether they concern Peers Clergymen or Commoners as they were originally before any Knights Citizens or Burgesses summoned to them To clear this from all Scruples and avoid mistakes I must inform you that there is a twofold way of proceeding and judgeing in Parliaments The 1. extraordinary and extrajudicial by way of Bill Act or Ordinance by the Legislative power alone such Bills Acts Ordinances ratifying only the precedent judgements of the Lords passed against Malefactors being not any proper actual Judgements in their own name This is evident by one of the first cases wherin the Commons after their admission into our Parliaments were made parties to a Judgement by way of Bill In the Parliament of 15 E. 2. there were sundry Articles of High Treason in accroaching royal Power in divers cases c. as likewise of misdemeanour and Breach of the Great Charter exhibited against the 2. Hugh Spencers both privy Counsellors of the realm which upon examination were found true BY THE EARLS BARONS OTHER PEERS OF THE LAND Parquoy NOVS PIERS DE LATERRE COUNTS BARONS en la presence nostre SEIGNOUR LE ROY AGARD que Sir Hugh le Despenser le Fitz Sir Hugh le Despenser le piere soient disheritz a touts jours come disheritours de la corone enemies du roy de son people que ilz soient de tout exiles hors du royalme Dangliterre sans retourner in nul temps si ceo ne soit de assent nostre Seignor le Roy de lassent DES PRELATS COUNTS ET BARONS et ceo en parlement duement somons Et les donons port a Dover nul parte aillours a voyder a passer hors du royalm Dangliterre enter cy la feast de sainct John le Baptist prochein avenir cest jour accompte Et si lesâ— it Sir Hugh Sir Hugh demurgent en le royalme Dangliterre oustre le dit jour que done lour est de voyder de passer come desuis est dist ou que apres le dit jour retournet adonques soit fait de eux come de enemies de roy de roialme This judgement being given against them in Parliament only by the Peers Earls and Barons in the presence of the King as the Close of the Act for their banishment and Clause Roll of that year recite thereupon there was an Act drawn up wherein all the Articles and the judgement given against them are recited for confirmation of this Judgement wherein the Prelates and Commons were made parties though not to the judgement it self beginning thus Al honeur de deiu c. luy monstrent Prelates Counts Barons et les autres Pieres de la terre COMMON de Royalm contre Sir Hugh c. To which Act the King much against his will to prevent a warr consented The History of the Lords proceedings against these Spencers is thus related by Walsingham There falling out a difference between Hugh Spencer the younger and Earl of Hereford about lands which Spencer purchased of William de Brews which the Earl desired to buy and had first contracted for but Spencer by his power at Court bought from him the Earl thereupon being much incensed complained of this injury to Thomas Earl of Lancaster qui allicientes caeteros pene cunctos Comites Barones in partem suam conjurationem fecerunt maximum ad vivendum moriendum pro justitia regni proditores pro viribus destruendis praecipue utrunque Hugonem de Spencer patrem scilicet atque filium quos odio inexorabili perstringebant eo maxime quia regem ducebant pro suae voluntatis arbitrio in tantum quod nec Comes nec Baro nec Episcopus quicquam valuit expedire in Curia sine horum consilio vel favore Omnium ergo livore persequebantur qui omnibus pene dominabantur quo plus crevit eorum gloria eo amplius contra illos crevit invidia quae semper accrescit abundantia aliorum Igitur Barones duce Thoma de Lancastria apud Shirborn in Elmedon convenerunt faederati prout dicitur juramentis astricti ad prosequendum propositum usque ad corporis animae divisionem Sed tamen pene cuncti praeâ—er Thomam de Lancastria Humfridum Comitem de Herefordia paucos alios ante finem negotii retrorsum abierunt prae timore mortis sese Regi dediderunt sed haec inferius plenius videbuntur Cumque Barones ut praefertur apud Shirburnam convenissent quosdam artirulos proscriptionem dictorum Hugonis Hugoniâ— composuerunt sed tamen vias juris et aequitatis in hac parte penitus omiserunt suorum pro tempore exequentes impetus animorum Nam illorum bona qui illis vel amicitia vel affinitate juncti fuerant furibunde invadebant capientes castra per violentiam vastantes praedia per malitiam perimentes famulos reperâ—os iâ— custodiis eorundem dolentes ob hoc tantummodo quod eorum personas capere quos oderunt minime potuerunt praedicta furia de die in diem vires sumente Barones vexillis explicatis ad sanctum Albanum veniunt per viam deripientes ubique victualiâ— pauperes terrae gravantes In hac comitiva fuerant quidam qui propter inveteratum odium monasterium sancti Albani dictique loci Monachos se gravaturos devoverant Sed tamen disponente Deo qui neminem temptari permittit supra vires horum magister autor tantae malitiae in villa de Alysbury priusquam ad sanctum AlbanuÌ„ attingeret morbo percussus irremediabili propriis seipsum descerpit manibus post duos dies miserabiliter expiravit Caeteri tam formidabili tremefacti vindicta casum pro miracuâ—o reputantes ab executione voti illiciti timore magis quam amore destiterunâ— Magnates vero apud sanctum Albanum cum suis armatis exercitibus per triduum perhen inâ—ntes miserunt solennes ad Regem nuncios Londoniis commorantem Londoniensem Sarisburiensem Eliensem Herefordensem Cicistrensem Praesules qui tunc apud sanctum Albanum convenerant pro pace reformanda mandantes ut dominus rex non solum suam vacuaret curiam sed regnum suum de regni Proditoribus Hugone Hugone le Spencer per communitatem terrae in multis condemnatis articulis exiliumque meritum subire permitteret si diligeret regni pacem Petierunâ— Barones insuper
House is a stronger argument to prove them no Court at all at least of Judicature than their adjournment or prorogation of themselves to evidence them to be a distinct Court from the House of Lords Should I here subjoyn to the premises all the cases extant in the Lords Iournals and Parliament Records evidencing the Lords real Jurisdiction proceedings and Judicature in civil causes in the reigns of King Ed. the 4. Richard the 3. Henry the 7. and 8. Queen Mary Queen Elizabeth King Iames and King Charles I should be over tedious to the Readers I shall therefore only trouble you with 2 cases more In the Parliament of 18 Elizabeth there arose a question about place and precedency in the case of the Lord de la Ware upon debate thereof in the Lords House ALL THE LORDS except the Lord Windesore ADIUDGED that he should have place next after the Lord Wilâ—oughbie of Erisbe And the Lord Keeper was appointed to acquaint the Queens Majesty with this determination of the Peers and to know her pleasure concerning the same In the last long Parliament Pasch 20 Caroli this cale of Note and Consequence was adjudged by the Lords against the late resolutions of some Judges touching the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court between Fairfax and le Gay and Mr. Johns a London Merchant In Lent Vacation 1638. Mr. Iohns libelled in the Admiralty against one Hooper for 26000 weight of Barbadoes Tobacco sold to him at St. Maloes in France in partibus transmarinis infra jurisdictionem Admiraltatis Angliae by one Bâ—les factor to Hooper for fraight due unto him by Hooper for his Ship called the William and Anne whereof Iohns was owner without alleging that this sale and contract was made super altum mare Fairfax and le Gay became sureties for Hooper in the Admiralty Iohns had a sentence against Hooper in the Admiralty upon this Libel who soon after became a Bankrupt Whereupon Fairfax and le Gay his sureties appealed to the Delegates to avoid the sentence and execution against them and then moved in the Kings Bench for a Prohibition to stay the sute suggesting the contract to be made at St. Maloes upon the land and not super altum Mare and so not within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Upon which they procured a rule to stay the Proceeding Whereupon Johns petitioned the House of Lords for relief against this rule and that the Delegates might proceed to give sentence upon the Appeal that so he might have execution against the sureties Hooper being a Bankrupt for above one hundred thousand pounds and all his estate sold so as his debt would be wholly lost if he should be deprived of the benefit of his sentence to which the sureties were liable Upon his Petition this point in Law amongst others whereon the hinge of his case turned was argued at the Lords Bar by Mr. Serjeant Rolls Mr. Maynard for Fairfax and le Gay and by my self for Johns Whether the Admirals Court had any true antient legal Jurisdiction of Contracts made at St. Maloes and other parts beyond the Seas between Merchants and Mariners touching their Merchandise and marine affairs upon the Land as well as on the Sea The Sureties Counsel argued confidently they had not upon the Statutes of 13 R. 2. c. 5.15 R. 2. c. 3. 2 H. 4. c. 14. and the Presidents cited in Sir Ed. Cooks 4 Instit. p. 124. and c. 22. of the Court of Admiralty and in Hubberts Reports â— 331 But I argued to the contrary and clearly proved by the Laws of Oleron Lex 1 2 6 8 9 10 15 16 22 23. made in the reign of King Richard the 1. Anno 1190. ratified under the Seal of that Island by that King confirmed and used by Henry 3. Edw. 1. and practised ever since as the Law of the land in the Court of Admiralty as Sir Edward Cook himself asserts and by the notable Record of 22 E. 1. in Cooks 4 Institutes p. 142 143 144. and Seldens Mare Clausum l. 2. c. 28 f. 275. the Black Book of the Admiralty the Parliament Roll of 4 H. 4. n. 47. for confirmation of the Laws of Oleron 1. That the Admiralty in all ages since King Rich. the 1. â—ill the making of these Statutes and ever since till Hill 2 Jacobi C. B. between Tomlinson Plaintif and Philips Defendant had held Jurisdiction of such contracts between Merchants and Mariners made upon the land in forein parts as well as on the Sea as the Marshal had always used to hold plea of Contracts and deeds of Arms Warr Treasons Murders and Felonies out of the Realm which cannot be determined by the Common Law And that without any Prohibiâ—ion granted to stay the proceedings in all that large tract of time both before and since these Statutes 2ly That these Acts were made only to restrain the Admirals Incroachments of Jurisdiction in Contracts Pleas Quarels other things made or done by Landor Water within the Bodie of the Counties of this Realm or in any Port Harbor Haven or Creek within the Counties the Conusance whereof properly belonged to the Kings Courts or to the Courts of Cities Burroughs and other Lords and to confine them only to such contracts and things within the Realm whereof the Sea is a part being under the Kings Dominion and Lordship as are made or done upon the Sea not upon the Land oâ— Water in any Haven Port River Creek within the precinct of any County but not to debar them in the least degree of their antient undoubted jurisdiction they always had and exercised de Jure without complaint or restraint in contracts of Merchants and Mariners made upon the Land in forein parts beyond the Seas of which the Kings Common Law Courts and the Courts of other Cities Burroughs Ports Lords never had nor could have the least Jurisdiction since out of the Realm and no Jury de Vicineto could be thence awarded or summoned to try the Contract in England which I proved by the Parliament Rolls and Commons Petitions whereon these Statutes were grounded being most express in point as 13 R. 2. Rot. Paerl n. 41.14 R. 2. n. 37.15 R. 2. n. 30.2 H. 4. n. 89.4 H. 4. â— 47.11 H. 4. n. 61. compared with 27 E. 3. c. 13.2 R. 2. c. 4.32 H. 8. c. 14.5 Eliz. c. 5.27 Eliz. c. 27. which so interpret it and by most of the Cases cited by Edward Cook in his Chapter of Admiralty extending only to contracts made within the body of any County within the Realm not in any forein parts on the Land or Sea without or beyond the Realm whereof the Comon Law Courts had never Jurisdiction before Sir Sir Edw. Cooke was Chief Justice and that by a meer fiction and false contradictory surmise contrary to truth reason Justice Law and the Letter of Charterparts and Contracts themselves viz. that they were made at St. Maloes Burdeaux Sevil