and chief men in the Parliament together with the evident testimonie of the twelve Peers c. The reason is Because there was wont to be a cry or murmur in the Parliament for the Kings absence because his absence is hurtfull and dangerous to the whole Commonalty of the Parliament and Kingdom Neither indeed ought or may he be absent but only in the case aforesaid After which it follows The Archbishops Bishops and other chief of the Clergy ought to be summoned to come to the Parliament and also EVERY EARL and BARON and their PEERS OUGHT TO BE SUMMONED and COME TO THE PARLIAMENT c. Touching the beginning of the Parliament The Lord the King shall sit in the midst of the great bench and is bound to be present in the first and last day of Parliament And the Chancellort Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer and Justices were wont to record the defaults made in Parliament according to the order following In the third day of the Parliament the Barons of the Cinqueports shall be called and afterwards the BARONS of England after them the EARLS Whereupon if the Barons of the Cinqueports be not come the Baronie from whence they are shall be amerced at an hundred marks and an Earl at one hundred pounds After the same manner it must be done to those who are Peers to Earls and Barons After which it relates the manner of placing the Earls Baron and Peers in Parliament Then adds The Parliament may be held and OUGHT every day to begin at one of the clock in the afternoon at which time the King is to be present at the Parliament and all the Péers of the Kingdome None of all the Peers of the Parliament may or ought to depart alone from the Parliament unless he have obtained and that in full Parliament leave from the King and all his Péers so to doe and that withall there be a remembrance kept in the Parliament roll of such Leave and Libertie granted And if any of the Peers during the term of the Parliament shall be sick or weak so as he is not able to come to the Parliament then he ought three dayes together send such as may excuse him to the Parliament or else two Peers must go and view him and if they find him sick then he may make a Proxie Of the Parliament the King is the Head the beginning and ending So this Treatise The Statute of 5 R. 2. Parl. 2. ch 4. enacts by Command of the King and Assent of the Prelates Lords and Eommons in Parliament That all and singular persons and Commonalties which from henceforth shall have the Summons of the Parliament shall come from henceforth to the Parliament in the manner as they be bound to doe and hath been accustomed within the Realm of England of old time And every person of the said Realm which from henceforth shall have the said Summons be he Archbishop Bishop Abbot Prior Duke Lord Baron Baronet Knight of the Shire Citizen of City Burgess of Burgh or other singular person or Commonalty do absent himself or come not at the said Summons except he may reasonably or honestly excuse himself to our Soveraign Lord the King he shall be amerced and otherwayes punished according as of old time hath béen used to be done within the said Realm in the said case Which relates unto and agrees expresly with that forecited out of Modus tenendi Parliamentum which took it out of this Act. If then all the Lords Peers in Parliament are bound to attend in Parliament being oft times there all called for by name and ought not to depart from it without the Kings and Houses leave under pain of Amercement and other punishment as this Statute resolves and 3 Ed. 3.19 Fitzh Coron 161. Stamford l. 3. c. 1. f. 153. Cook 4 Instit p. 15 16 17.43 28 E. 3. Nu. 1 2. 5 R. 2. n. 2. 8 H. 4. n. 55. and 31 H. 6. n. 45. Where fines were imposed on absent Lords most fully mamanifest then questionless they ought of right to sit in Parliament else it were the height of Injustice thus to fine them In the tenth year of King R. 2. this King absented himself from his Parliament then sitting at Westminster residing at Eltham about forty daies and refusing to come to the Parliament and yet demanding from them four Fifteens for maintenance of his Estate and outward Warres Whereupon the whole body of the Parliament made this answer That unless the King were present they would make therein no allowance Soon after they sent the Duke of Glocester and Bishop of Ely Commissioners to the King to Eltham who declared to him among other things in the Lords and Commons behalf how that by an old Ordinance they have an Act if the King absent himself 40 dayes not being sick but of his own mind not heeding the charge of his people nor their great pains and will not resort to the Parliament they may then lawfully return to their Houses And now sir said they you have been absent a longer time and yet refuse to come amongst us which is greatly to our discontent To which the King answered Well we do consider that our own people and Commons go about to rise against us wherefore we think we can do no better than to ask aid of our Cosen the French King and rather to submit us to him than unto our own subjects The Lords answered Sir that Counsell is not best but a way rather to bring you into danger c. By whose good perswasions the King was appeased and promised to come to the Parliament and condiscend to their Petitions and according to his appointment he came and so the Parliament proceeded which else had dissolved by the Lords departure thence in discontent aâ—d the Kings wilfull absence Ranulf de Glanvil the first writer of our Common Laws in his Prologue to his book De legibus consuetuainibus Regni Angliae used in the reign of King H. the 2. under whom he flourished and his Predecessors writes thus of the Parliamentary Councils in that age and their Members power to enact Laws Leges Anglicanas licet non scriptas leges appellari non videtur absurdum cum hoc ipsum Lex sit quod Principi placet et legis habet vigorem eas scilicet quas super dubiis in Consilio desiniendis Procerum quidem Concilio et principis accidente authoritate constat esse promulgatas And lib. 13. cap. 32. f. 110. Cum quis itaque infra assisam Dom. Reg. id est infra tempus A Dom. Rege de consilio Procerum adhoc constitutum quod quandoque majus quandoque minus censetur So as the Parliaments under this King and his Ancestors consisted only of the King and Nobles who then made and enacted Laws by the Kings royal assent without any Knights Citizens or Burgesses elected by the people of which I find no mention in the Parliamentary Councils under
it was shewed to the said John Lord of Gomynes by the said Steward how the said LORDS had assembled and considered of his answer and THAT IT SEEMED TO THE LORDS sitting in full Parliament that without duresse or default of victuals or other necessaries for the defence of the Town Castle of Arde and without the Kings Command he had evilly delivered and surrendred them to the Kings Enemies by his own default against all appearance of right or reason contrary to his undertaking safely to keep the same Wherefore THE LORDS aforesaid here in full Parlia-ADJUDGE YOU TO DEATH And because you are a Gentleman and a Baronet and have served the Kings Grandfather in his wars and are no Liege man of our Lord the King you shall be beheaded without having OTHER JUDGEMENT And because that our Lord the King is not yet informed of the manner of this Judgement the execution thereof shall be put in respite until our Lord the King be informed thereof Loe here two express Judgements given in Parliament by the LORDS alone without King or Commons in case of Treason even against Commoners themselves And an express acknowledgement by the Commons of the Lords right to award Iudgement in these cases without the King or them than which a fuller and clearer proof cannot be desired In the Parliament of 2 R. 2. n. 34 35. Sir Robert Howard knight was committed prisoner to the Tower upon the complaint of the Lady Nevil by the Lords in Parliament for a forcible imprisonment of her daughter to which he was accessory that she might not prosecute a divorce in Court Christian In the 50 year of King Edward the 3. in the Parliament called the good Parliament Sir John Anneslee Knight accused Thomas Katrington Esquire of Treason for selling the Castle of St. Saviour in the Isle of Constantine to the French for an inestimable sum of money cum nec defensio sibi nec victualia defuissent whereupon he was taken and imprisoned but in King Edwards sickness enlarged by the Lord Latymers means as was reported In the Parliament held at London Anno 1380. the 3. of R n. 2. he was again accused by Sir John Anneslee and there resolved that being a Treason done beyond Sea not in England it ought to be tried by duel before the Constable or Marshal of the Realm Whereupon a day of battel was appointed in the Court at Westminster the 7. of June and lists set up On which day in the morning they fought the battel in the presence of the KING Nobles and Commons of the Realm which Walsingham at large describes till both of them were tyred and lay tumbling on the ground where the Esquire got upon the Knight as if he had conquered him Others said the Knight would rise again and vanquish the Esquire Interea Rex pacem clamari prâ—cepit et militem erigâ— The Knight refused to be lifted up as the Esquire was desiring he might be laid upon him again for he was well and would gain the victory if he were laid upon him again When he could not obtain his request being lifted up he went chearfully to the King without help when as the Esquire could neither stand nor go but as two held him up and thereupon was set in a chair to rest himself The Knight when he came before the King rogavis Eum et Proceres ut sibi illam concederunt gratiam ut itâ—rum in loco quo prius posset reponi et armiger super eum Rex vero et Proceres cum vidissent miliâ—em tam animose â—am vivide bellum repetere et insuper magnam summam auri offerre publice ut id posset effici decreverunt eum iterum reponendum armigerum super eum modo universaliter servato quo â—acuerant ante prostrati But the Esquire in the mean time in a swoun fell out of the chair as dead between the hands of those who stood by him Whereupon many running to him chafed him with wine and water but could not recover him till they pulled off his arms Quod factum et Militem victorem probavit Arm gerum esse victum After some space the Esquire reviving opened his eyes and began to lift up his head and to look terribly on every one that stood round about him which the knight being informed of went presently to him in his arms which he never put off and speaking to him et Proditorem et falsum appellans quaerit si iterum audeat Duellum repetere Ille verò nec sensum nec spiritum habente respondendi â—lamatum est pugnam finitam et ut quisque ad propria remearet The Squire was carried to his bed senceless and died the next morning Here we have a Duel ordered by Parliament and the King and Lords Iudges in it not the Commons for a Treason done beyond the Seas not triable here by Law In the Parliament of 4 R. 2. n. 17. to 26. Sir Ralph Ferrers being arested for suspition of Treason on the borders of Scotland was brought into the Parliament before the Lords to answer the same where divers Letters under his hand and Seal as was pretended were produced and read against him sent to the Lord Admiral of France and other French Officers informing them that he in the behalf of the French had made a League and alliance with the Scots and desiring them to make payment of the monies promised him and of his own fee and inviting the French to invade England c. with discoveries of the Kings designs against the French and answers to them Sir Ralph desired Counsel in this case which was denied him These Letters were found by a beggar besides London divers of his familiars were called into the Parliament house before the Lords and likewise the beggar and the whole matter strictly examined The Letters sent by Sir Ralph to the parties beyond Seas and certain Letters sent by them in answer to his were all sealed together and all of one hand and the Seal larger than the Seal of the said Sir Ralph whereupon they seemed to be forged by some of his Enemies for his overthrow himself being once or twice urged to answer Whether the Letters were his or no answered that he did not remember they were his own Letters and that he was ready to approve as the Lords should think fit having formerly offered combate with any that would justifie it from which he was put In conclusion the Lords thought him to be innocent whereupon he was delivered to 4. Earls and 2. Lords who became pledges body for body to answer when he should be called between that and the next Parliament and so he was inlarged The Letters and his Seal were delivered to Sir John Cavendish Chief Justice of England and the beggar being thought privy to this falshood was committed to prison by THE LORDS In the Parliament of 5 R. 2. n. 44 45. Richard Clindow Esquire exhibited a Bill to
special Clause inserted into the Writs of Summons Nolumus autem quod tu seu aliquis alius Vicecomes regni nostri aut Apprentius aut aliquis alius homo ad Legem aliqualiter sit electus as appears by the Exem â—caâ—ron thereof in the Claus Roll of 5 H. 4. pars 2. m. 4 dorso in the Tower which I have viewed with mine own eyes by sundry transcripts thereof in Manuscripts and by this testimony of Thomas Walsingham who lived in writ the History of that time Direxit ergo Rex Brevia Vicecomit bus ne quosquam pro Comitatibus eligerent quovismodo milites qui in jure Regni vel docti fuissent vel Apprenticii sed tales omnino miâ—teren ur ad hoc nâ—gotium quoâ— constat ignorare cujusque juris methodum factumque est ita Whence he stiles it in his Margin PARLIAMENTUM INDOCTORUM No Lawyer being elected by reason of this Clause grounded on the forecited Ordinance Sir Edward Cook who is not only full of mistakes and mis-recitals of Records but most confident in them citing this passage of Walsingham thus bodly contradicts him But the Historian is deceived for there is no such Clause in these Writs but it was wrought by the Kings Letters by pretext of an Ordinance in the Lords House in 46 E. 3. when as the Writ it self in the Clause Roll concurring which Walsingham ascertains me that Sir Edward himself was deceived not the Historian by whom or upon what mis-information I know not And that he was so in truth we have his own expresse confession and testimony against himself within few leaves after At the Parliament holden at Coventry Anno 6 H. 4. the Parliament was summoned BY WRIT and by coâ—ler of the said Ordinance of Parliament in the Lords House in 46 E. 3. it was forbidden that no Lawyer should be chosen Knight Citizen or Burgess by reason whereof this Parliament was fruitless and never a good Law made thereat and therefore called Indoctum Parliamentum or Lack-latin Parliament And seeing these Writs were against Law ergo this Clause against Lawyers elections was in the Writs themselves Lawyers ever since for the great and good service of the Commonwealth have been eligible And then contradicting himself again in the very next lines he addes And albeit the prohibiting clause had been inserted in the Writ implying it was not yet bâ—iâ—g against Law Lawyers were of right eligible and might have been elected Knights Citizens or Burgesses in that Parliament of 6 H. 4. His reason is because Lawyers being eligible of Common right cannot be disabled by the said Ordinance of Parliament in the Lords House being no Act though Acts and Ordinances of Parl. are both the same in substance vigor as I have elsewhere proved at large against his New false Doctrine to the contrary Wherefore this Ordinance is still obligatory to practising Lawyers whiles they practise as well as to Sherifs whiles they are Sherifs unlesse they give over their practice sitting the Parl. to attend the service of the House which their practice makes them to neglect Clause 8 E. 2. m. 31. The chief Justice and other Officers of Ireland and R. de Burgo Earl of Vlton are sent for by Writ to come to the Parliament of England ad tractanduâ— cum Praelatis et Proceribus de regno nostro praedicto Claus 50 E. 3. part â— m. 23. Pro Hibernis de Hibernia venientibus ad Parliamentum Angilae there is a Writ directed to the Justices and Chancellor of Ireland Quod de Communitate Comitatuum Burgorum terrae praedictae faciatis habere per Breve de magno sigillo nostro hominibus ejusdem terrae nostrae praedictae regnum nostrum Angliae penes Concilium nostrum pro Communitate Comitatuum Burgorum ultimo venientibus videlicet euilibet eorum de Communitate Comitatus pro quo electus fuiâ— sive Civitatis sive Burgi rationabiles expensas suas c. Teste 25 Julii The Parliament ended the 10th of July By which Writ it is apparent That not only the great Officers and some Nobles but likewise knights and Burgesses were sometimes summoned and chosen in Ireland to come to this Parliament of England and had Writs for wages allowed them These varieties of the Kings writs for electing Knights and Burgesses summoning sometimes 4. sometimes 2. sometimes but one Knight out of a County most times 2 Citizens and Burgesses sometimes but one limiting the qualifications of their persons and summoning not only Great Officers and Peers but likewise Knights Citizens and Burgesses out of Ireland and particular persons by name amongst the Commons as in 32 Ed. 3. part 2. m. 32. dorso together with his making of new Burroughs by his Patents and authorizing them to send Burgesses to Parliam when they never sent any before there being now three times as many Burgesses of Parliament as there were in the reigns of King Edward the 1 2 and 3. as appears by the Writs in the Dorse of the Clause Rolls for their expences and wages are clear proofs and evidences that the King and his Council in the Lords House are the sole Judges of the elections of the Knights Citizens Burgesses of the Commons House and that they themselves have no power at all to seclude or eject any persons duly elected and sent thither by the Kings Writs though more or less than usual or from new erected Burroughs And if any City or Burrough which sends Members to the Commons House by the kings Charter or usage forfeit their Charters and Privileges for which the king seiseth them into his hands as in 49 H. 3. he seised Londons and others Liberties and Cambridges since he may deny to send them Writs to elect Citizens or Burgesses till their Franchises be restored and their Charters renewed and deny to grant them this liberty of Election any more if he please proceeding from his meer grace and grant to them at first and so to be restored out of Grace not Justice when forfeited by their default The Statute of 5 R. 2. Parl. 2. c. 4. The King willeth and commandeth it is assented to by the Prelates Lords and Commons That all persons which shall from henceforth receive the Summons of Parliament be he Archbishop Bishop Abbot Peer Duke Earl Baron Baronet knight of the Shire Citizen of the City Burgess of the Burgh or other singular person or Commonalty and come not at the said Summons except he may reasonably and honestly excuse himself to our Soveraign Lord the King he shall be amerced and otherwise punished as of old times hath been used to be done within this Realm Here the Excuse is to be made by the Knights Citizens Burgesses and Commons as well as Lords Spiritual and Temporal to THE KING not Commons House and if they cannot excuse themselves unto him then they are to be amerced as of old time have been used And that was never by the Commons House but
Barons being no such Knights Citizens or Burgesses as the writ enjoyns them to elect and return 3. By all the Statutes for electing Knights Citizens and Burgesses recorded in Rastall Tit. Parliament the Lords being not within their words or intention 4. By the Great Charter of King John and express Statutes of 5 R. 2. Stat. 2. c. 4.31 H. 8. c. 10. Rot. Par. n. 10. which disable them to sit amongst the Commons but only in the Lords house among their Peers 5. By the very words of the Patents of their Creation which authorize and prescribe all Dukes Earls Viconts Barons in direct terms Quod in omnibus tenerentur tractentur et reputentur ut Duces Comites Barones quod haeredes sui masculi et eorum quilibet habeat teneat possideat sedem locum et vocem in Parliamentis publilicis Comitiis et Consiliis nostris Haeredum et Successorum nostrorum infra Regnum nostrum Angliae inter alios Duces Comites et Barones not amongst the Knights Citizens and Burgesses ut Duces Comites et Barones Parliamentorum Publicorum Comitiorum et Consiliorum not as Knights Citizens or Burgesses 6. By Sir Edward Cooks 4 Institutes p. 46 47. and Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour p. 736 737. who resolve That a Baron or Lord of Parliament is not eligible to be a Knight Citizen or Burgess of the House of Commons as was resolved in the case of Thomas Camoyes who was not only a Baronet but also a Baron and Lord of Parliament The Lord Camoyes being elected by the Freeholders of the County of Surrey for one of the Knights of the Shire to serve in Parliament for them Anno 7 R. 2. thereupon the King by advice of Council declared his election to be null and void in Law and commanded a new election of some other fit person to be made in his place by this memorable Writ extant on record Rex Vicecomiti Surriae salutem Quia ut accepimus tu Thomam Camoyes Chivaler qui Baronettus est sicut quamplures antecessorum suorum extiterunt ad essendum unum Militum venientium ad proximum Parliamentum nostrum pro Communitate Comitatus praedicti de assensu ejusdem Comitatus eligisti Nos advertentes quod hujusmodi Baronetti ante haec tempora in Milites Comitatus ratione alicujus Parliamenti elegi minime consueverunt ipsum de officio Militis ad dictum Parliamentum pro communitate Comitatus praedicti venturi exonerari volumus Et ideo tibi praecipimus quod quendam aâ—ium Misi em idoneum et discretum gladio cinctum in loco ipsius Thomae elegi et eum ad diem et locum Parliamenti praedicti venire facias cum plena et sufficienti potestate ad consentiendum hiis quae in Parliamento praedicto sicut juxta renorem prioris Brevis nostri tibi pro electione hujusmodi militum directi et nomen ejus Nobis Sciri facias Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium octavo die Octobris 7ly Both Houses of Parliament in their Remonstrance of Nov. 2. 1642. declare and publish in print to all the World This to be so clear and fundamental a privilege of Parliament That no Member of either House of Parliament is to be taken away or detained from the service of the House whereof he is a Member until such time as that House hath satisfaction concerning the cause and the cause be heard in Parliament first and dismissed from it That the whole freedom of Parlament dependeth upon it For who seeth not that by this means under false pretences of crimes and accusations such or so many Members of both or either Houses of Parliament may be taken out of it at any time by any persons to serve a turn and to make a MAJOR PART of whom they will at pleasure So as the freedom of Parliament dependeth in a great part on this privilege yea without it the whole Body of the Parliament will be destroyed by depriving it of its Members by degrees some at one time and others at another time as both Houses further remonstrate in their Declaration of October 23. 1642. Which as it infallibly demonstrates that the Lords House or Members cannot be taken away or taken from them against their wils without the destruction subversion of the whole Parliament of which they are chief Members the Judicial power of Parliaments residing principally in that House if not wholly So it likewise clearly resolves that no Peer or Member of the Lords House can be elected a Member of the Commons house For if the election of the Freeholders Citizens or Burgesses of any County City or Borough of a Duke Earl Lord or Baron of the Realm to be a Knight Citizen or Burgess in Parliament should be valid in Law to make them legal actual Members of the Commons house it would then lie in their powers to un-Peer un-Lord and degrade any Nobleman yea all the Earls Peers Lords Barons of the Realm and their Posterity at their pleasures to reduce them and the whole House of Peers into the Commons inferiour house and so quite dissolve the Lords House in high affront dishonor of the Lords and their House and of the Kings Soveraign royal Authority the fountain of all Honor and that without any legal trial or Judgment by their Peers or just cause of degradation on their parts against the express words and meaning of Magna Charta c. 29. And if any Lords upon such Elections should so far degenerate debase or degrade themselves as to accept thereof and ignobly sit and vote as Members of the Commons House both they and their posteritieâ— for such an ignoble act meritoriously deserved to be for ever degraded from their Nobility and secluded from all future sitting in the Lords House as Peers becoming thereby the very shame scorn scandal of Nobility fit only to be ranked with the basest Peasants to whom these Levellers would now equallize them Yea it would be now no less than wilfull perjury in any Freeholders Citizens Burgesses to elect them Knights or Burgesses and in themselves to accept of such Elections when chosen and in the whole House of Peers and Commons too once to permit allow approve or connive at such elections after their late Protestation Vow and Solemn League and Covenant to maintain to their power the Rights Privileges of Parliament and both Houses of Parliament whereof this is an unquestionable Right and Privilege That no Member of the Lords House should be elected a Knight Citizen Burgess or brought down from thence to sit only as a Commoner in the Commons House so long as he continues a Peer or Member of the Lords House a distinct House from and superior to the Commons House in all ages as its Title of the Lower House and their standing alwayes bare before the Lords with other evidences demonstrate nor any Knight Citizen or Burgess a true real Member of the House of Peers
the Attainders repealed by Bill afterwards In the Parliament of 25 H. 8. c. 12. Elizabeth Barkin Richard Master Edward Barkin and sundry others were attainted and condemned of High Treason John Fisher Bishop of Rochester Thomas Gold and others of misprission of High Treason by Act of Parliament In the Parliament of 28 H. 8. c. 7. Queen Anne George Lord Rochford Sir Henry Norris Sir Francis Weston William Breerton Esquire and Mark Sutton were convicted and attainted of High Treason and their lands forfeited by Bill In the Parliament of 32 H. 8. Thomas Lord Cornwell was convicted and attainted of High Treason by Bill against Law and the great Charter without ever being called to answer or any legal hearing for the Treasons therein expressed according â—o his own intentions to have thus proceeded against others without legal tryal In the Parliament of 33 H. 8. c. 21. Queen Katherine Jane Lady Rochford were convicted and attainted of High Treason by Bill to which Act the king was enabled to give his royal assent by Letters Patents signed by him under his hand with his great Seal notified and published in the HIGHER HOUSE to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons there assembled without comming to the House in person to give his royal assent thereto In the Parliament of 2 3. Ed. 6. ch 17. Sir william Sharington Knight being indicted and attainted of High Treason for forging and coyning of mony called Testons his attainder was confirmed by Act of Parliament and his lands forfeited And ch 18 Sir Thomas Seymor Lord Seymor of Sudley and high Admiral of England for his trayterous aspiring to the Crown of this Realm and to be King of the same and for compassing and imagining by open Act to deprive the King of his royal estate and title of his Realms and for compassing and imagining the death of his Noblemen and most trayterously to take away and destroy all things which should have sounded to the let or impediment of this his most trayterous and ambitious enterprise as the Act recites and for other his misdemeanors innumerable untruths falshoods deceiptfull practises outrages against the King oppression manifest extortion upon the Subjects of the Realm was adjudged and attainted of high Treason by Bill and to sustain such pain of death and other forfeitures aes in cases of High Treason have been used being a Member so unnaturul unkind and corrupt and such a heynous offender of his Majesty and his Laws that he cannot nor may not conveniently be suffered to remain in the body of the Commonwealth but to the extreme danger of the Kings Highness being the head and of all the good Members of the same and of too pernicious and dangerous example that such a person so bound to his Majesty by sundry great benefits and so forgetfull of them and so cruelly and urgently continuing in his false and treacherous intents and purposes against his Highness and the whole estate of his Realm should remain among us In the Parliament of 1 Mariae ch 1. the Attainder of Queen Katherine is reversed by Bill and ch 16. the Attainders of John Duke of Northumberland Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury William Marquess of Northampton John Earl of Warwick Sir Ambrose Dudley with other Knights and Gentlemen formerly convicted and attainted of Treason according to the Law of the Realm for their detestable and abominable Treasons in proclaiming and setting up Queen Jane to the peril and great danger of the person of Queen Mary and to the utter loss disherison and destruction of the Realm of England if God in his infinite goodness had not in due time revealed their trayterous intents as the Act recites at the Petition and with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament were confirmed and ratified by a special Act. In the Parliament of 29 Eliz. c. 1. the Attainders of Thomas Lord Paget Sir Francis Englefield and sundry other Knights and Gentlemen who were lawfully indicted convicted and attainted of many unnatural detestable and abominable Treasons to the fearfull peril and danger of the destruction of the Queens Majesties person and of the Realm were confirmed by a special Act and ch 3. there is another Act to avoid fraudulent assurances made in certain cases by Traytors In the Parliament of 3 Jacobi ch 2. Sir Everâ—rd Digby Robert Winter Guy Fawkes Robert Catesâ—y and all the rest of the Gunpowder Traytors who undertook the execution of the most barbarous execrable and abominable Treason that could ever enter into the hearts of most wicked men by blowing up the Lords House of Parliament with the King Queen Prince Lords Spiritual and Temporal Judges Knights Citizens and Burgesses of Parliament therein assembled were attainted of High Treason and their former attainders and convictions confirmed by a special Act And in this very last Parliament the Earl of Strafford Lord Deputy of Ireland and William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury after judgement of high Treason upon their several impeachments and trials given against them by the Lords in their House were likewise attainted of Treason and their judgements ratified by a special Bill and Ordinance to which the Commons assented as well as the Lords their assents to Attainders by way of Act or Bill being so necessary that if the King in Parliament Wills that such a man shall be attainted of Treason and lose his lands and the Lords assent and nothing is spoken of the Commons in the Bill this is no Act nor good Attainder in Law and the petson shall be restored by the opinion of all the Judges 4 H. 7. f. 18. Broke Parliam 42. Fitz. 3.7 H. 7.14 11 H. 7.27 Broke Parliam 107. Plowden 79.32 H. 6.18 As the Commons in our English Parliaments have assented to all these and some other Bills and Acts of Attainder cited in Sir Edward Cooks 4 Institutes ch 1 2. and Mr. St. Johns Argument at Law concerning the Bill of Attainder of High Treason of Thomas Earl of Strafford printed by Order of the Commons House 1641. So I find that the Commons in Ireland have done the like in the Parliaments held in Ireland as the Printed Statutes of Ireland 28 H. 8. c. 1. for the Attainder of the Earl of Kildare and others of High Treason 11 Eliz. ch 1. for the Attainder of Shan O Neyle and others of High Treason of 13 Eliz ch 6. 7. for the Attainders of Fiâ—zgerald and others of High Treason Of 27 Eliz. ch 1. for the Attainders of Iames Eustace and others of High Treason of 28 Eliz. ch 8. 9. for the Attainders of the Earl of Desmond John Brown and others and of 11 Jacobi ch 4. for the Attainders of the Earl of Tyrone and others of High Treason for their several rebellions insurrections wars against their Soveraigns and other Treasons mentioned in these respective Acts abundantly evidence But yet the Commons assents to all these Bills
Vice-Chamberlain before the King and Lords of divers offences against the King who taking the accusation to be good because of the Bishops order and that he was of the kingâ— linage pardoned the said Bishop all his misprisions done against his person and reconciled the Bishop and Sir Thomas one to another And n. 30 31. all the Lords Temporal whose names are there recorded being 25. in number by assent of the King declared and ADJUDGED Thomas Holland late Earl of Kent John Holland late Earl of Huntingdon John Mountague late Earl of Salisbury Thomas le Despencer Sir Ralph Lumley Knight and divers others who were for their Rebellions and Treasons in levying war against the King taken slain or beheaded by certain of the Kings Subjects to be Traytors and that they should forfeit all such Lands as they had in fee the 5. of January the first year of the King or at any time after with all their goods and chattels The Record is Toutz les Seigneurs temporelz esteantz en Parlement per ussent du Roy declarerent et adjuggerent les ditz Thomas c. pur Trayteurs pur la leve de Guerre encountre lour Seignior le Roy nient obstant qils furent mortz sur le dâ—t leve de guerre sanz process de ley Lo here the Lords alone by the Kings assent declare and adjudge what is Treason both in the case of Lords and Commoners too and â—taint and give Judgement against them both without the Commons after their deaths without legal trial In the Parliament of 5 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 11 12 13 14. On Friday the 18 of February the Earl of Northumberland came before the King Lords and Commons in Parliament and by his Petition to the King acknowledged that he had done against his Lawes and allegeance and especially for gathering power giving of Liveries for which he put himself upon the Kings grace and prayed pardon the rather for that upon the Kings Letters he yielded himself and came to the King at York whereas he might have kept himself away Which Petition by the Kings command was delivered to the Justices to be examined and to have their counsel and advice therein Whereupon the LORDS made a Protestation que le Juggement appentient a â—ux tout soulement THAT THE JUDGEMENT APPERTAINED ONLY TO THEM And after the said Petition being read and considered before the King and the said Lords as Peers of Parliament aus queux teils juggemeâ—t apperteignent de deoit to whom such Iudgements appertained of right having had by the Kings command competent deliberation thereupon and having also heard and considered as well the Statute made in the 25. year of King Edward the Kings Grand father that now is concerning the Declaration of Treason as the Statutes of Liveries made in this Kings reign ADJUDGED That that which was done by the said Earl contained within his Petition was neither Treason nor Felony but Trespas for which the said Earl ought to make fine and ransom at the will of the King Whereupon the said Earl most humbly thanked our Lord the King and the said Lords his Peers of Parliament for their rightfull judgement and the Commoners for their good affections and dâ—ligence used and shewen in this behalf And the said Earl further prayed the King that in assurance of these matters to remove all jealousies and evil suspitions that he might be sworn a new in the presence of the King and of the Lords and Commons in Parliament and the said Earl took an Oath upon the Crosier of the Archbishop of Canterbury to be a faithfull and loyal liege to our Lord the King the Prince his Son and to the heirs of his body inheritable to the Crown according to the Laws of England Whereupon the king out of his grace pardoned him his fine and ransom for the trespass aforesaid After which num 17. the Lords Spiritual and Temporal humbly thanked the King sitting in his royal Throne in the white Chamber for his grace and pardon to the said Earl of his fine and ransom and likewise the Commons thankâ— the Lords Spiritual and Temporal for the good and just Iudgement they had given as Peers of Parliament to the said Earl From this memorable Record I shall observe First that though this Declaration of this Earls case was made by his Petition in the presence of the King Lords and Commons in Parliament according to the Statute of 25 E. 3. yet the Lords only by Protestation in presence of the King and Commons claimed to be the sole Iudges of it as Peers of Parliament and belonging to them OF RIGHT Secondly That this claim of theirs in this case was acknowledged and submitted to both by the King and Commons and thereupon the Lords only after serious consideration of the case and Statutes whereon it depended gave the definitive sentence and judgement in this case that it was neither Treason nor Felony but Trespass only c. Thirdly That the Earl thanked the King only for his grace the Lords for their just Iudgement and the Commons only for their good hearts and diligence having no share in the judgement though given by the Lords both in the Kings and their presence and that the Commons themselves returned special thanks to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament for their good and just judgement Fourthly That this judgement of the Lordr only was final and conclusive both to the King and Commons who acquiesced in it In the Parliament of 2 H. 5. rot Parl. num 13 14. Thomas Mountague Earl of Salisbury son and heir of John Mountague Earl of Salisbury exhibited his petition in Parliament to reverse a judgement given against his said father in the Parliament at Westminster in the second year of King Henry the fourth rot Parl. n. 30 31. forecited wherein amongst others he was attainted of Treason by judgement of all the Temporal Lords in Parliament and thereupon he exhibited certain reversals of Judgements given in Parliament as making on his behalf to the Lords consideration reversed for some errors assigned in those judgements to wit one judgement given against Thomas heretofore Earl of Lancaster before King Edward the second at Pomfract the Monday before the feast of the Annunciation in the fifteenth year of his reign and another Judgement against Roger de Mortymer late Earl of March in the Parliament of King Edward the third the Monday after the feast of St. Katherine in the fourth year of his reign at Westminster Which Judgements being distinctly and openly readâ— and fully understood It seemed to the King and Lords that the case of the death and execution of the said John late Earl of Sarum and of the judgement aforesaid against him given is not nor was like to the case of the executing of the said Th. heretofore Earl of Lancaster nor to the case of the putting to death of Roger Earl of March nor to any judgement given against
and Law of the Land And this was the main reason of this their Protestation as the close of it shews to prevent such dangerous presidents for the future Upon which ground the Judgements they then gave against Roger Mortymer John Mautravers were reversed in the Parliament of 21 E. 3. n. 65.28 E. 3. n. 8. to 16. Lastly This Protestation did not foreclose the Lords in this or future Parliaments to give Judgement against Commoners in other cases of Felony and Treason even without the Commons which I shall prove by some other instances In the Parliament of 4 Ed. 3. n. 16. Sir Thomas Berkeley Knight was arraigned and tried by a Jury for Treason as being guilty of the death of King Edward the 2. committed to his custody who pleaded not guilty and was tried in full Parliament before the King by a Jury and by them acquitted Which case being rare and memorable I shall here insert the whole Record Thomas de Berkele Miles venit coram Domino Rege in pleno Parliamento suo praedicto et allocutus hoc Quod eum Dominus Edwardus nuper Rex Angliae pater Domini Regis nunc in custodia ipsius Thomae et cujusdam Johanuis Mautravors nuper extitit collatus ad salvo custodiendum in castro ipsius Thomae apud Berkele in Com. Gloucestriae et in eodem castro in custodia ipsorum Thomae Johannis murdratus extitit et interfectus qualiter se velit de morte ipsius Regis acquietare Dicit quod nunquam fuit consentiens auxilians seu procurans ad mortem suam nec unquam scivit de morte sua usquam in praesenti Parliamento isto et de hoc paratus est acquietare se prout CURIA REGIS consideraverit Et super hoc quaefitus est ab eo ex quo ipse est Dominus castri praedicti et idem Dominus Rex in custodia ipsorum Thomae Johannis extitit liberatus ad salvo custodiend ipsi custodiam ipsius Regis recepeâ—unt et acceptarunt quali er se excusare possit quin de morte ipsius Regis respondere debeat Et praedictus Thomas dicit quod verum est quod ipse est Dominus Castri praedicti et quod ipse simul cum Johanne Mautravers custodiam ipsius Regis recepit ad salvo custodiend ut praedictum est Sed dicit quod eo tempore quo dicitur ipsum Dominum Regem esse murdratum et interfectum fuit ipse taliter tanta infirmitate apud Bradeley extra Castrum praedictum detentus quod ei currebat memoriae Et super hoc dictum est ei quod ex quo cognovit quod ipse simul cum dicto Johanne custodiam ipsius Domini Regis obtinuit ut praedictum est et ipse custodes et ministros sub se posuit ad custodiam de eo faciendam si per aliquam infirmitatem excusari posset quin respondere debuit in hac parte Et praedictus Thomas dicit quod ipse posuit sub se tales custodes et ministros in castro praedicto pro custodia facienda a quibus ipse se confidebat ut de seipso qui custodiam ipsius Regis simul cum praedicto Johanne Mautravers inde habuerunt unde dicit quod ipse de morte ipsius Domini Regis auxilio assensu seu procuratione mortis suae in nullo est inde culpabilis Et de hoc de bono et malo ponit se suâ—er patriam Ideo venerint inde Juratores coram Domino Rege in Parliamento suo apud Westm in Octabis Sancti Hilarii proxime futuri c. Ad quam diem venit praedictus Thomas coram Domino Rege in pleno Parliamento ac similiter Juratores scil Johannes Darci Iohannes de Wisham Willielmus Trussell Rogerus de Swyneuerton Constantius de Morâ—imer Iohannes de sancto Phileberto Richardus de Rivers Petrus Hussey Iohannis de Dynton Richardus de la Rivere Robertus Dabenhate Richardus de Corveyes omnes milites Qui dicunt super Sacramentum suum quod praedictus Thomas de Berkelie in nullo est culpabilis praedicti Domini Edwardi Regis Patris Domini Regis nunc nec de assensu auxilio seu procuratione mortis ejusdem Et dicunt quod tempore mortis ejusdem Domini Edwardi Regis patris Domini Regis nunc fuit ipse tali infirmitate gravatus apud Bradely extra castrum suum praedictum quod de viâ—a ejus desperabatur Ideo idem Thomas inde quietus Juratores quaesiti si idem Thomas unquam substraxit se occasione praedicta dicunt quod non Et quia idem Thomas posuit custodes et ministros sub se scil Thomam de Gourney et Willielmum de Ocle ad custodiam de ipso Domino Rege faciendam per quod idem Dominus Rex extitit murdratus et interfectus datus est ei dies coram Domino Rege nunc in proximo Parliamento suo de audiendo JUDICIO SUO c. Et praedictus Thomas de Berkelei interim committitur Radulpho de Nevill Mareschallo hospitii Domini Regis c. It is observable that though Edward the 2. was murdered after he was deposed by this Parliament yet he is still â—â—lled a King in this Indictment and record and his murder adjudged Treason in those who did it After his acquittal he put in Mainpernors to appear in the next Parliament Where appearing he and his Mainpernors were discharged but yet himself ordered to appear again the ensuing Parliament as appears by the Parliament Roll of 5 E. 3. n. 16. William Thorp Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and one of the Justices of Assize in the County of Lincoln in the 23 year of Ed. the 3. against his Oath took 10 l. of Richard Saltley 20 l. of Hildebrand of Beresward 40 l. of Gilbert Holliland 40 l. and 10 l. of Ro. Daldorby to stay an Exigent upon an Indictment of diverse felonies that should have issued against them Whereupon he was indicted before the Earls of Arundel Warwick and Huntingdon the Lord Gray and Lord Burghers Anno 24 E. 3. to whom the King by Commission referred the examination of the businesse before whom he could not deny but confessed the Bribery Ideo consideratum est per dictos Justiciarios assignatos ad judicandum secundum voluntatem Regis et secundum regale posse suum quod quia praedictus Willielmus Thorpâ— qui sacramentum Domini Regis quod erga populum suum habuit custodiendum fregit malitiose false et rebelliter in quantum in ipso fuit ex causis supradictis ipsum Willielmum expresse cognitis ideo SUSPENDATUR et quod omnia terra et tenementa bona et catalla sua remaneant forisfacta The King by a writ under the privy Seal stayed his execution and sent him Prisoner to the Tower In the Parliament of 25 Ed. 3. nu 10. command was given that the record of this Judgement
against Judge Thorp should be brought into the Parliament and there read openly BEFORE THE LORDS to have every of their advice concerning it whether this Iudgement were legal or not et nullo contradicente all the Lords affirmed the judgement to be legal and good considering that he against his Oath received Bribes And therefore it was agreed by all the Lords that if the like case should hereafter happen the King might take to him such Nobles as he should think meet and therein do according to his pleasure Provided this judgement should not be drawn into example against any other Officers who should break their Oaths but only against those qui praedictum Sacramentum fecerunt of Justices et fregerunt et habent leges Regales Angl. ad custod Here the Lords were sole Judges of the Judge who was a Commoner and gave judgement against him without the Commons yea declare the Law in this new case both in and out of Parliament In the Parliament of 21 E. 3. n. 68. The Commons by divers Bills complained to the Lords of divers extortions grievances prejudices done to the King and Commons by John Wattenham and Walter de Cheriton Merchants who desired the King would command them to come before THE COUNCIL LORDS in Parliament to answer what should be objected and clear themselves In the Parliament of 50 E. 3. n. 17 18 19 20. The Commons accused Richard Lyons Merchant of London of divers deceits extortions and misdemeanors whiles he was farmer of the Customs and last subsidy for transporting wools and staple Commodities procuring new Impositions on staple ware for buying debts from the Kings Creditors at under rates and making the King to pay the whole for taking of bribes and defrauding the King To some of which charges he answered and to the rest submitted himself to the King touching Body Lands and Goods Whereupon THE LORDS adjudged him to prison during the Kings will that his lands tenements and goods should be seised to the Kings use that Commissions should issue throughout all England to inquire of his Extortions whiles farmer of the subsidies and that he should be disfranchised Upon this Judgement in the Fine Roll of 50 E. 3. m. 19 21 22. there issued out writs for the arresting and selling the goods of Richard Lyons to the Kings use which were his on the 19 of March certis de causis coram Nobis et Concilio nostro in praesenti Parliamento nostro propositis c. per Concilium in Parliamento The same Parliament 50 E. 3. n. 31 32. William Ellis of great Yarmouth was accused by the Commons of sundry extortions whiles he was Deputy Farmer of the kings subsidie to Richard Lyons To which he seemed sufficiently to answet yet was BY THE LORDS adjudged to prison and to make a fine at the Kings pleasure Ibidem Num. 33. Iohn Peach of London was impeached by the Commons for procuring a license under the Great Seal that he only might sell sweet wines in London by colour whereof he took 4 s. 4 d. of every man for every Tun thereof sold which he justified he lawfully might doe Notwithstanding JUDGEMENT was given against him by THE LORDS that he should be committed during the Kings pleasure and make recompense to all parties grieved Num 37. Adam de Bury was accused of divers deceits and wrongs done by him whiles Mayor of Callice and Captain of Bellingham Being sent for to come to the Parliament he came not nor could he be found Thereupon the Lords agreed that all his goods and chattels should be arrested and so they were All these Commons were first impeached by the Commons and thus judged and censured by THE LORDS in this GOOD PARLIAMENT as Historians and others stile it And in the Commons petitions therein there are divers Petitions of Grievances from sundry Counties Towns persons complaining of wrongs and grievances presented to the King and Lords for redresse of oppressions extortions Monolies c. In the Parliament of 1 R. 2. n. 41 42 43. Dame Alice Pâ—etrees was brought before THE LORDS by Sir Richard Scroop Knight and there charged for pursuing matters at the Court contrary to an Order made in the Parliament of 50 E. 3. n. 35. and procuring King Edward to restore Richard Lyons to his lands and goods c. she denied she pursued any such thing for singular gain against that Ordinance whereupon diverse Officers Counsellers and Secretaries of king Edward 3. were examined against her who proved she made such pursutes and that for private gain in their conceits Whereupon the Lords alone without the Commons gave Iudgement against her that she should be banished according to the order aforesaid and forfeit all her Lands Goods and Tenements to the King The same Parliament 1 R 2. n. 32 33. The Lords committed William Fitz-Hugh Goldfiner and Citizen of London to the Tower for refusing to averr a Petition exhibited by him in the name of the poor Commonalty of that mystery complaining against John Chichester and John Bolcham of the same mystery of divers oppressions done by them to the said Commonalty In this very Parliament of 1 R. 2. n. 38 39 40. The Commons prayed that all those Captains who had rendred or lost Castles or Towns through default might be put to answer it in this Parliament and severely punished according to their deserts BY AWARD or Judgement OF THE LORDS and BARONS to eschew the evil examples they had given to other Governors of Towns and Castles Whereupon Sir Alexander de Buxton Constable of the Tower was commanded to bring BEFORE THE LORDS IN PARLIAMENT William de Weston and Lord of Gomynes both of them Commoners on Friday the 27 of November to answer such Articles as should be surmised against them on the Kings behalf Being brought BEFORE THE LORDS in full Parliament they were severally articled against at the command of THE LORDS by Sir Richard le Scrop Knight Steward of the Kings House and their several Articles and answers to them in writing read before THE LORDS Which done the Constable was commanded to bring them again before THE LORDS on Saturday next ensuing being the 20 of November on which day it was shewed unto them severally by the said Steward by THE LORDS COMMAND That THE LORDS OF THE PARLIAMENT whose names are particularly mentioned in the Roll had met together and considered of their respective answers and that IT SEEMED TO THE LORDS AFORESAID that the said William had delivered up the Castle of Onâ—herwycke to the Kings enemies without any duress or want of victuals contrary to his allegiance and undertaking safely to keep it and therefore the Lords above-named sitting in full Parliament adjudge you to death that you shall be drawn hanged But because our Lord the King is not informed of the manner of the Judgement the execution of it shall be respited till the king be thereof informed After which Judgement given
the King wherein he accused Sir William Cogan knight for extorting 300 l. by menaces from the Prior of St. Iohns Sir William appearing upon Summons prayed Counsel which was denied for that it concerned Treason whereupon he pleaded Not Guilty After which the same Parliament n. 46. to 61. The Mayor Baylifs and Commonalty of Cambridge were accused before the King and Lords that in the late insurrection they confederating with other Malefactors did break open the Treasury of the University of Cambridge burn sundry Charters of the University and compel the Chancellor and Scholars under their common Seal to release to the said Mayor and Burgesses all manner of Liberties real and personal actions and also to become bound to them in great sums of money Whereupon special writs were directed to the Mayor Baylifs and Commonalty to appear in Parliament to answer the premises The Mayor and Baylifs appear in person and plead that they 〈◊〉 not privy to any such act but if any thing was done it was by compulsion by others which the Kings learned Counsel disproved whereupon they pleaded Not Guilty The Commonalty appeared by Attorney and delivered in the Release and Bond of the University complained of under their Seal which were ordered to be cancelled After which the Chancellor and Scholars of the University exhibited Articles against the Mayor and Baylifs shewing their whole carriage and discourse in this tumult Upon reading whereof it was demanded of them in the Kings behalf What they could say why their Liberties lately confirmed should not be seised into the Kings hands as forfeited They thereupon required a Copy of the Articles Councel and respite to answer To the Copy of the Bill it was answered by the Lords that seeing they had heard it read it should suffice for by Law they ought to have no Copy For Councel it was said That to such articles if any were wherein Councel was to be had they should have it otherwise not Wherfore they were then appointed to answer to no crime or offence but only to their Liberties To which they answered by their Council That this Court ought not to have any Conusance or Jurisdiction of them for certain causes then alleged But at last they were ordered to say what they could otherwise they would give Iudgement against them as those who had nothing to say Whereupon they pleaded they did nothing but by Duress and constraint of the Rebels At last after many dilatory shifts touching their Liberties they wholly submitted themselves to the Kings mercy and grace saving their answer to other matters The KING therefore by the assent of the Prelates and Lords in Parliament â—o is the Rolâ— seised their Liberties into his hands as forfeited and by assent of the Lords and Prelates in Parliament granted to the Chancellor and Scholars the Assise and correction of bread weights measures and forestallers and fines thereof within the Town and Subâ—rbs of Cambridge which the Townsmen had before The King Lords and Prelates being Judges and giving the Judgement in this case of Commoners as the record a â—ge attests Walsingham relates that in a Parliament holden at London this year about the feast of St. John upon the Petition of the knights of Shires John Straw Captain of those in the insurrection at Bury and Myldenhale tractationi et suspentioni ADJUDICATUR to wit by the King and Lords licet multi putassent eum fuisse pecunia redimendum In the 7. year of R. 2. Rege vocante congregati sunt multi de Nobilibus Regni apud Rading to restrain the seditious motions of John de Northampton late Mayor of London qui ingenia facinora nisus est de quibus et convictus est ibidem his familiar Clerk accusing him both of divers practises and designes projected by him as well to the prejudice of the King as of the whole City of London and objecting them against him When Judgement was to be given against him in the Kings presence he pleaded that such a Judgement ought not to be given against him in the absence of the Duke his Lord whereby he raised a sinister suspition as well in the people AS NOBLES against the Duke of Lancaster The Justice who was to pronounce the Judgement told him He ought to refute his charge by Duel or by the Laws of the Realm to submit himself to drawing hanging and quartering At which when he stood mute and said nothing DECRETVM EST ut perpetuo carceri tradiretur et eâ—us bona regis usibus confisâ—arentur ut Londonias non appropinquaret per centum miliaria in vita sua whereupon he was sent prisoner to Tyntagel Castle in Cornwall and his goods seised on by the Kings Officers In the Parliament of 7 R. 2. holden at Westminster the Monday next before the feast of All Saints num 17. Bryers Cressingham and Iohn Spicâ—worth Esquires were accused before the LORDS for surrendring the Castle of Drinkham in Flanders to the kings enemies for money without consent of the kings Lieutenant Spickworth proved that the same was not in his custody and thereupon he was discharged Cressingham pleaded that he yeelded the same upon necessity without money and submitted himself to the Lords order who thought this no good cause and therefore committed him to prison The same Parliament n. 24 25. Sir William de Elinsham Sir Thomas Trivet Sir Henry de Ferriers and Sir William Farnden knights and Robert Fitz-Ralph Esquire were accused before the Lords in Parliament for selling the Castle of Burburgh with all the arms ammunition and provisions therein to the French the kings enemies for sundry summs of gold received by them of the French without authority from the king or his Lieutenant who pleaded they surrendred it for salvation of themselves and their people c. After all their excuses made they were upon consideration adjudged insufficient by the Lords and the Chancellor by their order pronounced this Judgement against them That they should repay all the monies they received from the Enemy to the King be committed to prison ransomed at the Kings will and moreover that Sir Will. de Farnden being the greatest Offender should be at the Kings mercy both for body and goods to do with them as he pleaseth In this Parliament there was a Duel fought between John Walsh an English Esquire and one of Navarr who accoused him of Treason against the King and Realm effectually but yet falsly out of envy Walsh having layen with his wife whiles he was under Captain of Cherburgh as he afterwards confessed This Dueâ— was fought within the lists in the presence of the King and Nobles of the Realm where this Navarrois being vanquished by Walsh REGALI JVDICIO tractus et suspensus est quanquam Regina et plures alii pro eo preces sedulas porrexissent In the 2. of Parliament of 7 R. 2. n. 13.10 19. John Cavendish a Fishmonger of London praying Surety of the peace
against Sir Michael de la Pool Knight Lord Chancellor of England first before the Commons and afterward before the Lords which was granted Then he accused him BEFORE THE LORDS for bribery and injustice and that he entered into a bond of 10 l. to Iohn Ottard a Clerk to the said Chancellor which he was to give for his good success in the business in part of payment whereof he brought Herring and Sturgeon to Ottard and yet was delayed and could have no justice at the Chancellors hands Upon hearing the cause and examining witnesses upon Oath before THE LORDS the Chancellor was cleared The Chancellor thereupon required reparation for so great a slander the Lords being then troubled with other weighty matters let the Fishmonger to Bail and referred the matter to be ordered by the Judges who upon hearing the whole matter condemned Cavendish in three thousand marks for his slanderous complaint against the said Chancellor and adjudged him to prison till he had paid the same to the Chancellor and made fine and ransom to the King also which the Lords confirmed In the Parliament of 8 R. 2. n. 12. Walter Sybell of London was arrested and brought into the Parliament before the Lords at the sute of Robert de Veer Earl of Oxford for slandering him to the Duke of Lancaster and other Nobles for maintenance Walter denied not but that he said that certain there named recovered against him the said Walter and that by maintenance of the said Earl as he thought The Earl there present protested himself to be innocent and put himself upon the trial Walter thereupon was committed to Prison by the Lords and the next day he submitted himself and desired the Lords to be a mean for him saying he could not accuse him whereupon THE LORDS CONVICTED and FINED HIM FIVE HUNDRED MARKS TO THE SAID EARL for the which and for his fine and ransom to the King he was committed to prison BY THE LORDS A direct case in point By these two last Presidents of the Lords â—ining and imprisoning Cavendish and Syber two Commoners in Parliament for their standers and false accusacions only of two particular Peers and Members of their house it is most apparent the Lords now may most justly not only imprison but likewise fine both Lilburn and Overion for their most scandalous Libels against all the Members just Privileges Judicatory and Authority of the whole House of Peers which they have contemned vilisied oppugned and libelled against in the highest degree and most scurrillously abused reviled in sundry seditious Pamphlets to incite both the Army and whole Commonalty against them In the Parliament of 11 R. 2. the Duke of Glocester and other Lords came to London with great forces to secure themselves and remove the kings ill Counsellors and bring them to judgement whereupon the King for fear securing himself in the Tower of London and refusing to come to them at Westminster contrary to his faithfull promise the day before they sent him this threatning Message nisi venire maturaret juxta condictum quod eligerent alium sibi Regem qui vellet et deberet obtemperare consiliis Dominorum Wherewith being terrified he came unto them the next day Cui dixerunt PROCERES pro honore suo regni commodo oporterâ—â— ut Proditores susurrones adulatores et male fici detractores juratores à suo Palatio et Comitive etiam eliminarentur Whereupon they banished sundry Lords Bishops Clergy-men Knights and Ladies from the Court and imprisoned many other Knights Esquires and Lawyers to answer their offences in Parliament The first man proceeded against in Parliament was the Chief Justice Tresylian whom the Lords presently adjudged to be drawn and hanged The like Iuegement the Lords gave against Sir Nicholas Brambre Knight Sir Iohn Salisbury Sir Iames Burwâ—yes Iohn Beauchamp Iohn Blakes who were all drawn and hanged accordingly as Trayâ—ers one after another and Simon Burly beheaded after them by like judgement notwithstanding the Kings and Earl of Derbies intercessions for him to the Lords After their Execution Robert Belknapâ— John Holâ— Roger Fulthorp and William Burgh Justices were banished by the Lords sentence and their lands and chattels confiscated out of which they allowed them only a small annual pension to sustain their lives After which these Judgments against them were confirmed by Acts of Attainder as you may read in the Statutes at large of 11 R. 2. where their Crimes and Treasons are specified in Cokes 3 Institutes c. 2. p. 22 23. and in Knyghton Holinshed Fabian Speed Trussel with other Historians In the Parliament of 13 R. 2. n. 12. Upon complaint of the Bishop Dean and Chapter of Lincoln against the Mayor and Bayliffs thereof for injustice in keeping them from their rights and rents by reason of the franchises granted them which they abused Writs were sent to the Mayor and Baylifs to appear at a certain day before the Lords and to have full authority from the whole Comonalty to abide their determination therein At which day the Mayor and Bayliffs appearing in proper person for that they brought not full power with them from the said Commonalty they were anâ— goâ— by the Lords to be in contempt and so were the Mayor and Bayliffs of Cambridge for the self same cause this very Parliment n. 14. In the Parliament of 15 R. 2. n. 16. The Prior of Holland in Lancashire complained of a great riot done by Henry Treble John Greenboâ— and sundry others for entring into the Parsonage of Whitwâ—rke in Leicestershire thereupon John de Ellingham Serjeant at Armes by vertue of a Commission to him directed brought the said Treble and Greenbow the principle malefactors into the Parliament before the Lords who upon 〈◊〉 confessed the whole matter and were therefore committed to the Fleaâ— there to remain at the Kings pleasure after which they made a fine in the Chancery agreed with the Prior and found sureties for the Good behaviour whereupon they were dismissed The same Parliament n. 19. Sir Will. Bryan was by the King with the assent of the Lords committed prisoner to the lower during the Kings will and pleasure for purchasing a Bull from Rome to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to excommunicate all such who had broken up his house and taken away divers Letters Privileges and Charters which Bull was adjudged prejudicial to the King his Councâ—l and in derogation of the Law Num. 20. Thomas Harding was committed to the Fleet by the King and Lords assent there to continue during the Kings pleasure for falsly accusing Sir John and Sir Ralph Sutton as well by mouth as writing of a conspiracy whereof upon hearing they were acquitted And n. 21. John Shadwell of Baghsteed in Sussex was likewise committed to the Fleet by THE LORDS there to remain during the Kings pleasure for misinforming of the Parliament that the Archbishop of Canterbury had excommunicated him and his neighbours wrongfully in his
spiritual Cour◠for a temporal cause belonging to the Crown and Common Law which was adjudged by the Lords upon examination to be untrue To passe by the accusation of Sir Philip Courtney of divers hainous matters oppressions dissensions before the King and Lords in the Parliament of 16 R. 2. n. 6.13 14. of which more anon In the Parliament of 17 R. 2. n. 20 21. John Duke of Lancastre Steward and Thomas Duke of Gloucester Constable of England complained to the King that Sir Thomas Talbot Knight with other his adherents conspired the deaths of the said Dukes in divers parts of Cheshire as the same was confessed and well known and prayed That the Parliament might judge of the fault Whereupon the King and the Lords in Parliament without the Commons adjudged the said fact to be open and High Treason And thereupon they awarded two Writs to the Sherifs of Yorks and of Derby to take the body of the said Sir Thomas retornable in the Kings Bench in the month of Easter next ensuing And open Proclamation was made in Westminster Hall That upon the Sherifs retorn and at the next coming in of the said Sir Thomas he should be convicted of Treason and incurr the loss and pain of the same and that all such who should receive him after the Proclamation should receive the like losse and pain In the Parliament of 20 R. 2. n. 15 16 23. Sir Thomas Haxey Clark was by the King Lords in Parl. adjudged to die as a Traytor and to forfeit all his Lands Goods Chattels Offices and Livings for exhibiting to the House of Commons a scandalous Bill against the King and his Court for moderating the outragious expences of his Court by Bishops and Ladies c. Upon the Bishops intercession the King spared his life and delivered him into the custody of the Archbishop to remain as his Prisoner In the Parliament of 21 R. 2. n. 19 20. Pl. Parl. n. 2. to 15. The Lords Appellants appealed Sir Tho Mortimer Knight of High Treason for raising war against the King accroaching royal power and purposing to surrender his homage and allegiance and depose the King Who flying into the parts of Ireland thereupon the Lords in Parliament assigned him a certain day to come and render himself to the Law or else to be adjudged and proceeded against as a Traytor and Proclamation thereof was made accordingly in England and Ireland to render himself within 3 months And that after that time all his Abettors and Aiders should be reputed for and forfeit as Traytors He not coming at the day The Duke of Lancaster Steward of England by assent of the Lords in Parliament adjudged him a Traytor and that he should forfeit all his Lands in fee and see tayl together with all his Goods and Chattels The like Judgement in like manner was in the same Parliament given against Sir John Cobham Knight for the like Treason Placit Coronaen 16. On the 22 day of March 22 R. 2. n. 27. The King by assent of the Lords adjudged Sir Robert Plesington Knight then dead a Traytor for levying war against him with the Duke of Glocester at Harrengary for which he should lose all his Lands in fee or fee tayl and all his goods And n. 28. Henry Bowht Clerk for being of Counsel with the Duke of Hereford in his device was adjudged by the King and Lords to die and forfeit as a Traytor after which his life was pardoned and he banished In the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 79. As the Commons acknowledged that the Iudgements in Parliament had always of right belonged to the King and Lords and not unto the Commons So therein the King and Lords alone without the Commons gave Judgement in sundry cases as Judges in Parliament 1. In Sir Thomas Haxey his case who in his own name presented a Petition in this Parliament a nostre tresedoute seigniour le ROY a LES SEIGNIORS DU PARLIAMENT shewing that in the last Parliament of 21 R. 2. that he delivered a Bill to the Commons of the said Parliament for the honour and profit of the said King and of all the Realm for which Bill at the will of the King he was by the King and Lords adjudged a Traytor and to forfeit all that he had praying that the record of the said Judgement with the dependants thereupon might be vacated and nulled by them in this present Parliament as erronious and that he might be restored to all his degrees farms estate goods chattels ferms pensions lands tenements rents offices advow sons and possessions whatsoever and their appurt and enjoy them to him and his heirs notwithstanding the said Iudgement or any grant made of them by the King The Commons House exhibited a Petition likewise on his behalf to the like effect adding that this judgement given against him for delivering this Bill to the Commons in Parliament was eneontre droit et la course quel avoit estre use devant in Parlement en anientesment des Customs de◠le◠Communes Upon which Petitions Nostre Seignior le ROY de Induis assent des touz les Seigniors esperituelz et temporelz ad ordinez et adjudges que le dit juggement renus vers le dit Thomas in Parlement soit de tout casses revorses repellez et adnullez et tenus pur nul force n'effect et que le dit Thomas soit restitut a ses nom et fame c. nient obstant mesme le juggement 2ly In the case of Judge Rickhill 1 H· 4. n. 92. On the 18 of November the Commons prayed the King that Sir William Rickhill late Just of the Common Bench arrested for a Confession he had taken of the Duke of Gloucester at Calice might be brought to answer for it devant les Seigniors du Parlement whereupon he was brought into Parliament before the Kings presence and all the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament where Sir Walter Clapton Chief Justice of the Kings Bench by the kings command examined the said Sir William how and by what warrant he went to Calice to the said Duke of Glocester and upon what message Who answered that king Richard sent him a special Writ into Kent there recited verbatim commanding him by the faith and allegiance whereby he was obliged to him and under pain of forfeiting all he had to goe unto Caleys And that at Dover he received a Commission from the said king by the hand of the Earl Marshal to confer with the Duke of Glocester and to hear whatsoever he would say or declare unto him and to certifie the king thereof in proper person wherever he should be fully and distinctly under his Seal Whereupon he went thither and took the said Dukes Examination in writing according to the purport of the said Commission a Copy whereof the Duke himself received c Upon the hearing of his answer and defence
Sautre being condemned of Heresie in the Convocation by Archbishop Arundel and the Clergy thereupon by order and advice of the Temporal Lords without the Prelates who must not have their hands in blood though they gave the Sentence that he should be burned or the Commons there issued out a Writ to the Sherifs of London for the burning of Sautre as an Heretick accordingly burnt thereon being the first writ of this Nature issued by the Lords alone in the Kings name before the Statute of Heresie was made and passed in this Parliament In the same Parliament of 2 H. 4. n. 30. The Temporal Lords by assent of the King adjudged and declared Sir Ralph Lumly Knight and others Traytors for levying war in sundry parts to destroy the K. his people and that they should forfeit all their lands in fee goods and chattels though they were slain in the field not arraigned nor indicted by reason thereof In the Parliament of 4 H. 4. n. 19 20 21. Sir Philip Courtney being complained against and convicted of a forcible entry into Lands and for a forcible imprisonment of the Abbot of Mâ—nthaem in Devonshire and two of his Monks was upon hearing and examination adjudged by the King and Lords to be bound to his good behaviour and for his contempt committed to the Tower of London prisoner Anno 1403. Henry Percy the younger confederating with Thomas Percy Earl of Worcester to raise forces â—nd rebel against the King sent Letters to the people of every County propositum quod assumpserant non esse contra suam ligeantiam et fidelit tem quam regi fecerant nec ab aliunde exercitum congregasse nisi pro salvatione personarum suarum reipublicae meliori guvernatione Quia census et Tallagia Regi concessa pro salva regni custodia covertebantur ut dixerunt in usus indebitos et inutiliter consumebantur praeterea querebantur quod propter aemulorum dilationes pessimas rex eis insensus fuerat ut non auderent personaliter venire ad ejus praesentiaem donec Praelati regnique Barones regi supplicassent pro eisdem ut coram Rege permitterentur declarare suam innocentiam per Pares suos legaliter justificari Plures igitur visis his literis collaudabant tantum virorum solertiam extollebant fidem quam erga Rempublicam praetendebant Having raised great forces against the King by this means which the kings forces encountred at Shrewsbury in a pitched battel Henry Percy and sundry of his adherents were there slain in the field and the rest routed For which levying of war in the Parliament of of 5 H. 4. n. 15. the said Henry Percy and his Coâ—federaâ—es were declared and adjudged Traytors by the King and Lords in full Parliament and their Lands goods and chaâ—tels confiscated In the same Parliament n. 18. At the Petition of the Commons The Lords â—enâ—ed and ordered that the Kings Confessor the Abbot of Dore Mr Richard Durham and Crosby of the Chamber should be removed out of the Kings house and Court whereupon 3. of them appearing before the King and Lords in Parliament the King though he excused them yet charged them to depart from his house for that they were hated of the people In the Parliament of 13 H. 4. n. 12 13. The Lord Roos complained against Robert Thirwit one of the Justices of the Kings Bench for withholding from him and his Tenants Common of Pasture and Turbâ—ry in Warbie in Lincolnshire and lying in wait with 500 men for the Lord Roos Thirwit before the King and Lords confessed his fault and submitted himself to their Order who appointed 3. Lords to end the difference who made an award between them that Thirwit shouâ—d confess his fault to the Lord Roos crave his pardon and tender him amends In the Parliament of 5 H. 5. n. 11. Sir John Oldcastle knight being outlawed of Treason in the Kings bench and excommunicated before the Archbishop of Canterbury for Heresie was brought before THE LORDS and having heard his conviction made no answer nor excuse thereto Upon which Record and Process THE LORDS ADJUDGED that he should be taken as a Traytor to the King and Realm carried to the Tower of London from thence drawn through the City to the new Gallows in St. Gyles without Temple-barr and there hanged and burned hanging which was accordingly executed Sir Iohn Mortymer knight being committed to the Tower upon supposition of Treason done against King Henry the 5. in the 1. year of H. 6. brake out of the Tower for which breach he was indicted of Treason being afterwards apprehended he was brought into the Parliament of 2 H. 6. n. 18. and upon the same Indictment then confirmed by assent of Parliament JUDGEMENT was given against him BY THE LORDS that he should be carried to the Tower drawn through London to Tiburn there to be hanged drawn and quartered his head to be set on London-bridge and his four quarters on the four Gates of London In the Parliament of 38 H. 6. n. 20 2â— 22. Sir William Oldham knight and Thomas Vaughan Esquire were attainted of Treason by the LORDS and in the Parliaments of 1 E. 4. n. 19. to 31. 4 E. 4. n. 28. to 38. â—4 E. 4. n. 34. to 40. sundry Knights Esquires Citizens and Commoners are attainted of Treason by the Lords for levying warr and holding forts against the King then after by Bill whose names are overtedious to reherse which you may peruse at leisure in the Exact Abridgement of the Records in the Tower To omit all other presidents of this Nature in the reigns of King H. 7.8 Ed. 6. Qu. Mary and Qu. Elizabeth of Commoners censured in and by the Lords house in Criminal causes upon impeachments complaints petitions which those who please may find recorded in the Journals of the Lords house I shall recite only some few Presidents more of late and present times In the Parliaments of 18. 21 Iacobi Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Iohn Michel upon complaints and impeachments by the Commons for promoting Monopoliâ—s Corruption and other Misdemeanors were fined imprisoned by Judgement of the Lords House and Sir Giles degraded of his knighthood In the Parliament of 3. Carolâ— the Commons impeached Roger Manwaring Dr. of Divinity for preaching and printing Seditious and dangerous Sermons and sent up this Declaration against him to the Lords June 14. 1628. For the more effectual prevention of the apparent ruine and destruction of this kingdom which must necessarily ensue if the good and fundamental Laws and customs therein established should be brought into contempt and violated and that form of government thereby altered by which it hath been so long maintained in peace and happiness And to the honour of our Soveraign Lord the King and for the preservation of his Crown and Dignity the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do by this their Bill shew and
of 26 H. 6. n. â— upon his excuse Whereupon William Tresham was elected in his place presented to and approved by the King n. 7. 5ly That when he is elected and approved yet in case of sickness and infirmity he may be removed and another chosen and presented in his place and that upon the Commons special Petition to the king in his behalf out of his meer Grace to discharge him and accept of another Thus in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 62 63 64. Sir John Cheyney Knight after his election and approbation was discharged and Sir John Dorew Knight elected presented and admitmitted by the Kings license to be Speaker in his room So in the Parliament of 1 H. 5. n. n. 7 9 10.11 Will. Sturton Esquire after he was chosen and allowed Speaker was removed for grievous sickness and John Doreward chosen in his place At the Parliament holden 15 H. 6. n. 10 27. Sir John Tirril knight was chosen and allowed yet removed for grievous sickness and William Beerell chosen in his place and that by the Kings special license and approbation to whom all those new Speakers were again presented by the Commons for his royal assent thereto 6ly That if he be altered by his Majesty by assent of the Council Lords as the entry is in the Parliament Rolls then he maketh a protestation or Petition to the king which consisteth of three parts 1. That the Commons in this Parliament may have freedom of speech as of right and custom they have used and all their antient and just Privileges and Liberties allowed them which the King usually granted with this caution That he hoped or doubted not That the Members would not speak any unfitting words or abuse this freedom and privilege for abuse whereof some have been committed Prisoners to the Tower by our Kings and Queens command 2ly That if he shall commit any Error in any thing he shall deliver in the name of the Commons no fault may be imputed to the Commons and that he may resort again to them for declaration of his good intent and that his Error may be pardoned 3ly That as often as necessity for his Majesties service and the good of the Common-wealth shall require he may by direction of the House of Commons have access to his Majesty If then the King hath the sole power and jurisdiction thus to nominate approve confirm disallow refuse discharge and remove the very Speakers of the Commons House themselves and not the Commons but by and with his special license grace and royal assent yea to grant them freedom of speech and their usual Privileges and liberties every Parliament upon their Petition and to pardon theirs and their Speakers Errors and that sitting in the Lords House with their assents then doubtlesse the king and Lords alone are the sole Judges of the Speakers and all other Members of the Commons House and have the sole power to judge of their undue elections retorns misdemeanors breaches of Privileges and all other matters concerning their Membership not the Commons And if they can neither constitute elect nor remove their own Speaker for sickness or any other cause without the kings privity and consent declared in the House of Lords much lesse can they suspend seclude or eject any Member out of the House when chosen and returned by the Freeholders Citizens or Burgesses as their Attorny or Trustee in equal power with themselves without the Kings or Lords consents for any pretext of unfitness or undue election And if the king as Sir Edward Cook grants and these presidents prove may discharge the Speaker from his Office for grievous sickness and inability to discharge it I mak no question but he may likewise upon the like Petition of the Commons or Speaker discharge him of his attendance in the House or any other Member for the self same reason and grant a Writ to elect another able and fitting person in his place according to the opinion of 38 H. 8. Brooks Parliament 7. and Crompton in his Jurisdiction of Courts f. 16. approved by the whole House of Commons and accordingly practised in 38 H. 8. against Sir Edward Cooks bare opinion without reason to the contrary In the Parliament holden at Westminster 5 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 38. Thomas Thorp his Case Item because that the Writ of Summons of Parliament returned by the Sherif of Roteland was not sufficiently nor duly returned as the Commons conceived the said Commons prayed our Lord the King and the Lords in Parliament that this matter might be duly examined in Parliament and that in case therâ— shall be default found in this matter that such a punishment might be inflicted which might become exemplary to others to offend again in the like manner Whereupon 〈◊〉 said Lord the King in full Parliament commanded the Lords in Parliament to examine the said matter and to do therein as to them should seem best in their discretions And thereupon the said Lords caused to come before them in Parliament as well the said Sherifs at William Oneby who was returned by the said Sherif for one of the Knights of the said County and Thomas Thorp who was elected in full Countie to be one of the Knights of the said Shire for the said Parliament and not returned by the said Sherif And the said parties being duly examined and their reasons well considered in the said Parliament it was agreed by the said Lords that because the said Sherif had not made a sufficienâ— return of the said Writ that he shall amend the said return and that he shall return the said Thomas for one of the said Knights as he was elected in the said County for the Parliament and moreover that the said Sherif for this default shall be discharged of his Office any committed Prisoner to the Fleeâ— and that he should make sins and ransome at the Kings pleasures â—oâ— here the Lords in Parliament at the Commons request and by the Kings command examine and give judgement in case of an undue election and retorn even without the Commons In this same Parliament Richard Cheddar Esquire a menial servant and attendant on Sir Thomas Brook chosen one of the Knights to serve in Parliament for the County of Somerset was horribly beaten wounded blemished and maimed by one John Savage Whereupon the Commons complained thereof to the King and Lords petitioning them for redress both in his particular case for the present and all others of that nature for the future that they might make fine at the Kings 〈◊〉 and render double damages to the party maimed whether Members of theirs Servants Whereupon it was ordained and established by the King and Lords that for as 〈…〉 deed was done within the time of the said Parliament that Proclamation be made where it was done that the said John appear and yield himself in the Kings Bench within a quarter of a year after the Proclamation
or jurisdiction to enlarge him or to fine or imprison those who took him in Execution as of late times they have done And in this Parliament upon the petition and supplication of the Prelates and Clergy n. 32. the King by the assent and advice of the Lords enacted the Statute of 8 H. 6. c. 1. That the Clergy and their Attendants called to the Convocation by the Kings writ should have and enjoy for ever hereafter the same liberty and immunity in going coming and tarrying as the Great men and Commonalty of England called or to be called to the Kings Parliaments have used and enjoyed they complaining to the king that they and their servants coming to the Convocation were oftentimes and commonly arrested molested and inquieted Which they had no power to redress but only the King and Lords upon their complaints thereof In the Parliament of 18 H. 6. n. 13. It was shewed to the King and the Lords Spiritual Temporal that Gilbert Hore Sherif of the County of Cambridge upon the kings writ directed to him to chuse 2. knights for that shire had made no return of any knights for that County for certain reasons therein expressed Whereupon the King by advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal not the Commons house alone as now nor yet joyntly with them ordered that a New writ for electing 2. knights for that County should be directed to him and that he should make proclamation that no person should come to the election with arms or arrayed in warlike manner in disturbance of the said election and breach of the kings peace A memorable president of the Kings and Lords Jurisdiction even in point of elections In the Parliament of 23 H. 6. n. 41. The Commons petitioned the king that by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and at their special request it might be enacted that every Member of the Lords and Commons house who should have any assault or affray made upon him being at the Parliament or going to or coming from thence might have the like remedy at Sir Thomas Parr knight had given him in this Parliament to wit upon petition of the Commons in his behalf to the King and Lords being the same as was enacted in Chedders case 11 H. 6. c. 11. before Whereunto the king answered The Statutes therefore made shall be observed In the Parliament of 31 H. 6. rot parl n. 25 26 27 28. we have this memorable famous case touching privilege of Parliament in their very Speakers own case resolved by the Lords Thomas Thorp chief Baron was chosen Speaker of the Parliament after his election and before the Parliament which was prorogued sat he was arrested and taken in execution at the sute of the Duke of York whereupon some of the Commons were sent up by the House to the king and Lords spiritual and temporal sitting in Parliament desiring that they might enjoy all their ancient and accustomed privileges in being free from arrests and propounded the case of Thomas Thorp their Speaker to them desiring his inlargement whereupon the said Lords spiritual aad temporal not intending to hurt or impeach the privilege of the Commons but equally after the course of Law to administer Justice and to have knowledge what the Law will weigh in that behalf declared to the Justices the premises and asked of them whether the said Thomas ought to be delivered from prison by force and vertue of the said privilege of Parliament or not To the which question the chief Justices in the name of all the Justices aforesaid communication and mature deliberation had among them answered and said That they ought not to answer that question for it hath not been used aforetime that the Justices should in any wise determine the privilege of this high Court of Parliament for it is so high and mighty in his nature that it may make that Law which is not and that that is Law it may make no Law and the determination and knowledge of their privilege belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as for declaration of proceedings in the lower Courts in such cases as writs of Supersedoas of Privilege of Parliament be brought and delivered the said chief Justice said that there be many and divers Supersedeas of privileges of Parliament brought into the Courts but there is no general Supersedeas brought to furcease all Processes for if there should be it should seem that this high Court of Parliament that ministreth all Justice and equity should let the process of the common Laws and so it should put the party plainant without remedy for so much as actions at Common Law be not determined in this high Court of Parliament And if any person that is a Member of this high Court of Parliament be arrested in such cases as be not for Treason or Felony or surety of the Peace or for condemnation before the Parliament it is used that all such persons should be released of all such arrests and make an Attorney so that they may have the freedom and Liberty freely to attend upon the Parliament After which answer and Declaration it was throughly agréed assented and concluded by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal that the said Thomas according to the Law should remain still in prison for the causes abovesaid the privilege of the Parliament or that the same Sir Thomas was Speaker of the Parliament notwithstanding And that the premises should be opened and declared to them that were comen for the Commons of this land and they should be charged and commanded in the kings name that they with all goodly hast and speed proceed to the election of another Speaker The which premiâ—es for as much as they were matters of Law by the commandement of the Lords were opened and declared to the Commons by the mouth of Walter Moyle one of the kings Sergeants at Law in the presence of the Bishop of Ely accompanyed with other Lords in notable number and there it was commanded and charged to the said Commons by the said Bishop of Ely in the kings name that they should proceed to the election of another Speaker with all goodly hast and speed so that the matters for which the king called this his Parliament might be proceeded in and this Parliament take good and effectual conclusion and end Whereupon the Commons accordingly elected Thomas Charlton knight for their Speaker the next day and acquainted the Lords therewith and desired the kings approbation of their choice which was accorded unto by the king by assent of the Lords Lo here 1. the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are the sole Judges of the privilege of the very Speaker of the House of Commons who is here adjudged to remain in execution notwithstanding their petition for his enlargement 2ly The whole House of Commons could not then send for nor yet enlarge their own Speaker when imprisoned
gratia nunc Cantuariensi electo tunc Wintoniensi Episcopo et Angliae Thesaurario câ—nceptis et dictatis manu magistri Willielmi de Mees Clerici sui Secretarii publici Notari conscriptis et in publâ—cam formam redactis Quam quidem concordiam ad mei excusationem duxi praesent bus inferendam quae talis est Accorde est qe sire Edward fiz aisne du roy ait le government del Roialme et soit rois Coronne par les Causes qe sensiwent 1. Primerment Pur ceo qe la persone ly Roy nest pas suffisaunt de governer Car en touz son temps ad il este mene et governe par autres qe ly ount mavoisement consaillez a deshoneur de ly et destruction de sâ—int Eglise et de tout son people saunz ceo qe il le vousist veer ou conustre le quel il sust bon ou mavoys ou remedie mettre ou faire le vousist quant il fuist râ—quis par les graunts et sages de sâ—n Roialme ou suffrir qe amende fuist faite 2. Item Par tout son temp 〈◊〉 se voloit doner a bon consail no le croire ne a bon governemeâ—t de son Roialm meys se ad done toux jours as ouraignes et occupationes nient covenables entre lessaunt lesploit des bosoignes de son Roialme Item Par defaute de bon governement ad il perdu le Roialme Descoce et autres terres et seignuries en Gascoygne Hytland les quex son pere li lessa en pees amiste ly Roy de Fraunce et detz moults des autres graunts 4. Item Par sa fierte qualte par mavoys consail ad il destruit seint Eglise les persones de seint Eglise tenuz en prisoun les uns Et les alires en destresce et auxint â—lusours graunts et nobles de la terre mys a hountose mâ—nt enprisâ—nez exulâ—tz disheritez 5. Item La ou il est tenuz par son serement a faire droit a toux il ne bad pas volu faire pur son propre profâ—it et convetise de ly de ces mavois conâ—saili es â—e ount este preâ— de ly Ne ad garde les autres pointz del serement qil fist a son corounement si com iâ— feust tenuz 6. Item Il deguerpist son Royalme et fist taunt come en ly fust qe son Roialme son poâ—ple fust perduz qe pys est pur la crualte de ly defaute de sa personne il est trove incorrigible sauntz esperaunce de amendement les quex choses fount si notoires qil ne poount estre desdiâ—z The form and instrument of his deposition is thus recorded by Ranulp Cistrensis and Henry de Knyghton Also that year in the Octaves of Twelfth day was made a Parliament at London There BY ORDINANCE with a solemn message is sent to the King that was in prison 3 Bishops 3 Earls 3 Barons 2 Abbots 2 Justices for to resign to the King that was then in warde the homage that was make to him some time for they would no longer have him for their Lord One of them Sir William Trussel Knight and PKOCURATOR OF ALL THE PARLIAMENT spake to the king in the name of all the other and said I William Trussel in the name of all men of the lond of Englond and of all the Parleament Procurator I resign to thee Edward the homage that was made to thee sometime And from this time forthward now following I defie thee and pryve thee of all ryal power and I shall never be tendant to thee as for King after this time Also this was openly cryed at London The true form of his deprivation is thus recorded in the Chronicle of Leycester and transcribed out of it by Henry de Kryghton in French Jeo William Trussel Procurator dez Prelatez Conrez et Barons et altrez Gentz en ma procuracye nomes Eyantal ceo ployne suffysant poure eâ— Homages et Fealtez au vous Edward Roy Dengleterre come al Roy avant ces â—enres de par lez ditz persones en ma procuracye nomes renk et rebaylle sus a vous Ed. et deliver et face quiâ—ez lez persones avant ditz en la meâ—lâ—our manere que ley et custome donnent E face protestacion en nom de eaux qils ne voillent deformes estre en vostre sâ—alâ—e ne en vostre lyance ne cleyment de vous come â—e Roy â—iens teniâ— Encz vous teignent de â—horse priveye persone sans nule manere de â—eale dignite Cum haec Rex audisset multum de fuis malefactis doluit rugitus et lamenta emittens eo quod per falsos et proditiosos consiliarios sic omni suo tempore ductus fuerat Thomas of Walsingham thus relates the proceeding Convenit etiam illuc tota regni Nobilitas citata per prius ad Parliamentum tenendum ibidem trastino dicti â—esti ubi cuncti centuerunt regem indignum diademate et propteâ— plures articulos deponendum er Edwardum filium ejus primogenitum in regem unanimiter eligendum Quod etiam consequenter factum fuit et electio in aulâ— magna Westmonasterii publice divulgare per quendam ex Magnatibus sapientem Cui electioni consensit populus universus Archiepiscopus vero Cantuariâ—e praesenti consensit electioni ut omnes Praelati Archiepiscopus quidem assumpto themate vox populi vox Dei sermonem feci populo exhortans omnes ut apud regem regum intercederent pro electo Facto sermone discessum esâ— Ut autem notuit Reginae filliâ—ni electio et viri dejectio plena dolore ut foris apparuit sere mente alienata fuit Edwardus quoque filius suus mateâ—no doâ—ori compassus juravit quod invito patre nunquem susciperet coronam regni Idcirco communi decreto ex parte totius regni tres Episcopi duo Comiteâ— et duo Abbates et de quolibet Comitatu regnitre milites ac etiam de Londoniis et aliis civitatibus et magnis villis ut praecipue de portubus de qualibet certus raimerus persoâ—arum missi sunt ad regem apud Kenelworth qui nunciaâ—ent electionem filii sui et requirerent diligenter quod renunciaret dignitati regiae et coronae et permitteret eundem filium suum regnare pro eo alioquin ipsi reddirent sibi homagia et procederent in praetactâ—s Rex autem ut haec audivit â—um stetu et ejâ—latu respondit quod multum doluit de eo quod sic demeruit erga populum sâ—i regni et ab omnibus qui aderant veniam precabatur Sed ex quo aliter elâ—e non potuit gratias egit quod filium suum primogenitum elegissent Nuncii vero ad Parliamentum Londonias rede untes cum regis responâ—o et insigniis plebem laetam fecerunt mox tota regni
heretofore or to any Judges Justices Governours Generals Captains or other Militarie Officers made by their Commissions or appointment without the generality of the peoples Votes or consent especially when above half or three full parts of the Members were absent or driven from both Houses by the Objectors violence and menaces These Answers premised which have cut off the head of the Objectors Goliah and chief Argument against the Lords sitting in Parliament I shall now proceed to the proof of the Lords undeniable Right and Authority to sit Vote and give Judgement in our Parliaments though not actually elected nor sent to them by the people as Knights and Burgesses are 1. It is evident by the Histories Records of most antient and modern Kingdoms and Republikes in the world that their Princes Nobles Peers and great Officers of State have by their Original Fundamental Laws and Institutions by right of their very Nobility Peerage and great Offices without any particular election of the people a just right and title to sit consult Vote enact Laws and give Judgement in all their General Assemblies of State Parliaments Diets Councels as might be manifested by particular instances in the Kingdoms Republikes Parliaments Diets and General Assemblies of the Jews Aegyptians Grecians Romans Persians Ethiopians Germans French Goths Vandals Hungarians Bohemians Polonians Russians Swedes Scythians Tartars Moors Indians Spaniards Portugals Danes Saxons Scots Irish and many others Hence Dionysius Halicarnasseus Antiquitatum Romanorum l. 2. Sect. 2. affirms That both hereditary and elective Kings even in the antientest times CONSILIUM HABEBANT QUOD EX OPTIMATIbVS CONSTABAT had a Council which consisted of Nobles and Great men as Homer and the most antient Poets attest Neque ut nostro seculo Regum priscorum dominatus erat nimium sui juris neque ab unius sententia pendebat Now to deny the like privilege to our English Peers and Nobles which all Nobles Peers in all other Kingdoms Nations Republikes antiently have enjoyed and yet doe constantly enjoy without exceptions or dispute is a gross injury injustice over-sight yea a great dishonour both to our Nobility and Nation Secondly By and in the very primitive constitution of our English Parliaments for many hundred years together there were no Knights nor Burgesses at all but only the King and his Nobles after which when elected Knights gestes were first sent to Parliament about 49 H. 3. it was granted by the Kings grace and unanimously agreed by the kingdoms peoples general consents that our Parliaments should alwayes be constituted and made up not of Knights and Burgesses only elected only by Freeholders Burgesses not by the generality of the vulgar people who would now claim usurp this right of Election but likewise of the King the Supreme Member by whose writs the Parliaments were and ought to be alwayes summoned and of the Lords Peers Barons ecclesiastical civil and great Officers of the Realm who ought of right to sit vote make Laws and give Judgement in Parliament by vertue of their Peerage Baronies Offices without any election of the people the Commons themselves being no Parliament judicatorie or Law-givers alone without the King and Lords as Modus tenendi Parliamentorum Sir Ed. Cook in his 4. Institutes ch 1. Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour part 2. ch 5. Vowell Cambden Sir Thomas Smith Cowell Minshaw Crompton with others who have written of our English Parliaments assert and all our Parliament Rolls Statutes Law-books resolve without whose threefold concurrent assents there is or can be no legal Act nor Ordinance of Parliament made since the Commons admission to vote in Parliament and assent to Bills which was but of later times out of the Kings frâ—e Grace Thirdly This right of theirs is confirmed by prescription and custom from the very first beginning of Parliaments in this kingdom till this present there being no president to be found in History or Record of any one Parliament held in this Island since it was a kingdom without the King personally or representatively present by a Protector Custos Regni Commissioners as he ought to be or without Lords and Peers antiently stiled Aldermen Heretockes Senators Wisemen Princes Dukes Earls Counts Nobles Great men c. by our Historians who make mention of their constant resorting to sitting voting judging in our General Assemblies and Parliamentary Councils under these Titles without the peoples Election for many hundreds of years before the Conquerors time in the antientest Parliamentary Councils we read of under the Britons and Saxons witness Beda Ingulphus Geoffry Monmouth Huntingdon Matthew Westminster Florentius Wigorniensis Malmsbury Hector Boetius Speed and others in their Histories Antiquitates Ecclesiae Britannicae Spelmanni Concilia Tom 1. Mr. Lambard his Archaion Sir Edward Cook in his Preface to the 9. Report and fourth Institut c. 1. M. Seldens Titles of Honor part 2. c. 5. which I have largely manifested in my Truth triumphing over Falshood Antiquity over Novelty p. 56. to 90. My Historical Collection of the antient Great Councils Parliaments c there being little if any express or direct mention at all of any Knights of Shires Citizens or Burgesses in any of our Parliamentarie Councils before the Conquest or in the Conquerors time nor yet in the reigns of King William Rufus Henry the 1. Stephen Henry 2. Richard 1. King John or first part of the reign of Henry the 3d the first direct Writ of Summons for any Knights Burgesses or Commons to our Parliaments now extant being that of Clause 49 H. 3. m. 10 11. dorso before which no evident testimony can be produced for their sitting or voting in any great Councils or Parliaments as Members but onely out of the Spurious pretended antient though in truth late ridiculous Treatise stiled Modus tenendi Parliamentum on which Sir Edward Cook and others most rely And whereas some conclude that even in the antient Saxon Great Councils the Commons were usually present as Members being comprehended under the Titles of Sapientes Seniores populi Aeldermanni c. which in the dialect of those times signifie rather Lords and Great Men than Commons or Burgesses as all accord or at least wise under these phrases praesentibus omnibus Ordinibus illius Gentis cum viris quibusdam Militaribus rather Soldiers than knights of which we find mention in the Council of Bechenceld Ann. 697. or omnium Sapientum Seniorum POPULORUM totius Regni coupled with these pre-eminent Titles of Omnium Aldermannorum Principum Procerum Comitum who met together in a General Council under Ine Anno 713. Or cujuscunque Ordinis viros in the Council of Clovesho An. 800. which expressions are now and then mentioned in some antient Councils and Parliaments though rarely yet these are rather conjectural or probable than direct or punctual proofs of what they assert whenas the Lords Title to sit and vote in them is most direct and infallible And
Peers made this memorable Petition and Remonstrance of their Privileges to the King The humble Remonstrance and Petition of the Peers MAy it please your Majestie we the Peers of this Realm now assembled in Parliament finding the Earl of Arundel absent from his place amongst us his presence was therefore called for But thereupon a message was delivered us from your Majestie by the Lord Keeper That the Earl of Arundel was restrained for a misdemeanor which was personal to your Majesty and lay in the proper knowledge of your Majesty and had no relation to matter of Parliament This Message occasioned us to inquire into the Acts of our Ancestors and what in like cases they had done that so we might not erre in a dutifull respect to your Majesty and yet preserve our right and privileges of Parliament And after diligent search made both of all Stories Statutes and Records that might inform us in this case we find iâ— to be an undoubted Right and constant Privilege of Parliament That no Lord of Parliament sitting in Parliament or within the usual time of Privilege of Parliament is to be imprisoned or restrained without sentence or order of the House unlesse it be â—or Treason or Felony or for refusing to give surety for the Peace And to satisfie our selves the better we have heard all that could be aleged by your Majesties learned Counsel at Law that might any way infringe or weaken this claim of the Peers and to all that can be shewed or alleged so full satisfaction hath been given as that all the Peers in Parliament upon the question made of this Privilege have una voce consented that this is the undoubted right of the Peers and hath been inviolably enjoyed by them Wherefore we your Majesties loyal Subjects and humble Servants the whole body of the Peers in Parliament assembled most humbly beseech your Majesty that the Earl of Arundel a Member of this Body may presently be admitted by your gracious favour to come sit and serve your Majesty and the Commonwealth in the great affairs of this Parliament And we shall pray c. Upon which Remonstrance and Petition the King refusing to inlarge him thereupon the Lords to maintain their Privilege adjourned themselves on the 25 and 26 of May without doing any thing and upon the Kings refusal to release him they adjourned from May 26 till June 2. refusing to sit and so the Parliament dissolved in discontent his imprisonment in this case being a breach of privilege contrary to Magna Charta In this very Parliament the Lord Digby Earl of Bristol being omitted out of the summons of Parliament upon complaint to the Lords House was by order admitted to set therein as his Birthright from which he might not be debarred for want of Summons which ought to have been sent unto him ex debito Iustitiae as Sir Edward Cook in his 4 Institutes p. 1. The Act for ttriennial Parliaments and King John great Charter resolve And not long after the beginning of this Parliament upon the Kings accusation and impeachment of the Lord Kimbolton and the five Members of the Commons House both Houses adjourned and sate not as Houses till they had received satisfaction and restitution of those Members as the Journals of both Houses manifest it being an high breach of their Privileges contrary to the Great Charter If then the Kings bare not summoning of some Pears to Parliament who ought to sit there by their right of Perage or impeaching or imprisoning any Peer unjustly to disable them to sit personally in Parl. be a breach of Privilege of the fundamental Laws of the Realm and Magna Charta it self confirmed in above 40 successive Parliaments then the Lords right to sit vote and judge in Parliament is as firm and indisputable as Magna Charta can make it and consented to confirmed by all the Commons people and Parliaments of England that ever consented to Magna Charta though they be not eligible every Parliament by the Freeholders people as Knights and Burgesses ought to be and to deny this birthright and privilege of theits is to deny Magna Charta it self and this present Parliaments Declarations proceedings in the case of the Lord Kimbolton a Member of the House of Peers Fifthly The Treatise intituled The manner of holding Parliaments in England in Edward the Confessors time befose the Conquest rehearsed afterwards before William the Conquerour by the discreet men of the Kingdom and by himself approved and used in his time and in the times of his successors Kings of England if the Title be true and the Treatise so antient as Sir Edward Cook others now take it to be When as its mention of the Bishop of Carlisles usual place in Parliaments which Bishoprick was not founded till the year of our Lord 1132. or 1134. as Matthew Paris Matthew Westminster Roger Hoveden Godwin and others attest in the later end of Henry the first his reign Its menâ—ion of the Mayors of London other Cities and writs usually directed to them to elect two Citizens to serve in Parliament whereas London it self had no Mayor before the year 1208. being the 9. year of King John nor other Cities Mayors til divers years after nor can any Writs for electing Knights of Shires Citizens or Burgesses to serve in Parliament which it oft times writes of be produced before 49 H. 3. nor any Writs to levy their expences or wages for their Service in Parliaments which it recites be produced before the reign of King Edward the 1. Nor was the name of Parliament which it mentions and writes of so much as used by any Author before the later end of King Henry the 3. his reign after whose reign this Modus was certainly compiled towards the end of K. Richard the 2. or after as other passages in it evidence beyond all contradiction This magnified Treatise be it genuine or spurious determines thus of the Kings and Lords rights to be personally present in all Parliaments The King is bound by all means possible to be present at the Parliament unless he be detained or let there from by bodily sickness and then he may keep his Chamber yet so that he lye not without the Manour or Town where the Parliament is held and then he ought to send for twelve persons of the greatest and best of them that are summoned to the Parliament that is two Bishops two EARLS two BARONS two Knights of the Shire two Burgesses and two Citizens to look upon his person to testifie and witness his estate and in their presence he ought to make a Commission and give Authority to the Archbishop of the Place the Steward of England and Chief Justice that they joyntly and severally should begin the Parliament and continue the same in his name express mention being made in that Commission of the cause of his absence thence which ought to suffice and admonish the OTHER NOBLES
be both Judge and Party it behoveth of Right that the King should have COMPANIONS for to hear and determine IN PARLIAMENTS all Writs and Plaints of the Wrongs of the King of the Queen and of their Children and of those especially who otherwise could not have common right concerning their wrongs These Companions are now called Counts after the Latine word Comites For the good Estate of the Realm King Alfred assembled the COUNTS or Earls and ordained by a Perpetual Law that twice a year or oftner they should assemble at London in Parliament to consult of the Government of the people of God c. By which Estate or Parliament many Laws and Ordinances were made which be there recites Bracton l. 1. c. 8. l. 2. c. 16. l. 3. c. 9. in Henry the 3d. his reign and Fleta l. 2. c. 2. p. 66. write thus in Edw. the first his reign in the same words Habet enim Rex cuâ—iaÌ„ suam in concilio suo in Parliamentis suis PRAESENTIBUS Praelatis COMITIBUS BARONIBUS PROCERIBUS aliis viris peritis ubi terminatae sunt dubitationes judiciorum novis injuriis emersis nova constituuntur remedia And l. 17. c. 17. he writes thus Rex in populo regendo superiores habet Videlicet Legem per quam est Rex Curiam suam to wit of Parliament videlicet COMITES BARONES Comites enim à Comitia dicuntur qui cum viderint Regem sine froeno Froenum sibi apponere TENENTVR ne clament subditi Domine Jesu Christe in Chamo froeno maxillas eorum constringe Sir Tho. Smith in his Commonwealth of England l. 2. c. 1. John Vowel and Ralph Holinshed vol. 1. c. 6. p. 173. Mr. Cambden in his Britannia p. 177. John Minshaw in his Dictionary Cowel in his Interpreter Title Parliament Powel in his Attorneys Accademy and others unanimously conclude That the Parliament consisteth of the KING the LORDS SPiRITUAL and TEMPORAL and the Commons which STATES represent the body of all England which make but one Assembly or Court called the Parliament and is of all other the Highest and greatest Authority and hath the most high and absolute power of the Realm And that no Parliament is or can be holden without the King and Lords Mr. Crompton in his Jurisdiction of Courts affirms particularly of the High Court of Parliament f. 1. c. This Court is the highest Court of England in which the King himself sits in person and comes there at the beginning and end of the Parliament and at any other time when he pleaseth ordering the Parliament To this Court come all the Lords of Parliament as well Spiritual as temporal and are severally summoned by the Kings writ at a certain day and place assigned The Chancellor of England and other great Officers or Judges are there likewise present together with the Knights Citizens and Burgesses who all ought to be personally present or else to be amerced and otherwise punished if they come not being summoned unles good cause be shewed or in case they depart without the Houses or Kings special license after their appearance before the Sessions ended And he resolves That the King Lords and Commons doe all joyntly make up the Parliament and that no Law nor Act of Parliament can be made to bind the subject without all their concurrent assents Sir Edward Cook not only in his Epistle before his ninth Report and Institutes on Littleton p. 109 110. But likewise in his 4. Institutes published by Order of the Commons themselves this present Parliament c. 1. p. 1 2. c. writes thus of the high and Honourable Court of Parliament This Court consisteth OF THE KINGS MAJESTIE sitting there as in his royal politick capacity and of the three Estates of the Realm viz. Of the Lords Spiritual Archbishops and Bishops being in number 24. who sit there in respect of their Counties or Baronies parcel of their Bishopricks which they hold also in their politick capacity and every one of these when the Parliament is to be holden ought ex debito Justitiae to have a writ of summons The LORDS TEMPORAL Dukes Marquesses Earls Viscounts and Barons who sit there by reason of their dignities which they hold by descent or creation And likewise EVERY ONE OF THESE being of full age OUGHT TO HAVE a writ of summons EX DEBITO JUSTITIAE The third Estate are the Commons of the Realm whereof there be Knights of Shires or Counties Citizens of Cities and Burgesses of Boroughs All which are respectively elected by the Shires or Counties Cities and Boroughs by force of the Kings writ ex debito Justitiae and none of them ought to be omitted and these represent all the Commons of the whole Realm and trusted for them and are in number at this time 403. He adds And it is observed that when there is best appearance there is the best successe in Parliament At the Parliament holden in the 7. year of H. 5. holden before the Duke of Bedford Guardian of England of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal there appeared but 30. in all at which Parliament there was but one Act of Parliament passed and that of no great weight In An. 50 E. 3. all the Lords appeared in person and not one by Proxy at which Parliament as appeareth by the Parliament Roll so many excellent things were sped and done that it was called Bonum Parliamentum And the King and these three estates are the great Corporation or body of the kingdom and doe sit in two Houses and of this Court of Parliament the King is Caput Principium Finis The Parl. cannot begin but by the Royal presence of the King either in person or representation by a Gardian of England or Commissioners both of them appointed under the great Seal of England c. And 42 E. 3. Rot. Parl. num 7. It is declared by the Lords and Commons in full Parliament upon demand made of them on the behalf of the King That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the disinherison of the King and his Crown whereunto they were sworn And p. 35. he hath this special observation That it is observed by antient Parliament men out of Records that Parliaments have not succeeded well in five cases First when the King hath been in difference with his Lords with his Commons Secondly When any of the great Lords were at variance between themselves Thirdly When there was no good correspondence between the Lords and Commons Fourthly When there was no unity between the Commons themselves in all which our present Parliament is now most unhappy and so like to miscarry and succeed very ill Fifthly When there was no preparation for the Parliament before it began every of which he manifests by particular instances From all these and sundry other Authorities it is most evident and transparent That both the King himself and Lords ought of
Commons can do nothing at all in Parliament since all Laws Ordinances Taxes Votes that are valid and binding to the people must pass Both Houses and have the Lords as well as Commons assent as they resolve in sundry printed Remâ—nstrances Declarations mentioning Both Houses of Parliament â—nd their concurrence to all things therein concluded and the King likewise in his The Lords and Commons in their Declaration of the 5th of August 1645. to the High and Mighty States General of the United Provinces printed in A Collection of Ordinances of Parliament p. 699 700. complain thus to them of this misinformation of their Ambassadors June 20. 1645. The Lower House hath caused the Chamber where they sit in to be hanged with Tapistry which was heretofore never so It is said it is done that the Lords changing their Chamber shall come and sit in the House of Commons and so to be both together reduced into one body and the better agree by number of Votes When heretofore the Parliament was full then the Lords Chamber did consist of about 126. or more Votes and the Lower House of above 500 Votes and they have alwayes been in several Houses and the one could not conclude anything for a Resolution of the King unless the other House did also consent but now the King is absent and the Vpper House should now be melted into the Lower and in the Common Assembly of about 26 Lords which are now here and some 200 Commoners so the most Votes should rule and Ordain all matters Thus much we are told and that it tends to shun many disputes and hindrances which happen in their resolution every day The Lords remain constant to maintain their Rights and say this is to take away all their Right and prerogative taking away their House and so to bring all the power under the Commons â—o which Misinformation the Commons and Lords too returned this Answer to the States My Lords the Commons are charged with endeavour of altering the fundamentals of Parliament by taking away the House of Péers and melting it into the House of Commons when as there was never any debate in the House of Commons concerning aâ—y such matter nor was the same ever intended or desired by the said House After this the whole House of Commons in their Declaration of the 17 Aprilis 1646. of their true Intentions concerning the antient and fundamental Government of the Kingdom thus positively declared to all the world That our true and real Intentions are and our endeavours shall be to maintain the antient and fundamental Government of the Kingdom By King Lords and Commons that we have only desired that with the consent of the King such powers may be setled in the two Houses without which we can have no assurance but that the like or greater mischiefs which God hath hitherto delivered us from may break out again and engage us in a second and more destructive warr Seeing then the very Commons House themselves in these and sundry other printed Declarations have so fully so frequently declared resolved the Lords antient undoubted Hereditarie right and interest to sit vote and assent unto all Laws Ordinances Proceedings in Parliament as the Great Council and Counsellors of the kingdom and acknowledged this their Privilege and the House of Peers to be a part of the fundamental Constitution and Government of this kingdom which they are resolved to maintain and not to alter and that they never intended nor desired much less endevoured the altering the fundamentals of Government by taking away the House of Lords How any Commoners Levellers or others can now dare to question deny or oppugn this their hereditary fundamental right of Peerage or attempt the actual abolishing of the House of Peers without the highest Impudency Treachery Absurdity and incurring the Crime of a New Gun-powder Treason to blow up the House of Lords afresh which the old Jesuitical Popish Gun-powder Traytors only attempted but could not accomplish transcends my understanding to comprehend 11ly The General Council of the Officers of the Army in their Declaration made at Windsore about January 1647. presented to the Lords House by Sir Hardress Waller asserted The hereditary Legal Right of the Lords and their House in Parliament and the Armies fixed resolution to uphold and maintain them and their Privileges with their swords And if John Lilburns printed Letter to the Speaker July 8 1648. p. 26 27. may be credited Lieutenant General Cromwell himself protested to him and others at the Lord Whartons house and that upon his conscience in the sight of God That the Lords had as true a Right to their Legislative and Iurisdictive power over the Commons as he had to the coat on his back and that he and the Army would support the same How dare then any Levellers or Officers in the Army or elsewhere to question or attempt to abolish this their undoubted right to sit vote and exercise a legislative and Juridical Jurisdiction in Parliament and that over Commons themselves in cases which concern their Peerage and in cases not triable properly elswhere but only in Parliament 12. Twelfthly These very Sectaries and Levellers themselves have acknowledged asserted this Right Power of the Lords all along this Parliament till of late as appears by their several Petitions and Complains to them upon sundry occasions heretofore by their resorting to them for Justice against Strafford Canterbury and others Yea Jo. Lilburn himself till his late quarrel with them not only acknowledged their very power of Judicature but highly applauded their Justice in his own cause Petitioning and suing to them not onely for reversal of the sentence against him in Starchamber but likewise for damages and reparations against his Prosecutors pleading his cause by his Counsel before them as his proper Judges who thereupon by judgement of the House vacated the Decree against him as illegal voted him Damages and passed him an Ordinance for the recovery and levying thereof all which he himself hath published in sundry of his printed Pamphlets wherein he acknowledgeth and extolleth their Justice Take but one passage for all in his Innocency and Truth justified p. 74 75. If I be transmitted up to the Lords I confidently believe I shall get forward out of the former experiences of their Justice there I will instance two particulars First when I was a Prisoner in the Fleet and secondly May the fourth one thousand six hundred forty one The King accused me of High Treason and before the Lords Bar was I brought for my life where although one Littleton servant to the Prince swore point blank against me yet had I free liberty to speak for my self in the open House And upon my desire that Master Andrews also might declare upon his Oath what he knew about my business it was done And his Oath being absolutely contradictory to Master Littletons I was both freed from Littletons malice and the
est satisfactum The Pope hereupon taking more boldness than before to trample the English Prelates Clergy under his feet fleece them imperiose solito imperiofius Praelatis Angliae demandavit ut in Anglia omnes beneficiati in suis beneficiis residentiam facientes tertiam partem bonorum suorum Domino Papae conferrent non facientes residentiam dimidiam multis adjectis durissimis conditionibus praedictum mandatum restringentibus per illum verbum et adjectionem detestabilem NON OBSTANTE quae omnem extinguit justitiam praehabitam The Bishops assembling in convocation to exact it the King thereupon by his Nobles advice and instigation sent Sir John de Lexeton a Knight and Lawrence St. Marin his Clark to them strictly commanding them in the kings behalf not to consent by any means to this contribution demanded by the Pope to the desolation of the English kingdom The next year 1247. Vrgente Papali mandato redivivo de importabili contributione Papali praetacta ad quam Episcopi in generali Concilio Clerum infeliciter obligarent fecit Dominus Rex MAGNATES SUOS nec non et Angliae Archidiaconos per scripta sua Regia Londini convocari Quo cum pervenissent die ptaefixo Episcopi omnes sese gratis absentarunt ne viderentur propriis factis eminus adversari Sciebant enim corda omnium usque ad animae amaritudinem sauciri Convenerunt tunc ibidem Archidiaconi Angliae nec non et totius regni Cleri pars non minima CUM IPSIS MAGNATIBUS conquerentes communiter super intolerabilibus frequentibus exactionibus Domini Papae pro quibus Dominus Rex non mediocriter compatiendo tristabatur Res enim publica periclatabatur et commune negotium regni totius agebatur imminebat tam populi quam cleri inanis desolatio et cunctis temporibus inaudita After long consultation the King and Nobles by common advise resolved to send a remonstrance of all their grievances together with Letters in the name of the whole Parliament and kingdom to the Pope and his Cardinals speedily to redress them which Letters they sealed with the Common Seal of the City of London thereby obtained some shew of redress of their grievances which the Nobles further prosecuted and complained of in another Parliament the selfsame year Dominus Rex comperiens regnum suum enormiter undique periclitari by the Popes exactions taxes oppositions jussit OMNEM TOTIUS REGNI NOBILITATEM CONVOCARI ut de statu ipsius tam manifeste periclitantis Oxoniae contrectarent Praelatos autem ad hoc Parliamentum vocavit anxius quia videbat eos tam frequenter per Papulâ—s extortiones depauperari quod frequentia consuetudinem regni ruinam manifeste minabatur Sperabatur igitur communiter aliquod salubre Ecclesiae et universitati ibi statuendum quod tamen omnes fefellit through the Prelates and Clergies cowardise and the kings overmuch compliance with the Pope the Nobles only continuing constant in their oppositions against these papal exactions and enormities being more zealous for the Churches Clergies Prelates liberties against the Popes intolerable exactions oppressions incroachments than they themselves and the only persons who manfully and constantly maintained them when the King Prelates and Clergy through fear cowardise and treachery betrayed and deserted them Anno 1264. Pope Urban being much incensed against the BARONS spoiling the goods of Ecclesiastical persons who were Aliens advanced by his provisions said That he desired to live no longer but till he had subdued the English whereupon he sent a Legate towards England a great Person to wit Sabin a Bishop Cardinal to interdict the Land and excommunicate THE BARONS the oppugners of his Provisions But when he would have entred England he found he could not safely do it by reason of the Barons resistance Whereupon citing some Bishops of the Realm first to Ambayonne and afterwards to Bononia Sententiam excommunicationis et interdictionis super Civitatem Londoniae et 5. Portus necnon quasdam personas illustres ET NOBILES REGNI fulminatum commisit exequendam At illi Sententiam illam contra justitiam illatam attendentes appellarunt ad Papam ad meliora tempora vel ad generale Concilium necnon et supremuÌ„ judiceÌ„ certis de causis et rationibus commendabilibus Quae postea appellatio in Anglia congregato apud Radingum Concilio recitata est et ab Episcopis et Clero approbata et executa Interdictum autem licet inviti suscipientes a Legato praedicti Episcopi secum detulerunt Sed cum applicuissent Doveriae scrutinio ex more in portu facto intâ—â—â—eptum est a Civibus et in minutias dilaneatum jactatur in mare So little did they then regard and so much detest and scorn the Popes unjust Interdict in so just a cause An. 2 E. 1. Rot. Fin. m. 9. in Sched Cook 4 Inst p. 13. Pope Gregory by his Letters demanding the rent of 1000. marks by the year of K. Ed. the 1. reserved for England upon his regranting the Realm to King John the king writ thus to him Se sine PRAELATIS ET PROCERIBUS REGNI NON POSSE RESPONDERE quod jurejurando in coronatione sua fuit astrictus QVOD JURA REGNI SUI SERVARET ILLIBATA nec aliquid quod Diadema tangit Regni ejusdem absque ipsorum requisitus consilio facere And the Parliament being ended he could doe nothing without them who afterwards gallantly opposed his usurpations as will appear by this following president King Edward the 1. in the 29. year of his reign being summoned by the Pope by himself or his Proctors to declare his right to the Realm of Scotland in his Court at Rome where he should receive justice concerning it The King thereupon called a Parliament to consult about it where he refused to return any answer by himself but committed it to the Earls and other Lords of the Land to return the Pope an answer thereunto Who making a large and learned Historical Remonstrance of the subjection of Scotland and her Kings to the Kings of England and of their Homage done to them in all ages as their Soveraign Lords sent it to the Pope with this notable Letter signed as Mat. Westminster and Sir Edward Cook inform us with no less than 100 Seals of Arms of Earls and Barons in the name of the whole Parliament and Kingdom Sancta Romana Ecclesia per cujus ministerium fides Catholica in suis artibus cum ea ut firmiter credimus et teneamus maturitate procedit quod nulli praejudicare sed singulorum jura conservari velit illaesa Sane convocato nuper per Serenissimum Dominum nostrum Edwardum Dei gratia regem Angliae illustrem Parliamento apud Lincolniam generali idem Dominus noster quasdam literas Apostolicas quas super certis negotiis conditionem et statum Regni ex vestra parte receperat in medio exhiberi ac
unless a Peer by birth or creation those who are called to it only by general or special Writs not being formerly for life or inheritance Peers Nobles or holding by Barony of the King being only Assistants to the Lords as the Judges and others usually are not Members having votes It is the opinion of Sir Edward Cook in his Institutes on Littleton That if the King call any Layman to the Vpper house of Parliament generally by his Writ which he there recites that this alone doth create him a Baron and Lord of Parliament in fee simple without the word heirs and ennoble both himself and his heirs after him so as to make them hereditary Barons And this is the received opinion of most Grandees of the Law relying only upon his bare Ipse dixit though sometimes mistaken in his Judgement and frequently in his Records and Presidents whereon hee grounds his Opinion although he cites no president nor record at all to make good his Assertion in this case But under the favour of this Great Oracle of Law I conceive this Opinion of his to be no Law at all but a meer mistake for these ensuing reasons 1. Because there is not one word or syllable in this general Writ of Summons that gives him either the Name Title Honor or Dignity of a Lord or Baron of the Realm Therefore it cannot in Law or reason create him such a one If he were a Knight an Esquire a Master or Gentleman or Judge when the Writ was directed to him it gives him only that Title and summons him only by it without stiling him a Lord Baron Earl Viscount or Peer of the Realm at all Therefore it cannot ennoble nor create him one much less ennoble his posterity and give him an hereditary Barony without the word heirs since the Writ is only personal directed to himself alone 2. Because the Kings end and intention in summoning him to Parliament by this Writ is not to ennoble and create him a Lord Peer or Baron much less to ennoble his Posterity after him but only to consult and treat with him and the Prelates Lords and Nobles of the Realm concerning the affairs there propounded As this clause of the Writ demonstrates which only must ennoble him and his heirs if any to come to the Parliament at such a day and place that so the King may VOBISCUM with him not his heirs cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus dicti regni nostri colloquâ—um habere tractatum Which word VOBISCVM being distinguished from cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus Regni can not possibly create him a Lord or Baron no more than a Prelate of the Realm the rather because the word Baro is not in the Writ Neither can the following clause create him one Viz. dictis die loco personaliter intersitis Nobiscum cum Praelatis Magnatibus Baronibus supradictis super dictis Negotiis tractaturis vestrumque Consilium impensuris because it neither gives him the name nor stile of a Lord or Nobleman much less of a Baron no more than of a Prelate and summons him not to be a Lord Earl Prelate or Baron of the Realm but to be personally present with them which he may be though a private person and no Lord and to treat and give his advice with them concerning the businesses there propounded the only end for which he is summoned not to be their fellow Peer Lord or Baron So that it is against all sence and reason to aver that such a general Writ as this can create himself much less his Posterity Lords or Barons of the Realm in perpetuity It is a rule in Law and oft resolved That the Kings grant shall not inure to two intents nor pass or give two things at once especially when one of them only is expressed the other not Therefore this writ of the King shall not-doe it to create the party summoned a Baron meerly by implication which is not expressed and to summon him to conferr treat and give his advice in Parliament which is the only thing intended and clearly expressed 3ly The Writ summons him only to that particular Parliament then to be held at one certain day and place not to any other much less to all future Parliaments to be held Therefore it cannot create him and his heirs hereditary Barons and Members of the Lords House no more than the Writ for electing Knights Citizens and Burgesses for that particular Parliament makes them and their posterity Knights Citizens and Burgesses of Parliament for perpetuity It being both contrary to the words and intention of the Writ to make him much less his heirs Members of all succeeding Parliaments to which they must still be summoned by New Writs 4ly No Lord or Baron is or can be legally created but of some particular place Town City or the like whereof he is stiled Earl Lord or Baron But the general writ of summons gives him no such particular stile or title of dignity confined to such a certain place Therefore it cannot create him either a Lord or Baron or if it doth it must be sine titulo which were absurd 5ly No Duke Earl when created Viscount Lord or Baron is or can be created a Peer of the Realm by the Kings Letters Patents for life in tayl or see simple without expresse words in the Patent creating him such a one for life or him and the heirs males of his body or his heirs in general Dukes Marquesses Viscounts Earls Lords or Barons of such a particular place as all their Patents whereof you have sundry Presidents in Mr. Seldens Titles of honour lib. 2. ch 5. throughout and our books of Heraldry plentifully manifest And in all late Patents of creation since 20 H. 8. of any Dukes Marquesses Earls Viscounts or Barons there is a special clause inserted enabling them and their heirs males and every of them to have hold and possess a seat and place in the Parliam of us our heirs and Successors within the Realm of England among other Dukes Marquesses Earls Viscounts Lords and Barons of the Realm as a Duke Marquesse Earl Viscount Lord or Baron as Mr. Selden and their Patents inform us and I have formerly touched p. 49. If then the king by his Letters Patents cannot create men Nobles and Peers of Parliament for life in tail or see simple without these special and particular clauses then by the self same reason he cannot create them such by his writ unlesse it hath such special words and clauses in it and not by the general writ of summons forementioned wherein there is not one clause or syllable tending to such a particular personal or hereditary creation The rather because Sir Edward Cook himself confesseth that the Creation by Letters Patents is the surer though by writ be the antienter way for he and his posterity may sufficiently be created and made Noble by Letters Patents though he to whom they
were first made never sate in Parliament Whereas this writ hath no operation or effect to enoble him or his posterity unless and until he actually sit in Parliament for if he die before he sit or sit not at all neither he nor his issue are Noble This distinction and concession of his contradicts his former opinion That the Writ it self doth not ennoble the person and his heirs for if it did then he and they should be ennobled by it though he died before he â—aâ—e in Parliament because they are thus ennobled by Letters Patents which create them Nobles or Peers and make them actually such though they never sit in Parliament 7ly Sir Edward Cook in his 4 Institutes p. 44 45. thus resolves If the King by his Writ calleth any Knight or Esquire to be a Lord of the Parliament he cannot refuse to serve the King there in communi illo confilio for the good of his Country But if the King had called an Abbot Peer or other regular Prelate by Writ to the Parliament to the Common Council of the Realm if he held not of the King per Baroniam he might refuse to sit in Parliament because quoad secularia he was mortuus in lege and therefore not capable to have a voice or place in Parliament unless he did hold per Baroniam and were to that Common Council called by Writ which made him capable And though such a Prelate regular had been often called by Writ and had de facto had place and voice in Parliament yet if in rei veritate he hold not per Baroniam HE OUGHT TO BE DISCHARGED OF THAT SERVICE AND TO SIT NO MORE For that the Abby of Leicester was founded by Robert Fitz Robert Earl of Leicester albeit the Patronage came to the Crown by the forfeiture of Simon de Mountford Earl of Leicester yet being of a Subjects foundation it could not be holden per Baroniam therefore the Abbot had no capacity to be called to the Parliament and thereupon the King did grant Quod idem Abbas successores sui de veniendo ad Parliamentum Concilia nostra vel haeredum nostrorum quieâ—i sint exonerati in perpetuum But all these Cases abovesaid and others that might be remembred touching this point as little Rivers do flow from the fountain of Modus tenendi Parliamentum where it is said Ad Parliamentum summoneri venire debent ratione tenurae suae omnes singuli Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Barones Priores alii Majores Cleri qui tenent PER COMITATUM VEL BARONIAM ratione hujusmodi tenurae nulli minores nisi eorum praesentia necessaria utilis reputetur To which purpose he likewise cites the Act of Parliament of 10 H. 2. called the Assize of Clarindon and the Great Charter of King John in the 17 year of his reign here forecited p. 21 30 31. For Modus tenendi Parliamentum here so much magnified I have already p. 20 sufficiently discovered it to be a late forgery and imposture out of the very Treatise it self by undeniable proofs which I wonder Sir Ed. Cook Mr. Agar and other pretended judicious Antiquaries observed nor being so obvious yet though it be an imposture and erronious in other things I shall grant it true in this particular here cited As to the point in controversie had Sir Ed. Cook here thus distinguished in the case of Laymen Knights Esquires as he doth in case of Abbots Priors and Religious persons that if the King had by his Writ called any Laymen Knight ot Esquire to the Lords House of Parliament by his general Writ who held of him in fee or fee tayl per Baroniam and was a Baron by tenure that this had enobled him and his posterity as Barons he could not refuse to serve the King as a Baron in this Common Councel for the good of his Country his opinion might have passed for good Law For such who had lands in fee or fee tayl of the King by an intire Barony being Barons and Peers of the Realm by their very tenures ought of right by the express words of the Statute of Clarindon the Great Charter of King John and by the Common Law and Custom of the Realm to be summoned as Barons by the Kings special writs directed to them to all Parliaments and great Councils of the Realm by vertue of their Tenures as well as Bishops Abbots Peers and other regular Prelates who held by Barony yet the writ in this case doth not make them and their heirs Barons by writ nor give them a right to sit and vote in Parliament but only declare them and their heirs to be Barons and to sit there as Barons by their Tenure not by vertue of the Writ it self But if the King by this general Writ summon any Layman Knight or Esquire to the Lords House who holds not by Barony this doth no more make him a Lord or Baron in perpetuity to him and his heirs nor no more oblige him or his heirs to sit there than Abbots but that they may refuse to serve in Parliam if he were no Peer before being not obliged by any Law to sit and serve therein as a Baron or Member of the House of Peers by the Writ alone which doth not bind an Abbot Prior or regular Prelate or ennoble him and his Successors to be Peers and Barons of the Realm though they hold only by Frankalmoign not by Barony the Tenure By Barony being that alone which obligeth both of them to sit and serve in Parliament unlesse they be created Dukes Earls Viscounts Lords Peers or Barons by Patent or else by a special Wrir wherein the estate and dignity of a Baron is both created and limited as in the Writ that created Sir Henry de Bromflet Baron of Vescey in the 27 year of King Henry the 6 where after the Nullatenus omittatiâ— this Clâ—se is inserted Volumus enim vos haeredes vestros maâ—culos de corpore vestro legitime exeuntes BARONES DE UESCY EXISTERE Teste c. If a Layman who holds not by Barony be created a Duke Earl Baron or other Peer of the Realm for life in tayl or in fee by Letters Patents or an Abbot or Prior who holds not by Barony and his Successors be created Lords of Parliament by a special Patent of the King as Richard Banham Abbot of Tavestoke and his Successors were bâ— King Hen. the 8. to whom the King granâ—ed by special words Ut eorum quilibet qui pro tempore fuerit Abbâ—s sit erit unus de Spiritualâ—bus religiosis DOMINIS PARLIAMENTI NOSTRI haeredum successorum nostrorum gaudendo honoreâ— Privilegio libertaribus ejusdem This obligeth them to appear and serve in Parliament upon every Writ of Summons and they their heirs males and Successors cannot refuse to serve or voluntarily absent themselves without cause or license under pain of being fined
and otherwise punished for their contempt because bound therto by their voluntary acceptance of such a special Patent and dignity But if they be summoned only by a general Writ against their wills being no Lords of Parl. by special Patent or Writ before this doth neither make the one nor other Barons nor ennâ—ble their heirs males or successors nor oblige them to serne nor subject them to any fine for contempt for then the King by his Writ might summon all the Knights Esquires Gentlemen and any other Commoner Freeman Lawyer Clergy man of the Realm to the Lords House as a Member at his pleasure and fine them for a contempt in not appearing and thereby increase that House in infinitum and make it a mungril House of all sorts of degrees and professions of men instead of aâ— House of Lords to its utter subversion against the fundamental constitution and privilege of that House Therefore such Writs of summons must be void and null in Law as well as the Patent to Abbot Banham as Sir Ed. Cook asserts it for that he was neither Baro nor held per Baroniam Now whereas he asserts That Knights and Esquires who hold not by Barony cannot refuse when summoned by Writ to serve the King in Parliament but yet Abbots and other regular Prelates that hold not by Barony may because they are dead in Law as to secular affairs and therefore not capable to have voice in Parliament unless they hold by Barony and were called by Writ This reason of the difference is most absurd and unreasonable For 1. They are both Subjects to the king alike and so both equally obliged to serve and counsel him in Parliament 2ly If their tenures by Barony could make them capable to have place and voice in Parliament though dead in Law quoad secularia then much more the kings and the kingdoms need of their presence counsel and advice in Parliament touching the weighty affairs concerning himself and the defence and preservation of the Realm and Church of England when specially summoned by his writ to Parliament 3ly Though they were dead in some sence only in respect of their natural capacities to the world yet in their politick capacities they were not so but secular still to sue purchase advise c. as well as Laymen in the right of their Houses 4ly Parliaments being always summoned as well to advise of Ecclesiastical things touching the Church as of temporal things concerning the Realm of England their being dead to the world quoad secularia could no more enable them to refuse to serve in Parliament then Laymen quoad Ecclesiastica negotia therein treated of which concerned the Church and Laymen according to the doctrine in Popish times might as well refuse to serve in Parliament when summoned because they were no Ecclesiastical or religious persons who were properly to consult of the affairs of the Church of England as religious persons be exempted from and refuse to serve therein because dead to the world quoad secularia negotia concerning the King and Realm of England there debated and consulted of 4ly The true and only ground then why such Abbots Priors and all other Clergy men who held not by Barony might refuse to serve in the Lords House of Parliament when summoned by Writ was this that they held not of the King by Barony and upon this ground alone the Abbot of St. James without Northampton summoned to Parliament by Writ Anno 12 Ed. 2. upon his Proctors appearance and Petitions for him in Parliament recorded at large by Mr. Selden out of the Leger-book of the Abby worthy perusal being most full in point was discharged from his attendance his name struck out of the Roll and Register of the Chancery by the Chancellor and his Council as not one of the list of those who ought to be summoned for this very reason because NON TE NET PER BARONIAM nec de Rege in capite sed tantum in puram perpetuam Eleemosynam nec ipse Abbas nec Predecessores sui unquam in Cancellaria irrotulari fuerunt except only in 49 H. 3. m. 10. Schedula voluntarie nec ad Parliamentum citati hucusque VNDE PETIT habuit remedium And upon the self same reason the Abbot of Leicester and his successors were by special Patent in 26 E. 3. de veniendo ad Parliam Consilia nostra et haeredâ—m nostrorum de caetero quieti sint et exempti in perpetuum hough this Abbots predecessors had formerly been summoned to and sate in Parliaments interpolatis vicibus but noâ— continuè because idem Abbas aliquas terras senteâ—ementa de Nobis per Baroniam seis aâ—o modo non tenet per quod ad Parliamenta seu Consilia nostra venire teneatur The King reciting this as the only ground of his exemption and thereupon Nolentes Abbatâ—m indebite sic vexari granted him and his successors this Patent of Exemption upon which his name was cancelled in the Clause Roll of 25 E. 3. part 1. m. 5. dorso and this written in the margin against it Abbas Leicestriae cancellatur quia habet cartam Regis quod non compellatur venire ad Parliamentum And that of Dors Claus 11 E. 3. par 2. m. 11. 13 E. 3. par 2. m. 28. 1. cited by Mr. Selden Sir Edw. Coke in his Margin mentioned in a Bill in Parliament Que toutes les religioses que teignont per Barony sayent tenus de venier au Parlament is also direct iâ— point That those who hold not by Barony are not bound to serve in Parl. be they Religious persons or Lay persons who are not Peers or Lords of Parliament upon general writs of summons such Summons of them being AN UNDUE VEXATION OF THEM as King Edward stiles it in his Patent unless they voluntarily appear upon such a Summons as this Patent informs us those who were summoned in 49 H. 3. all did This reason therefore exempting all Abbots Peers and religious persons from service and attendance in the Lords House in Parliaments though summoned thereto by writ must necessarily exempt all Knights and Laymen from it there being the self same ground justice equity for it in both yea the selfsame unjustice vexation mischief to both and by consequence the selfsame Law And if this be Law as these Presidents Judgements Records expresly resolve it to be beyond contradiction Then it inevitably follows that the General writ of Summons to Parliament alone doth neither create the persons summoned to it nor their heirs or successors Barons Lords or Peers of the Realm unless they hold by Barony no although they sit once or twice in Parliaments by vertue of them or interpolatis vicibus but not continue as the Abbots of Leicester did for then they could not allege or plead their not holding Lands of the King in Barony or any other tenure binding them to sit and serve in Parliament
Clergy being thus put out of the Kings Protection and thereby disabled to sue or sit in Parliament were secluded the Parliament house the King holding the Parliament with the Temporal Lords and Commons alone and making valid good Acts and Ordinances therein in this case without the Clergy as Bishop Jewel M. Crompton Dr. Bilson and others affirm which Dr. Standish averred he might lawfully doe before the Kings Council and a Committee of Lords and Commons in the Parliament of 7 H. 8. Keilwayes Reports f. 184. b. Sir Edward Cooke being of the selfâ—ame opinion in his 4 Institutes p. 25. citing other Presidents of this kind to prove that Acts may be made without the Bishops as 15 E. 2. Exilium Hugonis le Dispenser 3 Rich. 2. c. 3.7 Rich. 2. c. 12.11 R. 2. n. 9 10 11. 21 R. 2. n. 9 10. 1 H. 5. c. 7.6 H. 6. n. 27. Peter de Gaverston a deâ— oiâ— lascivious person for his misdemeanours and corrupting Prince Edward with whom he was educated from his infancy in the year 1306 in a Parliament then held by King Edw. the 1. assensu Communi Procerum fuerat exilio penpetuo condemnâ—tus This King was no sooner deaâ— and the Crown descending to King Edward the 2. but he presently recalled Gaverston from his exile against the will of the Lords made him Earl of Cornwall and gave him the Isle of Man An. 1307. the very first year of his reign He being more high in the Kings favoâ—r more glorious in his apparel and insolent in his behaviour than any other thereupon Anno 1309. Regni Proceres et Nobiliores videnâ—es se contemni Petrum de Gaveâ—on cunctis anteferri accessâ—runt ad Regem humiliter rogantes ut Baronum suorum vellet consiliis tractare Regni negotia quibus a pericuâ— sibi imminentibus non solum cautior sed tâ—tior esse possit Quorum votis facie tenus Rex annuitâ— Parliamentum Londini instituâ—t fiori ad quod omnes qui interesse debebant mark it venire mandavit The Parliament there assembling Anno 1310. Decreto Parliamenti ad Baronum instantiam Petrus deâ— Gaverâ—on in Hyberniam Exilio relegatur No sooner was the Parliament ended but the King caused special writs to be written and sealed in his own presence for recalling Gaverston from his exile and restoring him to his Lands which writs he took into his own hands for a time and then sent them to the Sheriffs with special command to see them duly executed under grievous penalties In these Writs he recites that Mounsieur Piers de Gaverston Earl of Cornwal was of late exiled out of ouâ— Realm against the Laws and Vsages of the said Realm which he was bound to keep and maintain by the Oath he took at his Coronation For which cause he did out of that common right and justice which was due to all his Subjects recall and restore him without the Lords against their wills as the writs in the Clause Rolls inform us Thomas of Walsingham thus relates the manner of it and ill consequence thereof to Gaverstons ruine in these words Soluto Parliamento cunctis gaudenter ad sua disced nâ—ibus rex remansit tristis cogitans disquirens cum privato suo concilio qualiter posset ipsum ab exilio revocare Suggestumque fuit 〈◊〉 qâ—od si sororeiâ— Comitis Gloverniae qui pro â—unc 〈◊〉 jâ—venis â—oâ—i 〈◊〉 sub tuâ— Regis praeâ—aâ—o Pet◠〈…〉 coâ—ugeâ— posset ipsum intrepide revocare 〈◊〉 hiâ—s audicis cum omni festinatione missis nuneilâ—â—â—cersivit eâ—m inter ipsum sororem Comicis fecit celebrati nuptiae licet multum Gomiâ—i displicerent Eâ—iâ—de Petrus superbiens plus solito regni nobiles vilipendit subsannabat Proceres mediocresque despexir Et quia Rex permiserat sibi facultaâ—em pene facienâ—i quâ—e vellet quantum ad ea quae respiciebant personam regiam caepit sicut prius thesaurum regis colligere negotiatoribus ultra mariniâ— accommo lare non ad usus quidem regios sed suos proprios Qui in tantum expilavit regem ut non haberet unde solveret expensas solitas domus suae Regina vero tantum rebus necessariis arctabâ—tur ut regi Franciae patri suo lachrymabiliter quereretur honore debito se privatam Barones igitur considerantes quod eorum tollerantia Petro malignandi praestabat auâ—atiam domino regi denunciaverunt assensu communi ut vel dictum Petrum a sua propelleret comitiva articulosque provisos effectui manciparet vel ipsâ— certe in eum tanquam perjurum insurgerent Durus videbatur hic sermo regi quia Petro carere nescivit sed plus periculi cernebat emergere si petitionibus Proceâ—um non obâ—emperaret Petrus igitur abjurat regnum regis plus â—ermissione quam beneplacito addita a Baronibus conditions quod si de caetero posset in veniri in Anglia vel aliqua terra regi subiecta caperetur et velut hostis publicâ—s damnaretur Igitur sub praemura conditione daâ—o sibi conductu Angliae regnum Iâ—gons desernit Franciam est ingressus Quo adito Rex Francorum jussit suis ut eum caperent si quo modo possent diligenteâ— cusâ—odirent nâ— direâ— in Angliam Proceres sicut prius turbaret filtâ—m Petrus de â—is praemonitus fugit in Flandâ—iam ibi quaeâ—iturus requiem nec invenit Tandem cum suis consortibus aâ—ienigenis redivit in Angliam de amicitra confisus Comitis Gloverniae cujus sororem duxerat in uxorem Parum ante festum natalis domini regis se presentavit obâ—utibus qui prae gaudio sui adventus juramenta pacta promissa negligens tanquam coeleste munus hilariter suscepit eum secum detinuit cum familia sua tota Anno 1311. post natale rumore vulgato de Petri reversione regni Magnates plebei conturbati sunt Qui necessitate ducti elegerunt sibi Thomam de Lancastria in ducem et defensorem ut periculis consulerent malis futuris Nobiliores vero regni de communis deâ—reti sententia miserunt honorabiles domino regi nuncios exorantes ut vel dictum Petrum eis traderet vel ut ordinatum fuerat ipsum regnum evacuare juberet Rex vero sinistro ductus consilio Baronum supplicationes parvipendens ab Eboraco recessit ad Novum Castrum Magnates proinde sub omni celeritate ad Novum Castrum iter arripuere Quod cum Rex audisset quasi proscriptus aut exul fugit cum dicto Petro Tynemutham et inde Scardeburgiam ubi habebatur castrum regale ubi praecepit Castellanis ut custodiam Petri susciperent castellum victualibus instaurarent rege se alias transferente nec opem ferre valente quin caperetur reduceretur usque ad villam de Dadington Ubi Comes Warwici Guido de bello campo fecit eum decollari tanquam legum regni subversorem publicum proditorem
Communi Iudicio Which he more amply relates in his History of England p. 69. to 77. Here we have judgement of banishment given against Gaverston by the Lords in Parliament 3. several times the 1. whiles a Commoner the two later whiles an Earl as an Enemy to the Realm and publike Traytor and a Sentence of death denounced against him in case he returned which was accordingly executed on him by the common Sentence of the Lords A Convincing proof of their Jurisdiction in criminal Causes both over Commoners and Peers His second banishment by the Lords was ratified by a Bill as the Spencers was to which the Commons gave their Assent as they did to two Acts in the Parliament of 7 Edward the 2. printed in Totles Magna Charta part 2. f. 43 44. Ne quis occasionetur pro reditu as also pro morte Petri de Gaverston made by the Grant and Assent of the King Archbishops Bushops Abbots Priors Earls and Barons ET TOUTE LA COMMVNALTIE de nostre Royalm By which Bill his Lands were all forfeited and giveâ— to the King as appears by Claus 1.2 E. 2. m. 5. where Hugh de Audeley the younger and Margaret his wife petitioned A nostre Seigneur la Roy son Counscil PRELATES COUNTS BARONS de la terre The Petition was for the Earldom of Cornwall after the death of Peter de Gaverston to whom it was given in general tayl Margaret being his daughter and heir because THE GREAT CHARTER wills that after the death of a Baron his heir shall have his heritage and mariage and the Statute of Westminster 2. wills That heirs in tayl shall not be prejudiced by the deed fine or feofment of their Ancestors and the GREAT CHARTER also wills That no man shall be outed of his freehold without the award and judgement of the Law of the Land Afterwards upon debate of this Petition pro eo quod recordatum fuit by the LORDS AND COMMONS that it had been AGREED BY THEM that all things given by the King to Gaverston and Margaret should be revoked per quod in hoc Parliamento modo per praefatos Praelatos Comiteâ— Barones et totain Communitatem Regni cousideratum est that the Earldom and all the rest of his Landâ— should remain in the King that all Charters of it should be repealed all enrolments cancelled quod est adjudicatum intretur ad Scaccarium et ad utrumque Câ—riâ—m there to be inrolled also And there is a writ directd to the Treasurer and Barons and Chief Justices of both Benches to inrol it in this Roll. This judgement being by way of Bill in pursuance of the former Bill for his attainder had the Commons assent thereto as well as the Lords though the Petiâ—ion here was directed only to the King and Lords for restitution not to the Commons who could not be Gaverstons proper Judges in Parliament being a Peer but only by way of Bill of Attainder In the 15 year of King Ed. 2. the two Sir Hugh Spencers Father and Son were articled against impeached and condemned of High Treason by the Lords in Parliament and exiled by their judgement without the Prelates or Commons who only consented to the Act for their banishment after the judgement given of which at large before to which I shall here annexe the Arricles of their impeachment being very memorable Alhonnour de Dieu de sainct esglise et de nostre seignour le roy et au profite de luy et de son royalmâ— a peace de quiete maintenir en son people et pur meinteynment de lestate de la Corone luy monstrent Praelates Counâ—z et Barons et les autres Pieres de la terre common du royalme contresir Hugh le Despenser le fitz et Sir Hugh le Despenser le Pier que come le dit sire Hugh le Despenser le fitz au Parlement Deverwike fuit nosme et assentu destre en lossice du Chamberlain nostre seignor le roy de servir en cel office come afferoit An quel parlement fuit auxi assentu que certeins Prelates et â—u res Grandes du roialme demorerent pres de roy par sâ—isons de lan pur meulx counseiler nostre seignor le roy sans queux nul grosse bosoigne ne se deveroit fair le dit sir Hugh le fitz attreit a luy syr Hugh son pier que ne fuit nient assentu ne accorde en parlement a demourer ensi pres de roy enter eux deux acroachant a eux royal power sur le roy fes ministers le guyment de son royalme a dishor our du roy emblemisement de sa corone et destruction du royalme des grandes et du people et sesoient les maluesiees desâ—us escriptes en compassant deâ—â—oigner le coer nostre seignour le roy des Piers de la terre pur avoir eux soule governance de la terre En primes que sir Hugh le Dispenser le fitz feusi coruce vers le roy et sur ceo coruce fist un bille sur la quel bille il voillet auoir en aliance de sir John Gyffarde de Brymmesfeld sir Richard de Greye et dautre davoir mesne le roy par aspertee de faire sa volunte issent que en luy ne temist mye que il ne â—e euâ—t fair â—a tenure de la bille sensuit sous escript Homage serement de ligeance est pluis par reson de la corone que per reason de person le roy pluis se lie a la corone que a la person ceo piere que avant que â—estate de la corone soit descendu nul ligeance est a la person regardant Dont si le roy par case ne se meisne par reasone en droit de la corone les leiges sont lies per sâ—rement fait a la corone de remeuer le roy et le state de la corone par reason auâ—rement ne serroit le serement tenus Ore fait a demander coment lem doit amesner le roy ou par suite de ley ou par aspertee par suite de ley ne luy poet home pas redresser â—ar il navera pas juge si ceo ne soit depart le roy En quel case si la volunte le roy ne soit accordant a reason si naveroit il forsque errour maintenue confirme Dont il covient pur le serement lauuer et quant le roy ne voet chose redresser oustre que est pur le common people malueis et damageous pur la corone a judger est que la chose soit ousle par aspertee que il est lie par â—on serement de governer son people ses lieges ses liege â—ont lies de govern en eide de luy en defaut de luy Et auxint par lour covin
iâ— regno Quid mihi suaderet vos prodere vel certe necare qui nihil lucri reciperem de vestra morte Nunquid hostes â—estri me ditiorem facerent in terra sua quam effectus sum in terra vestra et in natali solo Aut si regnum affectarem credendu â—ne est post vestram inteâ—fectinnem quod absit Dominos hujus Regni aquâ—nimiter ferre me posse Domini mei et patriae proâ—â—torem Deliâ—ere si placet fidem â—arâ—â—alia â—lerenâ—bus quia paratus sum more militis contra quemcunque mundi mihi in hac causa adversantem pugnare et meam innocentiam defendere et purgare Upon which and other words the King believed the Duke and received his excuses and committed the Frier at his request to the Custodie of the Lord John Holland usque ad diem quo causam diceret horum quae praeposuerat contra eum In ipsa nocte quae processit diem suae responsioniâ— the Frier was strangled and pressed to death by the said John and another Knight and the next day his dead corps was drawn through the street like a Traytor to take away the suspition of his unjust death Ipsi judices ipsi ministri ipsi tortores extiterunt Et hic fructus Parliamenti praesentis praeter hoc quod dominus Willielmus la Zouche quamvis gravissima detineretur aegritudine accersitus erat ad Parliamentum ad standium judicio Regis et Dominorum quia idem â—rater eum velut inventorem inceptorem et incentorem dixerat omnium quae scripserat extitisse Qui cum venisset lectica delatus quia propter guttam equitare non poterat compulsus est discinctus et discooperto capite ad haec omnia sibi objecta more latronum vel proditorum respondere Qui viriliter negavit objecta Sacramento firmans haec nunquam audisse vel hujusmodi cogitasse et ita demum absolutus est et domum redire permissus In this Parliament holden at Salisbury 7 R. 2. rot Parl. n. 11. to 16. John Cavendish a Fishmonger of London made his complaint first to the Commons and after to the Lords against Sir Michael de la Poole Chancellor of England demanding the Peace against him which THE LORDS granted after which he accused him for taking Bribes and delayes and injustice in a sute of his depending before him whereof he cleared himself by his own Oath and the Oaths of other witnesses sworn and examined before THE LORDS Whereupon the Lords being troubled with other weighty matters referred the Chancellors reparation for the Scandal to the ordering of the Judges The same Sir Michael de la Pole Earl of Suffolk and Chancellor of England in the Parliament of 10 R. 2. rot Parliamenti n. 6. to 18. was accused in full Parliament before THE KING BISHOPS LORDS by the Commons who exhibited sundry Articles against him recorded at large by Henry de Knyghton agreeing with the Parliament Roll. The effect of them was this That whiles he was Chancellor against his Oath to procure the profit of the King he had purchased lands and tenements of the King of great value at under rates and exchanged uncertainâ— customs and rents for good lands in deceipt of the King and for spending the Aids granted to the King the last Parliament to guard the Seas in another manner than they were granted whereby the Seas were not guarded and much mischief hapned to the Realm c. The Lords Commons refused to act any thing till the King came in person to Parliament and the Chancellor removed upon these Articles The Chancellor demanded of the LORDS 1. Whether he should answer these Articles without the Kings presence for things done whiles he was Chancellor for that he being Chancellor of England for the time represented the Kings person in Parliament during his absence thence Secondly Whether his Brother in Law Sir Richard Scroope might not answer for him whom he had by advice of his Counsel appointed to do it To which the LORDS answered and resolved It was honest and fit for him to answer for himself Whereupon he making protestation that he might adde to or diminish from his answer and that which might be honourable to him by advice of his Counsel the Lords granting thereunto He thereupon put in an answer and replication to all the Articles to which his Counsel added some things in making his defence The Commons replyed to his answer to w ch he by way of rejoyndâ—r replied and answered to them his defence sâ—eming very solid Yet the Commons upon his replication before judgement pressed the King then being in Parliament and she Lords that he might be committed for the grievous offences charged against him Whereupon he was arrested by the Kings command and committed to the custody of the Constable of England and after let to mainprise Ar last THE LORDS in full Parliament GAVE JUDGEMENT AGAINST HIM That for breach of his Oath all the Manors and lands which he had of the Kings gift contained in the Articles should be seised into the Kings hands to have them to him and his heirs for ever together with their mean profits and issues saving to him the name and Title of a Knight and Earl together with an annuity of 20 l. yearly granted him out of the profits of the County of Suffolk The like judgement was given against him for the lands exchanged by the King for the customs of Hull and the Priory of St. Anthony Walsingham addes That he was deprived likewise of his Chancellorship and adjudged worthy of death yet the Lords would not put him to death but sent him prisoner to Windsore Castle Rex autem non multo post annullavit quicquid in Parliamento statutum fuerat contra ipsum In the Parliament of 11 R. 2. rot Parl. â— 6 7. Thomas Duke of Gloucester kneeling before the King said that he understood the King was informed he went about to depose him and to make himself King Wherefore he offered to put himself upon his tryal in that behalf as the Lords of the Parliament would award Whereupon the King said in open Parliament that he thought the said Duke was nothing faulty and therefore held him excused After which all THE LORDS as well spiritual as temporal being in the Parliament claimed their liberties and franchises namely That all weightâ— matters in the same Parliament which should be after moved touching THE PEERS OF THE LAND ought to be discussed JUDGED AND DETERMINED BY THE M by the course of Parliament and not by the Civil Law nor yet by the Common Law of the Land used in other Couâ—ts of the Realm The which claim and liberties the King most willingly allowed and granted thereto in full Parliament After which Thomas Earl of Glocester Henry Earl of Derby Richard Earl of Arundel Thomas Earl of Warwick and Thomas Earl of Marshal Lords Appellants impeached Alexandâ—r Archbishop of York Robert de Vere
Earl of Ireland Mâ—chael de la Poole Earl of Suffolk Robert Tresylam Chief Justice Nicholas Bramber Knight and other of their adherents of High Treason against the King and his Realm The Articles they exhibited against them were 36 in number at large recorded in Henry de Knyghton de Eventibus Angliae l. 5. col 2713. to 2727. with the whole proceedings thereupon for which many were attainted condemned executed BY JUDGEMENT OF THE LORDS notwithstanding the Kings intercession for some of them to the LORDS they are likewise mentioned in the printed Statutes at large of 11 R. 2. c. 1 3 4. in Walsingham Hist Angliae p. 359 to 367. and other vulgar Historians I shall therefore for brevity refer you to them Exactum est juramentum a rege ad standum REGULATIONI PROCERUM et non solum a rege sed a cunctis regni incolis idem juramentum est expetitum In the Parliament of 14 R. 2. n. 14. The King and Lords without the Commons declared That in the 7 year of this King the Earldom of Richmond with the appartenances WERE ADJUDGED BY THE KING AND LORDS to be forfeited to the King by reason of the adherence of John Duke of Britain then Earl of Richmond to the French against his allegiance to the King and his father king Edward the 3. which judgement was not then enrolled in the Rolls of Parliament for certain causes known to the King and LORDS but was now inrolled and the lands granted to the Earl of Westmerland which King Henry the 4th would not revoke upon the Commons Petition to restore them to the Duke 1 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 78. In the Parliament of 17 R. 2. n. 11 Richard Earl of Arundel in the presence of the KING and LORDS accused the Duke of Lancastre of 5 particular misdemeanors In which when the King had justified him it was awarded by the King BY THE ASSENTS OF ALL THE LORDS that the Earl should in full Parliament make a formal submission to the Duke and crave pardon for his false accusation In the Parliament of 21 R. 2. rot Parl. n. 12. to 17. the Commons impeached Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury of high Treason for procuring the Duke of Glocester and others there named to accroach to themselves regal power and execute the Commission of 10 R. 2. when he was Chancellor praying that he might be kept under safe custody with a protestation of making for her accusations during the Parliament against him and others After which they prayed the King to give judgement against the Archbishop according to his desert who submitted himself to the Kings mercy Whereupon the KING LORDS and Sir Thomas Piercy the general Proctor for the Bishops in this case adjudged the fact of the Archbishop to be Treason and himself a Traytor and that thereupon he should be banished his temporalties seised and all his lands in proper possession or use together with his goods forfeited to the King and presenting the day and place of his departure into exile After this in the same Parliament of 21 R. 2. the Lords Appellant therein named accused the Duke of Glocester the Earls of Arundel and Warwick and others of High Treason for procuring the Commission in 10 R. 2. for raising forces and coming to the Kings person armed For accroching to themselves royal power and adjudging some to death and executing them as Traytors in the Parliament of 11 R. 2. For intending to surrender up their Homage and allegeance to the King and then to depose him and saying they had good cause to depose him c. Hereupon the Earl of Arundel being brought in custody to the Parliament before the Lords by the Kings command and assent of the Lords had his charge read and declared before him by the Duke of Lancaster Steward of England to which he pleaded his pardon which plea being disallowed because his pardon was revoked by this Parliament and he relying on it without any other plea the Lords appellants prayed judgement against him as convict of the Treasons aforesaid Whereupon the Duke of Lancaster by assent of the KING Bishops Earles and LORDS adjudged him convict of the Articles aforesaid and thereby a Traytor to the King and Realm and that he should be therefore hanged drawn and quartered and forfeit all his Lands in fee or fee-tayl which he had in the 10. year of this King with all his goods and chattels But for that he was come of Noble bloud the King pardoned his execution of hanging drawing and quartering and granted that he should be beheaded which was accordingly executed the same day on Tower hill by the Marshal of England The 28. of September the Earl of Warwick was brought ao his Trial in the same manner as the Earl of Arundel who confessed all the Articles submitted to the Kings grace and had the same judgement pronounced against him in the same manner as the Earl of Arundel But the King at the Lords Appellants and others requests pardoned his execution granted him his life and banished him into the Isle of Man The Duke of Norfolk by assent and Act of Parliament was tried in a Court Martial by the King Lords and some Knights for words spoken against the King and judgement was there given that he should be banished into Hungary and his lands forfeited to the King Within one year after such is the vicissitude of all worldly honour and power in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. Plac. Coron n. 1. to 11. at the prayer of the Commons the great Lords Appellants Edward Duke of Albemarl Tho. Duke of Surry John Duke of Exeter John Marquess Dorset John Earl of Salisbury and Thomas Earl of Glocester were all questioned and brought to their several answers before the King and Lords for their Acts and proceedings in the Parliament of 21 R. 2. the records whereof being read before them in Parliament they made their several answers and excuses thereunto whereupon the King and Lords after consultation thereupon ADJUDGED that the said Dukes Marques and Earls should lose their several Titles and Dignities of Dukes Marquess and Earls with all the honor thereunto belonging and that they should forfeit all the Lands and goods which they or any of them had given them at the death of the Duke of Glocester or since and that if they or any of them should adhere to the quarrel or person of King Richard lately deposed that then the same should be Treason The which Judgement was pronounced against them by William Thurning Chief Justice of the Kings Bench in Parliament by the Kings command but in the Parliament of 2 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 33. upon the Petition of the Lords and Commons to the King the Earls of Rutland and Somerset were pardoned and restored by the King in Parliament In the Parliament of 2 H. 4. n. 14. the Bishop of Norwich was accused by Sir Thomas Erpingham the Kings
the said Thomas and Roger as aforesaid but that the judgement and declaration had and given against the said John late Earl of Sarum were a good just and legal Declaration and Iudgement Per quod consideratum suit in praesenti Parliamento per praedictos Dominos tunc ibidem existentes de assensu diâ— Domini nostri Regis quod praefatus nunc Comes Sarum nihil capiat per petitionem aut prosecutionem suam praedictam Et ulterius tam Domini spirituales quam temporales supradicti judicium et Declarationem pradicta versus dictum Joannem quondam Comitem Sarum ut praemittitur habita sive reddita de assensu ipsius Domini Regis affirmarunt fore et esse bona justa et legalia et ea pro hujusmodi ex abundanti decreverunt et adjudicarunt tuuc ibidem This is all that is mentioned in that Parliament Roll concerning this businesse Sir Edw. Cook who hath an excellent faculty above all others I have yet met with in mistaking mis-reciting and perversing Records and Law-books too oft times which he had no leisure to peruse which I desire all Lawyers and others to take notice of who deem all he writes to be Oracle lest they be seduced by him in his 4 Institutes p. 23. affirms with confidence That in this Rot. Parl. 2. H. 5. n. 13. Error was assigned to reverse this judgement that the Lords gave judgement without Petition or assent of the COMMONS citing it to prove that the COMMONS have a power of judicature together with the LORDS But under his favour I can assure ye Reader 1. That there is no such error at all either mentioned or intended in this Record nor any one syllable tending to that purpose 2ly The Petition mentions no error at all in this judgement but only remembers two presidents of judgement formerly reversed the first in the case of Thomas Earl of Lancaster in 15 E. 2. which judgement was given against him at Pomfret Castle which was afterwards reversed as Sir Edward Cooke himself informs us in his 3 Institutes c. 7. p. 52 53. in Pas 39 E. 3. Coram rege rot 92. for this only reason Qua contra Chartam de libertatibus cum dictus Thomas fuit unus PARIVM MAGNATUM Regni non imprisonetur c. nec dictus Rex super eum ibit nec super eum mittet nisi per legale judicium PARIUM SUORVM c. tamen tempore pacis absque juramento seu responsione seu legale judicio PARIUM SUORUM c. adjudicatus est morti The other was the judgement given against Roger Mortymer in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. reversed for the like reason in the Parliament of 28 E. 3. n. 10 11 12. forecited being condemned and executed by the Lords without any arraignment hearing trial or answer against the Great Charter Now these two Presidents are pointblank against this pretended error alleged by Sir Edward Cook That the Lords gave judgement without the assent of the Commons and it had been very improper for them to allege the reversal of them for want of a legal tryal by their Peers to prove that the Commons who are no Peers should have assented to the Earl of Salisburies judgement and because they did it not it was Error and reversible These presidents therefore might have minded him of his gross mistake 3ly The King and Lords upon consideration declared and adjudged these two cases and judgements upon perusal of them not to be like the case of the Earl of Salisbury who being slain in rebellion and actual war against the king could not be personally arraigned and condemned as the other two might and ought to have been and therefore the judgement given against him in this case by the King and Lords in Parliament who were his Peers was a good just and legal judgement and no ways against the great Charter 4ly The Commons themselves in the Parliament o 13 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 19. acknowledged this judgement to be good without their assents by their Petition to the Kâ—ng that John Lumly whose Father was attainted of Treason by it together with the Earl of Salisbury might be restored to blood and lands by Act of Parliament and the Kings grace notwithstanding this judgement of Treason against them Which the King by assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal consented unto 5 ly In the Parliament of 3 E. 4. n. 31 32. this judgement was made void and repealed out of the Kings Grace by a special act of Parliament and the heir restored but the judgement not reversed for any Error 6ly Had there been any such Error assigned as is alleged yet the King and Lords upon solemn debate and deliberation over-ruled and adjudged it to be no Error at all as he pretends it and thereupon abated the Petition and adjudged the Judgement and Declaration given by the Lords alone with the Kings assent in 2 H. 4. without the Commons Petition or assent to be GOOD JUST AND LEGAL reconfirming it a new on Record as such Therfore it was a gross oversight in him to assign and print it as an Error and a President of the Commons House or both Houses power of judicatures together when as it is a most undeniable double Parliamentary resolution of the Kings and Lords sole right of judicature of their declaring and judging in Parliament what is Treason and what not within the Statute of 25 E. 1. without the Commons assent or privity and an unanswerable refutation of his sole opinion to the contrary in his 3 Institutes c. 2. p. 22. which he opposeth against not only these two Parliamentary resolutions but likewise against 5 H. 4. n. 11 12.15 and 17 R. 2. rot Parl. n. 20. there quoted by him By this you may judge how little credit is to be given to Sir Edwards quotations and authority in matters concerning Parliamentary Judgements and Records In the Parliament of 28 H. 6. rot Parl. n. 14. to 53. The Commons generally accusing William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk to the King and Lords he thereupon required of the king that he might be specially accused and heard to answer to that which many men reported of him to be an untrue man making therewith a protestation of his manifold good services in the wars and as a Privy Counsellor for sundry years and so asking God mercy as he had been true to the King and his Realm required his purgation The 26 of January the Commons required that for this his Confession he might be committed to ward The Lords and Judges upon consultation thought there was no good cause for that unlesse some special matter were objected against him The 28 day of January the Speaker declared that the said Duke as it was said had sold the Realm to the French who had prepared to come hither and for his own defence had furnished Wallingford Castle with all warlike necessaries upon whose request the said Duke was then
Lords only sit upon the Bench and that covered and in their Parliamentary Robes the badges of Judicature but the Commons stand and that bare at the Bar without any robes at all the Lords only swear examine the witnesses and judge of their testimony the Commons only produce the witnesses presse and manage the evidence and when the buâ—nesse is fully heard the Lords only debate the cause among themselves and give the final Sentence Judgement without the Commons though sometimes in their presence and that both in cases of Commoners and Peers Therefore the Lords and House of Peers are sole Judges in Parliament not the Commons 9ly The Commons themselves in all ages since admitted into our Parliaments have always presented their Petitions in Parliament to the King and Lords alone for redress of all Grievances wrongs misdemeanours abuses whatsoever publike or private criminal or civil ecclesiastical marine or military And the Lords House alone have in all antient Parlaments appointed particular persons of their House to receive al Petitions Triers of them to hear and answer them by their advice and the kings assent when necessary which Triers of Petitions had power given to call the Lord Chancellor Treasurer Chamberlain Judges kings Servants and others to this assistance prescribing where when their Petitions should be presented examined redressed at all our Parliament Rolls aâ—est and Sir Edward Cook himself relates There being few or no Petitions at all presented by any to the Commons before â—â— H. 7. c. 19. 4 H. 7. c. 6. These Petitions then presented to them and all ever since with all in this present Parliament being only to this end that they upon the examination of the truth matters complaints grievances mentioned in them might transmit and represent them in the name of the Commons House to the Lords House for to give full redress relief and judgement on them to the Petitioners not for the Commons themselves to judge finally determine them or give relief upon them without the Lords as all the transmissions of private and publike Petitions by the Commons to the Lords heretofore and in this Parliment in the cases of Dr. Layton Dr. Bastwick Mr. Burton Mr. Walker my self and of Lilburns own Petition against his censure attest Therefore the Judicature of our Parliaments must wholy rest and intirely reside in the Lords House as well in all Criminal as civil cases both of Commoners and Lords 10ly The surest badge and highest evidence of the right and exercise of Juridical and Judicial Authority in Parliament is the examination affirmation control repeal nulling adjudging and finall determining all Errors in Judgements Decrees Proceedings all Misprisions Abuses Corruptions grievances whatsoever of Judges Justices in all other Courts of Justice Civil Ecclesiastical Marine or military Now the Lords-alone in Parliament upon Wtits of Error Appeals Complaints Petitions c examine confirm repeal null redresse and finally determine all Errors misprisions in Judgements Decrees Proceedings and all Abuses Corruptions Grievances whatsoever in all other Courts of Justice whether Civil as the Kings Bench Chancery Exchequer Chamber Common Pleas Exchequer Court of Wards Courts of Requests Stanneries c. or Ecclesiastical as the High Commission Archbishops Consistories the Convocation and the Admiralty Court Marshal Council Table Star-chamber and in former Parliaments as is evident by sundry presidents in former ages and in this present Parliament of King CHARLS in the cases of Dr. Layton Dr. Bastwick Mr. Burton Lilburn himself Mr. Grafton Alderman Chambers Mr. Rolls Sir Rob Howard Alderman Langham and Limry Mr. Johns and le Gay with sundry others But more especially in cases of Writs of Error brought in Parliament by Peers or Commoners upon any Erronious judgements touching their real or personal estates lives limbs liberties persons upon Indictments or Attainders In all which writs the King and Lords only are sole judges without the Commoners and the returns of the proceedings upon such Writs are only before the Lords in the Vpper House secundum legem et consuetudinem Parliaments So Sir Edward Cook himself expresly resolves in direct terms in his 4 Institutes p. 21 22 23. And 22 E. 3.3 Fitz Error 8 Br. 3.1 H. 7.20 21 22. Br. Error 137. Old Book of Entries p. 302.16 E. 3. Fitz. Brev. 651.21 E. 3.46 Br. Error 65.29 E. 3.24.39 Ass 18.42 Ass 22.7 H. 6.28 8 H. 5. Fitz. Error 88.19 H. 6.12.35 H. 6.19.37 H. 6.16.11 H. 4.65.9 E. 4.3.2 R. 3.22.37 H. 8.14 15 25. Dyer f. 62.196 201 315 375. intimate as much This is most clear by the Writs of Error Judgements and Proceedings on them in the Parliament House before and by the Lords alone mentioned in the Parliament Rolls themselves as 14 E. 1. roâ— Parl. 1.4 E. 3. n. 13 14.21 E. 3. n. 65 66.28 E. 3. n. 8. to 14.50 E. 3. n. 38.1 R. 2. n. 28 29 105.2 R. 2. n. 31 32 33 37 38. Parl. 2. and Parl. 1. n. 21. to 27.3 R. 2. n. 19.20 21 22.6 R. 2. n. 17.7 R. 2. n. 20 21.8 R. 2. n. 13 14 15 16.13 R. 2. n. 16 17 15 R. 2. n. 22 23 24.16 R. 2. n. 17 18.17 R. 2. n. 17.19 â—8 R. 2. n. 11 12 13.20 R. 2. n. â—6 21 R. 2. n. 25 55. to 66 71.1 H. 4. n. 91 92.2 H. 4. n. 38 39 40.4 H. 4. n. 26.5 H. 4. n. 40.6 H. 4. n. 31.1 H. 5. n. 19.2 H. 5. n. 13 14.3 H. 5. n. 19. with sundry Writs of Error in succeeding Parliaments and this now sitting adjudged determined by the King and Lords alone without the privity or interposition of the Commons A truth so clear that Lilburn himself in his Argument against the Lords jurisdiction confesseth iâ— If then the Lords House be the soâ—e Judges in all Writs of Error and Appeals from all other Courts of Justice concerning the Lands Tenements Goods Estates Liberties Members Lines Attainders of all English Freeholders and Commoners whatsoever notwithstanding the Statute of Magna Charta ch 29. No Freeman shall be â—aken or imprisoned c. neither will we pass upon him nor condemn him but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers c. the grand and principal objection against the Lords Judicature in Cases of Commoners then by the self same reason they are their lawfull Judges and may regally proceed against them in all other criminal or Civil causes especially in cases of breach of their own Privileges wherein they are the sole and only Judges since no other Court can judge of nor yet punish them as Sir Ed. Cook resolves being properly triable only in Paâ—liament as contempt against all other Courts are punishable and triable by themselves alone the present cases of Lilburne and Overton Now that they are and alwayes have been so de facto unless by way of Bill of Attainder or in such extraordinary cases when their concurrence hath been desired even in criminal cases misdemeanors and offences of Commons as well as Peers I
fined a 1000 l. to Edmond Earl of Cornwal and 2000 marks to the Abbot of Westminster and committed to the Tower of London by JUDGEMENT of the King Earls Barons and Iustices in full Parliament for citing and attaching the said Earl of Cornwal in Westminster hall to appear before the Archbishop sitting the Parliament whereof he was a Peer against his Privilege and the privilege of Sanctuary granted to the Abbot of Westminst and remained prisoners there till they put in Sureties and paid the 1000 l. fine to the Earl notwithstanding their plea of ignorance of these their Privileges In the Parliament of 4 E. 3. n. 2 3 4 5 6. Sir Simon Bereford knight John Mautravers Boso de Bayons John Deverall Thomas de Gournay and William of Ocle confederates with Roger Mortimer Earl of March in all his Treasons and misdoings for which he was then impeached and condemned and guilty of the murders of King Edward the 2. after his deposition in Berkley Castle and of the Earl of Kent his Brother were attainted and condemned of High Treason by the Lords Barons Péers in Parliament as Iudges of Parliament though they were Commoners and not their Péers whom they were not at all obliged to judge as Péers adjudging them by the Kings assent as Traytors and Enemies of the King and his Realm to be drawn and hanged Whereupon Sir Simon being in Custody was executed by the Marshal and Proclamation made by the Kings writs by the Lords order to apprehend the others with promise of great rewards to those who should apprehend them that they might be executed and if they could not take them alive to bring in their heads for which thty should receive the reward of 500 l. from the King It is true indeed that after these Judgements given the Lords the same Parliament entred this special Protestation in the Parliament Roll n. 6. against being forced to give Judgement in such cases against those who were not their Peers which Sir Edward Cook stiles an Act of Parliament though it be no such thing but a voluntary Protestation of the Lords with the Kings assent It is assented and agreed by our Lord the King and all the Great men in full Parliament that albeit the said Péers as Iudges of Parliament took upon them in the presence of our Lord the King to make and render the said Judgements by assent of the King upon some of those who were not at all their Peers and that by reason of the murder of our Leige Lord and destruction of him who was so near of the bloud royal and son of a King that thereby the PEERS which now are o◠the Péers which shall be in time to come shall not be bound or charged to render Iudgements upon others who are not their Péers nor yet to doe it but upon the Péers of the Land but that they shall from henceforth be for ever acquitted thereof And that the said Iudgements now rendered shall not be drawn into example nor consequence for time to come whereby the said Peers may be charged hereafter to adjudge others than their Peers against the Law of the Land if such another case should happen which God defend From this Protestation of the Lords which Lilburn principally insists on he and some others conclude that the Peers in Parliament have no right at all to imprison fine judge or pass sentence of death against any Commoner for any offence no not for breach of their own Privileges but only the Commons To which Objection I answer First that this is no Act of Parliam as Sir E. Cook mistakes but a bare Protestation of the Lords alone assented to by the King without the Commons assent which no wayes impeacheth the Lords right of judicature Secondly that neither the House of Commons nor the Commoners then attainted of Treason and adjudged to death by the Lords ever demurred or excepted against their Jurisdiction as Lilburn and Overton doe but acknowledged and submitted to it Thirdly That in this very Protestation the Lords profess and justifie their right of BEING JVDGES in Parliament without admitting or acknowledging any Joynt or sole right of Judicature with them in the Commons Fourthly That this Protestation was meerly voluntary not in derogation but preservation of their own Honour Right Peerage and the Parliaments privileges too The substance of it is no more than this That the Lords should not be constrained against their wills by the Kings command and in his presence to give judgement of death in ordinary cases of Treason or Felony in the high Court of Parliament or elsewhere out of it against such who were no Peers who in such cases by the Law might and ought to be tried in the Kings Courts at Westminster or before the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer by a Iury of their equals but only in cases which could not well be tried elsewhere and were proper for their Judgement in Parliament they fearing that by this president in Parliament they might be sworn and impannelled on Juries in cases of Treason committed by Commoners against the Great Charter c. 29. and the Privilege of their Peerage which exempted them being sworn or put into Juries as Fitz. Nat. brev f. 165.48 E. 3. f. 30. Exemption 6.48 Ass 6.27 H. 8. f. 22. b. This is the whole summ and sence of their protestation To argue therefore from hence That they cannot pass sentence or judgement against any Commoners in any case proper for their Judicature in Parliament because they protested only against being COMPELLED to give Iudgement against such as were no Peers in cases triable elsewhere and not proper for their tribunal as the Objectors hence conclude is quite to mistake their meaning end to speak rather non-sence than reason or Law Fifthly This Protestation was made only against the Lords giving sentence in Felony and Treason and that in the Kings own presence in Parliam who usually pronounced the judgment himself or by some other with the Lords assent did not charge the Lords to pronounce it as here not against sentencing fining imprisoning any Commoner for rayling and libelling against their Persons Jurisdiction and procedings or refusing to answer and contemning their Authority to their faces at the barr or appealing from their Judicature in case of breach of Privilege of which themselves alone and no others are or can be Judges the cases of Lilburn and Overton whose commitments are warranted by hundreds of Presidents in this and former Parliaments Therefore for them to apply this Protestation to their cases with which it hath no Analogy is a manifestation of their injudiciousness and folly rather than a justification of their Libellous Invectives against the Lords injustice Sixthly The Lords gave judgement against all these persons by the Kings command in their absence without any Indictment hearing Trial witnesses heard or examined against them face to face or due process or Law against the Great Charter
every temporal Lord being in full Parliament examined touching the answer of the said Sir William and the matters and evidences which they had examined said severally that the said William had done his message well and legally and that in the person of the said William there was no fault nor evil touching the said message nor any thing that he did to the person of the said Duke Whereupon Walter Clapton Chief Justice of the Kings Bench by command of the king adjudged and declared that the said William should be fully excused and acquitted for ever in time to come touching this matter 3ly The last day of this Parliament it was agreed by the King and Lords that all the remembrances called Raggemans or Blantâ—es Charters lately sealed in the City of London and divers Counties Cities and Burroughs of England should be sent to the City of London and from every County City and Burrough from whence they came and Writs sent to every of them rehearsing That the king held all the resiants and Inhabitants in them for his good and loyal Subjects and that no confession by them made comprised in the said remembrances are nor shall be in derogation of the estate of any such person and that the same remembrances shall be burnt and destroyed in the most open place of the said Counties Cities and Burroughs and if any thing remain of record in any Court or place the king wills that it shall be cancelled and totally adnulled revoked and repealed and held for no record and of no force nor value for time to come 4ly The 19th of November in the said Parliament Placita Coronae coram Domino Rege in Parliamento suo c. Anno regni Regis Henrici quarti post Conquestum primo n. 17. The Commons prayed she King that rhe pursute arrest and judgements made against Sir William le Scropâ— knight Henry Green knight and John Bassy knight might be affirmed and held good Whereupon Sir Richard Scroop humbly prayed the King that nothing which should be done in this Parliament might turn to his or his Childrens dis-inherison Of which Sir Richard it was demanded whether the said pursute arrest and judgements were good or not who answered that he feared not to say and must confesse that when they were made thâ—y were good and profitable for the King and Realm and that his Son was one of them for which he was very sorrowfull Whereupon the king rehearsed that he claimed the Realm and Crown of England with all their members and appurietenances as heir of the bloud by the right line of king Henry the 3d. and although through the right which God had sent him by the aid of his Parents and friends he recovered the said Realm which was at the point to be undone by default of government and defesance of the Laws and customs of the Realm yet it was not his will that any should think that by way of Conquest he would disinherit any man of his heritage franchise or other right which he ought to have nor out any man of that which he had or should have by the good Laws or Customs of the Realm except these who had been against the good purpose and common profit of the Realm of which only the King held the said Sir William Henry and John for such and guilty of all the evil which had come upon the Realm and therefore he would have and hold all the Lands and Tenements they had within the Realm of England or elsewhere by conquest Whereupon fuist demande de touts les Seigniors temporellez lour advys de les pursuite arreste juggem 〈◊〉 suiâ—diâ—z Les queux Seigniors touz de â—ne accorde disorent que mesmes les pursuite arreste juggement quinâ—que fuist fait come defuist dit uist bons et les affirmente Piur bons et profitables 5ly In the case of John Hall 1 H. 4. Placita Coronae n. 11 to 17. who being in custody of the Marshal of Englana was brought by him before the Lords in Parliament and there charged before them by Walter Clapton Lord Chief Justice by the King command with having a hand in the murther of the Duke of Glocester who was smothered to death with a Featherbed at Calues by king Richard the seconds command the whole transaction whereof he confessed at large and put in writing before James Billingford Clerk of the Crown which was read before the Lords upon reading thereof the King and all the temporal Lords in Parliament resolved that the said John Hall by his own confession deserved to have as hard a death as they could adjudge him to because the Duke of Glocester was so high a Person and thereupon toutes les Seigneiors temporelz per assent du Roy adjuggerent all the temporal Lords by assent of the King ADJVDGED that the said Jo. Hall should be drawn from Tower hill unto the Gallows at Tiburn and there bowelled and his bowels laid before him and after he should be hanged beheaded and quartered and his head sent to Calice where the murther was committed and his quarters sent to other places where the king should please and thereupon command was given to the Marshal of England to make execution accordingly and it was so done the same day Lo here the Lords in Parliament gave judgement against a Commoner in case of a murther done at Calice and so not â—riable in the Kings Bench but in Parliament and passe a Judgement of High Treason on him for murthering of a great Peer only In the Parliament of 2 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 23 24. The Commons shewed to the King that William Bagot had been impeached of many horrible deeds and misprisions the which if they had been true the Commons supposed the the King aad ths Lords would have had good notice thereof for that they had made many examinations thereof whiles the said William was in distress And therefore the said Commons prayed the King that the said Sir William being in Flanders and no offence found in his person upon the slanders in his impeachment aforesaid that he would be pleased to restore him to his lands To which prayer was answered in the Kings behalf that although the said Sir William upon the said impeachment made the last Parliament was put to his answer before the King and the Lords and there pleaded a general Charter of pardon against which Charter it seemed to all the Lords then present that the said Sir William ought not to be impeached nor put to answer by the King on his part for that the said Sir William was not attainted of any impeachment suggested against him and that the King had done him justice in this behalf therefore he would in the same manner doe him justice in the residue at the Commons request A most full proof of the Kings and Lords judicial power in Parliaments even in case of a Commoner The same Parliament 2. H. 4. num 29. William
by their Speaker acknowledge the right of judicature in the case of a Commoner to be only and wholly in the Lords even in a criminal cause and thereupon pray the Lords to give judgement against him upon their Impeachment which they did accordingly in their robes as Judges by the mouth of the Lord Keeper their Speaker In this very Parliament now sitting Decemb. 21. Jan. 14. Febr. 11. 1640. and July 6. 1641. The Commons House by their Members impeached Sir John Bramston Chief Justice of the Kings Bench Sir John Finch Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Humphry Davenport Chief Baron Judge Berkly Judge Crawly Baron Weston and Baron Trever of high Treason and other misdemeanors for that they had trayterously and wickedly endeavoured to subvert the fundamental Laws and established Government of the Realm of England and instead thereof to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical Government against Law which they had declared by trayterous words opinions and judgement in the point of SHIP MONY by their subscriptions and judgement given against them in the case of Mr. Hamden in the Exchequer Chamber Which Impeachments they transmitted to the Lords House praying THE LORDS to put them to answer the premises and upon their examinations and trial to give such judgement upon every of them as is agreeable to Law and Justice To avoid which judgement Sir John Finch fled the Realm and the rest of them made fines and compositions to the publike and were most of them removed from their Judges places After this the Lords themselves as Judges in Parliament passed several judgements and censures against Dr. John Pocklington for his Sunday no Sabbath and other Books and against Dr. Bray for licensing them In October 1643. The Lords fined and imprisoned Clement Walker Esq in the Tower for some scandalous words against the Lord Viscount Say a Member of he House of Peers After that the Lords alone without any Impeachment of the Commons on their privity imprisoned fined and censured one Morrice upon complaint of Sir Adam Littleton after a full hearing at which I was present for forging an Act of Parliament with four or five more of his confederates therein which was most clearly proved by Witnesses upon Oath whereby he would have defrauded Sir Adam of some Lands in Essex And at least one hundred more Commoners have been committed by THE LORDS this Parliament and fined by them for several offences Misdemeanors and Breaches of their Privileges as well as Lilburn and Overton yet none of them ever excepted against or demurred to their Jurisdiction nor did the Commons House ever yet except against them for these their proceedings as injurious or illegal but approved and applauded this their Justice Finally John Lilburn himself in his printed Pamphlet intituled Innocency and Truth justified p. 74 75. relates that on May 4. 1641. himself was accused of High Treason and brought before the Lords Barr for his life where one Littleton swore point-blank against him But he having Liberty given to speak for himself without any demurring to their Jurisdiction because we was a Commoner desired that his Witnesses might be heard to clear him was upon Mr. Andrews Oath acquitted at the Barr of the whole house And thereupon concludes I am resolved to speak well of those who have done me JUSTICE From all these punctual successive presidents impeachments and clear confessions of the Commons House themselves in many former and late Parliam and in this now sitting it is undeniable That the King and Lords joyntly and the Lords severally without the King have an indubitable right of Iudicature without the Commons vested in them not only over Peers themselves but likewise Commoners in all extraordinary criminal cases of Treason Felony Trespass and other Misdemeanors triable only in Parliament which hath been constantly acknowledged practised submitted to in all ages without dispute much more then have they such a just judicial rightfull power in cases of breach of their own privileges of which none are or can be Judges but themselves alone as Sir Edw. Cook resolves they being the supremest Court. And to deny them such a power is to make the Highest Court of Judicature in the Realm inferiour to the Kings Bench and all other Courts of Justice who have power to judge and try the persons causes of Commoners yea to commit and fine them for contempts and breaches of their Privileges as our Law books resolve and every mans experience can testifie The Lords right of Iudicature both over Peers and Commoners in criminal causes being thus fully evicted against the falseâ— ignorant pretences of illiterate Sectaries altogether unacquainted with our Histories and Records of Parliament which they never yet read nor understood there remains nothing but to answer some Authorities Presidents and Objections produced against it These presidents in Sir Edward Cooke Sir Robert Cotton and others are of 3 Sores 1. Such as are produced by them only to prove that the Commons have a Copartnership and joynt Authority with the King and Lords in the power and right of Judicature in our Parliaments 2ly Such as are objected to evidence they have a sole power of Judicature in themselves in some cases without the K. and Lords 3ly Such as are urged to prove they have no right of Judicature in Parliament in the cases of Commoners that are capital or criminal I shall propose and answer them all in order 1. Sir Edward Cook and Sir Robert Cotton produce these presidents to prove That the Commons have a Joint inâ—erest right and share with the King and Lords in the Iudicatory or Judicial power of Parliaments which I shall propound according to their Antiquity The 1. President alleged for it is that of Adomar Bishop of Winchester elect cited by Sir Robert Cotton in his Post-humous Discourse concerning the Power of the Peers Commons in Parliament in point of Iudicature who An. 44 H. 3. as affirms he was then exiled by the Ioint Sentence of the King Lords and COMMONS as appears by the Letter sent to Pope Alexander the 4th Si Dominus Rex et Regni Majores hoc vellent meaning Adomars revocation COMMUNITAS tamen ipsius ingressum jam nullatenus sustineret The Peers subsign this answer with their names and Peter de Moâ—tfort vice totius COMMUNITATIS as Speaker or Proctor of the Commons I answer under the favour of this renowned learned Antiquary that this president is full of gross mistakes For 1. Bishop Adomar was not banished the Realm at all either by King Lords or Commons but fled out of it voluntarily for fear to avoid the Barons who purâ—iâ—ed him with forces as Mat. Paris with others relate which the Nobles and Generality of the Barons in direct terms inform this Pope in another Letter sent together with this objected Maxime cum ipse a regno expuisus non extiterit sed sponte cesserit non ausus exhibitionem justiâ—iae quae
singulis secundum Iuramenta Regis et Procerum debebatur expectare 2. The reason why he thus sled was to avoid the Justice of THE KING LORDS as they in plain terms inform the Pope without any mention of the Commons 3ly This expulsion is said to be in 44 H. 3. or rather in 41. as Mat. Paris and others inform us An. 1458. And that is at least 5. or 8. years before any Commons Knights and Burgesses were summoned to our Parliaments by Sir Robert Cottons Mr. Seldens and others confessions and that by the Writ in 49 H. 3. Rot. Claus m. 10. dorso Therefore if the Commons had any vote in his banishment it was 5. or 8. years before they were admitted into our Parliaments and so a Banishment not in but out of Parliament 4ly This Letter to Pope Alexander begins thus Sanctissimo Patri in Christo Alexandro c. COMMUNITAS COMITUM PROCERUM MAGNATUM ALIORUMQUE REGNI ANGLIAE and it is subscribed joyntly by 6. Earls and 5. Noblemen whereof Petrus de Montfort is the last VICE TOTIUS COMMUNITATIS to wit Communitas Comitum Procerum Magnatum aliorumque Regni Angliae who writ the Letter mentioned in the beginning thereof not of the Commons House contradistinct from the Earls Nobles Great-men and Barons of the Realm praesentibus literis sigilla nostra apposuimus in testimonium praedictorum not by the 10 first Earls and Nobles in behalf of themselves the Earls Lords and great men of the Realm and by Peter de Montford as Speaker or Proctor of the Commons who as Sir Robert Cotton himself acknowledgeth had no Speaker aâ— all in 6 E. 3. An. 1332. being at least 74. years after this Letter nor yet till 51 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 87. for ought appears by History or Record being 119. years after this Letter Wherefore this president consisting of so many mistakes as I have more largely proved in my Preface to Sir Robert Cottons Exact Abridgement of the Records in the Tower makes nothing at all for the Commons joynt Right of Judicature with the King and Lord The rather because the Communitas in the objected clause of the Letter is not meant of the Commons in Parliament but the Communitas or Universitas Regni popularis etsi non Nobiles as Mat. Paris stiles them or popular rabble of Commons out of Parliament The 2. president is that of Sir Nicholas Segrave 33 E. 1. rot 33. Cooks 3. Institutes p. 7. 4 Instit p. 23. in the margin Who being charged in Parliament in presence of the King Earls Barons and OTHERS OF THE KINGS COUNCEL not the Commons or Burgesses but the Iudges and Kings learned Councel at Law or his Privy Council who were assistants to the Lords as I conceive which Sir Edward Cook mistaking would have to express the Commons in Parliament then and there present that the King in the wars of Scotland being among his enemies Nicholas Seagrave his leigeman who held of the King by Homage and fealty and served him for his aid in that warr did maliciously move discord and contention without cause with John de Crombewell charging him with many enormous crimes and offered to prove it upon his body To whom the said John answered that he would answer him in the Kings Court c. and thereupon gave him his faith After which Nicholas withdrew himself from the Kings hast and aid leaving the King in danger of his enemies and adjourned the said John to defend himself in the Court of the King of France and prefixed him a certain day and so as much as in him was subjected and submitted the Dominion of the King and kingdom to the subjection of the King of France and to effect this he took his journey towards Dover to passe over into France All which he confessed and submitted himself therein de alto et Basso to the Kings pleasure And hereupon the King willing HABERE AVISAMENTUM to have the advise of the EALS BARONS LORDS magnatum and OTHERS OF HIS COUNCEL enjoyned them upon the Homage fealty and allegiance wherewith they were obliged to him quod ipsi sideliter CONSULERENT that they should faithfully ADVISE HIM what punishment should be inflicted for such a fact thus confessed Qui omnes habito super hoc diligenti tractatu et avisamento c. Who all having had thereupon diâ—igent debate and advise having considered and understood all things contained in the said fact DICUNT not by way of Judgement judicially pronounced but of answer to the Kings question propounded and as their opinion of the cause Said that this fact deserved losse of life members c. So as this offence notes Sir Edward Cooke was then adjudged in Parliament to be High Treason But under his favour First here was no judgement at all given against the party himself but only an opinion and advice touching this case not pending judicially in Parliament by way of Inditement or impeachment but voluntarily proposed by the King in answer to the kings question and so it can be no proof of any actual proper judicature vested in both Houses Secondly For ought appears this question was only propounded to the Earls Lords Barons and the Kings Council that assisted them and so only to the House of Peers not to the Commons and answered resolved only by them aliorum de Concilio suo not expressing nor including the Commons as I apprehend being never so intitled in any Parliament Records for ought I can find That these alii de Concilio were not the Commons as Sir Edward Cook insinuates but the Kings Justices and Judges who attended them is most clear by this passage of Matthew Westminster who lived and writ the story of it at that time in these words Sub illo quoque tempore Nicholaus de Segrave unus de praestantioribus de regno pro tali causa arrestatus fuerat coram rege Alius quidam Johannis de Cromâ—ewell ipsum de proditione arguerat Ille autem in defensionem obtulit se duello Rex propter bella sua noluit ista pati ille vero non licentiatuâ— et contra prohibitionem Regis mare transivit persequens accusatorem ipso Rege adhuc inter hostiles acies constituto Ideirco reputaâ— eum Rex in judicio vitae suae contemptorem nec per ipsum stare quin Rex ab hostibus interiret Et ille in gratiam Regis se submisit Cui Rex justitiam fieri volo in judicio Proinde JUSTITIARII mark it not the Commons TRIDUO SUPER HOC CONSULTANTES responderunt regi hujusmodi hominem reum esse mortis et omnia bona sua mobilia et immobilia regii juris esse Veruntamen propter generositatem sanguinis addiderunt non hunc in regis contemptum Angliam egressum fuisse sed propter iram se de suo criminatore vindicandi Regis autem esse posse facere misericordiam cum eodem Quibus Rex O
diu consultati sed inconsulti Equidem meum est posse et velle conferre gratiam cui voluero miserebor Nec propter vos amplius quam pro cane Quis in gratiam meam se submisit repulsam passus est Veruntamen vestrum judicium in scriptura redigatur et pro lege amodo teneatur Proinde dictus miles ad carcerem ducebatur ne impunitas armareâ— audaciam et rigor caeteris timorem incuteret contemnendi Et post paucos dies elaborantibus multis nobilioâ—ibus regni et ostendentibus se 30 suis paribus cinctis gladiis corpus pro corpore et bona pro bonis una in solidum quoquo die Rex eum vocaverit nec adesset liberatus est et per regem cunctis facultatibus suis restitutus So this Historian which compared with the Record infallibly proves that this resolution was given by the Earls Barons Lords and Judges advice who were the only aliorum de Concilio as assistants to the Lords then in all matters of Law as now they are not the Commons of which there is no mention in the records or this Historian that they were parties to it And this is likewise evident by the case of Margery the Wife of Thomas Weyland an abjured Judge in the Parliament of 19 E. 1. Cooks 1. Institutes f. 133. n. Where the Barons of the Exchequer and Justices of the Kings Courts were called to advise and assist the King and his Council of Lords in Parliament in a difficulty of Law therein to be resolved by their advice And therfore it follows that the LORDS ONLY IN THAT AGE were the Judges even of Commoners cases Thirdly Admit the Commons were included yet it proves only a right of advising and delivering their opinions with the Lords when required by the King not of judging or pronouncing sentence Fourthly Sir Edward Cook citing this president to prove That both Houses together have power of judicature must grant that even in 33 E. 1. there were two distinct Houses of Parliament who upon special occasions as now at conferences c. met and advised together and therefore the division of the Houses was before Edward the third his reign and very probable as antient as the summoning of Knights Citizens and Burgesses to the Parliament which some make as antient as King Henry the first or King Henry the 2. others not before King Henry the third in the 49 year his reign Father to King Edward the first So as this president makes quite against the Levellers and Lilburnians designs and opinions The 3 and 4. Presidents are those of Hugh Audley his Wife Claus 12 E. 2. m. 5. of Gaverston and the two Spencers Exiles 15 E. 2. forecited wherein the Commons gave their assents to the attainders and exiles of Gaverston and the Spencers and to the reversal of them But this I have already proved to be only by way of Bills not judicature by the legislative not judicial power of Parliament and that they were judicially condemned only by the Lords therefore these are nothing to the purpose and against the Objectors The 5. and 6. are the depositions of King Ed. the 2. and Richard the 2. for their mis-government wherin the Commons had a joynt vote and concurrence with the Lords which I shall hereafter answer in the supplement p. 429. to 460. The seventh President is that of Eliz. Burgh Widow in the Parliament of 1 E. 3. rot Parl. n. 11. who complained by Petition to the King that in the reign of King Edward the 2. she was by his Writ commanded to come unto him to Yorke and there by Hugh Spencer the younger and Robert Baldock and William Cliff his instruments inforced by duresse to enter into an Obligation to this effect that if she received any who were contrary to the King or maried any man without the Kings consent or if she gave any lands or tenements which she held in fee or in dower to any man living without the Kings license that for any of these she should forfeit all her Lands Tenements Goods and Chattels to the King as appeared by the transcript of the Bond annexed to her Bill whereupon she prayed Grace and remedy against this duresse and acquittance of our Lord the King from this Obligation Hereupon a Writ was sent to the Clerk of the Privy Seal in whose custody the Obligation was to bring it without delay Coram Concilio nostro in Parliamento ad faciendum inde ulteriut quod per idem Concilium nostrum contige it ordinari which being brought and delivered accordingly the 5 of March and deliberately read in full Parliament and agreeing with the transcript annexed to her Petition in all things Pur ceo que avys est as Archievesques Evesques Counts BARONS auires Grandes et a TOVTELA COMMONALTIE de la terre que lo dit escrit est fait contre ley de la terre enconter tout manere de reason si fuist le dit escrit PER AGARD DEL PARLIAMENT dampne illeoques livera ala dit Elizabeth I answer 1. That this judgement was given only in a civil case touching an Obligation made by duress not in a criminal 2ly That this Petition was directed only to the King and his Council not to the Commons in Parliament and the businesse heard before them 3ly That this being a Common case there being then many Petitions and complaints that Parliament of bonds of this nature the Commons joyning with the King and Lords in this judgement of Parliament in her case was only by way of Bill not in an ordinary way of judgement they exhibiting passing a Bill for that purpose as well as a Petition as is clear by the words of the Roll and by the printed Statute of 1 E. 3. c. 3. That fines sales and gifts of land and recognizances of debt made by force and duress to this Sir Hugh Spencer Robert Baldocke c. or to any of them be defeated And Parl. 2. ch 15. Whereas many of the Realm in the time of the Kings Father that now is by means of his false and evil Counsellors have been excited by divers to bind themselves to come to the K. with force and arms whensoever they should be sent for upon pain of life and limb and to forfeit all that ever they might forfeit by vertue of which writings divers of his land have been often destroyed The King considering that such writings were made to the Kings dishonour sithence that every man is bound to doe to the King as to his Liege Lord all that pertaineth to him without any manner of writing will that from henceforth no such writing be made And that such as be made by the sight of the Chancellor and Treasurer shall be shewed to the King and the K. shall cause all such as be made against right reason to be cancelled So that this main president meerly falls to the ground being
but by Bill The 8th President that may be objected is this Adam de Arleton or Tarlton Bishop of Hereford in a Parliament held at London Anno 1322. was apprehended by the Kings Officers and brought to the Bar to be arraigned for Treason and Rebellion in aiding the Mortimers and others in their wars with men and arms where having nothing to say for himself in defence of the crimes objected and standing mute for a space at last he flatly told the King That he was a Minister and Member of the Church of Christ and a consecrated Bishop though unworthy therefore I neither can nor ought to answer to such high matters without the consent of my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury my direct Judge next after the Pope and of the other Fathers the Bishops my PEERS At which saying the Archbishops and Bishops there present rose up and interceded to the King for their Colleague and when the King would not be intreated they all challenged the Bishop as a Member of the Church exempt from the Kings Justice and all secular judicature The King forced thereunto by their claimors delivered him to the Archbishops custody to answer elsewhere for these crimes Within few days after being apprehended again and brought to answer before the Kings royal Tribunal in the Kings Bench at Westminster for his Treasons the Archbishops of Canterbury York and Dublin hearing of Tarltons arraignment came with their Crosier staves carried before them accompanied with 10 Bishops more and a great company of men entred into the Court and by open violence rescued and took away the Bishop from the Bar before any answer made to his charge chasing away the Kings Officers and proclaiming openly That no man should lay violent hands on this Trayterly Bishop upon pain of excommunication and so departed The King exceedingly incensed at this High affront to Justice and himself commanded an Inquest to be impanelled and a lawfull inquiry to be made of the Treasons committed by the Bishop in his absence being thus rescued from Justice The Jury without fear of the King or any hatred of the Bishop found the Bishop guilty of all the Articles of Treason and Rebellion whereof he was indicted Whereupon the King banished the Bishop seised all his temporalties lands and goods But yet notwithstanding the Bishop by consent of all the Prelates was by strong hand kept in the Archbishops custody till he had reconciled him to the King After which by way of revenge he was a principal instrument of the Kings deposing and murther which having effected in the Parliament of 1 E. 3. 6. this Bishop petitions that the Indictment and Iudgement against him and the proceedings therein might be brought into Parliament and there nulled as erronious which was done accordingly Et quia recitatis et examinatis coram nobis et consilio nosâ—ro recordo et processu praedictis Et etiam coram Praelatis Comitibus Baronibus Magnatibus tota communitate regni nostri praesenti Parliamento nostro praesentibus compertum fuit quod in eisdem recordo et processu errores manifesti intervenerunt per assensum totius Parliamenti adnullatur and so he had restitution I answer that as this rescue of proceeding and judgement against this trayterous Bishop were singular So is this repeal and reversal of it as erronious before and by all the Commons and whole Parliament as well as King Prelates and Nobles and that no doubt at the special instance of this and all the other Bishops highly concerned in this cause Wherefore this one Swallow makes no Summer and proves no judicial authority joyntly with the King and Lords since they never joyned with them before nor since in reversing of any such error upon Judgement in the Kings Bench but only where an erronious Attainder by Bill in one Parliament was reversed by Bill in another The 9th is the Clause of King Edward the thirds Letter to the Pope in the 4th year of his reign already answered p. 274. The 10th is Sir John at Lees case 42 E. 3. n. 20. said to be ADJVDGED by the Lords and COMMONS I answer this Case is somewhat mâ—staken For the Record only mentions That the 21 day of May the King gave thanks to the Lords and Commons for their coming and aid granted on which day all the Lords and sundry of the Commons dined with the King After which dinner Sir Iohn at Lee was brought before the King LORDS COMMONS next aforesaid who dined with the King to answer certain objections made against him by William Latymer about the wardship of Robert Latymer that Sir John being of power had sent for him to London where by duresse of Imprisonment he inforced the said William to surrender his estate unto him which done some other Articles were objected against the said Sir John of which for that he could not sufficiently purge himself HE was committed to the Tower of London there to remain til he had made fine and ransom at the Kings pleasure and command given to the Constable of the Tower to keep him accordingly And then the said Lords and Commons departed After which he was brought before the Kings Councel at Westminster which COUNCEL ORDERED the said ward to be reseised into the Kings hands So as this record proves not that this judgment was given in the Parliament house nor that the Lords and Commons adjudged Sir Iohn but rather the King and his Councel in the presence of the Lords and Commons after the Parliament ended The 11 12 13. Are the cases of the Lord Latymer Lord Nevil and Richard Lyons forecited Here p. 283 284 350. which are nothing to purpose the Lords alone giving judgement in them without the Commons who did only impeach them and the King removing the Lord Latymer from his Council at their further request So that these 3. cases refute their opinions who object them The 14. is the Case of Weston and Gomines 1 R. 2. n. 38 39. In which the Lords alone gave the Judgement as I have proved p. 332 333 Therefore pointblank against the Objectors The 15. president is that of Iohn Kirby and Iohn Algar two Citizens of London in the Parliament of 3 R. 2. n. 18. who conceiving malice against John Imperial an Ambassador sent hither from the State of Genoa who had procured a Monopoly to furnish England with all such wares as come from the Levant keeping his staple at Southampton killed him in London upon a sudden quarrel picked with him for which they being committed this being a new and difficult case and the Judges being in doubt whether it were Treason or no it was thereupon propounded in Parliament according to the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. like that of 25 E. 3. Parl. 2. of those who are born beyond the Seas 14 E. 3. c. 5. 13 E. 1. c. 24.32 E. 1. rot 17. 22. Claus 46 H. 3. n. 3. Claus 14
E. 2. dors 17. 17 E. 3. n. 24.21 E. 3. n. 60.40 E. 3. n. 14 15.14 E. 3. n. 30 31.1 R. 2. n. 95.1 E. 3. f. 6 7.39 E. 3.21 a. 40 E. 3.34 b. Cook 8 Rep. f. 158.3 Instit p. 6 7.4 Instit p. 67 c. 2 Instit p. 408. West 2. c 24. and Bracton l. 2. c. 16 l. 3. c. 9. Fletae l. 2. c. 6. resolving that all difficult causes are to be declared to and determined in and by Parliaments This case being examined and debated by and between the Lords and Commons was afterwards there declared bâ—fore the King and determined and agreed That this fact and murder is Treason and a crime against the Kings Majesty in which case no privilege of Clergy ought to be allowed to any man Whereupon 7 R. 2. rot 8. Kirby and Algar were attainted of High Treason in the Kings Bench and executed as Traitors Walsingham writes this Parliament was held at Northampton against the consent of most of the Realm but especially against the will of the Londoners that so revenge might be taken upon Kirkeby for this murder they fearing that if the Parliament were held at London the Londoners would not suffer him to be executed without some danger to those who condemned him whereupon he was condemned drawn and executed at Northampton To this I answer first That Kirby and Algar were not impeached arraigned tried or condemned in Parliament for this Treason but in the Kings Bench for if they had the Lords only had judged and given sentence against rhem as in all the premised cases 2ly Their case being new was thought fit to be propounded to the Commons by the Kings direction as well as to the Lords who upon debate agreed it to be Treason 3ly When it had been debated it was declared and finally resolved and agreed before the King in full Parliament and that by Bill and the Legislative not Judicial power as Mr. Sâ— John informs us Therefore it makes nothing for the Commons right and power of Judicature which after all these presidents all the Commons in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 79. confess to have been alwayes of right in the King and Lords and not in them which sways away all the forecited presidents at once as impertinent and misapplied For the presidents of 21 R. 2. n. 29. 2 H. 5. n. 13 28 H. 6 n. 19. misrecited by Sir E. Cook 4 Instit p. 23. 3 Inst p. 22. they are already answered p. 296 297 299 344. And for those of Sir Giles Mompesson Sir Iohn Michel Viscount St. Alban and the Earl of Middlesex himself confesseth and I have here cleared p. 303 304. that the notable Iudgements against them were given by the Lords at the prosecution of the Commons who were only their prosecutors not Iudges These are all the Presidents I finde that are objected to give the Commons a share with the King and Lords in the Judicature in our Parliaments which evince it not but clearly disprove it The 2. sort of Presidents insisted on by Sir Ed. Cook are to prove a Judicial Authority in the House of Commons alone without the Lords in cases of their own Members and Servants in matters of elections breach of Privilege or misdemeanors in the Commons house for which they have imprisoned and sometimes fined Serjeants Baylifs Sherifs committed their own Members adjudged their elections void suspended excluded ejected them the house The 1. ease is that of Muncton 2 Aprilis 1 Mariae committed by the Commons to the Tower for striking William Iohnson a Burgess The 2. of Thomas Lucy 8 Eliz. removed out of the House for giving 4 l. to the Mayor of Westbury to be chosen a Burgess and the Maior fined and imprisoned The 3 of Arthur Hall 23. Eliz. who for discovering and publishing the Conferences of the House and writing a Book to the dishonour of the house was committed to prison These matters were examined and adjudged in the House of Commons Secundum legâ—m Consuetudinem Parliamenti and he thereupon committed to the Tower for 6. Moneths fined 500 marks and expelled the House And in that Parliament 18 Martii a fine was assesâ—ed by the House on every Member that was absent without leave To these alleged by Sir Edw. Cooke I shall superadd the ensuing Sir Robert Brandling was committed to the Tower 27 Eliz. for striking Witheâ—ington a Burgess 3 Jacobi one was fined for causing a Members Servant to be arrested though he claimed his privilege 12 Jacobi Locke and More were ordered by the Commons to ride both on one horse with their faces to the horses tail for arresting a Servant of Mr. Whitlocks then a Member against his privilege which was accordingly executed In 2 Caroli Sir George Hastings being elected knight for Leicestershire and he then being arrested his witnesses had their charges given them against the Sherif and he fined In the Parliament of 3. Caroli Sir Thomas Savils case 29. April 1628. Thomson Sherif and Henloe Alderman of York for abuses in the election were ordered to be committed to the Serjeant of the House during the pleasure of the Commons House to acknowledge their offences at the Barr on their knees and pay all due fees and to make a submission in York In 3. Caroli Mr. John Baber was suspended the house about billetting Souldiers In 3. Car. the Commons house committed Mr. Laughton and Mr. Trelawny to the Tower during pleasure and Sir William Wray and Mr. Edward Trelawny to the Serjeant at Arms and ordered them to make a submission acknowledgement of their offences in the House at the Bar and in the County at the Assises they kneeling at the Barr all the while the Speaker pronounced the Judgement against them for writing menacing Letters to Sir John Elliot and Mr. Coriton and to others of the County of Cornwall disturbing their election and contemning the warrant of the House when sent for In this Parliament of 17 Caroli now sitting the Commons house turned out sundry Members who were Projectors and voted out many others for Delinquency ordering New elections in their places without the King or Lord. I answer 1. That all these objected presidents are of very puny date within time of memory therefore unable to create a Law or custom of Parliament or any right of sole Judicature in the Commons House 2ly They were all made by the Commons themselves unfit Judges in their own cases much less over one another being all of equal Authority and so unable to seclude imprison or fine one another no more than one Judge or Justice to fine imprison or uncommission another since Par in parem non habet imperium 3ly They are all against Law because coram non Judice the Commons House having no right or power of Judicature much less of sole Judicature in our Parliaments but only the King and Lords as I have formerly proved by reasons and presidents in all ages 4ly These
rather by the King with the Lords assent in Parliament or by Indictment in the Kings Bench as Sir Edward Cook himself confesses and proves by the Cases of Segrave St. Amand and others Placitae In Parliamento Dom. Regis 33 E. 1. The Bishop of Winchesters Case Pas 3 E. 3. coram Rege Rot. 9. attached for a contempt in departing from the Parliament during its sitting without the Kings license and contrary to the Kings inhibition in contempt of the King who pleaded that this contempt ought to be corrected and amended in Parliament by the Peers and not else where in any inferiour Court. 3 E. 3.19 Fitz Corone 161. Stanford f. 153 3 and 4 Phil. and Mar. B. R. rot 39. is most clear by 31 H. 6. n. 45 46. where special fines are taxed on absent Lords by the Lords assent Therefore the Commons House cannot fine or tax their Members as now they doe since they never did it before this act and therefore are prohibited by it which restrains them to ancient usage before it In 7 R. 2. The Lord Thomas Camoyes a Peer of the Realm being elected Knight of the Shire for Surrey by the Freeholders of the County the King himself discharged him by special Writ and commanded the Sherif to cause another fit person to be elected in his place as I formerly proved p. 139 145. I read in Thomas of Walsingham that King Richard the 3. in the 11 year of his reign intending to call a Parliament summoned all the Sherifs of England to Nottingham Castle inquiring of them What power they could raise for him in every County against the Barons and charging them ut ipsi nullum Militem dâ— Pago vel Schira permitterent eligi nisi quem Rex et ejus Concilium elegissent who it seems gave them a list of the Names of those persons they should elect and return as the Major Generals have newly done Whereunto the Sherifs answered That all the Commons favoured the Lords neither was it in their power to raise any Army or Forces in this cause De Militibus eligendis dixerunt Communes velle tenere consuetudines usitatas quae volunt quod à Communibus Milites eligantur Whereupon they were dismissed Upon this the King soon after issuing out Writs to the Sherifs to elect Knights and Burgesses for the Parliament inserted this unusual Clause into them that they should chuse such Knights as were most fit and discreet and in the modern debates between the king and Lords most indifferent as the Writs themselves attest Rex Vic. Kanc. salutem quia de avisamento Consilii nostri pro quibusdum arduis urgentibus negotiis nos statum et defensionem Regni nostri Angliae ac Ecclesiae Anglicanae contingentibus quoddam Parliamenâ—um nostrum apud Westm in crastino purificationis beatae Maâ—iae prox futur teneri Ordinavimus et ibidem vobiscum ac cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus Regni nostri Angliae colloquium habere tractatum tibi praecipimus firmiter injungentes quod de Comitatu tuo duos Milites gladiis cinctos magis idoneos et discretos Com. praed et in debatis modernis magis indifferentes c. T. R. apud Wyndesore xvii die Dec. Per ipsum Regem But the King being soon after informed by his Council that these Writs were contrary to the antient form of elections and contrary to the Liberty of the Lords and Commons hitherto obtained sent out new writs to all Sherifs of England to revoke and repeal this Innovating Clause before the Elections made Rex Vic. Kanc 〈…〉 licet nuper per breve nostrum inter caetera tibi praecâ—pimus firmiter injungentes quod de Comitatu tuo duos Milites gladiis cinctos magis idoneos et discretâ—s Com. prad et 〈◊〉 debatis â—dernis magis indifferentes eligi 〈…〉 Parliamentum nostrum quod apud Westm in Crist 〈◊〉 purifiecationis bâ—atae Mariae proâ— futur tenâ—re Ordiâ—avimuâ— ad eâ—sdem idem 〈◊〉 veâ—ire facereâ— Nos tamen attendentâ—s dictam clausulam in debatis modernis magis indifferentes contra formam electionis antiquitus usitatae ac contra libertatem Dominorum et Communitatis Regni nostri Angliae hactenus obtentam existere Volenâ—esque proinde praedictos Milites libere eligi modo et forma prout antiquitus fieri consuerit Tibi praecimus firmiter inâ—ungentes quod de Com. tuo praedicto duos milites gladiis cinctos magis idoneos discretos Com. praedicti prout hactenus fieri consuevit eligi eos ad pradictos diem locum venire fac dicta clausula non obstante caeteraque omnia et singula in dicto brevi nostre contenta fac exequaris juxta tenorem ejusdem dictam clausulam penitus omittens Et habeas ibi hoc breve et aliud breve T. R. apud Westm primo die Jan. Per ipsum Regem et Consillum Consimilia brevia diriguntur singulis Vicocomitibus per Angl. Ac carissimo Aqunâ—ulo R. Johanni Regi Castell et-Legionis Duci Lancastr vel ejus Cancellar in eodem Ducatu sub eadem daâ—a A clear evidence that neither the Sherifs nor Commons house had any power to repell this new Clause but the King himself which here he did by his Councilâ— Apples before any complain against it in Parliament In the Parliament of 16 R. 2. n. 6. c. The Wednesday after the Parliament began Sir Philip Courtney returned by the Sherif of Devon for one of the Knights for that County came before the King in full Parliament and said that he understood how certain people had accused and slandered him to the King and Lords as well by Bill as by mouth of heinous matters and therefore prayed to be discharged of the said imployment until the said accusations and complaints were tried and found true or not true and because his said prayer seemed honest to the King and the Lords the King granted him his request and discharged him in full Parliament and the Monday following at the instance and prayer of the Commons the King granted that he should be restored and remitted to his place according to the return of the said Sherif for to counsel and doe that which belonged unto his office and afâ—er because he had been good and treatable with those who had complained upon him and condescended to a good treaty he was restored in full Parliament to his good fame The charge against him is expressed in the same Parliament roll n. 13 14. where two Petitions are preferred against him to THE KING and LORDS IN PARLIAMENT for putting Thomas Pontyngdon forciblyout of possession of the Maâ—or of Bygeloge without just cause and Richard Somestre out of other lands detaining them from them he being so powerfull in the County that no poor man durst to sue him Which Petitions were referred by consent in Parliament to certain Arbitrators to determine In the Parliament of 4 H.
4. n. 19 20 21. upon these and other Petitions of forcible disseisins and for imprisoning the Abbot of Meniham in Devonshire THE KING LORDS adjudged that this Sir Philip Courtney should be bound to his good behaviour and committed to the Tower for his contempt From which records it is evident First that Members of the Commons house may be complained and petitioned against for misdemeanors and put to answer before the King and Lords in Parliament and there fined and judged not before the Commons house and that this was the antient way of proceeding Secondly that the Commons cannot suspend or discharge any of their fellow-Commoners or Knights from sitting in Parliament but only the King and Lords in full Parliament in whom the power of Judicature rests much less then can they expell or eject any of their Members by their own authority without the King and Lords concurrent consents No more than one Justice of peace Committee-man or Militia-man can un-Justice or â—move another since Par in parem non habet Imperium neither in civil military ecclesiastical nor domestical affaiâ— Thirdly that the power of restoring readmitting aâ—ended Member of the Commons house belongs not to the Commons themselves but to the King and Lords to whom the Commons in this case addressed themselves by petition for Courtneys readmission after his submission of the complaints against him to the arbitrement of those Members to whom the King and Lords referred the same In the Parliament of 17 Rich. 2. num 23. It was accorded and resolved by the King and Lords at the Complaint petition request of the Commons that Roger Swinerton who was endited of the death of one of their companions Iohn de Ipstones Knight of the said Parliament for the County of Stafford slain in coming towards the said Parliament by the said Roger should not be delivered out of prison wherein he was detained for this cause by bail mainprise or any other manner until he had made answer thereunto and should be delivered by the Law The Commons alone by their own power having no authority to make such an order even for the murther of one of their own Members without the King and Lords who made this ordinance at their request I find this objected against King Richard the 2. in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 37. That he frequently sent his Mandates to Sherifs to return certain persons named only by himself and not freely chosen by the people to be knights of Shires thereby to effect his own ends and oppress the people with Subsidies But yet I find not in all his reign any one Knight thus unduly returned questioned by the Commons or suspended the House much less ejected by them or by the King and Lords upon the Commons complaint thereof unto them A clear evidence they had then no such power to eject their Members for being unduly elected returned as how they use In the Parliament of 20 R. 2. n. 14 15 16 17. The King being highly offended with the Commons for receiving Haxyes Bill said that the Commons thereby had committed an offence against him his dignity and liberty the which he willed THE LORDS to declare the next day to the Commons Who thereupon delivering up the Bill came fort with before the King shewing themselves very sorrowfull declaring to him that they meant no harm and submitting themselves to the King herein most humbly craved his pardon Whereupon the Chancellor by the Kings commandment declared That the King held them excused and the King by mouth declared how many wayes they were bound unto him Lo here the whole House of Commons submit themselves to the King in the House of Lords as Judges of them and their misdemeanors in Parliament and crave pardon for offending him In the Parliament of 2 H. 4. n. 45 46. The Commons house petitioning the King that the Act for his moderation of the Statute against Provisions might be examined for as much as the time was recorded otherwise than was agreed by them The King granted thereunto by protestation that the same should be no example where after Examination by the Bishops and Lords they affirmed the same to be duly entred which the King also remembred Whereupon the COMMONS the same day for this their misinformation came into the Lords House and knéeling before the King beseeched the King to pardon them if happily they through ignorance had or should offend him which the King granted Here the Bishops and Lords are Judges of the Commons misinformation misentry of an Act and the King of their Offence against him in Parliament by this misinformation which he pardons them upon their humble submission and no doubt might have punished them for it by the Lords assent and advice had he pleased So farr are they from being Judges in Parliament that themselves may there be judged if they therein offend as all their Speakers usual protestations and petitions to the King when presented evidence That the Commons may have liberty of speech and that if any Members in the House of Commons in communication and reasoning should speak more largely than of duty they ought to doe that all such offences may be pardoned which the King may punish if there be cause unâ—eâ—â—â— he pardon it of record upon the Speakers Protestation before hand Sir Edward Cook himself as well as the Parliament Rolls and experience informs us of these particulars touching the Speakers of the Commons House in Parliament their chiefest Member 1. That though the Commons are to chuse their own Speaker and that by the kings special command and license to them in every Parliament since they had one not with due â— who likewise prescribes them the time when to present him yet the use is as in the Conge de eslâ—yer of a Bishop that the king doth name a discreet and learned man to them whom the Commons do eâ—ect pro formâ— only because he cannot be appointed for them without their election being their mouth and â—usted by them 2ly That after the Commons choice the King may refuse him 3ly That after he is chosen he must be presented to the king by the Commons in the Lordâ— House for his approbation and confirmation in that plaâ—s the Commons sending up some of their Members to acquaint the Lords Spiritual and Temporal that according to the Kings command they had chosen such a one their Speaker and are ready to present him at the â—me appointed 4ly That where he is thus presented he is in disable himself for so weighty a service and to make sutâ— to the King to be discharged and a more sufficient man chosen in his place To which I shall adde that upon this excuse the king may discharge him if he please and command the Commons to elect another as King Henry the â— did discharge Sir John Popham when presented Speaker to him by the Commons in the Parliament
Hall was moved to repair to the Lord Keeper and make such Oath which he did and then had a Writ of privilege In the Parliament of 23 Eliz. 21 Jan. Saturday Mr. Paul Wentworth moved for a publike Fast and for a Sermon every morning at 7. a clock before the House sate The House upon debate were divided about the Fast 115. were for and 100. against it It was thereupon ordered That as many of the House as conveniently could should on Sunday fortnight after assemble and meet together in the Temple Church there to hear preaching and joyn together in prayer with humiliation and fasting for the assistance of Gods spirit in all their consultations during this Parliament and for the preservation of the Queens Majesty and her Realm and the Preachers to be appointed by the privy Council that were of the House that they may be discreet not medling with Innovation or unquietness This Order being made by the Commons alone without the Lords and Queens privities assents the Queen being informed thereof sent a Message to the House by Master Vice-chamberlain a Member of it That her Highness had great admiration of the rashness of this House in committing such an apparent contempt of her express command not to meddle with her person the State or Church-government as to put in execution such an Innovation without her privity or pleasure first known Thereupon the Vice-chamberlain moved the House to make humble submission to her Majesty acknowledging the said offence and contempt craving the remission of the same with a full purpose to forbear the committing of the like hereafter Upon which by consent of the WHOLE HOUSE Mr. Vice-chamberlain carried this their submission to her Majesty as being the Judge and punisher of their misdemeanors even in the House it self though caried by majority of Voices In the Parliament of 28 Eliz. the Commons questioning the chusing and returning of the knights of the Shire for Norfolk the Queen said She was sorry the Commons medled therewith being a thing impertinent for that House to deal withall it belonging only to the Office of the Lord Chancellor from whom the Writs issue and to whom they are returned In the Parliament of 35 Eliz. Mr. Peter Wentworth and Sir Henry Bromley delivered a petition to the Lord Keeper desiring the Lords of the Vpper House to be suppliants with them of the Lower House unto her Majesty for intayling the succession of the Crown whereof a Bill was ready drawn by them The Queen being highly displeased therewith as contrary to her former strict command charged the LORDS of her COUNCIL to call the parties before them which they did and after Speech with them commanded them to forbear the Parliament and not to go out of their lodgings after which Mr. Wentworth was committed by them to the Tower Sir Henry Bromley with Mr. Richard Stevens and Mr. Welch to whom Sir Henry had imparted the matter were committed to the Fleet sitting the Parliament And when Mr. Wrâ—th moved in the House that they might be humble suters to her Majesty that she would be pleased to set at liberty those Members of the House that were restrained It was answered by all the Privy Counsellors there present That her Majesty committed him for causes best known to her self and to press her Highness with this sute would but hinder them whose good as foughtâ— That the House must not call the Queen to account for what she doth of her royal Authority That the causes for which they are restrained may be high and dangerous That her Majesty liketh no such questions neither doth it become the House to search into these matters In the same Parliament M. Morrice Attorny of the Court of Wards by a Serjeant at Arms was taken out of the Commons House Febr. 28. and committed to prison by the Queens command for delivering in a Bill against the abuses of the Bishops on Tuesday Febr. 27. against which many Members spake that it should not be read The Queen hearing of it sent for Sir Edward Cooke then Speaker the same day giving him in command with her own mouth to signifie to the House her dislike of the said Bill preferred by Mr. Morrice and charging him upon his Allegiance if any such Bill he exhibited not to read it Adding It is in me and my power to call Parliaments it is in my power to end and determine them it is in my power to assent or dissent to any thing done in Parliament Lo here several Members of the Commons House imprisoned by the Queens command by the Lords of her Council for disobeying her express commands in her Speech in medling in matters of State and Ecclesiastical affaires which she had forbidden them to do So farr was the Commons house then from being the Judges or sole Judges of their own Members privileges speeches or actions in the House it self even in this good Queens late reign of blessed memory In the same Parliament of 35 Eliz. when Sir Edward 〈◊〉 was Speaker of the Commons House there fell out a question in the Commons House about the Amendment of a mistake in the 〈◊〉 of the Burgess of Southwark and after long debate it was resolved that the House could not amend it but the Lâ— Keeper in Chancery â—here the return was of record if he thought it amendable by Law and that Master Speaker should wait upon the Lord Keeper about it which he did who advised with the Judges concerning it as appears by the Journal In the same Parliament Thomas Fitz-Herbert of Staffordshire was elected a Burgess of Parliament and two hours after before the Indenture returned the Sherif took him prisoner upon a Capias Utlagatum Whereupon he petitioned the House that he might have a Writ of Privilege and be enlarged After many dayes debate and Arguments of this case in the House by sundry Lawyers and Sir Edward Cooke then Speaker it was agreed That no Writ of Privilege could in this case be returned into the House of Commons being but a Member of Parliament and no Court of Record but only into the Chancery or House of Peers And that this being a point of Law it was meet the Judges should be advised with and determine it not the House And at last he was outed of his privilege by the Houses resolution These forecited presidents in all ages will sufficiently prove the late objected presidents for the Commons sole Judicial Authority and Jurisdiction in cases of Privilege and Elections and the suspending ejecting fining secluding imprisoning their own Members and such who violate their privileges or make false returns to be a meer late Groundless Innovation if not Usurpation upon the King House of Peers and Chancellors of England no ways grounded on the Law and custom of Parliaments as Sir Edward Cooke mistakes but point-blank against them both and that the Statutes concerning Elections and attendance or absence of Knights and Burgesses as 5 R.
House it self without any report at all of their proceedings to the House authorizing Committees to secure imprison close imprison cashire banish condemn execute many persons sequester confiscate sell dispose their Inheritances Offices Lands Tenements Benefices real and personal estates to deprive them of their callings professions to search and break up their houses by Soldiers and others without any legal sworn Officers day and night to seize their Letters Papers Horses Arms Plate Money yea debts in other mens hands at pleasure to indemnifie and stay their legal actions sutes Judgements at Law and null their executions at their pleasures yea to commit them till they released all sutes actions Judgements and paid costs and damages to those they justly sued and recovered against to adde affliction to affliction and cruelty oppression to injustice These are the bitter fruits of Commons usurped judicature whereof there are thousands of most sad presidents which may hereafter be objected to prove the sole Power of Judicature to reside of right not in the K. or House of Lords but in the Commons House alone and every of their Committees especially for Examinations Plundered Ministers Sequestrations Indempnity Haberdashers and Goldsmiths Halls Privileges sales of Delinquents the Kings Queens Princes Lands and Estates Excise the Army Navy and the like yea in their new created High Courts of Justice who have acted as absolute arbitrary unlimited lawlesse Courts of justice in the highest degree to the subversion destruction of the antient Liberties Freeholds Properties Great Charters and fundamental Laws of the Nation in general and of thousands of the highest lowest degree of English Freemen in particular with as much ground of reason Warrant from the many late Presidents of this Nature as these here objected to prove a soâ—e right of â—udicature in the Commons House in cases of undue elections retorns misdemeanors privileges relating to their Members and their seruants Which strang exorbitant Presidents and Proceedings if they should be made Patterns for future Parliaments and Committees I shall desire all sober minded men to consider of the dangerous consequences of them thus notably expressed by the late King in his Answer concerning the Ordinance for imposing and levying the 20th part of mens estutes 29 November 1642. After this Ordinance and Declaration t is not in any sober mans power to believe himself worth any thing or that there is such a thing as Law Liberty Property left in England under the jurisdiction of these men and the same power that robs them now of the twentieth part of their estates hath by that but made a claim and entituled it self to the other nineteen whne it shall be thought fit to hasten the general ruine Sure if the minds of all men be not stubbornly prepared for servitude they will look on this Ordinance as the greatest prodigie of Arbitrary power and tyranny that any age hath brought forth in any Kingdom other grievances and the greatest have been conceived intollerable rather by the logick and consequence than by the pressure it self this at once sweeps away all that the wisdom and justice of Parliaments have provided for them Is their property in their estates so carefully looked to by their ancestors and so amply established by Us against any possibility of Invasion from the Crown which makes the meanest Subject as much a Lord of his own as the greatest Peer to be valued or considered here is a twentieth part of every mans estate or so much more as four men will please to call the twentieth part taken away at once and yet a power left to take a twentieth still of that which remains and this to be levied by such circumstances of severity as no Act of Parliament ever consented too Is their liberty which distinguishes subjects from slaves and in which this freeborn Nation hath the advantage of all Christendom dear to them they shall not only be imprisoned in such places of this kingdom a latitude of judgement no Court can challenge to it self in any cases but for so long time as the Committee of the House of Commons for Examination shall appoint and Order the House of Commons it self having never assumed or in the least degree pretended to a power of Judicature having no more authority to administer an Oath the only way to discover and find out the truth of facts than to cut off the heads of any our Subjects and this Committee being so far from being a part of the Parliament that it is destructive to the whole by usurping to it self all the power of King Lords and Commons All who know any thing of Parliament know that a Committee of either House ought not by Law to publish their own results neither are their conclusions of any force without the confirmation of the House which hath the same power of controling them as if the matter had never been debated but that any Committee should be so contracted as this of examination a stile no Committee ever bore before this Parliament as to exclude the Members of the House who are equally trusted by their Country from being present at the Counsels is so monstrous to the privileges of Parliament that it is no more in the power of any man to give up that freedom than of himself to order that from that time the place for which he serves shall never more send a Knight or Burgesse to the Parliament and in truth is no lesse than to alter the whole frame of government to pull up Parliaments by the roots and to commit the lives liberties and estates of all the people of England to the arbitrary power of a few unqualified persons who shall dispose thereof according to their discretion without account to any rule or authority whatsoever Are their friends their wives and children the greatest blessings of peace and comforts of life pretious to them would their penury and imprisonments be lesse grievous by those cordials they shall be divorced from them banished and shall no longer remain within the Cities of London and Westminster the Suburbs and the Counties adjacent and how far those adjacent Counties shall extend no man knows The 3 sort of Presidents and Objections are such as Lilburn and Overton insist on to prove That the King and Lords have no power at all to judge or censure Commoners in our Parliament The only Record they insist on is the Lords own Protestation in 4 E. 3. n. 2. 6. in the case of Sir Simon Bareford which because I have already fully answered p. 323 324 325. and cleared by sundry subsequent presidents and there being no one president in any Parliament since to contradict it I shall wholly pretermit and proceed to their objections which are only two The first and principall objections whereon they most insist and rely is the Statute of Magna Charta chap. 29. That no Free-man shall be imprisoned outlawed exiled or any other may destroyed Nor we shall not passe
3. Stat. 5. c. 4. because contrary to Magna Charta it self as he now expounds it Let him therefore unriddle assoyl this his own Dilemma or for ever hold his tongue and pen from publishing such absurdities to seduce poor people as he hath done to exasperate them to clamour against the Lords for being more favourable in their censure of him than his transcendent Libels and contempts against them deserved Fifthly This Statute is in the disjunctive by the Lawfull Judgement of his Peers OR BY THE LAW OF THE LAND which this Ignoramus observes not Now by the Law of the Land every inferiour Court of Justice may fine and imprison men for contempts or misdemeanors against them and their authority therefore the Lords in Parliament being the highest Tribunal may much more do it and have ever done it even by this express clause of Magna Charta and the Law and Custom of Parliament as well as they may give judgements in writs of Error against or for Commons without the Commons consent as himself doth grant yea and by the Kings concurrent assent declare what is Treason and what not within the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 20. in the cases of Commoners as well as Lords without the Commons as they did in the forecited cases of William de Weston and Lord of Gomines 1 R. 2. n. 38 39 40. Of William Thorp 25 E. 3. n. 10. Of Thomas Haxey 20 R. 2. n. 15 16.23 Of Sir Thomas Talbot 13 R. 2. n. 20 21. Of Sir Robert Plesington and Henry Bowhert 22 R. 2. Plac. Coronae in Parliamento n. 27 28. Of John Hall 1 H. 4. Plac. Coronae in Parl. n. 11. to 17. Of Sir Ralph Lumley and others 4 H. 4. n. 15. 19 20 21. Of Sir John Oldcastle 5 H. 5. n. 11. and of Sir John Mortymer 2 H. 6. n. 18. as the Commons and Judges in all those Parliaments agreed without contradiction against the erronious opinion of Sir Edward Cooke to the contrary in his 3. Institutes p. 22. Sixthly It is granted by Lilburn that by this express Law No Freeman of England ought to be judged or censured but only by his Peers and that Commoners are no Peers to Nobles nor Noblemen Peers to Commoners Then by what Law or reason dared he to publish to the world That the House of Commons are the Supreme Power within this Realm and THAT BY RIGHT THEY ARE THE LORDS JUDGES certainly this is a Note beyond Ela a direct contradiction to Magna Charta in this very clause wherein he placeth his strength and subverts his very ground-work against the Lords Jurisdiction in their censure of him For if the House of Commons be by right the Lords Iudges then by Magna Charta c. 29. they are and ought to be their Peers and if the Commons be the Lords Peers then the Lords must be the Commons Peers too and if so then they may lawfully be his Judges even by Magna Charta because here he grants them to be no other than his Peers Lo the head of this great Goliah of the Philistin Levellers cut off with his own sword and Magna Charta for ever vindicated from his ignorant and sottish contradictory Glosses on it Now to convict him of his Errour in affirming the House of Commons to be by right the Lords Judges I might inform him as I have formerly proved at large that Magna Charta it self c. 14. 29. and Sir Edward Cook his chief Author in his commentary on them are express against him that in the Parliament of 15 E. 3. ch 2. in print it was enacted That whereas before this time the Peers of the Land have been arrested and imprisoned and their Temporalties Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels seised into the Kings hands and some put to death without Iudgement of their Péers that no Peer of the Land Officer or other by reason of his office nor of things touching his office nor by other cause shall be brought in judgement to lose his Temporalties Lands Tenements Goods Chattels nor to be arrested or imprisoned outlawed exiled nor forejudged nor put to answer nor to be judged but by award of the said Péers in Parliament which privilege of theirs was both enjoyed and claimed in Parliament 4 E. 3. n. 14 15 E. 3. n. 6 8 44 49 51. 17 E. 3. n. 22. 18 E. 3. n. 7. to 16. 10 R. 2. n. 7 8. 11 R. 2. n. 7 c. and sundry other Parliament Rolls See Cook 4. Instit p. 15. 17 E. 3. 19. Cromptons Jurisdiction of Courts f. 4. 12 13. Stamford f. 151 152. This Paradox therefore of his is against all Statutes Law-Books Presidents whatsoever and Magna Charta it self And as false an assertion as that the Subjects are the Judges of their Soveraign the Servants of their Masters the children of their Parents the Wiâ—es of their Husbands the Soldiers of their General and the feet and lower members of the Head The second only Objection more of moment is this If the House of Peers may without the Commons fine and imprison Commoners then if their fine and imprisonment be unjust and illegal they shall be remediless there being no superior Court to appeal unto which will be an intollerable slavery and grievance not to be indured among free-born people I answer first That no injustice shall or ought to be presumed in the highest Court of Justice till it be apparently manifested Secondly If any such censure be given the party as in Chancery upon just grounds shewed may Petition the House of Peers for a review and new hearing of the cause which they in justice neither will nor can deny and if they do then the party grieved may petition the house of Commons to intercede in his behalf to the Peers for a rehearing but for them to discharge free any Commoner judicially censured by the Lords I have hitherto met with no president in former Parliaments nor power in the house of Commons to doe it who cannot reverse Erronious judgements in any inferiour Courts by writ of Error but the Lords alone much less then the judgements of the Higher House of Peers which is paramount them Thirdly I conceive the House of Peers being the Superior Authority and only Judicatory in Parliament may relieve or release any Commoners unjustly imprisoned or censured by the Commons house or any of their Committees and ought in justice to doe it or else there will be the same mischief or a greater in admitting the house of Commons to be Judges of Commoners if there be no appeal from them to the Lords in case their sentences be illegal or unjust Thirdly This mischief is but rare and you may object the same against a sentence given or Law made in Parliament by the King and both Houses because there is no appeal from it but only to the next or some other Parliament that shall be summoned by petition in the nature of a Writ of
Lords gave him remedy by a Writ out of the Chancery Claus 14. E. 2. m. 12. in the Schedula there is a Judgement in Parliament by King Lords and Council touching the Abby of Abingdon and a composition formerly made between the Abbot Prior and monks thereof reversed nulled because inconvenient Claus 14. E. 2. m. 17. dorso there is a case concerning a reprisal brought by appeal out of the Chancery into the Parliament before the King Lords and Council and there heard and decided And Claus 15. E. 2. there are many cases and Writs touching Reprises In the Parliament of 1. E. 3. there were many Judgements given in sundry civil cases upon petitions To the King and his Council by the King Lords and Council extant in the bundle of Petitions and Claus Rolls of that year and those things that were proper for the Courts of Law and Chancery were referred to them to be there ended Claus 1. E. 3. m. 1. Upon the petition of Alice Gill and Robert Carder to the King Council and Parliament that they buying Corne in Abevil in France to transport to London it was arrested by the Baily of St. Valeric to the value of one hundred pounds at the suit of Will de Countepy of Crotye in Picardy and delivered to him against their wills because the Ship of the said Will was taken upon the Sea by the men of Bayon which ship the petitioners finding in the port of London had arrested by writ out of the Chancery directed to the Sheriffes of London until the said hundred pounds was paid them by the Merchant the King and Council ordered upon their petition that the ship might not be discharged till the 100 l. was satisfied that a Writ should be directed out of the Chancery to the Sheriffes of London to do Justice upon the contents in the Petition according to the Law of Merchants The like case of Reprise upon the Petition of Hugh Samson is in 1. E. 3. rot 5. In Claus 1. E. 3. part 1. m. 10. There is a Judgement given by the Lords and Council for the Bishop of Durham touching the Liberties and Royalties of his Bishoprick against the Kings revocation where in sundry Petitions and answers in former Parliament under King Edward the 2d are rehearsed wherein hee could have no right Mem. 12. there is a Judgement given by the Lords and Council in Parliament for the Bishop of York his prisage and preemption of wines next after the King in the Port of Hull and in Claus 1. E. 3. Pâ— 2. m. 11. Claus 4. E. 3. m. 9. remembred in the year Book of 6. E. 3. f. 50. So Claus 2. E. 3. m. 20. in Schedula there is Placitum in Parliamento before the King and his Council of the Dean and Chapter of Litchfield touching their Title to Camock Claus 14. E. 3. part 1. m. 41. Upon the Petition of the Bishop of Carlisle it was resolved by the Lords and Council in that and sundry other Parliaments in the Reign of this King and his Father non esse â—uri consonum that Churches and other things spiritual annexed to Archbishopricks and Bishopricks should belong to the King and Gardians of the temporalties but to the Gardians of the spiritualties and so ordered accordingly yea so was it resolved upon the Petition of the Bishop of Winchester to the King and his Council in the Parliament of Claus 1. E. 3. rot 9. dorso Where coram Rege et Magno Concilio concessum est et concordatum quod custodâ—s temporalium Episcopatus non se intromittant amplius temporibus vacationum hujusmodi fructibus Ecclesiarum de Estanmer Hamoldan annexed to the Bishoprick of Winchester In the Parliament of 14. E. 3. Sir Geoffry Stantens case upon his Petition to the King and Lords in Parliament the Justices of the Common Pleas came with the record of his case which had long depended before them in the Court of Common Pleas which being read and debated in the presence of all the LORDS Justices and others of the Kings Council their assistants in this case of Law they resolved that the Sonne being a stranger might aver that his Father who levyed the fine had nothing in the Lands and that the Wife in this case could not vouch her Husband And thereupon a Writ under the great Seal was sent to the Judges by the Lords order to give judgement accordingly Claus 35. E. 3. m. 40. A villain commits fellony and is attainted after that the Lord had seised his goods whereupon his goods were prized and seised on for the King notwithstanding the Lords seisure upon a Petition in Parliament It was resolved by the Lords and Council that it was just the goods should be restored to the Lord if they were not seised fraudulently to prevent the Kings seisure of them And a Writ of Restitution was thereupon awarded per ipsum Regem et per Petitionem in Parliamento In the 6. year of King Richard the 2d it was agreed between the Duke of Lancaster and the Scots in the Marches that for the benefit of both parties ut â—de caterâ— ipsi nee Anglici vexarenâ—ur per tot labores expensas sed singulis annis certi utriusque gentis destinarentur ad Parliamentum Regni utriusque qui et injurias acceptas proferrent in medium emendas acciparent secundum quantitatem damuâ—rum per Judicium Dominorum here the Lords both in the Parliament of England and Scotland are made sole Judges of injuries and dammages done by Scots or English upon one another in the Marches Quia vero Scoti ad Parliamentum Londoniis Anno 1383. supersederunt venire juxta conductum insuper damna interim plura Borealibus praesumpserunt inferre c. decretum est per Parliamentum ut frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem Et concessae sunt Borealibus commissiones congregandi virtutem exercitus Scotis resistendi damna pro damnis inferendi quoties contingeret Scotos irrumpere vel hostili mâ—re partes illas intrare In the Parliament of 4. H. 4. n. 9. Upon the complaint of Sir Thomas Pomeroy and his Lady against Sir Philip Courtney and others forcible entry into several Lands and Mannors in the Country of Devon The King and Lords adjudged that the said Sir Thomas should enter into the said Mannors and Lands if his entry were lawful or bring his Assize without all delayes at his election In the Parliament of 5. H. 4. n. 41 42 43 44. in a case concerning Mannors and certain Lands in the County of Cornwal between the Prince and John Cornwal and the Countesse of Huntington his wife the King and Lords gave Iudgement that the Prince should â—e restored to the said Mannors and Lands being parcels of the Dutchey of Cornwal and that the Prince after seisin had should regrant them unto them which was done accordingly in Parliament In 6 H. 4 n. 28. Upon the Petition of
ut parvulus parvulus enim non sapit nisi placentia adulatoria arguentem secundum veritatem non diligit ymmo odit supra modum Quondam autem veritus fuerat subpeditata ut nullus auderet loqui satis constat per hoc patet quod ille qui regnabat sapiebat ut parvulus vir enim non sapit talia set sapientiam unde per Dei gratiam dici poterit de isto viro quod scribitur Eccl. ix Beatus vir qui in sapientia morabitur sicut enim puer diligit vanitatem ita vir sapit veritatem sapientiam veritas ergo intrabit adulatio recedat quae tot mala in regno nostro fecerunt quia vir dominabitur populo qui veritatem sapit non qui vanitatem vel adulationem Tertio dicitur Cogitabam ut parvulus parvulus enim solum studet facere omnia voluntarie non ex ratione cum igitur puer regnat voluntas sola regnat ratio eâ—ulat ubi vero voluntas regnat ratio recessit constantia fugata est ita imminet magnum periculum ab isto periculo liberati sumus quia vir dominabitur ille scilicet qui dicit non sicut parvulus set sicut ratione perfectus Non veni facere voluntatem meam set ejus qui misit me scilicet Dei ideo de viro isto non solum dicemus quod in sapientia morabitur set eciam ut vir non ut puer in sensu cogitabit circumspectionem Dei id est circumquaque diligenter aspicit ut Dei voluntas non sua fiat ita loco pueri voluntarie lascivientis vir modo dominabitur in populo iste vir est talis quod dicetur Regnabit Rex sapiens erit faciet judicium justitium interra Qua collatione completa dictus Dominus Rex Henricus ad ponendum suorum subditorum animos in quiete dixit publice tunc ibidem haec verba Sires I thank God and yowe Spirituel and Temporel and all the estates of the Lond and do yowe to wyte it es noght my will that no man thynk that be waye of conquest I wold disherit any man of his heritage franches or other ryghts that hym aght to have to put him out of that that he has and has had by the gude Lawes and Customes of the Rewme Except thos personâ— that has been agan the gude purpose and the common profit of the Rewme Et protinus hoc attento quod per prius vacante sede regali per cessionem depositionem praedictas cessavit omnis potestas quorumcunque Justiciariorum Vicecomitum aliorium Officiariorum ubique per regnum ne exhibitio justitiae in gravamen populi dilationis incommodo subjaceret suos officiarios principales ac eciam Justiciarios deputavit ibidem juramento consueto Regi praestito per singulos eorundem Et fuit ilico de dicti Regis mandato publice proclamatum ibidem quod die Lunae proximo post festum sancti Michaelis Parliamentum ibidem teneri celebrari deberet quodque die Lunae proximo extunc sequente videlicet in festo sancti Edwardi Coronatio dicti Regis fieret apud Westmonasterium quod omnes illi qui vendicare voluerint aliquod servitium se in dicta Coronatione facturos eo praetextu aliquid sibi deberi venirent ad Albam aulam palacii coram Senescallo Constabulario Marescallo Angliae die Sabbati proximo ante diem Parliamenti praedicti quod in ea parte justum fuerit petituri quibus plena justitia fierit in petitis Quantum autem ad abbreviationem assignationis diei Parliamenti praedicti fuerat pro parte dicti Regis protestatio talis facta videlicet quod non erat intentionis suae ut statibus regni sui praejudicium afferatur exinde nec quod hoc trahatur de caetero in exemplum quinymmo quod abbreviatio illa fiebat tantummodo pro commodo utilitate regni specialiter ut quorumcunque ligeorum suorum parcatur laboribus expensis quodque super gravaminibus populi celere possit remedium adhiberi Quibus omnibus sic peractis Rex desede sua regali surgens populum vultu hillari benigno respiciens abinde populo congaudente recessit in Alba aula praedicta convivium regni Proceribus ac generosis illuc in multitudine maxima congregatis eodem die solempnissime celebravit ET POSTMODUM die Mercurii proximo extunc sequente dicti Procuratores ut praemittitur deputati ad praesentiam dicti Richardi nuper Regis infra dictam Turrim existentis prout eis injunctum fuerat accesserunt praefatus Dominus Willielmus Thirnyng Justiciarius pro se dictis sociis comprocuratoribus suis nomine omnium statuum populi praedictorum admissionem dictae renunciationis ac modum causam formam sententiae depositionis hujusmodi eidem Ricardo notificavit ac plenius declaravit statim homagium fidelitatem eidem Ricardo nuper Regi ut praemittitur facta resignavit reddidit sub hiis verbis Les paroles qe William Thirnyng parla a monsire Richard nadgaires Roy d' Engleterre a le Toure de Londres en sa Chambre le Mesqerdy procheyn apres le fest de Seint Michell larchaunchel sensuent SIRE It is wele knowe to yowe that ther was a Parlement somond of all the States of the Reaume for to be at Westmynstre and to begynne on the Tuesday in the morne of the fest of Seint Michell the Archaungell that was yesterday by cause of the whiche Sommons all the States of this lond were there gadyrd the whiche States hole made thes same persones that ben comen here to yowe now her Procuratours and gafen hem full auctorite and power and charged hem for to say the wordes that we sall say to yowe in her name and on thair behalve that is to wytten the Bysshop of Seint Assa for Ersbisshoppes and Bisshoppes the Abbot of Glastenbury for Abbots and Priours and all other men of holy Chirche Seculers and Rewelers the Erle of Gloucestre for Dukes and Erles the Lord of Berkeley for Barones and Barnerettes Sir Thomas Irpyngham Chamberleyn for all the Bachilers and Commons of this Lond be south Sire Thomas Grey for all the Bachilers and Commons by north and my Felawe Johan Markham and me for to come wyth hem for all thes States and so Syre thes wordes and the doyng that we sall say to yowe is not onlyâ—h our wordes bot the wordes and the doynges of all the States of this Lond and our charge and in her name And he answered and said that he wyst welâ— that we wold noght say but as we were charged Sire ye remembre yowe wele that on Moneday in the fest of Seint Michell the Archaungell ryght here in this Chambre and in what presence ye renounsed and cessed of the state of Kyng and of Lordesship and of all the Dignite
Crown nor unkinged himself as unworthy to reign any longer 12ly King Edward the 2. after this his deposition was reputed a King de jure still and therefore stiled by the whole Parliament all the Lords and King Edward the 3d. himself in 4 E. 3. n. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. their King and leige-Leige-Lord and Mortimer with his complices were condemned and executed as TRAYTORS for murdering him after his Deposing contrary to Sir Edward Cooks false Doctrine 3 Institutes f. 7. And in the Parliament of 21 R. 2. n. 64 65. the revocation of the Act for the 2. Spencers restitution in the Parl. of 1 E. 3. was repealed because made at such time by King Edward the 3. as Edw. 2. his Father BEING VERY KING was living and imprisoned so that he could not resist the same An express resolution by these two Parliaments that his deposition was both void in Law and illegal 13ly Neither of these 2. Kings though their articles were more heinous and Government more unkingly arbitrary than the late Kings were condemned or adjudged to loâ—e their heads or lives for their misdemeanors but meerly deprived of their royal Authority with a promise to preserve their lives and treat them nobly and that upon this account that they were Kings yea anointed Kings when they transgressed therefore exempted from all capital censures penalties of Laws by any humane Tribunals as David resolves Psal 51.4 Against thee thee only have I sinned whence S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose Arnobius with others in their Expositions on that Psalm S. Hierom Epist 22 47. Peter Martyr on the 2 Sam. 2.13 learned Grotius and others conclude in these words Liberi sunt Reges à vinculis delictorum neque enim ad paenam ullis vocantur legibus tuti Imperii potestate Hence Otto Frisingensis Episcopus writes thus to the Emperor Fredericke Praeterea cum nulla inveniatur persona mundialis qui mundi legibus non subjaceat subjaciendo coerceatur SOLI REGES utpote constituti super leges in respect of corporal penalties DIVINO EXAMINI RESERVATI seculi lègibus non cohibentur unde est illud tam Regis quam Prophetae testimonium Tibi soli peccavi These 2. presidents therefore no wayes justifie the proceedings against the late beheaded King as I before hand manifested in my Speech in Parliament Decem. 4. and in my Memento in Jan. 1648. which gave ample satisfaction herein not only to out 3. kingdoms at home but to the learnedst Protestant Divines Churches abroad both in France Germany as Samuel Bochartus an eminent French Divine in his Latine Epistle to Dr. Morley printed Parisiis 1650. attests Sect 3. De Jure potestate Regum p. 145. Where after a large and solid proof out of Scripture Fathers and other Authors of the unlawfullnesse of our late Kings trial judgement and Execution and that the Presbyterian English Ministers and Membees did then professedly oppugn and write against it he thus proceeds Ex hoc numero PRYNNIUS vir multis nominibus insignis Parlamenti Delegatorum unus è carcere in quo cum pluribus aliis detenebatur Libellum composuit Parliamento oblatum in quo decem rationibus iisque validissimis contendit eos rem illicitam attentare in proceeding Criminally and Capitally against the King Then reciting the Heads of my reasons against it he concludes thus Haec ille multo plura SCRIPTOR MIRE NERVOSUS cujus verba sunt stimuli et elavi in altum defixi After which he there prooves by several instances how much the Protestant Ministers Churches of France and Geneva condemned these proceedings as repugnant to Scripture and the Principles of the Protestant Religion And Dr. Wolfgangus Mayerus a famous Writer and Professor of Divinity at Basil in Germany in his Epistle Dedicatory before his printed Latine Translation of my Sword of Christian Magistracy supported Basil 1649. Viro Nobilissimo ac consulâ—issimo omnium Doctrinarum Virtutumque Ornamentis excultissimo verae pietatis zelo flagrantissimo Orthodoxae Religionis libertatisque Patriae defensori Acerrimo GVLIELMO PRYNNE J. V. Doctori celeberrimo Domino atque Amico suo plurimum honorando Authori Interpres S. P. D. hath published to my self in particular and the world in general That the beheading of the K. as it was contrary to the Parls primitive intention so it was cum magna gentis Anglicanae ignominia qui jam discincti laudatissimique corporis compage miserrime rupta atque dissipata ferre coguntur quod evitari amplius non potest At sane non exiguam laudem APUD OMNES REFORMAT AS ECCLESIAS consecuti sunt illi Angliae Pastores qui naevos et Errores Regiae administrationis quos magnos fuisse agnoverunt precibus potius a Deo deprecandos quam capitali poena vindicandos esse censuerunt suasque Ecclesias ab omnibus sanguinariis consiliis magno zelo animo plane intrepido dehortati omnemque criminis istius suspicionem ab ipsis hoc pacto prudentissime amoliti sunt Sed hanc causam aliis disceptandam relinquo Which learned Salmasius soon after professedly undertook in the Netherlands Vincentius Heraldus and Bochartus 3 most eminent Protestant Ministers in France in printed Treatises published against the Kings Trial c. as repugnant to the Principles of the Christian Protestant Religion Which another famous Frenchman in his French Translation of 47 London Ministers Petition against it thus brands Post Christum crucifixum nullum atrocius crimen uspiam esse admissum universam terram eo concuti bonos omnes ad luctum provocari USQUE AD FINEM SECULI Which Mr. Bradshaw may do well to ruminate upon now in cold blood and all others ingaged with him in this unparalled Judgment execution being no way warranted by the depositions of King Edward or Richard the 2. 14ly When the News of K. Richards deposing was reported into France King Charls and all his Court wondered detested and abhorred such an injury to be done to an anointed King to a crowned Prince and the head of the Realm But in especial Waleram Earl of St. Paul which had maried King Richards half Sister moved with high disdain against King Henry ceased not to stir and provoke the French King and his Counsel to make sharp war in England to revenge the injury and dishonour committed and done to his Son-in-law King Richard and he himself sent Letters of defiance to England Which thing was soon agreed to and an Army royal appointed with all speed to invade England But the French King so stomached this high displeasure and so inwardly conceived this unfortunate chance in his mind that he fell into his old disease of the Frensy that he had need according to the old proverb to sail to the Isle of Anticyra to purge his melancholy humour but by the means of his Physicians he was somewhat relieved and brought to knowledge of himself This Army was come down into
Gulielmus Nubrigensis relates Qâ—cunque Rege tyrannice occiderat eo ipso personam et potestatem Regiam induens suo quoque occisori tandem post modicum fortunam inveteratae consuetudinis lege relicturus Quippe ut dicitur à centum retrò annis et eo amplius cum Regum ibidem numerosa successio fuerit Nullus eorum senio aut morbo vitam finivit fed omnes ferro interiere suis interfectoribus tanquam legitimis successoribus regni fastigium relinquentes ut scilicet omnes qui tanto tempore ibidem imperasse noscuntur illud quod Scriptum est respicere videatur OCCIDISTI INSUPER ET POS SEDISTI Wherefore to prevent the dangerous Consequences of these false Glosses on the Statutes of 25 E. 3. c. 2. 11 H. 7. c. 1. I shall lay down these infallible grounds 1. That all publike Laws are and ought to be founded in Justice righteousnes and common honesty for the preserving securing the lives persons estates of all men especially of lawful Kings and Supreme Magistrates from all violence invasion force disseisins usurpations conspiracies assassinations being against all rules of Law and Justice Exod. 20.12 to 18. c. 21 22. 23. Mat. 5.17 to 48. c. 7. 12. Deut. 4.18 Psal 19.8.9 Ps 119.7.106 137 138·160 167. Rom. 7.12 Deut. 6.25 Ps 33.5 Ps 45.7 Ps 72.2 Ps 74.15 Prov. 8.18 Prov. 24.21 Rom. 13.1 to 7. Lu. 20.25 Tit. 3.1 2 3. 1 Tim 1.9 10. Job 20.19 c. 24.2 Mich. 2.1 2 3 4. Jer. 6.7 c. 20.8 c. 22.3.17 Ezech. 45. c. Hab. 1 2. to 10. Lu. 3.14 Whence Cicero thus defines Law Lex est ratio summa insita in natura quae jubet ea justa quae facienda sunt prohibe que contraria Therefore these 2. Statutes were purposely made for those great ends and ought to be interpreted onely for the best advantage of Lawfull Kings and their adherents not for the indemnity impunity encouragement of Traytors Rebels Intruders Usurpers 2ly What Tully writes of the Roman Senators we ought to doe the same of our English Parliaments and Legislators Ea virtute et sapientia majores nostri fuerunt ut legibus scribendis nihil sibi aliud quam salutem atque utilitatem reipublicae proponerent Whence he there inferrs A Legibus nihil convenit arbitrari nisi quod reipublicae conducat proficisci quoniam ejus causa sunt comparatae Therefore these Laws are to be interpreted for the best security safety preservation of the lawfull heads of the Commonwealth and their rightfull heirs and loyal dutifull subjects not for their destruction and the indemnity security of Usurpers Traytors Rebels aspiring after their Crowns Thrones Assassinations to the publike ruine 3ly All the branches of the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. made at the special request of the Lords and Commons and that by a lawful King at that season declare this Statute to be meant only of a lawful King whiles living whether in or out of actual possession of the Realm not of a bare Usurper in possession without right as Sir Edward Cooke expounds it else it will necessarily follow That it shall be no Treason at all to compasse or imagine the death of the King de jure if once dispossessed for a time by Violence and Treason or of his Queen or eldest son and heir or to violate his Queen or eldest daughter not married or to levy war against the lawfull King in his Realm or to be adherent to his Enemies within the Realm or elsewhere or to counterfeit his Great or Privy Seal or mony c. But high Treason in all these particulars in relation only to the Vsurper in possession without and against all right and Title which would put all our rightful Kings and Supreme Governors into a farr worser sadder condition than their Trayterous Vsurpers and into a worse plight than every Disseisee or lawfull heir intruded upon by abatement or dispossessed by torcions unjust or forcible entries for which our Common and Statute Laws have provided many speedy and effectual means of recovering their possessions and Damages too against Disseisorâ— Abators Intruders on their Inheritances Freeholds for exemplary punishment fining imprisonment of the Disseisors Abaters but no means of recovery at all for our dishinherited disposseâ—ed Kings or their heirs against Intruders Vsurpers of their Crowns nor punishments against them their Confederates or Adherents if our Laws concerning Treasons extend not unto them though Kings de jure but only to Usurpers de facto et non de jure and if the Statute of 11 H. 7. exempt them from all kinds of penalties forfeitures by the lawfull King when he regains possession of the Crown as some now expound them 4ly It is resolved both by our Statutes Judges Law-books over and over That there is no Inter-regnum in our hereditary kingdom or any other That so soon as the rightfull hereditary King dies the Crown and Realm immediatly descend unto and are actually vested in the person and possession of the right heir before either he be actually proclaimed or crowned King and that it is high Treason to attempt any thing against his Person or royal authority before his Coronation because he is both King de jure de facto too as was adjudged in Watsons and Clerks case Hill 1. Jacobi Hence upon the death of King Henry the 3. though Prince Edward his heir was absent out of the Realm in the holy wars where he received a dangerous wound by an assassinate and was not certainly known to be alive yet all the Nobility Clergy and people going to the high Altar at Westminster swore fealty and allegeance to him as their King appointed a New Seal and Officers under him qui thesauram Regis pacem regni fideliter custodirent Sicque pax Novi Regis Edwardi in cunctis finibus regni proclamatur Edwardo fidelitatem Jurantes qui si viveret penitus ignorarunt Besides it is both enacted resolved in our Statutes Lawbooks That Nullum tempus occurrit Regi and that when the King is once in legal possession of his Crown Lands or any Lands holden of him by reason of his Praerogative he who enters or intrudes uppon them shall gain no freehold thereby yea if the Kings Tenant dieth and his heir enter into the lands his ancestors held of the King before that he hath done his homage and received seisin of the King though he hath a right of inheritance to the Lands by Law yet he shall gain no freehold and if he die yet his wife shall not be indowed because he gained no freehold by his entry but only a naked possessioÌ„ much les then shal a meer Intruder gain any Freeheld or interest in the Crown or Crown lands it self to the prejudice of the rightfull King or his heirs This is most evident by the sacred presidents of K. David still King when unjustly dispossessed driven out of his
Christ beseeching all that fear God to behave themselves as obedient Subjects to the Queens Highness and the superiour powers which are ordained under her rather after their example to give their heads to the block than in any point to rebell against the Lords anointed Queen Mary in no point consenting to any Rebellion or sedition against her Highness but where they cannot obey but must disobey God there to submit themselves with all patience and humility to suffer as the will and pleasure of the higher powers shall adjudge Against the doctrine practice of some new Saints of this iron age who will ward off Christs wooden Cross with their iron swords and rather bring their Soveraigns heads to the block than submit their own heads unto it for their very Treasons and Rebellions against them So farr are they from believing practising the very first Alphabetical Lesson of our Saviours prescription and real Christanity Mat. 16.24 If any man will come after me let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me The Duke of Northumberland for that he was appointed General of the Army in this Quarrel of the Lady Jane though Queen de facto was arrested of High Treason together with 3. of his Sons the Marquess of Northampton the Earl of Huntindon with sundry Knights Gentlemen and sent prisoners to the Tower of London The 16. of August next following the said Duke and Nobles were publikely arraigned of High Treason in Westminster hall before Thomas Duke of Norfolk High Steward of England being brought to the bar the D. used great reverence to his Judges professing his faith and allegiance to the Queens Majesty whom he confessed he had grievously offeâ—ded saying that he meant not to speak any thing in defence of his face but would first understand the opinion of the Court in 2. points 1. Whether a man doing any Act or thing by authority of the Princes Councel and by Warrant of the Great Seal of England and nothing doing without the same may be charged with TREASON for doing any thing by such Warrant Which question was grounded on this very Statute of 11 H. 7. c. 1. 2. Whether any such persons as were equally culpable in that crime and those by whose Letters and Commandment he was directed in all his doings might be his Iudges or passe upon his Tryal as his PEERS To the 1. was answered mark it That the Great Seal he had for his Wâ—rrant was not the Seal of the Lawfull Qu. of the Realm nor pâ—ssed by her Authority but the Seal of an Vsurper and therefore could be no Warrant to him To the 2. That if any were as deeply to be touched in that Case as himself yet so long as no attainder was of Record against them they were nevertheless persons able in Law to pass upon any tryal and not to be challenged therefore but at the Princes pleasure After which the Duke and the rest of the Lords using but few words declaring their earnest repentance and imploring the Queens mercy confessed this Indictment of Treason and thereupon had Iudgement passed upon them as Traytors And the Duke with Sir Iohn Gates and Sir Thomas Palmer were accordingly executed on Tower Hill August 22. confessing the Iustice both of their Iudgement and Execution as TRAYTORS and not justifying themselves by the Act of 11 H. 7. After this Archbishop Cranmer though at first he refused to subscribe K. Eds. will to dis-inherit Queen Mary alleging many reasons against it yet was committed Prisoner to the Tower indicted arraigned condemned of High Treason in November following for aiding the Earl of Northumb. with Horse and Men against Queen Mary And Queen Jane herself though Queen de facto meerly passive not active in this case never aspiring after the Crown being proclaimed Queen against her will with the Lord Guyldsord her husband were both indicted arraigned condemned of High Treason and accordingly executed as Traytors Feb. 12. 1 Mariae the one for usurpation of the royal Estate AS QVEEN OF ENGLAND the other as principal adherent to her in that case both of them confessing that BY THE LAW THEY WERE JUSTLY CONDEMNED After which the Duke of Suffolk her father and sundry others were condemned of High Treason executed upon the same account and that by the judgement of all the several Peers Nobles Judges Lawyers and Great Officers of Engl. though guilty of the same crime seconded with the Judgement of the whole Parl. of 1 Mar. c. 16. which confirmed their Attainders as JUST and LEGAL notwithstanding the Statute of 11 H. 7. c. 1. which extends only to indemnifie those Subjects who doe their true duty and service of allegiance to their King and Soveraign Lord which none certainly do who adhere and joyn with an apparent Usurper in possession against their lawfull undoubted King and Soveraign Lord as they here adjudged and the Parliaments of 1 4 and 14 of King Edward the 4th long before no Acts of Parliament whatsoever being able to secure Usurpers Titles though Kings de facto to themselves or their posterity or to save their own or their adherents Heads from the block or their estates from confiscation as the recited tragical Presidents and Judgements prove against the absurd opinions of many Grandees of the Law in great reputation who take all Sir Edward Cooks and others Dotages for Oracles and well deserve a part in Ignoramus for being ignorant of these late notorious Judgements and authorities against their erronious opinions wherewith they seduce their silly Clyents and young Students of the Law to their great peril for whose better information I have the larger insisted on this point to rectifie this dangerous capital mistake which may hazard both their lives estates and souls to boot And so much in answer to the objected Presidents of Edward and Richard the 2d to prove the Commons Right of Judicature in Parliaments c. As good an evidence as that grave Sir E. Cook produceth to prove this House of Commons who had no Journal Book till â— Ed. 6. to be a distinct Court of Iudicature because upon signification of the Kings pleasure to the Speaker they do and may prorogue or adjourn themselves and are not prorogued adjourned by the House of Lords By which reason he might prove every Committee of the Lords or Commons House to be a distinct Court because they may adjourn and prorogue themselves without the House and all Commissioners for examination of Witnesses Charitable uses the petty Sessions of Justices of Peace all Country Committees Archdeacons and other visitors all Auditors of Accounts Arbitrators Referrees c. to be Courts because they may all adjourn themselves from one day and place to another when as their presenting of their own Speakers in and the Kings calling them into the Lords House at the beginning and end of every Parliament or Session and at the passing of Bills and their dissolution in the Lords
E. 3. n. 1.10 R. 2.17 R. 2. n. 6.7 8 H. 4. n. 66 67. some of the valiantest wisest discreetest Spiritual and Temporal LORDS were by Petition of the Commons and special Order of the Lords in Parl. placed about these Kings to BE THEIR PRIVY COVNSELLORS to advise counsel them and manage all the Great affairs of the Realm under them so in this Parliament they exhibited this Petition to the like eâ—â—ect Primerement que plese a nostre dit Seigniour le Roy ordeigner et assigner en cest present Parlement les pluis vaillantz sages et discretes Seigniours espirituelx et temporelx de son roialme pur estre de son counseil en eid et supportation del bone et substancial gouvernance et la bien de Roy et de Roialme et que les ditz Seigniours de counseill et les Justices de Roi soient overtement jurez eny cest present parlement de eux bien et loialment en lour counseill et faitz acquiter pur le bien de Roy et de Royalm en toutz pointz saunz favour pur affection ou affinite faire a ascune manere de persone Et que plese nostre dit Seigniour le Roy en presence de toutz les Estates de parlement comander les ditz Seigniours et Justices sur lour foy et ligeance que lui devont qils feront pleyne justice et droit ouelment a chescuny sanz tarians si bonement come ils purront sanz ascun commandement on charge de queconque persone a contrarie Le Roy le voet was the answer which was answered See the like Petitions afterwards in 1 H. 6. n. 26.2 H. 6. n. 15 16.8 H. 6. n. 27 28.11 H. 6. n. 41. I shall conclude with these 2. memorable late presidents In the Parliament of 8 Eliz. upon the death of Thomas Williams Esquire Speaker of the Commons house Richard Onstoe Esquire the Quâ—ens Sollicitor first chosen a Member of the Commons house and after called by Writ to attend the Lordâ— House as an Assistant at the request of the Commons to the Queen and Lords was sent down again to the Commons house without any new election and there chosen and presented by them for their Speaker and allowed of by the Queen and Lords So in the Parliâ—ment of 23 Eliz. upon the Queens making John Bell Esq then Speaker chief Baron of the Exchequer Iohn Popham Esq then Queens Sollicitor called from the Commons house to the Lords as an Assistant by writ at the Commons request to the Queen and Lords was remitted to them again upon his old without any new election and thâ— chosen presented accepted for their Speaker Which 2. late presidents infallibly prove 1. That the King hath an absolute power over any Members of the Commons house upon a just occasion to call them thence by writ to be Assistants to the Lords house or else to create them Peers and call them to be Members of the Lords house as he did Sir Francis Seymore Mr. Arthur Capell and others created Lords the last long Parliament 2ly That the calling of any to the Lords house from the Commons by writ as Assistants only doth not totally disable them to be Members of the Commons house again the self-same or the next Parliament but that upon the Commons Petion and assent of the King and Lords they may be remanded to the Commons house and be Members and Speakers thereof again but not by the Commons votes or order but only by the Kings with the Lords assent who may refuse to remand them if they please A very pregnant argument chat the power of removing judging suspending approving readmitting Members of the Commons house upon Elections or Misdemeanors belongs not of right to the Commons house but to the King and House of Peers as I have formerly evidenced Admitâ—ing then that the Commons have de facto gained exercised this privilege of late years to judge suspend or eject their own Members in such cases without the King and House of Peers yet having most grosly abused it of late to the ruine subversion of Parliaments I must conclude with the Canonists Privilegium meretur amittere qui abutitur potestate Jer. 6.16 Thus saith the Lord Stand ye in the wayes and see and ask for the old pathes where is the good way and walk therein and ye shall find rest for your souls But they said We will not walk therein Prov. 24.21 22. My son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with those who are given to change For their Calamity shall rise suddenly and who knoweth the ruine of them both Jer. 21.3 4. c. 17.25 27. Thus saith the Lord Execute ye judgement and deliver the spoiled out of the hands of the Oppressor and do no wrong do no violence to the stranger the fatherless nor the widdow neither shed innocent bloud in this place For if ye do this thing indeed then shall there enter into the Gates of this House KINGS PRINCES sitting upon the Throne of David riding in chariots and on horses they and their PRINCES the men of Iudah and the inhabitants of Ierusalem and this City shall remain for ever But if you will not hearken unto me c. then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof and it shall devour the PALACES of Ierusalem and it shall not be quenched FINIS An Omission in pag. 30 l. 7. RAnulph de Glanvil Chief Justice under King Henry the 2. In his Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae written in the 33 year of his reign hath this memorable passage relating to the Parliamentary Councils in that age l. 2. c. 7. Est autem magna Assisa REGALE QVODDAM BENEFICIUM CLEMENTIA PRINCIPIS DE CONSILIO PROCERUM POPVLIS INDVLTUM to wit in a Parliamentary Council of the King and Lords without any Commons quo vitae hominum et status integritati tam salubriter consulitur ut in jure quod quis de libero soli tenemento possidet retinendo duellâ— casum declinare possunt homines ambiguum c. Ex aequitate autem maxiâ— prodita est LEGALIS ISTA INSTITUTIO Jus enim quod post multas longas dilationes vix evincitur per duellum per beneficium ISTIUS CONSTITUTIONIS commodius et acceleratius expeditur By which it is evident that the Grand Assize was no original Processe or Trial at the Common Law but a legal institution and beneficial constitution proceeding from the Grace of the Prince and indulged to the People BY THE COUNSEL OF THE LORDS assembled together in a Parliamentary Council which Lib. 2. c. 9. Glanvil stiles Recordum per Assisam DE CONSILIO REGNI inde factum for the speedier and better recovery of their freeholds without endangering their lives by a Duel to recover them which was fuller of delays but less certain and more unjust than a recovery by verdict in this new
l. 1. p. 7. †31 H. 6. c. 1. 39 H. 6. c. 1. (e) In Eutropium l. 1 p. 67. (f) Nubtigensis l. 4. c. 14. (g) See Walsingham Holinshed Speed Stowes Survey of London Trussel Grafton (h) Sleidens Comment l. 7.11 Munsteri Cosmogr l. 3. c. 142. David Chyrraeus Chron. Saxoniae l. 12 13 14. (i) See the Animadversions on the Welsh Remonstrance and answer to Killing no Murder * As at first propounded voted and urged at several conferences See their Declarations and Papers of Feb. and March 17 and 19 1648. (l) Polydor Virgil Speed Holinshed in Anno 1216. See here p. 165. Iudge Dodderidge Mr. Agar Mr. Cambden Joseph Holland in their Treatises of the Antiquity of the Parliaments of England p. 18 19 20 40. 85 87. Sir Walter Raleigh his Prerogative of the Parliaments of England p. 2 3. The Freeholders Grand Inquest p. 13 14. (m) 4 Institutes p. 12. * See Walsingham Hist Angl. Anno 1 H. 4. p. 402. DOMINI in praesenti Parliamento Regis ASSENSU IUDICANT DECERNUNT c. ulterius DOMINI TEMPORALES REGIS ASSENSU IUDICANT DECERNUNT c. (n) Exact Collection p. 321. * Here p. 147. to 161. (2) 1 Instit f. 9 b. 10 b. See 4 Instit p. 6 7. 44 45 46. (3) Seldens Titles of Honor p. 745 746 747 748 749. (4) See my 1. Table to an Exact abridgment c the writs of summons in that abridgement (5) An Exact abridgement p. 549 558 633 636 637 639 640 640. 645 648 649 655 660 661 668. * An Exact abridgement p. 637. Seldens Titles of Honor p. 745. (6) Fitz. N. Brev. f. 165. e. †Num. 16.22 c. 27.16 * Luke 19.42 * Walsingh Trussel Hall Fabian Holinshed Grafton Speed Baker Stow and others * Gal. 3.1 c. 4.15 †Hab. 1.6 9 10 †Ezech. 2.3 to 9. * Nihil est veritatis luce dulcius Cicero Ac. Quaest l. 3. †Prov. 28.23 (c) Deut. 10.17 Psal 136.3 1 Tim. 6.15 Rev. 17.14 c. 19.8 (d) Deut. 31.4 Psal 31.5 Ier. 5.3 Isay 56.24 15. (a) A Remonstrance of many thousand Citizens to their own House of Commons p. 6. The just mans Justification p. 10. Regal Tyranny Discovered A Declaration from his Excellency the General Councel of the Army Jan. 11. 1647. p. 7. Speeches c. at a Conference newly published by Walker printed verbatim out of Dolman the Jesuit his Book condemned formerly as treasonable (b) Regal Tyranny discovered Lilburns Just Man in Bonds p. 1 2. A Pearl in a Dunghil The Free-mans Freedom vindicated An Anatomy of the Lords Tyranny his Argument and Plea before the Committee against the Lords Authority his Petition to the Commons his Letters to Henry Martin Overtons Arrow of Defiance shot into the Prerogative Bowels of the House of Lords his Petition and Appeal A Defiance against Arbitrary Vsurpation The Agreement of the People and Petitions wherein it was presented to the House of Commons An Alarum to the House of Lords See M. Edwards Gangraena part 3. p. 192. to 204. (c) Overtons Petition and Appeal to the High and Mighty States the Knights and Burgesses in Parliament assembled Englands legal Soveraign Power The Remonstrance of many thousands to their own House of Commons A printed Petition now in agitation of many Free-born people to the only Supreme Power of this Realm the Commons in Parliament assembled The Anatomy of the Lords Tyranny An Alarum to the House of Lords See M. Edwards Gangraena part 3. p. 154. to 204. * See M. Edwards Gangraena part 3. where this is fully demonstrated (d) Lilburns Letter to a friend Innocency Truth justified and his late Letters to Cromwell H. Martin Sir Thomas Fairfax and others Englands Birthright Englands lamentable Slavery Another word to the wise Comparata Comparandis Liberty against Slavery The Arraignment of Persecution The Ordinance against Tithes unmounted See M. Edwards Gangraena part 3. p. 109. to 204. (e) See the several Remonstrances from his Excellency and the Army from June til December last 1647. and since in November and January 1648. The Agreement of the people the grand Design Putney Projects (f) Overtons Defiance against all arbitrary usurpation of the House of Lords p. 5 6 15 17 18. his Arrow against all Tyrants p. 6.10 11 12. and others forecited a. b. * See my Historical Collection of the antient Parliaments and Great Councils of England (g) Epist to his 9. Report Institutes on Littleton p. 110.4 Instit c. 1. (h) M. Seldens Titles of Honour part 2. ch 5. where this is abundantly manifested Spelmanni Concil Tom. 1. Truth triumphing over Falshood Antiquity over Novelty p. 36 c. The Freeholders Grand Inquest p. 4. to 20. * See 1 Chro. 19.3 2 Chron 12. c. 6. c. 24.17 c. 32.3 Num. 10.4 Josh 9.15 c. c. 17.4 Num. 32.2 c. 21. (i) See M. Seldens Titles of Honour p. 2. ch 5. 14 E. 3. n. 35. 9 R. 2. n. 16. 20 R. 2. n. 16. 20 R 2. n. 80. 1 H. 4. n. 81. Cooks 3. Instit f. 9.16 with many more (k) 5 R. 2. Star 2. c. 4. 31 H. 8. c. 10. (l) See Litt. c. 10. Sect. 162 164. Cook Ibidem 49 Ass 8. (m) Cook 4. Instit c. 1. Cromptons Jurisdiction of Courts c. 1. * 1 R. 2. c. 4. 8 H. 4. c. 14. 8 H. 5. c. 7. 32 H. 6. c. 15. 1 H. 5. c. 3. ◠1 H. 7.12 2 H. 7.3 2. 5 H. 7. 9 H. 7. 12. 14 H. 6.12 7 E. 4.14 15 E. 15. Cook 1. Instit 250. a. Brook Tit. Parliament Corporations * Psal 47.2 6 7. Ps 95.3 Psal 98.6 Psal 103.19 (n) Exod. 3. 4. 7. (o) Deut. 3 28. Num. 27.16 to 23. Deut. 31.3 to 9.14.23 c. 34 9. Iosh 1. (p) Neh. c. 2. c. (q) 1 Sam. 9.16 c. 10.1.21 Acts 13.21 (r) Psal 78.70 71 72. 1 Sam. 16.2 Sam. 7 8. Acts 13.22 (ſ) 1 Chron. 23.1 c. 28.5 6. 2 Chr. 1.8 (t) 2 Chron. 14.1 c. 17.1 c. 28.27 c. 29. 1. Acts 13.20 21 22. * 2 Sam. 7.12 Psal 132.11 12. 2 Sam. 10.1 1 Kings 14 20.35 c. 15.8.24 c. 16.6.28 c. 22.40 2. Kings 1.17 c. 3.27 c. 8.24 c. 10.35 c. 12.21 c. 13.3.24 c. 14.16.29 c. 15 7.22.38 c. 16.20 c. 19.37 c. 20.21 c. 21.26 c. 24.6 1 Chron. 29.28 2 Chron. 12.16 c. 14.1 c. 17.1 c. 21.1 c. 22.1 c. 23.3 c. 24.27 c. 1.23 c. 27.9 c. 28.27 c. 32.33 c. 33.20.25 c. 36. 1 Jer. 22.11 Isay 19.11 c. 37.38 Matth. 2.2 (v) Num. 11.16 17 24 25 26 27. (x) 1 Chron. 18.15.16 17 c. 26.29 30 31 32. c. 27. c. 28 1. Exod. 18.25 26. 2 Chron. 19.5 to 7. * Iudg. 3.9.15 c. 2.16 Acts 13.20 Num. 27.15 to 23. Exod. 18.25 26. Num. 1.4 to 18. 1 Sam. 8.1 1 Chron. 26.30 32. 2 Chr. 19.5 to the end (y] Gen. 40.40 41 c. Exod. 18.25 Psal 105.21 Acts 8.10 (z) Esther 8. 10 [a] Dan. 2.48 49. [b]
if that of Ingulphus with other our Historians and some Lawyers be true which Sir Edward Cook and Mr. Selden deny that King Alfred first divided the Realm into Counties as all grant he did into Hundreds and Tithings and erected Hundred Courts wherein Knights of the Shire were alwaies yet are and ought to be elected there could be no Knights of Shires at least if any Citizens or Burgesses to serve in Parliament before this division though there were Earls Dukes Barons before his reign who were present by the Kings summons not peoples elections at our Great Councils or Parliaments as Mr. Selden and Sir Henry Spelman undeniably manifest and I have elsewhere proved at large Their sitting voting judging therefore in Great Councils Parliaments being so antient clear and unquestionable ever since their first beginning til now and the sitting of Knights Citizens Burgesses by the peoples election in our antientest Great Councils Parliaments not so clearly evident by History or Records as theirs we must needs acknowledge subscribe to this their Right and Title or else deny the Knights Citizens Burgesses rights to sit vote in our Great Councils Parliaments rather than theirs who have not so antient nor clear a Title or right as they by many hundreds of years Fourthly This Right and Privilege of theirs is vested legally in them by the very Common Law and Custom of the Realm which binds all men By the unanimous consent of all our Ancestors and all the Commons of England from age to age assembled in Parliament since they sat in any Parliaments who alwaies consented to desired and never opposed the Lords sitting voting power or Judicature in Parliament and by Magna Charta it self signed and ratified by King John wherein it is expresly granted Ad habendum COMMUNE CONCILIVM REGNI de auxiliis assidendis de Scutagiis assidendis submoneri faciemus Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Comites MAJORES BARONES REGNI singulatim per Literas nostras c. And in the Great Charter of King Henry the 3. they are first mentioned and provided for Hereupon King Henry the third not long after Magna Charta was granted and at the same time it was proclamed confirmed with a most solemn Excommunication in the presence of all the Lords and Commons by all the Bishops of England against the infringers thereof summoning a Parliament at London in the year 1255. to aid him in his warrs in Apulia the Earls and Barons absolutely refused to give him any assistance or answer at all for this reason Quod omnes Barones tunc temporis non fuerunt juxta tenorem Magnae Chartae suae vocati ideo sine Paribus suis tunc absentibus nullum voluerunt tunc responsum dare vel Auxilium concedere vel praestare That ALL THE BARONS were not summoned by him to this Parliament as they ought to be according to the tenor of Magna Charta whereupon they departing in discontent and refusing to sit longer the Parliament was first adjourned and at last dissolved And upon this very ground among others the Parliament of 21 R. 2. with all the Acts and proceeding therein were totally repealed and nulled by the Parliament of 1 H. 4. because the Lords who adhered to the King were summoned by him to the Parliament and some of the opposite party imprisoned impeached unsummoned and many of the Knights of the shire were elected only by the Kings nomination and Letters to the Sherifs And the Parliament it self kept by force viris armatis et sagittariis immensis brought out of Cheshire as an extraordinary guard quartered in the Kings Court at Westminster and about Charing Crosse and the Muse of which Grafton and other Historians write thus That they fell into so great pride of the Kings favour that they accounted the King to be as their fellow and they set the Lords at nought yet few or none of them were Gentlemen but taken from the plough and Cart and other Crafts And after these rustical people had a while courted they entred into so great a boldness that they would not let neither within nor without the Court to beat and slay the Kings good Subjects to take from them their victuals and pay for them little or nothing at their pleasure as our free-quarâ—erers do now falling at last to ravish mens wives and daughters And if any man fortuned to complain of them to the King he was soon rid out of the way no man knew how or or by whom so as they did what they listed the King not caring to doe justice upon them but favouring them in their mis-doings confiding in them and their guards against any others of the kingdom which gave the Lieges of his kingdom great matter of commotion and discontent The bringing up of which guard to Westminster to force and overawe the Parliament to effect his designs is one principle Article exhibited against him by the Parliament of 1 H. 4. wherein he was forced to resign his Crown and then deposed I pray God our new armed Guard and Courtiers at Whitehall and the Muse of as mean condition as those fall not by degrees to the self-same exorbitances contempt of the King Lords Parliament and oppression of the people to their general mutining and discontent In the Parliaments of 6 E. 3. N. 1. Parl. 2 N. 5.6 8 9 8 E. 3. N. 5. 15 E. 3. N. 4. 17 E. 3. N. 2. 20 E. 3. N. 5. 21 E. 3. N. 4. 22 E. 3. N. 1. 25 E. 3. N. 1. 29 E. 3. N. 4. 30 E. 3. N. 1. 37 E. 3. N. 1. 42 E. 3. N. 1. 50 E. 3. N. 1. 51 E. 3. N. 3. 1 R. 2. N. 1. 2 R. 2. N. 1. 3 R. 2. N. 1. 4 R. 2. N. 1. 5 R. 2. N. 65. 6 R. 2. N. 6. 7 R. 2. N. 1. 9 R. 2. N. 1. 8 H. 4. N. 54. We find in these Parliament Rolls that these Parliaments have been usualy prorogued adjourned from the days they were summoned to meet and have not saie nor acted at all because sundry of the Lords some Commons were not come but absent by reason of foul weather shortness of warning or other publique imployments all their personal presence in Parliament being reputed necessary and expedient And 20 R. 2. N. 8. The Commons themselves in Parliament required the King to send for such Bishops and Lords who were absent to come to tho Parliament before they would consult upon what the Chancellor propounded to them in the Kings name and behalf to consider of To recite no more antient presidents In the Parliament of 2 Caroll the Earl of Arundel not sitting in the Parliament being after his summons committed by the King to the Tower of London about his Sons mariage May 25. 1626. without the Lords privity and consent whereby their privileges were infringed and the House deprived of one of their Members presence thereupon the House of