Declaratio Judicium Per quod cousider atum fuit in praesenti Parliamento per praedictos Dominos tunc ibidem existentes de assensu dicti Domini Regis quod praefatus nunc Comes nihil capiat per Petitionem aut Prosecutionem suam praedictam Et ulterius tam Domini Spirituales quam Temporales praedicti Judicium Declarationem praedictam versus dictum Johannem quondam Comitem Sarum ut praemittitur habita sive reddita de assensu ipsius Domini Regis asserunt fore esse bona justa legalia Et ea pro hujusmodi ex abundanti decreverunt adjudicaverunt Out of the last recited Precedent of 2 H. 5. may be observed That the Temporal Lords by Assent of the King may give Judgment on Offenders for capital Crimes and therefore Whereas it is said 2 H. 4. That the Judgment belongs only to the King and Lords that is herein explained The King's Assent ought to be to Capital Judgments and the Lords Temporal to be only Judges therein and not the Lords Spiritual But in Misdemeanors the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are equal Judges and the King's Assent is not necessary as shall appear §. 2. In what Cases the King's Assent is necessarily required Touching the King's Assent it is expressed in divers Judgments on Capital Offences 4 E. 3. against Mortimer Anno eodem against Simon de Bereford And there be divers other Judgments that year of this Nature wherein the King's Assent is not expressed but against John Matrevers Les Judices Peeres de la terre Judges de Parlement adjudgent agardant que le dit John be drawn hanged c. not mentioning the King's Assent And there are two other Precedents of the same Nature briefly Recorded Estre ou tiel Judgment est accorde que soit sait de Burges de Bayons John Dever And Item outiel Judgment est accorde de Tho. de Gurney W. de Ogle not mentioning by whom the said Judgments of Death were given 2 H. 4. The Judgment against the Earl of Salisbury and others for Treason is by the King's Assent and so is the Judgment of H. 4. against the Earl of Northumberland and 11 21 R. 2. upon those several Appeals In all which the King's Assent is recorded And so the Articles objected against Simon de Burley without the King's Assent and against his will which I shall here recite Item The aforesaid Dukes Earls of Arundel and Warwick Anno 50 E. 3. Richard Lyons pleading a Warrant from the King which he could not shew followeth thus c. And Tho. Mortimer continueth his traiterous purpose and by force of men took and imprisoned divers men your Liege c. Amongst others Simon de Burley Knight and him they carried in the Parliament at Westminster held the Morrow after the Purification of our Lady in the 11th year of your Reign and there were surmised against him divers points of Crime and Treason and thereupon was demanded of every Lord there present in Parliament his Advice of the said Simon touching the said Crime And afterwards the said Dukes and Earls of Arundel and Warwick would know your Advice Thrice Redoubted Lord. You answer plainly That the said Simon de Burley was not guilty of any the said Points and then they took upon them traiterously to have constrained you to have given your Assent to the Judgment which they have purchased against the said Simon upon the Points aforesaid And you Thrice Redoughted Lord would not consent to any Judgment to be given against the said Simon And yet notwithstanding the aforesaid Dukes and Earls took upon them Royal Power in prejudice of you and derogation of your Crown and without your Assent and against your Will and in your Absence and in the Absence of many other Peers of Parliament and without their Assent and against their Will awarded that that said Simon should be drawn c. and thereupon caused him to be beheaded but traiterously against your Crown Peace and Dignity This I have recited at large Unto which the Duke of Gloucester made no Answer being dead before the said Earl of Arundel pleaded the King's Pardon which was not allowed him The said Earl of Warwick confessed all the Articles in the said Appeal and put himself upon the King's Grace and the said Tho. Mortimer could not be found This Parliament begun at Westminster Die Lunae post Festum Exaltationis Sanctae Crucis and was adjourned to Shrewsbury And on Tuesday 28 January the Parliament there shewed unto the King how that they in the said Parliament at Westminster had accused and impeached John de Cobham in the 11th year of the King's Reign with others convicted in this Parliament accroaching to himself Royal Power in Judgment Awarded that the Lieges of the King Simon de Burley and James de Barners Knights should be Drawn Hanged and Beheaded without Assent of the King and against his will and in his absence and in the absence of many other Peers of Parliament who with held themselves and would not sit in such Judgment and against their will traiterously against the Peace of the King his Crown and Dignity And prayed our Lord the King to cause the said John de Cobham to joyn in this present Parliament to answer to the things aforesaid and to ordain such Judgment against the said John de Cobham as the Cause demands The said Jo. de Cobham was brought c. And touching the said Judgment awarded against the said Simon and James the said Joh. de Cobham said That it was told him by them who were present then That it was the King's Will to make such Judgment against the said Simon and James convicted of the said Judgment and Award which he had so given against the said Simon and James notwithstanding his Answer Whereupon c. Judgment was given against him and he adjudged a Traytor Here is objected That the Judgment against Simon de Burley was given by the Lords without the King's consent Secondly Against his Will Thirdly In the King's Absence Fourthly In the Absence of many of the Peers and against their wills Touching the First viz. The King 's not Assenting It may be Objected That the Lords gave Judgment against Weston 1 R. 2. without the King's Assent but yet not against the King's Will for they respited the Execution until the King might be informed thereof And the Reason then given for the said Respite was For that the King is not yet informed of the manner of this Judgment But whether the Lords proceeded to that Judgment against Weston before they informed the King because the King's Assent is not necessary or for that it being the last Day of the Parliament they had no leisure to inform his Majesty thereof let the Reader judge yet it seemeth to me that the King's Assent is necessarily required in Capital Causes and Judgments for these two Reasons First For that all
the Particulars in form of a Charge they were sent to the Lord Chancellor and his answer required to each particular In the same manner in the same Parliament they accused John Bennet Judge of the Prerogative Court of Bribery and Corruption in his Office In the same manner they accused and impeached Lyonel Earl of Middlesex and Lord Treasurer of England of Bribery and Extortion and Impositions on French Wines and Grocery which being reported to the House a Committee was appointed to consider of the Commons complaint and also of a Committee who had reported to the House a great want of Powder in the Stores through the Lord Treasurer's negligence A Committee appointed to consider thereof did after many Examinations taken draw up out of the whole Complaint of the Commons a Charge against him as also out of the Report of the Committee for Munition touching the want of Powder and of a Complaint made to the House by Sir Thomas Dallison and of some Misdemeanors whereof they are informed in the great Wardrobe and Court of Wards Which Charge the House sent unto the Treasurer and required his Answer 21 Jac. In eodem Parl. 21 Jac. The Commons at a Conference accused and impeached by word of Mouth the Bishop of Norwich of some Misdemeanors which being reported to the House the said Bishop made a present Answer thereunto as it was In the Parliament 1 Car. 1. Febr. 6. The Commons at a Conference accused and impeached George Duke of Buckingham of many Misdemeanors and delivered their Declaration in Writing that the said Duke might be put to his Answer § 2. The second manner of Accusation is Ex parte Domini Regis which is threefold The two first are immediately from the King and the third from the Commandment of the Lords by a formal Information exhibited in Parliament by the King's Attorney or Council learned as was that of E. 3. against Roger Mortimer Earl of March and divers others and 4 R. 2. against Sir Ralph Ferrers K t and 1 Car. 1. against the Earl of Bristol By the King's Commandment either upon the Petition of the Delinquent and upon the return and view of any the Proceedings taken elsewhere as against the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph upon former Proceedings against them in the Court of Chancery And 2 H. 6. upon request of the Commons against Sir John Mortimer Knight indicted in London In these Cases no Articles are exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis as in the former By Articles exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis Ex parte Dominorum against such as the Complaint is made upon in general by the Commons prout 1 R. 2. against Gomeniz Weston and Alice Peirce 7 R. 2. against the Bishop of Norwich and divers others Which Articles though drawn and exhibited Per mandatum Dominorum yet were the Parties charged therewith Ex parte Domini Regis Of Accusation by Information Ex parte Domini Regis In Rot. claus 4 E. 3. There is a Proclamation of the death of Edmond Earl of Kent where it is said certain Letters of his containing Treason were shewed to the King wherefore he was Arrested and freely acknowledged the same before the Earls Barons and other Grandees and Nobles of the Realm in the Parliament at Winchester 4 E. 3. Here appears plainly that Articles of Treason are exhibited in Parliament against the Earl of Kent In the next Parliament in the same year Edmond Son and Heir of the said Edmond exhibited his Petition praying the King that the Record and Process whereupon the said Earl was put to death might be brought before him in Parliament and if Errors be found that Right be done Numb 11. The which being read before the King Prelates Earls Barons and other Grandees in the said Parliament the King by his Royal Power and Dignity by assent in Parlialiament repealed the said Judgment Numb 12. Note That in this Repeal no Error was alledged nor any Exceptions taken for this that the Lords proceeded upon the Articles only which were objected against him the said Earl This is out of the Close Roll. The first Precedents recorded in our Parliament Rolls of Accusations in this kind are these of 4 E. 3. in the Parliament at Westminster which are added at large amongst divers others at the end of this Discourse the effect whereof doth follow viz. These are the Treasons Felonies and ill Deeds done to our Lord the King and to his People by Roger de Mortimer and others of his Covin reciting them all and concludeth thus Whereas our Lord the King doth charge you the Earls Barons and other Peers of this Realm that for as much as these things touch him principally and you and all the People of this Realm That you do unto the said Roger right and lawful Judgment as is fit for such an one to have who is very guilty of all the crimes above written for that he believed the said things are notorious and known for truth unto you and to all the People of the Realm Numb 1. The followeth the Judgment against him Item In the said manner our Lord the King charged the said Earls Barons and Peeres to give right and lawful Judgment on Simon de Bereford Knight who was ayding and counselling unto the said Roger de Mortimer in all treasons and ill deeds for which the said Roger was so awarded and done to death as the thing that is known and notorious to the said Peers as the King believeth Then followeth the Judgment against him also Then followeth the Judgment against John Matrevers Thomas de Gurney and William de Ogle Numb 5. But no particular accusations are recorded against any of them unless they were comprised in those general words of that against Mortimer viz. And other of his Coyn. For some of the same Crimes are mentioned in the Judgments yet no doubt but the Kings Attourny did exhibit Articles against every of them upon which the Lords proceeded to Judgment Here I do ingenuously confess my own Error when I said that this Judgment against Roger de Mortimer was afterwards reversed for that he was put to death without any Accusation which I conceived to be so upon first view of the Repeal thereof Anno 21. E. 3. Numb 10. Where the Petitioners Roger de Mortimer the Grandchild assigneth for that the said Earl was put to death and he disinhereted Sans Accusament Et sans estre masone in Judgment ou en Respons By which words sans accusament I gave you to understand that the Articles were no accusation whereas now upon better Consideration I do find that these words do intend no accusation by witnesses or otherwise to prove the said Articles objected against him For these Articles are a legal accusation in Parliment and frequently used as appears by many Precedents of the like nature But there was no other proof offered by the Lords to prove the same then that the King believeth them
were also recorded and read in Parliament Numb 17. 18 19 20. but the Information exhibited against him whereupon he was arraigned is not recorded It is only said He was arraigned Ex parte Domini Regis §. 3. Here might be two Questions First Whether was this Sir Ra. Ferrers legally brought to his Answer in Parliament by the commandment of the Duke of Lancaster and those other Lords who were then with him in the Marches of Scotland Secondly Whether he being no Baron or Lord of Parliament for he never had Summons might be legally arraigned in Parliament for life and death upon an Information Ex parte Dom. Regis which is contrary to the Law as was resolved in Parliament 4 E. 3. Numb 2. and 6. For resolutions of these doubts I am of opinion that the Duke of Lancaster might send Sir Ra. Ferrers to the Parliament because it was then sitting and might examine the Treason whereof he was suspected though they could not proceed to Judgment against him without the Commons he being a Commoner and not their Peer And it fell out in the Examination of this business they found the Letters to be counterfeited and so he was acquitted thereof And so far their proceeding was not illegal For the Parliament may entertain and examine any Cause and then direct the Judgment thereof to its own proper Court if it belong not unto them as they did in 5 R. 2. Numb 43. 44. Here Sir William Cogan Knight being accused by Sir Richard Clurdon of matter sounding to Treason After the Lords had heard the Cause they remitted both the parties to the Common-Law And in this Case of Sir Ra. Ferrers if they had found he had been guilty they might have proceeded to Judgment against him according to the Precedent of Sir Tho. Mortimer in 2 H. 4. who was indicted in London and the Indictment returned into the Chancery and thence brought into the Parliament where the Commons affirmed the same and prayed Judgment against him Anno 2 H. 4. The Lords Temporal gave Judgment on one Tho. Holland Earl of Kent John Holland late Earl of Huntington John Mountague late Earl of Salisbury the late Lord de Spencer and Ralph Lumley who were beheaded in a War they had Trayterously raised against the King This Judgment is entred but not the Information Ex parte Dom. Regis which is necessary to be understood for had it been omitted his Son Thomas would without doubt have assigned that for one of the errors in his Petition to reverse the said Judgment 2 H. 5. apud Leicester which he did not though he assigned for an Error That his Father was put to death without an accusation In the Parliament begun at Westminster Feb. 6. 1 Car. 1. and continued until June 25. Anno 2. ejusdem Regis John Earl of Bristol was charged with High Treason in this manner viz. Primo die Maii. The said Earl of Bristol being brought to the Bar and kneeling till the Lord Keeper wished him to stand up The Lord Keeper told him he was sent for to hear his Charge of High Treason And Mr. Attorney General being at the Clerks Table began to open his Charge but being interrupted by the said Earl who with much importunity exhibited Articles against the Duke of Buckingham then present which as he said he conceived to be Treason and required of the Lords that his Testimony against the Duke and the Lord Conway against whom he then also delivered Articles might not be made invalid no more then the Charge against himself which he affirmes was procured by the said Duke yet notwithstanding the head of the Kings Charge were opened against him by Mr. Attorney and then the said Articles against the said Duke and against the Lord Conway were read And it was ordered by the Lords of the Parliament that the Kings Charge against the said Earl should be first heard and afterwards the Earls Charge against the Duke c. But yet so as the Earls Testimony against the said Duke be not prevented prejudiced hindred or impeached Secundo die Maii. The House was moved that the Earl of Buckingham might be indicted according to the Stat. of 35 H. 8. the Treasons committed being beyond the Seas as was objected and that being certified to both Houses they to proceed against him by Tryal of Peers But their Lordships did not resolve on the manner of proceeding Then the Houses were moved that Mr. Attorney might provide an Indictment against the said Earl to be returned to the House on Saturday next Maii 6. And if he doubt of the Form to confer thereof with the Judges And if any great difficulty appear to resort to their Lordships and acquaint them with it And it was ordered that Mr. Attorney proceed with the preparation but the Houses not to be concluded at their next meeting on Thursday And the Sub-Committee for Priviledges c. to search for Precedents in the mean time Die Jovis Maii 4. The Sub-Committee for Priviledges reported one onely President viz. the Tryal of the Earl of Northumberland 5 H. 4. which the Clark read unto them out of the Parliament Roll of that year Whereupon after long debate It was ordered first that Mr. Attorney prepare the heads of the Charge against the Earl of Bristol and to bring them in on Saturday next Secondly The Earl then to receive his Charge at the Bar. Thirdly That when the Earl hath heard his Charge the Lords will determine when he shall Answer But he is not to be inhibited if he will Answer presently Fourthly The Cause of the Earl of Bristol is to be retained wholly in this House After the Earls Charge is brought in and his Answer then their Lordships to proceed to hear Mr. Attornies proofs amongst themselves and then to put the Cause into a way of Proceeding in this House Die Sabati Maii 6. The Lord Keeper shewed how Mr. Atturney desired that in regard the House hath already heard the nature of the crimes objected against the said Earl of Bristol That the Clark of the Crown in the Kings Bench may attend the reading of the Charge here according to a Precedent of former times which was denyed in regard the Clark of the Crown in the Kings bench is no Minister of this Court And also for that it was ordered May 4. that this Cause was wholly to be retained within this House The said Order being read the Earl was brought to the Bar and the Lord Keeper commanded Mr. Attorney to read the Charge against him who read the same out of a Parchment ingrossed in Court-hand and signed by himself Ro. Heath It containeth diverse Articles of High Treason and other great Enormities Crimes Offences and contempts committed by the said Earl c. prout postea Thus much touching the Charge against the said Earl by Information in the Kings behalf A Question was demanded of me and others in private the last Parliament
tell openly before them the full Truth saith clearing the Lord Nevil but afterwards he confessed against him He was examined in presence of two of the House of Commons Many Complaints were made against Richard Love and William Ellis in the Parliament and a Commission sent to enquire of the behaving themselves in their Offices 1 R. 2. Alice Peirce Not Guilty and that she would prove by Testimony of the late King's Houshold whom she named The Offence being for procuring E. 3. privately to revoke an Ordination of his Councel The Lords gave her Day and in the mean time named a Committee to examine Witnesses The Committee were the Duke of Lancaster Earls of Arundel Cambridge Northampton and of March And divers Witnesses who are named were sworn upon the Holy Evangelists and diligently examined upon the Articles objected against her The Lord Beauchamp was sworn and examined and the Duke of Lancaster being one of the Committe was diligently examined before the rest of the said Committee but not sworn ad testificandum Earls and Dukes are not sworn A Jury of the Houshold was impannelled for her Trial before the said Committee The Order made by the Lords for the Examination and Trial. Per l'assent Prelat des Seigneurs du dit Parlement ordeint fuit que testes Articles serounttrious per testimonies per enquest d'eux que seront de Hostel de dit Appeale que le verite purroit mieux estre conus By vertue of this Order the said Committee did take the Examination of the Witnesses and after their Examinations it follows thus Et nient minus seroit venire devant le Duc les dits Commissionaries Monsieur K. B. c. And so names eight Knights and nine Esquires queux fuerint jures adire le verite si le dit Alice fuit culpable de les Articles avant dits ou nemy Note This is the only Jury I find Recorded for Misdemeanors in Parliament I make no doubt but if the Delinquent doth put himself upon the Trial of his Country That a Jury ought to be impannelled therefore But if the Commons impeach any man they are in loco proprio and there no Jury ought to be only Witnesses are to be examined in their Presence or they to have Copies thereof And the Judgment not to be given until the Commons demand it For Proof that the Witnesses ought to be examined in their Presence vide 50 E. 3. The Impeachment of the Lord Nevile where Richard Love was examin'd in presence of two Knights of the House of Commons who contraried his Testimony Numb 44. The Proof that a Delinquent may put himself super Patriam vide 4 E. 3. Where the Lord Berkley who waved his Peerage was tried by a Jury of Gloucestershire and Warwickshire for that he was Arraigned for the Murder of E. 2. at Berkley-Castle in Com. Glouc. And he answered That he was sick at that time at Bewdley in Com. Wigorn. But he was Arraigned upon an Information ex parte Dom. Regis and not upon the Impeachment of the Commons for then they had been Patria sua And as the Party may put himself super Patriam so he may demand Battel But not when he is accused ex parte Domini Regis prout Clarence Anno 18 E. 4. Nor when he is accused by the Commons prout Brembre 11 R. 2. When the Earl of Arundel was brought to answer the Appeals the Lords Appellants threw down their Gloves by way of a Challenge The Earl answered Si essem liber non resurgeram Note That the Commons had accused them also Vide a Herald Parl. lib. Mayleress And thereupon it was testified openly in Parliament That our Lord the King had expresly said that day before the same Lord then present in Parliament That he knew not how nor in what manner the said Richard was come into such an Office about him and which is more he did not know him to be his Officer Anno 21 R. 2. The Lord Cobham being brought to his Answer for procuring a Commission to himself and others in derogation of the King's Prerogative 11 R. 2. and for executing the said Commission He denied the procuring thereof and that he would not have used the said Commission without the King's Commandment and that he told the King so much and that the King commanded him not to intermeddle therein Whereunto our Lord the King answered and said That he was in such Governance at that time that he could not otherwise say because of them that were then about him And that the Lord Cobham knew well that the said Commission was made at his Will The which thing Jo. de Cobham did not gainsay at his Trial and so Judgment passed on him for the same and he adjudged a Traytor Et qui non vult Anno 18 E. 4. George Duke of Clarence was Arraigned in Full Parliament There is no mention thereof in the Roll but in a Manuscript of that time written by a Frier of Croyland Tam testis est vera disceptatio ea habita inter duos tantae humanitatis Germanos Nam nemo arguit contra Ducem nisi Rex nemo respondet Regi nisi Dux Introducti autem erant nonnulli de quibus à multis valde dubitatur an Accusatorum an Testium officiis sunt functi utraque enim officia in eadem causa eisdem personis non congruunt Delevit enim object a Dux ille per Justificationem asseruit si exaudiri possit manuali defensione teneri causam suam Quid multis numeror Parliament les reputantes audit as Informationes sufficere formarunt in eam sententiam damnationis quae ab Henrico Duce Buck. pro tempore noviter creato Anglorum Seneschallo prolata est postea dilata est executio quo ad usque Prolocutor Communitatis in superiorem Cameram cum sociis suis adveniens novam ejus conficiendae rei requisitionem fecerat consequenter infra paucos dies factum est id qualecunque genus Supplicii secreti infra Turrim London utinam sine malo Anno Dom. 1418. Regni vero Regis E. 4. 18. per Anonimum libris Cotton Here let us examine for what illegal proceedings the Commons desired to have the Cause tried again The Author saith Nemo arguit contra Ducem nisi Rex This the Commons held to be against Law That the King himself should enforce either Article or Testimony against a Delinquent in a Capital Cause For it is inconvenient That he who hath the Forfeiture of Life Lands and Goods shall be Accuser Witness or Judge The Commons were present at this Trial and considering the Inconveniences thereof they returned and made the Request ut supra Primo Car. 1. In the Parliament of 6 Febr. John Earl of Bristol was accused by the King's Attorney of Treason beyond the Seas 8 May 1626. The said Earl petitioned the Lords That seeing several points of that Charge are grounded upon private
private persons where the party might have his Remedy at the Common Law prout Botheil Cooper Anno 50 E. 3. accused William Ellis for extorting 17 Nobles from certain Merchants at Pruse and also for their wrong Imprisonment by the false Suggestion of William Ellis to the King And the Lords referred the taking of the 17 Nobles to the Common Law But upon the Examination of the Imprisonment it was proved That Ellis did write his Letters to one of the King's Bed-Chamber falsly suggesting against Botheil and Cooper which Letters were shewn to the King his Majesty then commanded them to be Committed This the Lords expounded to be false Suggestion in Ellis The King himself judged him for the same Had that Point been cleared in the Statute of False Suggestions haply the Lords would have referred it to its proper place So also Anno 5. E. 2. The Lords referred the Accusation of Clingdon to be Tried at the Common Law Secondly Touching the Demand That verily belongs to the Party at whose Suit it is To the King's Councel for the King if the Articles were de part le Roy and to the Commons against an Impeached Delinquent By whom Judgment ought to be Rendred It appeareth plainly by many Precedents That all Iudgments for Life and Death are to be rendred by the Steward of England or by the Steward of the King's House and this is the Reason why at every Parliament the King makes a Lord Steward of his House though he hath none out of Parliament And at such Arraignment the Steward is to sit in the Chancellor's place And all Judgments for Misdemeanors by the Chancellor or by him who supplies the Chancellor's place CHAP. VI. The Precedents for Life and Death ANno 10 R. 2. John Lord Gome 〈…〉 and William Weston were brought by the Constable of the Tower before the Lords in Full Parliament sitting in the White Chamber where they were severally Arraigned at the Commandment of the Lords by Richard le Scroop Chief Steward of the House of our Lord the King in manner following Here the Lords commanded the Arraignment of certain Earls Peers of the Realm They did not appoint the Steward to do it It belonged to his Office Anno 20 R. 2. Thomas Haxey was Arraigned of High Treason before the King the Lords and Commons in full Parliament in Alba Camera by the Duke of Lancaster Seneschallum Angliae and the Judgment rendred by him Anno 21 R. 2. All those Judgments on the Appeal were rendred per Seneschallum Angliae The Records of E. 3. and H. 4. are silent herein by whom the Judgment was rendred It may be Objected That Anno 5. H. 4. The Lord Chancellor kept his place at the Trial of the Earl of Northumberland because he did deliver the Opinion of the Lords That could not properly be called a Trial for it was upon the Earl's own Petition And if it were resolved whether it were Felony or Treason it should have been done by the Steward sitting in the Chancellor's place Neither doth it appear by the Record that the Chancellor kept his place though he afterwards delivered the Opinion of the Lords So likewise Anno 1 Car. 1. Febr. 6. The Lord Keeper kept his place when the Articles of Treason were read against the Earl of Bristol but he did not Arraign him Then they were read and his Answer heard by the appointment of the House and some Witnesses examined also to the end they might understand the true Nature of his Offence and then to declare how and in what manner to proceed against him for the same The Spiritualty did not deliver their Opinion therein To conclude All Records that are which mention by whom the Delinquents in Cases Capital were Arraigned do say that it was by the Steward of England or of the King's House And in remembrance of this a Lord Steward is appointed at every Trial of a Peer of Parliament Touching Judgment rendred by the Chancellor in Cases of Misdemeanors it is needless to recite any Precedents only this I will say The Chancellor never gave Judgment on Life and Death and the Steward never on Misdemeanors And though there be Precedents of Judgments given by the Steward of England in Parliament prout 20 21 R. 2. yet I have seen none of the Judgments on the Peers rendred by the Steward of the King's House And the reason may be for that there was anciently a Seneschallus Angliae Quaere tamen whether the Steward of the King's House being a Peer may give Judgment on a Peer or not I think he may if there be no Steward of the House constantly made every Parliament though but during the Sessions The last Considerable Thing in Judicature is CHAP. VII The Execution of the Judgment ANd first in Capital Offences I have seen but two Precedents thereof in the Parliament-Rolls The First is 4 E. 3. Which begun on Monday after the Feast of S. Katherine There were long Articles exhibited against Mortimer for Treason and he was adjudged to die for Treason and thereupon saith the Record Commandment was given to the Earl Marshal to Execute the Judgment and also to the Mayor Aldermen and Sheriffs of the City of London and to the Constable of the Tower and likewise to them who had the Guard of the said Mortimer to be aiding to the said Earl Marshal to do the said Execution The which Execution was done and performed upon Thursday next after the first Day of the Parliament which was the 29th Day of November Ibidem Num. 2. Judgment was given on Simon de Bereford to be Drawn and Hang'd And thereupon it was Commanded that the Marshal should do Execution near the Tower of London And the said Earl of Arundel was Beheaded ou the same Day The Earl of Nottingham one of the Lords Appellants was Lord Marshall at that time and therefore his Deputy did Execution Item The Earl of Warwick being adjudged to die the King did pardon the Execution and granted him his Life viz. That he should remain in perpetual prison out of England in the Isle of Man c. And that he be at Sea on his passage before the end of one Month. And thereupon he was delivered to Monsieur William le Scroope and to Monsieur Stephen his Brother to bring him safely to the said Isle of Man c. The Earl Marshal was Commanded to Execution on a Peer and the Marshal on a Commoner The Command no doubt issued from the Lords with the King's Assent herein Thus much touching Execution quoad Mortem In Misdemeanors the greatest Corporal punishment hath been Imprisonment I find no other in Ancient Parliament But who was the Officer to carry the Delinquent to prison is not Recorded save he to whose Custody he was Committed prout 42. E. 3. John at Lee was Committed to the Tower Et dit fuit al Monsieur Alley de Buxhill Constable de la Tower que il
c. Then they desired that three things might be enquired of 1. First the withdrawing the Staple from Callis by the Council and Procurement of some Privy Councellors about the King 2. Secondly of Loans to the King by way of Usury receiving again greater Sums than they disbursed wherein some Privy Councellors have been Partners 3. Thirdly of buying the King's Debts by way of Bargain some for the 10 th Peny some for the 20 th or 100 th Peny and procuring the King to pay the entire Debt to the King's loss and profit of some Privy Councellors and others of their Covyn Of which three Articles and their Dependencies the Commons said They would make farther Declaration in special whensoever it shall please the King to hear them Numb 15 16. Then follows their particular Impeachments and Accusations First Richard Lyons Merchant of London is impeached and accused by the Commons of many Deceits Extortions and many other ill deeds by him done to our Lord the King and his People as well during the time he was retaining to the King's House and to the King's Council as otherwise whilst he was Farmer of the Subsidy and Customs of the King And in special of this that the said Richard by Covyn made between him and some of the Privy-Council of our Lord the King for their private Profit and Advantage hath procured many Patents and Writs of License to transport great quantities of Wools and Wool-fells and other Merchandize beyond the Seas to other places than the Staple at Callis contrary to the Ordinances c. And so they declare of many other Villanies in great deceipt of the King and of his Court Whereunto the said Richard being then present in Parliament said c. Then follows his Answer in particular to what was particularly alledged against him and in general to what was generally charged upon him The Lords reassured him for that which was particularly objected against him and granted Commissions to enquire of the Extortions wherewith he was charged in general Then the Commissioners in like manner accused and impeached William Lord Latimer of divers Extortions Grievances Deceits and ill Deeds viz. of divers Oppressions when he served the King in Britain for being Partner with Richard Lyons c. and for loss of Towns and Forts beyond the Seas Numb 21. Item William Ellis of Great Tarmouth was impeached in this present Parliament in divers manners First by Surmise of the Commons c. Numb 11. And afterwards John Botheil and William Cooper exhibited their two Bills in form which followeth To their thrice redoubted Lord the King and to the said Council shewn c. complaining of the Oppressions of the said William Ellis unto them and others c. and their Oath was taken against him Numb 32. Item John Peecher of London Merchant was accused and impeached by the said Commons That he by the assent and aid of Richard Lyons and of other Privy Councellors for their private profit and advantage have purchased a Patent under the Great Seal of our Lord the King containing that none shall sell sweet Wines within the Francheses of the City of London but only the said John Numb 38. Item John Nevill was likewise impeached c. for buying the King's Debts c. and for loss of Towns beyond the Seas Here I observe that though the Commons complained 50 E. 3. but of three Grievances viz. of the withdrawing the Staple from Callis of Loans to the King upon excessive Usury and of buying the King's Debts yet when they who were accused appeared they declared against them for other matters also As against Lyons for new Impositions upon Wools without assent in Parliament and against the Lord Latimer for his misgovernment beyond the Seas and loss of Forts there and against Peecher for a Monopoly of sweet Wines c. I observe also that their Declaration is not made according to the strict forms of Law as you may perceive by that against Lyons wherein so many Extortions are so generally set down against him that he made no answer to them neither could c. Which Impeachment the Lords notwithstanding did not reject but supplied the defects thereof by granting Commissions to enquire thereof Ibid. Numb 20. in fine Item In this Parliament of 50 E. 3. an Ordinance was made against Women's pursuing businesses in the King's Court and especially against Alice Peirce Numb 45. I find no Accusation against Alice Peirce I only conjecture that the Commons complained of her though it be not entred for she is in the number of them whom in the next Parliament of 50 E. 3. Numb 87. the Speaker of the Commons names to be unjustly convicted in this Parliament And none were there convicted but those whom the Commons complained of Item Adam de Bury Citizen of London was impeached by the Clamor of the Commons in this Parliament of many Deceits and other ill things done to the King and to his People whilest he was Mayor of Callis and Captain of Bullingam and other ways as more at large appears in one great Bill delivered in Parliament the last day of this Parliament at Eltham And thereupon the said Adam was sent for to come to answer in Parliament and he came not neither could be found Wherefore it was awarded that all his Goods and Chattels should be put in Arrest and so it was done by Writs sent to the Sheriffs of London and Kent And the said Bill is on File with the special Petitions of Parliament 50 E. 3. Numb 11. Out of this last Precedent concerning Adam de Bury I observe two things 1. First whom they complained of The Lords sent for him only to appear before them they sent not to apprehend him as a Delinquent until he contemn'd their Demand whereof more hereafter in the Title of the Parties Answer 2. Secondly that the Commons delivered not their Impeachment that is their Declaration against the Party accused until he appeared before the Lords and then they kept it untill the last day of the Parliament in hope that he would be brought before the Lords and when they saw he could not be found they then delivered their Impeachment against him to the end as I concieve the particulars of their Accusation might remain upon Record against them hereafter Here I also observe an Error of the Clerk that he hath omitted the Proceedings against Alice Peirce John de Leycester and Walter Spooner who were all convicted in this Parliament as appeareth by the Speaker's motion to the King for their Pardons in the next Parliament 50 E. 3. Numb 87. Thus much touching the Commons Accusations and Impeachments The next Precedent is in 11 R. 2. in which Parliament the whole Commons with one assent assembled came before the King Prelates and Lords in the Parliament Chamber complaining grievously of Michael de la Poole Earl of Suffolk Chancellor of England there present accusing him openly by word of Mouth 1. First
that whereas he being Chancellor was bound by Oath to further the King's Profit and Commodity in all things He notwithstanding contrary to the said Oath and not regarding the King 's great necessity had purchased of the King Lands and Tenements to a great value procuring the same by reason of his Office to be Surveyed at an under value 2. Item Whereas at the last Parliament nine Lords were appointed to see and examin the State of the King and Realm which being done and their Advice delivered to the King as well by word as writing by what means the same might best be remedied The Chancellor promised in open Parliament that the same should be put in Execution which was not done through his default he being a Principal Officer 3. Item Whereas the Subsidy granted the last Parliament was appointed by the assent of the King and Lords in what sort it should be expended and not other ways employed in this was his default he being Principal Officer 4. Item Whereas John Tidman had a certain Annuity from E. 3. which he had since forfeited and the payment thereof was discontinued for the space of 20 or 30 years The said Chancellor knowing this purchased his Interest and procured the King to confirm the same unto him c. 5. Item That whereas the great Master of St. Antony being a Schismatic had thereby forfeited to the King all his Revenue within this Realm the same Chancellor had taken the same to Farm of the King for 20 Marks And whereas the Master should have livery thereof again he could in no wise get the same until he had bound himself to pay 100 l. yearly to the Chancellor and his Son 6. Item That during the time of his Chancellorship there had passed divers Charters of Pardon as well for Murders Treasons and Felonies as also for rasing of Rolls and imbezelling of Laws and Records and especially since the beginning of this Parliament a Charter of Franchises was granted to the Castle of Dover to the disinheritance of the Crown and to the Subversion of all the Places and Courts of the King and his Laws 7. Item That at the last Parliament divers Sums were allotted for the defence of the Town of Gant notwithstanding the same Money was lost c. by his default c. Of all which Articles the Commons demand Judgment of the Parliament c. I have been long upon this considering all the Precedents follow at large These are the most formally set down of all the Accusations hitherto of the Commons yet most of these are very general and uncertain Howbeit the Chancellor took no exceptions to the insufficiency thereof but answered to every particular The next Accusation of the Commons is 11 R. 2. in the 21. of the King they accused divers of those whom the Lords had first appealed whereof when we speak of all Appeals Anno 21 R. 2. the Commons accused and impeached of Treason the Archbishop of Canterbury Numb 15. and demanded Judgment against him and had it Numb 16. Eodem Parl. The Commons accused and impeached of Treason Tho. Mortymer and John de Cobham a Baron of Parliament and had Judgment against them both Anno 28 H. 6. William de la Pool Earl Marshal and Duke of Suffolk was accused and impeached by the Commons in manner following viz. The Duke being the great Favorite of the King and Queen the common People laid all the fault of the evil Government on him and made Ballads thereof which I have seen taxing his Loyalty to the King The Parliament of 28 H. 6. begun the 6th of November and held to the 6th of December and was then Prorogued to the 22th of January The Duke of Suffolk whether provoked by the Ballads then made on him or by some Speech in the House of Commons whereof nothing is recorded did require of the King that he might be specially accused and be heard to answer for that many reported him to be an untrue man and he made a solemn Protestation of his Loyalty wherein he sheweth that his Father and three of his Brethren died in the Service of the King and of his Father and Grandfather That he himself had served 34 years in the Wars being then but a Knight That he had been taken Prisoner and paid 20000 Marks for his Ransom That he had been 30 years of the Order of the Garter Chancellor to the King 15 years and had been 17 years in the King's Wars without returning home And he prayed God so to pardon him as he had been true to the King and required his Purgation Numb 14 15. Whether this was sent to the Commons or what notice they had of it appears not but on the 2th of January the Commons required the Duke might be committed to Ward for his own Confession for that as I concieve he himself confessed That the general Fame went of him And the Lords on Consultation of the Justices thought the same to be no good Cause of Commitment unless some special Matters were objected against him Numb 16. On the 28th of January the Speaker declared to the Lords how the Duke of Suffolk as it was said had sold this Realm to the French who prepared to come hither And that the said Duke for his own defence had furnished Wallingford Castle with all Warlike Munition And then on request the Duke was committed to the Tower On the 7th of February the Chancellor and some other Lords were sent by the King to the Commons a thing not usual but wherefore they were sent is not expressed happily to be informed what they could say against the Duke or to reconcile the business But the Commons delivered to this Chancellor and those other Lords a Bill of Articles against the Duke wherein they accused him of divers Treasons viz. For intending to marry his Son to the Heir of the Duke of Somerset and thereby for want of Issue of the King to claim the Crown For practising with the French c. Numb 18 19. and they require Prosecution against him Numb 17. March 19. The Commons delivered another Bill of less Offences against him Numb 28 29 30 c. requiring those Articles also to be inrolled and the Duke put to his answer These before recited are all the ancient Precedents I find recorded the following are of later times Anno 1 Jac. The Commons accused and impeached by word of Mouth Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Fr. Michell Knights for many Oppressions done to the People They impeached them to the Lords at a Conference and afterwards delivered their Declaration against them First Concerning a Patent for Inns and Osteries Secondly A Monopoly for Gold and Silver Thread Thirdly Concerning a Patent of Concealments Eodem Parl. They accused Francis Lord Viscount St. Alban at a Conference of Bribery and Corruption in his Office of Chancellor They delivered no Writing but a Committee of the Lords having considered the Proofs and drawn up
against Henry late Earl of Northumberland and Tho. Bardolph late Lord Baron for certain ill deeds which they had lately committed contrary to their Allegiance At their meeting the Constable of England shewed them the Process made in the Court of Chivalry against Henry de Peircy upon the Articles of Treason committed by him and others of his Covyn In which Articles are named the Arch-Bishop of York Tho. Newberry Earl Marshal the said Earl of Northumberland the said Lord Bardolph and many others and their several Treasons are therein contained The Lords having advised therein and considered the proofs delivered their opinion to the King touching the said Earl of Northumberland and the said Lord Bardolph only and proceeded to Judgment against them Then the King caused to be demanded of the Lords Temporal Peers of the Realm what they would say touching the Act of the said late Arch-Bishop of York and of the said Earl Marshal who lately with a great multitude of people were armed and trained in the field within the Realm of England with Banners displayed c. Unto which demand the said Lords Temporal said That according to the Information to them given by the said Constable It seemeth unto them to be Treason yet notwithstanding the Lords desired that with good deliberation when they next returned to the Parliament they might speak thereof unto our Lord the King as no error might be found in their doings in time to come This was done on that day the Parliament was adjorned Here the Lords had no other Accusation against those two Peers but the Kings commandment upon view of former Process against them in the Court of Chivalry And the Lords declared their opinion touching the Archbishop of York and the Earl Marshal though their Treasons were contained in the same Process also least Error might be found in their doings hereafter But whether they thought their Error to be that the King had not commanded them first to advise thereon touching the said Archbishop and the Earl Marshal as he had done touching the others Let the Reader Judge For my part I think that would have been error Could the Lords proceed upon Process elsewhere unless the King commands them 2 H. 6. The Judgment against John Mortimer is drawn up very briefly by John Hales one of the Justices of the Kings Bench wherein he first shews that the said Sir John Mortimer was Indicted in London sitting the Parliament before the Lord Mayor of London and other Commissioners appointed by the King For that the said Sir John being committed to the Tower for suspition of Treason corrupted his keeper and broke Prison That the said Indictment was returned into Chancery Ex mandato Dom. Regis and by the Chancery brought into the Parliament before the Duke of Gloucester the Kings Protector and the Lords Temporal the King being then an Infant And the Protector being Authorized by Commission to hold the Parliament de Precepto Dom. Regis That the said Sir John Mortymer by Vertue of the Writs was brought before the said Duke and Lords and Commons That the said Commons affirmed the said Indictment to be true and desired Judgment against him as convict of Treason and Felony And lastly That he was thereupon adjudged In this is set down all the essential parts of the Lords proceedings against Mortymer The Ceremonious or formal parts thereof are omitted as who complained of or accused Mortymer to the Parliament The King or the Commons did not for then there needed no Indictment And therefore it must move for the King either before the Indictment or rather upon the Return thereof unto the House For had the Accusation been before the Indictment it had been a shorter way to Arraign him also before the Commissioners in London he being no Member nor Peer of Parliament then to return the Indictment into the Chancery and then be brought into the Parliament Here is also omitted the Conference before hand between the Lords and Commons touching this matter For it is very unlikely that the Lords did suddainly send for the Commons and then abruptly read the Information before them and they as suddainly affirm the same all these are necessarily understood That the Commons affirmed the Indictment e. It appears that the Lords cannot of themselves Judge a Common Person for an Offence for he is no Peer according to that of 4 E. 3. Numb 26. The manner of Accusation by Information Ex parte Dom. Regis is when the Commons as any other private Person accuse any man unto the Lords in general but do not declare the Offences in particular other then by the Commandment of the King Articles are drawn up against the Delinquent Ex parte Dom. Regis The Precedents are these 2 R. 2. The Constable of the Tower was commanded to bring Gomeniz and Weston whose Offences were complained of in general by the Commons that they named before the Lords in Parliament to Answer to the Articles objected against them on the behalf of the King and they were severally arrained at the Commandment of the Lords c. Eodem anno Alice Pierce being complained of by the Commons was accused and commanded to come before the Lords in Parliament to Answer to certain things objected against her on the Kings behalf And here upon Sir Richard le Scroope Chief Steward of the Kings House by Comandment of the Lords rehersed in Parliment in the presence of the said Alice a certain Ordinance c. Made in the Parliament of 50 E. 3. against her And this Rehersal being made the said Steward surmised unto the said Alice That it seemed to the Lords of the Parliament that she had incurred the pain comprised in the said Ordinance in certain points and especially in two That is to say c. By these two Precedents it appears plain enough that the Lords commanded the Articles to be drawn and exhibited though ex parte Dom. Regis for all these are said to be done by their Commandment And the practise at this day is that out of the Complaints of the Commons as of Mompesson The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Tresurer and a Committee of the Lords did draw up the Charges But they wanted the words Ex parte Dom. Regis The reason why in this Cause the Articles are Ex parte Dom. Regis seemed to be this The Commons complain but impeach not Notwithstanding the Impeachment the Lords cannot proceed neither can they Impeach any to themselves So it rests that the party is to be Impeached at the Kings Suit It may be lawful for me to examine the proceedings of the Lords in the Complaint against Mompesson and to compare them with ancient Proceedings in like Cases And they will appear to differ much And touching Mompesson the Commons did not only complain but accuse him He fled in his absence they ought to have proceeded to Judgment against him before Proclamation first made for him to appear before the
King and then at a day the ancient use in such Cases was this The Lords considered of the Complaint and examined the Proofs produced by the Commons Then agreed on their Judgment and caused Proclamation to be made throughout England for the party to appear at a day else Judgment shall be pronounced against him with which the Commons are to be acqnainted before the Proclamations are sent for Then the Return of the Proclamations to be reviewed and examined and if any Errors be therein new Proclamations are to be made in the next Shire only for the party to appear at a short day If they find no Errors in the Return then Judgment is to be pronounced and not before Thus it was in 21 R. 2. in Thomas Mortymors Case c. In 7 H. 4. in the Earl of Northumberlands Case But there needed no Articles to be drawn up Ex parte Dom. Regis out of the Impeachment of the Commons for the Suit is theirs and not the Kings Touching the Lord Treasurer First the Commons did swerve from the Ancient Course in this they delivered not their Accusation in writing he being absent Had it been in the open House an Impeachment by word of mouth had been sufficient and the Suit had been theirs but it being at a Committee how could the Lord Treasurer take notice of their Impeachment wherefore the Lords of necessity did draw up a Charge against him out of their Accusation and then it became the Kings Suit and they were abridged of their power to reply or demand Judgment Prout in Weston Gomeniz Case 1. R. 2. And Alice Peirce ibid. Neither was it now necessary for the Commons to be acquainted with the Delinquent's Answer or any of the Proceedings for that they neither demanded he might be put to his Answer before the Lords and them nor impeached by word in open House nor in Writing One of which is required in an Impeachment And the Lords they varied in this that they did mingle other Complaints with these of the Commons when each should have been apart of it self prout 43 E. 3. Sir Joh. at Lees Case Neither did the Lords anciently use to omit any part of the Commons Complaint and Accusation as they did the Imposition on the French-Wines And the Articles of the Charge they sent to the Lord Treasurer ought to have been examined ex parte Domini Regis prout in the former Precedents of 1 R. 2. The next Precedent is 7 R. 2. upon the Demand of the Commons against the Bishop of Norwich and others §. 5. Of Accusation by Complaint of private Persons I do not remember any Precedent of this manner of Accusation for publick Offences unless the Parties Complainant be particularly interessed therein yet I doubt not but such Complaints have been and may be received and the Parties proceeded against in Parliament or else that High Court should not have so much Authority to receive Information pro Domino Rege from private persons as the Inferiour Courts have But what hath been done shall appear I will omit all Complaints of particular wrongs evcept it be of Bribery Extortion or Oppression in Men of Authority Anno 43. E. 3. William Latimer exhibited his Petition in Parliament unto our Lord the King and to his Council shewing that he had the Wardship and Marriage of the Heir of Robert Latymer by mean Grant from the King and held the same until Monsieur John at Lee then Steward of the King's House sent a Serjeant at Arms to bring them to London and commanded him being come not to depart without his leave upon payment of 1000 l. and afterwards would not give him leave to depart until he had surrendred the Body of the said Heir and the King's Patent unto him the said Monsieur John at Lee and thereupon the said John was put to reason before the Lords c. no. 20 21. and also the said John was put to reason before them for this When he was Steward of the King's House he caused divers to be attached by their Bodies some by Serjeants at Arms and some otherwise as W. Latymer and others to be brought before the King's Council c. n. 22. and also for executing the Authority of Steward out of the Verge n. 23. and also for discharging out of Newgate by his own Authority and against the Judges Commandment Hugh Levenham an Approver who had appealed several men of Felonies c. n. 24. and also that he being sworn by the King's Councel did bargain with Nicholas Levayn for the Mannor of Cainham in Kent which the faid Nicholas claimed to hold during the Minority of John Staynton whereas the said John at Lee knew the same was never holden of the King in Chief of the Castle of Dover n. 25. These be the Particulars wherewith the said John at Lee was Charged It appeareth W. Latymer accused him at the first but not the rest and I imagine that the Commons accused him of the Second and other Particulars for that they are said somewhat generally and are offences against the Liberties of the Commons and also for that divers of the Commons were present at the hearing And for the Fourth and Fifth Particulars I conceive the King's Councel accused him thereof for that one is an Offence against the legal Proceedings of Justice which then was that of the Approver viz. He which accuseth any one of Felony c. should remain in Prison as well as the accused until Trial. Of later times the Accuser puts in Sureties to prosecute and the other Offence is a partiticular wrong done unto the King in his Revenues And had any private person accused him of this their Petitions would have been recorded as well as Latymer's But the Lords proceeded against him upon Latimer's Accusation and then upon the rest severally and they did not mingle one with another Anno 50 E. 3. The Commons accused and impeached W. Ellis n. 31. and afterwards John Botheil and W. Cooper exhibited their Bills against him to this effect To their Thrice Redoubted King and to his Sage Councel sheweth John Botheil of London That the Monday next after the Ascention in the Fortieth Year of our Lord the King that now is a Ship of Scotland in Pruse was chased by Tempest into Likebread whereof the Master's Name is Henry Luce Charged with divers Merchandizes c. and that the same day one William Savage Clerk and Servant to William Ellis by Command of the said William took of the said Ship for the Merchandizes not discharged there 17 Nobles and a Last of c. and because that W. Ellis knew that W. Cooper was to come to the Parliament and shew these and other Grievances in aid of the Merchants and also to shew how the great Prices of Herrings might be amended in aid of the whole Realm the said W. Ellis by false suggestion caused the said W. Cooper to be Arrested and put in Prison in
They met at Westminster June 19. and were assisted by the Lord Treasurer Lord Keeper Lord Privy Seal the Master of the Rolls and the King 's two Serjeants c. and they called the Fishmonger before them and cause to be recited the said Accusation and the Chancellor's Answer and then demanded of him what he could say why he should not undergo the Penalty of the Statute against such Scandals especially whenas the Chancellor hath acquitted himself in Parliament and is yet ready to acquit himself by any way possible The Fishmonger denied that he slandered the Chacellor but the Clerk only c. The Commissioners considering the Accusation and Answer in Parliament and especially that the Fishmonger said he could not have Justice in his Cause before the Chancellor the contrary whereof was expressed and proved out of the Records of the Chancery They adjudged him guilty of Defamation and to pay one hundred Marks to the Chancellor and to be imprisoned until he could pay the same and a competent Fine due to the King It should seem the Lords could find no time to examine the Injustice he complained of and therefore referred it to the Judges Anno 6. R. 2. Octab. Mich. Numb 59. Divers Bills were exhibited this Parliament by the Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of London concerning the Fishmongers and the said Mayor and Aldermen and Fishmongers were present at the reading thereof where Nicholas Exton who spake for the Fishmongers prayed the King to receive him and his Company into his Majesties protection Numb 59. which was granted Numb 60. Then one Walter Sybil a Fishmonger craved Audience and said These Bills were not exhibited for any good zeal to the Commonweal but for meer Malice to the Fishmongers for that the chief Exhibiters of these Bills being commanded to prison for sundry Misdemeanors in the time of E. 3. were then imprisoned by certain of the Fishmongers who then were chief Officers in London for which cause Malice was born at that time Numb 60. To that one John Moore a Mercer answered The Citizens of London went to keep the Peace towards them unless they went about to let into the said City the Rebels of Kent and Essex as the said Walter and others did Numb 60. The said Walter Sybill took advantage of those words and desired the Lords to bear witness John Moore thereupon expounded his words saying as the Report then went and prayed the Lords that the Truth thereof might be further enquired of in the City There is one only Precedent of a Complaint made by a private person in the House of Commons and of the Commons proceeding therein against a Lord of the Parliament which was thus Anno 15. H. 6. Tho. Philips exhibited unto the Commons his Bill of Complaint against John Bishop of London for his long Imprisonment upon suspition of Heresie The Commons sent up the Bill being written in Paper amongst other to the Lords without any Message for ought appeareth upon Record On Monday following the Bill was read and the Lords Excogitabant That it did not belong to their House de talibus frivolis rebus consultare and returned it to the Commons Hereupon the Commons sent to the Bishop for his Answer in writing unto this Complaint which yet the Bishop did forbear to do until he knew the Opinion of the Lords herein and acquainted their Lordships therewith The next day the Lords answered all with one voyce Quod non consentaneum fuit aliquem Procerum alicui in eo loco responsurum Lunae 2. Martii In the Parliament begun at Westminster An. 16. Jac. Sir John Bowser Knight complained of the Bishop of Lincoln the then Lord Keeper but he was not compellable to answer before the Commons 10 R. 2. The Commons accused de la Poole openly in Parliament before the King and Lords unto which the Councellors made a good Answer in the Opinion of this Age yet upon the many Replications of the Commons and the enforcement of his Oath strictly against him he was Fined and Imprisoned c. In this Parliament also the Lords and Commons procured Commission unto certain of the Lords to enquire of the Enormities of the Realm and to redress them The King was so highly displeased with these Proceedings that on the last day of this Parliament being the 25th of November he himself protested that nothing done therein should turn to the Prejudice of him or his Crown Afterwards he sought all means to overthrow those Lords who procured that Commission viz. the Duke of Gloucester the Earls of Danby Arundel Warwick and Earl Marshal And at a Consultation thereupon he sent for the Chief Justice Tressilian and some other Judges and his Serjeants at Law unto Nottingham where on August 25. Anno 11. he propounded certain Questions containing all the points of Advantage against the Proceedings of the last Parliament which the Judges affirmed to be Treason under their Hands and Seals Then the King thought to proceed judicially against those Lords but they kept together with the Duke of Gloucester at Heringby with a strong Guard And the King sent for them and all doubts of danger to their Persons being first removed they came Novemb. 3. Anno 11. and kneeling before the King's Majesty he demanded why they were Assembled at Heringby-Park in warlike manner They answered for the good of the King and Kingdom and to remove certain Traytors from about him meaning the Lord of Ireland the Archbishop of York Michael de la Poole Sir Robert Tresilian and Sir Nich. Brembre And with that they threw down their Gloves and Gages of the Challenging to prove the same Unto which the King replied This shall not be done so but at the next Parliament which shall be the Morrow after Candlemas Day and then all parties shall receive according as they deserve In the mean time he conveys away the parties accused and acquits them by Proclamation then summoned a Parliament at Westminster Crast. Purificat 11 R. 2. Where these few Lords Appellants came well Armed which made the King unwilling to come amongst them yet at last he came Haec ex Ep. fol. 603. On the first Day of this Parliament the Duke of Gloucester one of the said Appellants kneeling before the King shewed That whereas he understood his Majesty was informed that he intended the Deposing of him and Advancing himself to the Crown he was ready to declare his Innocency herein in such sort as the Lords would ordain Whereupon the King answered He held him thereof acquitted On the second Day of this Parliament the said Appellants exhibited their Petition to the King concerning several Articles against divers Lords and Commons whom they appealed of Treason The said Articles being read in presence of the King and Lords in Parliament the said Appellants offering to make Proofs thereof required that the said Appellees might be called to Answer and for default of their Appearance demanded Judgment against them Hereupon
that Judgment 21 H. 6. against Sir Jo. Mortymer upon an Indictment of Escape out of Prison being committed upon suspition of Treason the said Mortymer's Answer is not recorded yet it is said he was brought before the Lords and the said Indictment read in his presence that he made an Answer unto it though not mentioned And this proves that the Party is to be brought to his Answer else Mortymer's presence had not been necessary Anno 7 R. 2. Numb 2. The Duke of Lancaster and Gloucester complained to the King That Sir Tho. Talbot with others conspired the Death of the said two Dukes and prayed the Parliament to judge thereof The Fact is judged High Treason and Writs sent to divers Sheriffs to apprehend him which Writs were retornable into the King's-Bench And upon Proclamation made in Westminster-Hall That upon the Sheriffs Return and the not-Appearance of the said Thomas he should be convicted of Treason and forfeit c. This was extraordinary in terrorem But what may not the whole Parliament do They may alter Law much easier than Form In the Answer is to be considered First In what Causes the Party is to answer as a Prisoner and in what as a Freeman Secondly When Councel shall be allowed him and when not Touching the First The Parliament hath guided their Proccedings therein secundum Legem terrae Judicium Parium According to the 2th Chapter of Magna Charta Nullus liber homo capietur vel imprisonetur c. nisi per legale judicium Parium suorum vel per legem Terrae And therefore in Causes Capital whether the Party accused be a Lord of the Parliament or a Commoner he is brought a Prisoner to his Answer secundum legem terrae prout 4 E. 3. Numb 1. c. The Lord Berkley accused by the King for Murder of E. 2. Anno 1 R. 1. Jo. Lo. Gomeniz and W. Weston Upon the Demand of the Commons for surrendring Forts beyond the Seas An. 4. R. 2. Sir Ra. Ferrers Knight was apprehended for suspition of Treason Anno 28 H. 6. Although the Lords refused to commit the Duke of Suffolk upon the Commons complaint of him of a common Fame of Treason yet when they accused him of particular Treason he was Committed and brought Prisoner to his Answer But in Cases of Misdemeanors it is otherwise then the Party accused whether Lord or Commoner answers as a Freeman The Lord within his Place the Commoner at the Bar and they are not committed till Judgment unless upon the Answer of a Commoner the Lords find cause to commit him till he find Sureties to attend c. lest he should fly prout Jo. Cavendish upon the Lord Chancellor's Demand of Justice against him for his false Accusation was Committed after his Answer until he put in Bail Anno 7 R. 2. And before Judgment And so Michael de la Poole the said Chancellor 10 R. 2. after his Answer and many Replies of the Commons was Committed and presently Bayled Anno 50 E. 3. William Lord Latymer and John Lord Nevill being impeached by the Commons answered in their Place so did the Bishop of Norwich and the Lord Chancellor 7 R. 2. And the said Lord Chancellor too 10 R. 2. answered in his Place though afterwards he was committed before Judgment upon Request of the Commons The Bishop of Bristol 1 Jac. and the Duke of Buck. 1 Car. 1. All these answered as Freemen in their Places their Offences not being Capital And the like Precedents there are of Commoners Anno 50 E. 3. Richard Lyons William Ellis and John Beecher did answer as Freemen being impeached by the Commons And whereas the Commons did that year also accuse Adam de Bury who was absent the Lords sent for him to come but he contemned their Authority and came not Then the Lords as it seemeth by the Record sent to apprehend him and he could not be found wherefore they awarded that all his Goods should be put in Arrest Ibid. N. 17. It is briefly entred Adam was sent unto to come and answer in Parliament he came not nor could be found Wherefore it was awarded c. Which is sufficient to prove A Commoner is not to be brought a Prisoner to his Answer for a Misdemeanor if he will appear 5 R. 2. The Mayor and Bayliffs by name and the Townsmen of Cambridge were complained of in Parliament for many Outrages against the Scholars there and the Lords sent one Writ to the Mayor and Bayliffs that then were and to the Commonalty to appear and answer and another Writ to the Mayor and Bayliffs that did the Outrage and they appeared in person and the Commonalty by their Attorney This was the Ancient Course Yet even in these Days viz. 15 R. 2. the Peer of Holland complained of a great Riot committed by Henry Tibb and divers others in the Parsonage-House of one Williams Whereupon a Sergeant at Arms by vertue of a Commission to him made brought up the said Tibb and one more only the principal doers therein before the Lords in Parliament who upon the Return of the Examination confessed nhe whole Matter and were committed But I suppose the Sergeant at Arms was sent for haply they would have obeyed no Writ and yet he was sent for two of the principal Offenders only At this Day if the Commons accuse a Commoner of Misdemeanors in such a state of Liberty or restraint as he is in when the Commons complain of him in such he is to answer prout 18 Jac. Sir Francis Michell and Sir John Bennet were both committed by the Commons before their complaint to the Lords and so they answered as Prisoners But that in a sort may be called Judicium Parium suorum 18 Jac. The Earl of Middlesex being then Lord Treasurer and accused of Misdemeanors only absented himself from the House His Charge was sent to him in writing and he answered in writing At the Day prefixed for his Trial he was summoned by the great Usher to appear He came without his Staff and kneeled until the Lord Keeper willed him to stand up There he protested That he ought not to answer in that Place and desired others might not be prejudiced thereby And I hope they will not The Earl did himself the first wrong by absenting himself from the House for he might have stayed there until Judgment unless when his own Cause came in agitation §. 2. Touching Councel In all Causes of Felony Treason c. Councel antiently was denied to the Party accused prout Anno 4. R. 2. Numb 21. Sir Ralph Ferrers was brought to the Parliament under the Guard of the Marshal of England and arraigned at the King's behalf for suspition of Treason who prayed to the King and to the Lords to have Councel in that Case Unto whom it was said That in all Matters wherein Councel ought to be granted by the Law of the Land the King or Lords would allow it And it was further
Precedents mention the King's Assent in Capital Judgments except that one against Matrevers 4 E. 3. which might be the omission of the Clerks who drew up the Roll for it is said directly afterwards in the said Bill Numb 6. That the Peers gave those Judgments in the presence of our Lord the K. and by his Assent And except that of 1 R. 2. against Weston in the last Day of the Parliament and it was 3. in the Afternoon that Day before the Lords had determined what to do in that Business so that it may be the Lords were prevented of time herein to have which they respited Execution for that the King was not informed of the manner thereof Secondly For that the Lords Appellants 11 R. 2. who had then great Forces about them were so earnest with the King for his Assent to the Judgment against Burley That the Duke of Gloucest told him as appeareth by his own Confession 21 R. 2. That if he would be King he should not intreat for Simon de Burley to save him from Death And in the end when his Majesty would not assent to their Judgment yet they wrought so that Messengers were sent unto him and brought word not before they gave Judgment against Simon and the King's Assent is mentioned in the said Judgment All which the said Lords would not have done had not the King's Assent been necessary And afterwards in the Parliament of 21 R. 2 The Lord Cobham being accused for giving Judgment without the King's Assent answered That the Messenger brought word That his Majesty had assented And yet because he did not gainsay that the King did deny his Assent the Commons immediately demanded Judgment All which seem to imply That the King's Assent is necessary in Judgments upon Capital Offences Touching the Second viz. Judgment against the King 's Will. It is all one with Judgment without the King's Assent Touching the Third viz. In the Absence of the King The Judgments of this kind are good notwithstanding so as the King doth assent as that of Simon de Burley 11 R. 2. Touching the Absence of many of the Peers That is to say of many of them and against their will This cannot invalid their Judgment so as the greater number of the Lords be then present accompting the Proxies of the absent Lords for it is not material whether some Lords do absent themselves or disassent The chiefest Matter is the Assent of the Lords who are present either in Person or by Proxy The others are to Answer for their Absence without a just Cause shewn or a proper Assent § 2. In Judgment on Misdemeanors the King's Assent is not required 50 E. 3. The Lords judged divers Commoners for Misdemeanors and the King's Assent not mentioned as Richard Lyons William Lord Latymer a Privy Councellor John Lord Nevil a Privy Councellor Jo. Peecher and others The King was then sick at his Mannor of Eltham and on the last day of the Parliament the Lords Prelates and Commons came before him there and he heard the Petitioners and their Answers for most part read and also Judgment given on the Privy Councellors and others dont ils se leyron franchement le respons de mesme nostre Seignior le Roy Numb 15. Which shews that the King had not assented to them 7 R. 2. The Bishop of Norwich was accused of Misdemeanors and judged in 10 R. 2. The Lord Chancellor Mich. de la Poole was judged by the Lords for Misdemeanors and Speed fol. saith That the King was much displeased thereat for it appeareth he gave not his consent And it was one of the Questions demanded of Tresilian and others 11 R. 2. Whether the Judgment were erroneous or not and resolved to be erroneous yet it was not objected against any the Lords Appellors that the Judges proceeded without the King's Assent §. 3. The King's Presence in Parliament In 4 E. 3. The King commanded the Lords to do right and lawful Judgment on Mortimer The which Earls Barons and Peers having examined the Articles came again before the King and said c. Ibidem The King commanded them to give Judgment on Simon de Bereford The which Earls Barons and Peers came again before the King and said c. And so the King was present at their Judgment but not at their Consultations 10 R. 2. The King was present when the Commons accused the Lord Chaneellor William de la Poole of Misdemeanors but he was not present at his Trial for he demanded if he ought to answer sans presence de dit Roy being Chancellor and in the end he answered notwithstanding 21 R. 2. In the cruel Parliament of the Lords Appellants the King was present at the Parlies Non constat whether he was present at the Consultation of the Lords 5 H. 4. The King was present when the Earl of Northumberland was to be tried upon his own Petition and so were the Commons And the King delivered the Petition to the Judges for their Opinion but the Lords claimed their Right But this was on the Wednesday and the Friday following the King and Commons met there again and the Chancellor rehearseth First What was done the first Day and the Lords having had competent deliberation on the said Petition and having heard and considered the Statute They adjudged c. It is plain the King was not present at this Consultation of the Lords though at their Judgment 7 H. 4. He commanded the Lords to advise what manner of Process shall be made and what Judgment shall be rendred against Henry de Peircy Earl of Northumberland and a Week after the Lords declared their Opinion to the King And it appeareth in that Roll very clearly that all Evidences and Examinations were shewn and taken by the Lords in the absence of the King and their Advice also agreed on in his Absence but the Judgment reversed in his Presence To conclude The King may be present if he please at the Parties Answer in Capital Causes and at the Judgments given prout c. But he was never present at other times of Proceeding against the Delinquent nor at any Answer for Misdemeanors for ought I have yet seen §. 4. The Presence of the Lords Spiritual In Cases of Misdemeanors the Lords Spiritual have ever been present but never in Offences Capital This is so generally-received of all men that it is not worth the Labour to prove it yet I will vouch the Precedents For it may be out of one or other of them somewhat may occur worthy the Observation In Misdemeanors In 1 R. 2. Alice Peirce was brought before the Prelates and Lords in Parliament to Answer and the Prelates and Lords did ordain 42 E. 3. Numb 20 c. John at Lee was put to Reason before the Prelates Lords Dukes Earls Barons and some of the Commons 7 R. 2. Jo. Cavendish accused the Lord Chancellor of Bribery before the Prelates and Lords in
Parliament The Chancellor Answered before the Prelates and Lords In Offences Capital In 4 E. 3. The Earl of Kent was brought before the Counts Barons autres Grandees and Nobles en mesme Parlement c. for Treason dors Numb 38. Eodem Anno The Articles of Treason being read against Mortimer the King charged les Counts Barons les Peeres de son Realme to give Judgment And Judgment was given per les dits Counts Barons Peeres come Judges del Parlement Item The King commanded les dits Counts Barons Assembled in Parliament to give Judgment on c. and so were four others tried in the same Parliament all for Treason and not one word of the Prelates either when the Articles were read or at the Judgment 6 E. 3. Numb 11 12. Post Festum Sancti Gregorii The Parliament being commanded to consult of the keeping of the Peace and Punishment for the breaking thereof the Prelates departed pur ceo que aviz fuit dits Prelates que ne attinet pas a eux consuler de guard de la Pees ne de chastisament de tiel yet afterwards when they heard what was ordained touching those Malefactors for the apprehension of them by Hue and Cry c. to bring them before certain Commissioners to be tried according to Law the Prelates gave their Consents also to the Act and added also Excommunication by the Assent of King Lords and Commons Anno 10 R. 2. The Commons prayed That such as gave up Forts puissent estre a respons cest Parlement Et selon leur desert puis per guard les Seigniors Baronage And thereupon John Gomeniz William Weston were brought before the Lords aforesaid in full Parliament c. It is to be understood before the Temporal Lords for the Bishops are never comprized in the Word Baronage Anno 11 R. 2. Divers Lords and others being appealed of Treason other misdemeanors the Prelates absented themselves during the Tryal having first made Protestation saving their Right to be present in Parliament Regni more solito considerare tractare ordinare statuere definire caetera excercere cum caeteris Paribus c. Verum quia in praesenti Parliamento de nonnullis materiis agitur in quibus non licet nobis juxta Canonum Sacrorum instituta quomodo libet interesse Eo propter pro nobis nostrum quolibet Protestatur quod non intendimus nec volumus sicuti de jure non possumus nec debemus nec intenditur nec vult aliquis nostrum in Parliamento dum de hujusmodi rebus agitatur vel agitur quomodo libet interesse sed nos nostrum quemlibet in ea parte penitus absentare Jure Paritatis nostrae cujuslibet nostrum interessend in dicto Parliamento quoad omnia singula ibidem excercenda juris eorum quilibet statu Ordine in omnibus semper salvo Ad haec insuper protestamur nostrum quilibet protestatur quod propter hujusmodi absentiam non intendimus nec volumus nec nostrum aliquis intendit nec vult quod processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parliamento super materiis antedictis in quibus nec possumus nec debemus ut praemittitur interesse quantum ad nos nostrum quem libet attinet futuris temporibus quomodo libet impugnentur infirmentur seu etiam revertentur This was read in full Parliament and enrolled at the Request of the Commons I mean the Prelates by the Kings Command and assent of the Lords Temporal and Commons Here the Protestation saith de jure interesse non debemus but I think it intends that they could not be present by reason of the Common-Law and by reason of an Ordinance made at the Councell at Westminster in 21. H. 2. By which all Clergy-men were forbidden agitare Judicium sanguinis upon pain to be deprived both of Dignities and Orders For surely as I think they might otherwise have been present both by the Common-Law and by the Law of God But by such their long constant absence even from our first Parliaments upon Record The Lords Temporal have only heard and determined all matters concerning Capital offences which hath continued in them so long that it is become their Right c. So that now it will be a wrong unto them the Lords Temporal if the Bishops do any way meddle with such Judicatures either touching the Answers the Replyes the Proofs or the Judgement For where they may not adjudg they may not do any thing as a Judge that doth conduce to judgment And therefore as heretofore they would be absent Now they cannot be present whilst the Matter is in hand but are to be absent altogether dum de hujusmodi materiis agitatur For some or other matter may happen to be Voted in their presence concerning the Answer Replication c. or concerning the Form of Judicature herein And by the Voices of the Spiritual Lords that Vote may pass against the major part of the Temporal Lords who should sustain wrong therein Can they be present and not Vote I know that at all Assizes and Sessions divers of the Clergy are present till Judgment be given in such Cases but their Presence cannot prejudice the Judge at the Assizes by Vote as in Parliament And at Sessions the Lay and Clergy are equally in Authority to hear and determine Eodem Anno 11 R. 2. A Special Act passed at the Request of the Commons to make good those Appeals and Judgments notwithstanding that the Spiritual Lords pur benefit salvatioun de lour Estate Cap. 3. in Parl. Roll N. 28. This Act I conceive was occasioned by the Clause in the said Protes 〈…〉 of the Prelates Ad haec insuper Protest 〈…〉 c. quod processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parliamento super Materiis praedictis in quibus nec possumus nec debemus interesse ut praemittitur quantum ad nos attinet futuris temporibus non impugnentur c. For there is no such Act to make good any former Judgment notwithstanding their Absence And 2 H. 5. Upon the Petition of the E. of Salisbury the King Lords Temporal adjudged the Judgment against his Father in Parliament 2 H. 4. to be good notwithstanding that it was rendred without the consent of the Lords Spiritual which yet the said Earl alledged as Error in his Petition so that by the Judgment of the whole House neither the Presence nor Absence of the Spiritual Lords in necessary in such Judgments In 21. R. 2. The first Petition that the Commons offered was That before this time many Judgments and Ordinances made in the time of the Kings Ancestors in Parliament have been repealed because the Clergy was not present in Parliament at the making of the Judgments and therefore they desired that the Clergy might make a Proctor with a suffici 〈…〉 to consent in their wants 〈…〉 Things and Ordinances to be done in this
Question is out of that which seemeth to be most generally agreed on In the Judgment it self is to be considered First Whether it be ultra Legem Secondly By whom to be Demanded Thirdly By whom to be Rendred Touching the First Judgments in Parliament for Death have been strictly guided per Legem Terrae otherwise they would not have judged the Earl of Kent the King 's own Unkle to be Hanged Drawn and Beheaded might it be left to their Discretion Vide Literas E. 3. to the Pope speaking of this Earls Judgment by the Parliament for Treason Cui Sententiae subductis tamen quibusdam opprobriosis in detestatione tanti Sceleris de Rigore Legis nostri Regni infligenda erat Dolentes acquievimus 4 E. 6. But the Roll is lost The Lords judged Mortimer to be Drawn and Hanged as a Traytor 4 E. 3. Simile pro Simone de Bereford N. 2. Ibidem Numb 3. They judged John Matrevers to be Drawn Hanged and Beheaded 10 R. 2. Weston adjudged a Traytor for delivering up of Castles Forts c. And so Jo. Lord Gomeniz a German was adjudged to die but because he was an Alien and a Baronet and was not the King's Liege-man he should be Beheaded That being the Death used in Germany to Gentlemen 10 R. 2. Simon de Burley the Earl of Arundel and others were Adjudged to be Hang'd Drawn and Beheaded for Treason They differ something yet herein they agree That the opprobrious Death of a Traytor is to be Drawn and Hang'd which the Parliament could not alter no not in their Judgments against the King 's own Unkle It was per Legem Regni infligenda The King might pardon all and usually did except Beheading of the Nobility of his own Blood and of later Times to all Noblemen As the Parliament could not dispence with nor omit any part of the Judgment on Traytors so they could not add more than the Law required And this may appear by their Judgments of Forfeitures of the Parties Estate The Parliament 4 E. 3. spoke nothing what Mortimer should forfeit to the King He well knew the Law could give the King all his Lands in Possession Reversion or Service Vide The Restitution of 28 E. 3. Numb 10. The Ordinances in 50 E. 3. Numb 45. against Women which shall make suit c. to the King against Alice Peirce by Name is Upon pain of as much as she can forfeit and to be banished But had it not been for the former Ordinance the Lords would not have given any such Judgment against her Her Offence being only for procuring Favour to her Friends from the late King contrary to a former Order of Council 11 21 R. 2. The Lords Adjudged the Forfeitures to the King of some Convicted on the Appeals greater than the Law will give but they passed Special Acts in each Parliament to Confirm both the Judgments and Forfeitures 1 H. 4. The Lords Adjudged and Declared the Earls of Kent Salisbury and others to be Traytors and to Forfeit Numb 30. as the Law of the Land willeth 7 H. 4. They Adjudged the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph to Forfeit for Treason all their Lands in their own Demesne or where others were seized to their Use. And so in Fines and Amerciaments the Judgments anciently were indefinite prout 42 E. 3. Numb 26. John at Lee is Committed to the Tower there to remain till he hath paid Fine and Ransom to the King and at the King's will and pleasure 50 E. 3. He is Awarded to Prison at the King's Will and to be put to his Fine and Ransom according to the quality of his Trespass who being brought before the Lords they told him his ill Deeds were so great that he had not wherewith to make satisfaction and he submitted to the King's Grace and the Lords Awarded all his Goods to be seized and his Body to be in Prison at the King 's Will. Eodem Anno The Lord Latimer to make Fine and Ransom at the King's Will Numb 28. Item William Ellis the like Num. 28. John Peecher the like Num. 33. Cavendish Awarded 7 R. 2. to pay Dammages to the Chancellor and to remain in Prison until c. and the King de Fine suo competenti sibi inde debito but not set down how much to the King These Fines were not put in certain for that the Law limits them to the King's Will But not doubt but after the Judgment the Lords did rate them as may be gathered out of Richard Lyons where after Judgment they called him before them to consider it seems at what Rate to Tax the same And they found it not sufficient And in Ancient Court-Barons the Amerciaments were ever offered after the Presentments In the Star-Chamber all Fines were usually mitigated after the Censure and that Court had Antiqua Vestigia Magni Consilii I hold that anciently the Fines were often Rated or Taxed And if the Lords may mitigate a Fine à Majore they may Tax it after the Judgment the Certainty not being then specified Judgments for Satisfaction In Complaints of Extortion and Oppression the Lords Awarded Satisfaction to the Parties wronged which sometimes was certain sometimes general but always secundum non ultra Legem 42 E. 3. Numb 18. Full Restitution was made unto William Latimer of the Wardship and Marriage of the Heir of Sir R. Latimer whereof he was outed by Duress by John at Lee. But this was done by a great Councel per Commandment du Roy after the Judgment William Ellis 50 E. 3. Awarded to pay to Botheil and Cooper 20 l. apiece for their Damages Num. 25. John Peecher Num. 23. Awarded que il face yeulx a les parties Compl. de lui pour les extortions issint prizes Jo. Nevile Num. 34. is Awarded to make Restitution to the Lady Ravensholme in Certainty for an Oppression done to her whereof the Commons complained 7 R. 2. The Parliament referred the base Accusation of Cavendish against the Lord Chancellor to be heard and determined by the Justices in such sort as if the Parliament had determined the same And the Justices adjudged him convict of Slander and that the Lord Chancellor should recover his Damages which they Taxed at 1000 Marks and that he be imprisoned until he had satisfied the Chancellor and the King pro Fine competenti sibi inde debito The Iudgment against Alice Peirce Anno 10 R. 2. was That if she had purchased any Lands by Force or Duress soit il pur Fine or Deed en pais or Deed enrolled or otherwise that her Purchase be held for none and the parties who hold themselves aggriev'd have their Process against her in Chancery By Advice of the Grand Councel Let Right be done to the Parties and Restitution made according as the Case requireth so as the Purchase made bona fide be not undone or annulled any way References to the Common Law Nor could the Lords judge any Complaint of
preist with the King Anno 50 E. 3. Numb 28 29. The Lord Latimer is Awarded to prison destre en guard du Marshal and afterwards upon Mainprise of diverse Earls suffered to go at large So it seemeth that first he was Committed and delivered to the Earl Marshal immediately Primo R. 2. William Fitz-Hugh was Committed to the Tower but it appeareth not who carried him thither At this Day the Lords have used to impose some Corporal punishment on Misdemeanors prout Flood And at this Day if a Peer be Committed to prison the Gentleman Usher hath the Charge of him thither and the Serjeant attending on the Great Seal prout Anno 18 Jac. 16 Febr. The Earl of Berks was sent to the Fleet by the Gentleman-Usher for forcibly thrusting the Lord Scroop in open House Anno 21 Jac. 13 Maii. The Earl of Middlesex was Committed to the Tower and a Warrant given to the Gentleman Usher to carry him thither Anno 1 Car. 1. In the Parliament begun 6 Febr. The Gentleman-Usher was commanded to bring the Earl of Bri-Bristol But if a Commoner be Committed the Serjeant at Arms attending on the Great Seal doth usually carry him to prison and he also hath the Charge of him and to see any Corporal punishment inflicted on him Anno 18 Jac Wright and two Serjeants at Mace who had Arrested a Servant to the were Censured to ride with Papers on their Heads for their wilful Contempt and Scorn of the Priviledges of Parliament And for that the Serjeant at Arms did not see the whole punishment Executed on them he himself was Committed CHAP. VIII For Recovery of Damages or Restitution of the Party aggrieved ANno 50 E. 3. Botheil and Cooper had each of them twenty pounds Awarded for their Damages and it is not there declared how they should recover the same In the same year John Lord Nevile upon Complaint of the Commons is awarded to make Restitution to the Executors of the Lady Ravensholme neither when the same is to be restored nor the manner how the same shall be recovered is declared In those two Cases I conceive the Parties are to have their Remedy the Parliament being ended in the Chancery and not in any other Inferior Court at the Common Law But the Lords in Parliament may direct how it shall be Levied Anno 1 R. 2. The Lords adjudged Alice Peirce to forfeit all her Lands and Goods to the King and notwithstanding this Forfeiture If she hath purchased any Lands by Force or Duress it shall be void and the Party grieved to have his Remedy by Process in the Chancery and by Advice of the Lords of the Councel Let Right be done and Restitution made Anno 7 R. 2. John Cavendish was awarded to pay 1000 Marks to the Lord Chancellor for his Damages and to remain in Prison until he had paid it FINIS Peers to render Judgment on Peers Quite contrary to the Law of the Land How Bishops are tryable The nature of the offence In whnt Cases c. Of Judgments on Delinquents Four manner of Accusations in Parliament Complaints by Petitions Petition Respons Answer Answer Impeachments of the Commons Observe Observe Mortymer and Cobham William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk impeached General Fame Lord Visc. St. Alban Chancellor accused who was Sir Francis Bacon Accusation Ex parte Domini Regis Of Accusation by Information Ex parte Domini Regis The Judgment defective in all points The Lord Berkley arraigned waved his Peerage Quest. Resolv Observ. The Earl of Bristol charged with Treason Articles against the Duke of Buckingham Quest. Resolve 1. Observ. A Petition The Lords cannot impeach any to themselves A great Oppression * Promâ—oter The Fishmonger contra L. Chancellor The Chancellors Answer The Chancellor acquitted The Fishmonger guilty of the Defamation Bish. Williams Lord Keeper The History of the Appeal of 11 R. 2. The Lords cannot proceed against a Commoner but upon complaint of the Commons Appeals abolished per Stat. 1 H. 4. c. 14. An Answer required though the Duke was known to be dead Found guilty long time after he was dead so forfeited his Estate The Party accused to be brought to his Answer Touching Councel In Misdemeanor the Party may have Councel to answer The Mayor and Commonalty of Cambr. accused The Parl. hath compelled a present Answer iu Misdemenors and without Councel The Replication next which belongs to him or them that sue Impeachment against the L. Latymer His Answer His Answer to each Particular W. Ellis impeach'd His Answ. The Reply The Lord Nevile impeach'd Witnesses Witnesses by the Commons A Committee for Trial of Alice Peirce George Duke of Clarence arraigned No man questions the Duke but the K. none answers the King but the Duke Against Law that the King should enforce Testimony against a Delinquent A Royal wise Answer The Commons accusare petere Observe In what Cases the King's Assent is necessarily required Peeres de la terre A bold Saying This Duke of Glouc. was many years after imprisoned for this at Calice there died in his Bed In Judgment on Misdemeameanors the King's Assent is not required The Lords Spiritual In Cases of Misdemenor they may be present In Cases Capital may not be present The Protestation of the Bishops forever Observ. No exceptions taken for the Absence of the Prelates Note especial The Presence of the Commons in Cases Capital The Presence of the Commons not necessary The Presence of the Judges How the Lords resolve on their Judgments Judgm for Satisfaction Touching the Demand By whom Judgment ought to be rendred The Precedents of Life and Death Obj.