Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
lord_n bill_n house_n read_v 15,049 5 8.0831 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45195 The honours of the Lords spiritual asserted, and their priviledges to vote in capital cases in Parliament maintained by reason and precedents collected out of the records of the Tower, and the journals of the House of Lords. Hunt, Thomas, 1627?-1688. 1679 (1679) Wing H3755; ESTC R24392 40,120 57

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

sit at the Helm and are much better able to determine than my self But the consequences of that opinion seem directly to aim at the Leveling of Sovereignty and making it accountable to the other two in their esteem Coordinate Estates Now by restoring the Spiritualty the only true third Estate to its due Rights and antient Priviledges for that it is the true third Estate the Lord Chief Justice Cook saith in the Fourth of his Institutes and the Act of Parliament of the 8 of Eliz. c. 1. speaks to the same thing this may be the most ready and most natural expedient to remove that destructive and dangerous opinion out of the minds of an unlearned and fickle multitude So may the Crown be safe and the Mitre no longer trampled on Et quae Deus olim conjunxit nemo hoc sequiori saeculo seperet Faxit hoc Deus qui solus potis est CHAP. VIII Precedents of the Bishops Sitting and Voting in Capital Causes from the Reign of of King Hen. 8. till the 29th of Eliz. I shall begin with the Attainder of Cromwel Earl of Essex who was attainted in Parliament for Treason c. the Articles are every extant and may be seen the first reading of his Bill as I find it in the Journal of the Lords House was upon the 17th of June 32. Hen. 8th at which reading were present Fourteen Bishops who they were you may see in the Journal at the second reading which was the 19th of June of the said year 32. Hen. 8. were present sixteen Bishops whose Names and Sees there you may find at the third and last reading were sixteen likewise Vid. Journal ut supra the Bill it self past the Royal Assent the 24th of July following when were 14 Bishops present The next shall be the Attainder of Tho. Duke of Norf. and Henry Earl of Surry 38. H. 8. This also was an Attainder in Parliament The first reading of the Bill against these Noble Lords was on the 18th of January Anno Regis supra dicto when were present ten Bishops the second reading was the day following when were present nine Bishops The third and last reading was on the 20th of the same Moneth when were present thirteen Bishops the Bill past the Royal Assent January 27th 38. Hen. 8. the Bishops likewise then present The third instance of Hen. D. of Suffolk which indeed was an Attainder at Common Law but afterward confirm'd in Parliament A. 1 2. Phil. et Mar. at the first reading were present 12 Bishops the Bill was read 5 Jan. Anno supradicto at the 2d reading which was two days after on the 7th of January were present eleaven Bishops and on the next day the Bill had its last reading in the Lords House at which were present eleaven Bishops the Lords Spiritual were likewise present at the passing of the Bill which was on the 21 of Jan. following in each of these the Journal if consulted will satisfie any The 4th Precedent shall be in Seymore the Lord Admiral who was attainted for Treason in the 2d of Edw. 6. for that he purposed to destroy the young King and to translate the Crown unto himself for which and other Crimes objected he suffered Death on the Tower-Hill at his Attainder were Present nineteeen Bishops I might have before added the Case of the Lord Hungerfords-Attainder in Parliament who was condemned in Parliament in the 32. of Hen. the 8th at whose Tryal and Condemnation were Present no fewer than seaventeen Bishops Vid. Journal of the Lords House I will only add two more Precedents and close with them they are in the Reign of the Peaceable Queen Elizabeth in whose times if ever the Actings in Parliament were regular and orderly the first is the Case of the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland for their Rebellion in the North and endeavour to bring in Popery at whose Condemnation were present thirteen Bishops Vid. Journal and lastly that of Pagets in the 29th of the said Queen at which were ten Bishops Vid. Journal as before I shall only add one thing more and that is the Protestation of the Bishops 11. R. 2 where they give the reason why they refused to be put in some Parliaments their words Quia in hoe Parliamento agitur de nonnullis materiis in quibus non licet nobis juxta sacrorum Canonum instituta quomodolibet personaliter interesse but they there add a Salvo to their right in the beginning of their Protestation Quod ad Archiepiscopum Cantuar. qui pro tempore fuerit n●c non caeteros suos suffraganeos Confratres Co-episcopos Abbates et Priores aliosque Praelatos quoscunque Baroniam de Domino Rege t●nentes in Parliamento Regis ut Pares praed personaliter interesse pertinet ibidemque de regni negotiis aliis ibi tractari consuetis cum caeteris dicti regni Paribus aliis consulere ordinare statuere desinire ac caetera facere quae Parliamenti tempore ibid. intendet facien ' c. t is true indeed that as they never intended but that the Appeals Pursuites Accusations Judgements had and rendred c. upon their voluntary absenting themselves they should be good and valid in the Law as their Protestation expresly granteth yet by the same their Protestation they reserve their right of being present c. doing every thing else which any other Peer though Temporal might do And that they did Vote in the 21st of this Kings Reign by their Proctor in the Condemnation of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Yea and upon the Commons Petition too for that many judgments had been reversed for that they were not present as is before proved and Personally also in the Condemnation of the Earl of Arandel and Wardour c. the Duke of Lancaster being then Lord High Steward Vid. Plaoit Coron c. 21 Ric. 2. in the Records in the Tower The Roll marked with the Letters F. I. It is well known that out of respect to the constitution made in the Council held at Westminster that no Clergy-man should agitare Judicium Sanguinis This Council is mentioned in R. Hovenden in H. 2. p. 30. the Clergy have some time forborn to intermeddle in such matters and on the other side 't is as notorious that many of that Order have been Lord Chief Justices of England and that none have discharged that Office better more to the Content of the King and Subject and the Benefit of the whole Commonwealth FINIS Ad. Sec. 1. * Euseb Ecc. Hist 10. c. 7. Zom l. 1. c. 9. Exerc. 13. c. 5.
by their Proxies the next authority I shall make use of is a Parliament Roll it self of that year as I find it in Sir Robert Cotton's Collections intituled as followeth Placita Coronae coram Domino Rege in Parliamento suo apud Wegmonast diae Lunae proximae post Festum Exaltationis Sanctae Crucis Anno regni Regis Ric. 2. Post Conquestum 21. The Roll it self you may see in the Tower among the Records there kept It is of an Impeachment of the Earl of Arundel and Warr. c. for Treason c. the Articles were exhibited against him by several Lords as Edward Earl of Rutland Thomas Earl of Kent John Earl of Huntington c. which the said Lords were ready to prove the Crimes objected and demanded the Prisoner to be brought to the Bar which the Lord Nevil then Constable of the Tower did and the aforesaid Lords in their own Persons appeared also His Articles being read the Earl of Lancaster Lord Steward of England by the King's commandment and assent of the Lords declares the whole matter And thereupon the said Earl's answer to the Articles was demanded who pleaded two Pardons and prayeth they may be allowed but they were not whereupon Sir Walter Clopton Lord Chief Justice demands of him what he had farther to say for that if nothing more to say the Law would adjudge him guilty And the said Earl not pleading any thing else the Lords Appellants in their proper persons require that Judgment may be given against the said Earl as Convict of the Treason aforesaid Whereupon the Lord Steward of England by the assent of the King Bishops and Lords adjudged the said Earl Guilty and Convict of all the Articles aforesaid and thereby a Traitor to the King and Realm and that he should be therefore Hanged Drawn and Quartered and forfeit all his Lands in fee c. though the Punishment in regard he was of Noble Blood was changed and he was ordered to be Beheaded which was done by the Lieutenant of the Tower and this is a short account of that Trial for Blood in Parliament Where 't is plain and evident that the Bishops were there present for 't is said that the said Earl was adjudged Guilty and Convict by the assent of the King Bishops and Lords Q. E. D. Next we will produce another Instance and Precedent of the Condemnation of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury who was accused by the Commons in full Parliament die loco praedictis where we find the Commons by their Speaker Sir John Bussy Petitioning the K. in manner following For that divers Judgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present the Commons prayed the King that the Clergy would appoint some to be their common Proctor with sufficient authority thereunto Whereupon the Clergy appoint Thomas de la Percy by their Instrument their Proctor who together with the King and the said Lords adjudged him the said Archbishop guilty of Treason and himself a Traitor The Crimes objected to him was his traiterous obtaining a Commission from the King whereby the Kings Royal Power was encroached his Subjects put to death without Royal Assent c. for all which he was found guilty as aforesaid What I observe in brief is this from this Trial. 1. That there had been divers Errors in Judgment which Judgments were in Law void for that the Bishops were not present 2. That hereupon the Commons Petitioned the King that the Bishops would appoint their Proxy and which accordingly they did Thomas de la Percy 3. He was Condemned by the said Court wherein sate Percy accordingly 4. That the said Bishops did not Vote there personally for that the Arch-bishop their Primate was Arraigned and it might not be seemly for them so to do And here we have the Case adjudged Judgments in Parliament Revers'd for that the Bishops were not Present by themselves or Proxys the Commons Petitioning the King that they would make Proxys a Judgment obtained for that the Bishops had made their Proxys Q. E. D. And if any be not satisfied they may see the Roll of Parliament as before among the Records in the Tower to which they are Referred Furthermore to make another discovery of the Inconstancy of the said Mr. Selden I find him in his Titles of Honour in the latter end of his Book Confessing that Thomas Becket Arch-bishop of Canterbury was Condemned by the Bishop of Winchester in Case of High Treason Vid. Titles of Honour And if any person would but a little reflect upon the Reason why the Bishops have not sometimes Voted in Cases of Blood but by their Proxies viz. Their respect they had to the Canons of the Primitive Church which might give them umbrage for their so doing And together with this what hath been said before of their being frequently appointed by the King and acting as Lord Chief Justices of England any person of an ordinary Capacity may guess at the Reason of their forbearing to Judge in Matters of Blood for the Reason aforesaid and their ready and chearfull compliance with their Princes Command when by the Law of this Land they were enabled so to do and which is a sufficient Supersedeas to the former Canon of the Church Another Precedent we have of the Bishops Personally sitting in Parliament held at Westminster on Monday next after the Feast of All Saints in the 3d of Hen. 5. wherein Henry Bishop of Winton was Chancellour wherein was Tryed Richard Earl of Cambridge and others for Treason for having Levyed men against the King and procured Edmund Earl of March as Heir to Rich. 2. to take upon him to be King of England and had Proclaimed him such in Wales and set one Thomas Trompington an Ideot and Scotchman to Personate Rich. 2. where the said Earl and others his adherents in that Action were Tryed and found Guilty the Lords Spiritual in Parliament being Present c. See the Records in the Tower Parl. 3. H. 5. p. 2. M. 4. Many other Precedents of a later Date and Time might be here Ex superabundanti added but I shall referr them for the matter of another Chapter they being all of them taken out of the Journals of the Lords House beginning in 32 Hen. 8. and ending 29. Eliz. 2. I might have enlarged in these which I have taken out of the Tower but I have purposely forborn to do it for that I find Mr. Selden himself in the days of 1642. granting me the Matter of Fact as clear and evident from the Ancient Records in the Tower of the Spiritual Lords Priviledges in this Matter And will now proceed to another Argument that the Bishops have Right to sit in all Cases as well Capital as Civil For that 4. they are undoubted Peers of the Realm which also I find Mr. Selden himself granting in his Priviledges of the Barronage of England p. 192. For there he saith Though some have doubted we know whom he means