Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	charles_n	john_n	sir_n	39,226	5	6.7660	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90251	Vox plebis, or, The peoples out-cry against oppression, injustice, and tyranny. Wherein the liberty of the subject is asserted, Magna Charta briefly but pithily expounded. Lieutenant Colonell Lilburne's sentence published and refuted. Committees arraigned, goalers condemned, and remedies provided.	Overton, Richard, fl. 1646.	1646 (1646)	Wing O636A; Thomason E362_20; ESTC R201218	54,600	73

try me or any Commoner whatsoever in any criminall cause either for life limb liberty or estate But contrary hereunto as incroachers and usurpers upon my freedomes and liberties they lately and illegally endeavoured to try me a Commoner at their Barre For which I under my hand and seale protested to their faces against them as violent and illegall incroachers upon the Rights and Liberties of me and all the Commons of England a copy of which c. I herewith in print send you And at their Barre I openly appealed to my competent proper legall Tryers and Judges the Commons of England assembled in Parliament For which their Lordships did illegally arbitrarily and tyrannically commit me to prison into your custody Which Protestation and Papers and matters therein contained doe falsly and scandalously and maliciously charge the Peeres in Parliament with tyranny usurpation perjury injustice and breach of the great trust in them reposed and are a high breach of the Priviledges of Parliament And are high offences against the Lawes and Statutes of this Kingdome and doe tend to the great scandall of the said Peeres and the authority with which they are intrusted to stir up differences between the said Peeres and other the Subjects of this Realme Natha Finch Vpon which Articles he refusing to hear them read as concerning their proceedings against him to be illegall and that as a Commoner of England they had no jurisdiction over him they proceeded to sentence him as followeth Iuly 10. 1646. JT is to be remembred that the 10. day of Iuly in the 22. Year of the Raign of our Soveraign Lord King Charles Sir Nath. Finch Knight His Majesties Serjeant at Law did deliver in before the Lords assembled in Parliament at VVestminster certain Articles against Lieutenant-Colonell Iohn Lilburn for high Crimes and Misdemeanours done and committed by him together with certain Bookes and Papers thereunto annexed Which Articles aad the said Bookes and Papers thereunto annexed are filed among the Records of Parliament The tenour of which Articles followeth in these words Which Articles being by the command of the Lords then and there assembled in Parliament read It was then and there that is to say the said 10. day of July by their Lordships ordered That the said John Lilburn be brought to the Bar of this House the 11. day of the said July to answer the said Articles That thereupon their Lordships might proceed therein according as to Justice should appertain At which day aforesaid the 11. day of July Anno Dom. 1646. the said John Lilburn according to the said Order was brought before the Peers then assembled and sitting in Parliament to answer the said Articles And the said John Lilburn being thereupon required by the said Peers in Parliament to kneel at the Bar of the said house as is used in such Cases and to hear his said Charge read to the end that he might be inabled to make defence thereunto The said John Lilburn in contempt and scorn of the said high Court did not only refuse to kneel at the said Bar but did also in a contemptuous manner then and there at the open Barre of the said House openly and contemptuously refuse to heare the said Articles read and used divers contemptuous words in high derogation of the Justice Dignity and Power of the said Court And the said Charge being neverthelesse then and there read the said John Lilburn was then and there by the said Lords assembled in Parliament demanded what Answer or Defence he would make thereunto the said Iohn Lilburn persisting in his obstinate and contemptuous behaviour did peremptorily and absolutely refuse to make any Defence or Answer to the said Articles and did then and there in high contempt of the said Court and of the Peers there assembled at the open Bar of the said House of Peers affirme that they were Usurpers and unrighteous Judges and that he would not answer the said Articles and used divers other insolent and contemptuous speeches against their Lordships and that high Court Whereupon the Lords assembled in Parliament taking into their serious consideration the said contemptuous carriage and words of the said John Lilburn to the great affront and contempt of this high and honourable Court and the Justice Authority and Dignity therof It is therefore this present 11. day of Iuly ordered and adjudged by the Lords assembled in Parliament That the said Iohn Lilburn be Fined And the said Iohn Lilburn by the Lords assembled in PARLIAMENT for his said contempt is Fined to the Kings Majesty in the summe of two thousand pounds And it is further ordered and adjudged by the said Lords assembled in Parliament That the said Iohn Lilburn for his said contempts be and stand committed to the Tower of London during the pleasure of the said House And further the said Lords assembled in Parliament taking into consideration the said contemptuous refusall of the said Iohn Lilburn to make any Defence or Answer to the said Articles did declare That the said Iohn Lilburn ought not thereby to escape the Justice of the House But the said Articles and the Offences thereby charged to have been committed by the said Iohn Lilburn ought thereupon to be taken as consessed Wherefore the Lords assembled in Parliament taking the premises into consideration and for that it appeares by the said Articles That the said Iohn Lilburn hath not onely maliciously published severall scandalous and libellous passages of a very high nature against the Peers of Parliament therein particularly named and against the Peerage of this Realm in generall But contrived and contemptuously published and openly at the Barre of the House delivered certain scandalous Papers to the high contempt and scandall of the Dignity Power and Authority of this House All which offences by the peremptory refusall of the said Iohn Lilburn to answer or make any Defence to the said Articles stands confessed by the said Lilburn as they are in the said Articles charged It is therefore the said Day and Year last above-mentioned further ordered and adjudged by the Lords assembled in Parliament upon the whole matter in the said Articles contained I. That the said Iohn Lilburn be Fined to the Kings Majesty in the summe of two thousand pounds II. And that he stand and be imprisoned in the Tower of London by the space of 7. years now next ensuing III. And further that he the said Iohn Lilburn from henceforth stand and be uncapable to bear any Office or Place in Military or in Civill-Government in Church or Common-Wealth during his life Die Sabbathi 11. Julii 1646. ORdered by the Lords in Parliament That Iohn Lilburn being sentenced by this House shall for his high Contempt and Misdemenors done to this High Court according to the said Sentence stand committed to the Tower of London for the space of 7. Years next after the date hereof And that the Lieutenant of the said Tower of London his Deputy or Deputies are to keep

man is to be tryed per legale judicium parium suorum by the lawfull judgment of his Peers which Statute gives the Lords of Parliament a jurisdiction over their Peers which cannot be taken from them and as the Lords have a jurisdiction over their Peers so have the Commons over their Peers viz. all the Commons of England for as Sir Edw Cook 2. part of his Institutes pag. 29. in his Coment upon Magna Charta c. 14. observes that the generall division of persons by the Law of England is either into the Nobility of the Peerage or Lords house or the Commons of the Realm for as every of the Nobles is a Peer to each other though they have severall Names of Dignity as Dukes Marquisses Earles Viscounts and Barons so of the Commons of the Realme each Commoner is a Peer or Equall to another though they be of severall Degrees as Knights Esquites Citizens Gentlemen Yeomen and Rurgesses and this distinction we find likewise in Bracton c. 2. sol 36. and both these Jurisdictions do belong to both Houses naturali equitate by a naturall right or equity as hereafter more plainly will be demonstrated and according to this Jurisdiction have the Commons themselves given judgment upon a Commoner as in the case of Thomas Longe cited by Sir Edward Cooke vbi supra p. 23. and recorded in the Journall Book of the House of Commons 8. Eliz. Onslow Speaker f. 19. and in the case of Arthur Hall 23 Eliz. f. 14. Popham Attorney General Speaker and divers others Now that the Lords and Commons have a joynt Jurisdiction or power of Judicature over both Lords and Commons is manifest by the Judgments given against the Lord Audley at the Parliament held at Yorke Anno 12. 22 Consideratum est per Praelatos Comites Barones communitatem Angliae and in 15. E. 2. the Judgment given against the Spencers both Earles Hugh the Father and Hugh the Son who were adjudged to exile by the Lords and Commons and Sir John Alees adjudged by the Lords and Commons as appeares 42. E. 3. Nu. 20. Rot Parl. and of late time in the cases of Sir Giles Mompesson the Lord Viscount of St. Alban and the Earl of Middlesex in 18. 21. Iacob Regis In all which Judgements the Kings consent was concurrent which gave those Judgments life and efficacy Having thus distinguished the severall and joynt Jurisdiction of both Houses it will bee necessary to shew whence these have sprung and how they are grown It appears by the old Treatise de modo tenendi Parliamentum which was made before the Conquest and presented to the Conquerour who held a Parliament in that forme as appeares by the book of 21. E. 3. f. 60. That both Houses of Parliament sate together and were but in effect one House and so continued long after the Conquest till 5. and 6. E. 3. as appears by the Parliament Rolls of 5. E. 3. Nu. 3. and 6. E. 3. and by the 4. part of Sir Edward Cookes Instit p. 2. and as may be gathered by the Preamble to the Statute of Marlebridge made 52. H. 3. Westm the first 3. E. 1. Westm 2. 13 E. 1 the Statute of Yorke made 12. E. 2. and others which mention that the Prelates Earles Barons and Commonalty of the Realm were called together whereby we may infer that they sate as one House to consult of the weighty affaires of this Kingdom from whence we collect that the Lords had whilest they sate as one House no particular jurisdiction nor the Commons any to themselves alone but their jurisdiction was joynt being mixt of both their powers and communicative to all alike of both Kingdoms and this appeares cleerly by the case of the Lord Audley 12. E. 2. and the cause of the Spencers 15. E. 2. afore cited and by the case of Nicholas Segrave adjudged in Parliament as appears Placit Parliament 33. E. 1. Rot. 33. per Praelatos Comites Barones alios de consilio by the Prelates Earles Barons and others of the Councell that is the Parliament and more plainly by that spoken by Sir Edward Cook 2 part of his Instit p. 50. And though of antient time saith he the Lords and Peers of the Realm used in Parliament to give judgment in case of Treason and Fellony against those that were no Lords of Parliament Yet at the suit of the Lords it was enacted that albeit the Lords and Peers of the Realm as Judges of the Parliament in the presence of the King had taken upon them to give judgment in case of Treason and Fellony of such as were not Peers of the Realm that hereafter no Peers shall be driven to give judgment on any others then on their Peers according to the Law And he cites Rot. Parl. 4. E. 3. Nu. 6. to maintain this assertion of his But to conclude more strongly we find it recorded in 4. E. 3. Rot. 2. and inrolled in Chancery in the cause of Sir Simon de Berisford who was adjudged as an accessary to Roger Mortimer of the murder of King Ed 2. in these very words viz. And it is assented and agreed by our Lord the King and all the Grandees in full Parliament that albeit the said Peers as Judges of Parliament took upon them in the presence of our Lord the King to make and give the said judgment by the assent of the King upon some of them which were not their Peers and that by reason of the murder of their liege Lord and the destruction of him which was so neare of the Blood-Royall and Son of a King that therefore the said Peeres which now are or the Peeres which shall be for the time to come be not bound or charged to give judgment upon others then upon their Peers nor shall do it But let the Peers of the land have power but of that forever they be discharged and acquitted and that the aforesaid judgment now given be not drawn into example or consequence for the time to come by which the said Peeres may be charged hereafter to judge others then their Peers against the Law of the Land if any such case happen which God defend All which afore-mentioned presidents and judgments were made and given before the separation of the two Houses whilest they sate together Out of which we collect and gather that the Lords had no particular jurisdiction to themselves or of themselves before the division separation of the Pouses and that it was against the Law of the Land for the Peers before this separation to judge a Commoner in any case whatsoever Nay that their hands are bound by their assent never to judge any in future which Sir Ed Cork saith was enacted So that joyning the one consideration with the other it is most cleer that the Peers at this day cannot judge a Commoner no not if the King joyn with them especially in case of life or free-hold for in the book of 4 H. 7.

protection of the law a●d not to be permitted to sue for a mans right or to bee staied by injunction or pronibition so that a man cannot proceed All which causes are illegall and contrary to this clause of the great Charter For every man ought to bee permitted to goe to triall judgement and execution in his cause according to the course of the law of the land And if he faile in his suit he shall pay costs and be amerced pro falso clamore Which amencement ought to bee reasonable salvo contenemento that he be not destroyed as is before declared Which payment of destruction is the fourth particular and now comes to be handled The words of the great Charter are That no man shall be any way destroyed but by judgement of his equals or according to the law of the land This word destruere amongst the Grammarians est idem quod penitus evertere diruere to destroy is all one as utterly to overthrow and demolish To destroy a man is to forejudge a man of life limb or liberty to dis-herit to put to torture or death any man without lawfull tryall due preparation to his defence or by SURREPTITIOUS IUDGEMENT All which are contrary to the law of the land It is the Genus of all the former particulars it is the most pernicious extent of all arbitrary power there have been to many examples of it Thomas Earl of Lancaster in the 14. E. 2. was destroyed that is adjudged to dye as a Traytor without lawfull try all of his Peers And afterwards Henry Earl of Lancaster his brother was restored First because that he was not arraigned and put to answer Secondly because that contrary to this Charter of Liberties the said Thomas being one of the Peers of the Realm without answer or lawfull judgment of his Peers he was put to death Such like proceedings were had in the case of John of Gaunt as appears P. 39. Coram Rege and in the E. of Aruudels case Rot. Par. 4. E. 3. Nu. 13. and in Sir John Alees case 4. E. 3. Nu. 2. Such was the destruction committed upon the Lord Hastings in the Tower of London by K. Richard the 3. who sware he would not dye before he saw his head off and thereupon caused him to be executed without tryall answer or lawfull conviction such was the destruction of the Lord Rivers and many other of sad remembrance but above all that Attainder of Thomas Cromwell Earl of Essen who was attainted of high Treason as appears Rot. Part. 32. H. 8. being committed to the Tower of London and forth-coming to be heard and yet never called to answer in any of the Houses of Parliament they sitting which we hope shal never be more drawn into president but wish with a clearned sage in the Law Quod auferat oblivio si potest si non utcunque silentium tegat which is let oblivion take away the memory of so foul a fact if it can if it cannot let silence cover it For the more high and honourable the Court is the more just and honourable it ought to be in the proceeding and to give example of Justice to inferiour Courts for these destructores subditorum dom Regis the destroyers of the free-born people of the Kingdom were ever-odious and hatefull to the subject and severe pains appointed for them as appears by the Statute of Kenelworth Par. 16. and by the old Statute of Rag-man and that this kind of destroying the Kings people is utterly against the Law of the Land is most evident not only by the great Charter but also by the Statute of 5. c. 3. c. 9. and 28. E. 3. c. 3. afore-mentioned and by the ancient Lawes of the Land as appears by Horn in his Mirrour of Justice c 2. sect 3. We proceed now to Exile which is the fifth particular The great Charter runs thus No man shall be exiled but by the Law of the Land Exile or banishment is of two sorts The one a voluntary which is at the Common-Law and that is when a man would abjure the Realm for a Fellony committed by him having taken sanctuary to avoid the punishment of death chusing rather perpetuall banishment then to put himself to the hazard of his life by a legall tryall for his offence as Stamf. Pl. Cor. p. 117. The other is when a man is inforced to banishment which is only legally done by Act of Parliament as appeares by the Statute of Westrn 1. cap. 20 35. El. c. 1. and 39. El. c. 4. and by that Judgment or Statute of banishment made of the two Spencers 15. E. 2. called Exilium Hugonis le-Despencer patris filii for though there was an Order or Ordinance made in the Lords house Anno 6. E. 3. Nu. 6. That such learned men in the Law as should be sent as Justices or otherwise to serue in Ireland should have no excuse yet saith Sir Edw. Cooke 2. part Instit p. 48. That Order or Ordinance being no Act of Parliament it did not bind the subject so that we that are the free-born subjects of England cannot at this day be enforced or compelled to depart the Realme or be exiled or banished from our native Country but by Act of Parliament And from this we passe to examine what is to be esteemed a lawfull Judgment of our Peers and what is here in this Charter meant by the Law of the Land This Great Charter was penned in Latine the words are thus Nec super eum ibimus nec super eummittemus nisi per legale judicium Parium suorum which are more emphatically in the Latine then in our English Translations of this Charter for the Translations render it We will not passe upon nor condemn any man but by the lawfull judgment of his Peers or by the Law of the Land whereas the words in the Latine import That the King shall not in his own person when he is personally present in his high Court of Parliament or any other of his Courts of Justice cause any man to be otherwise tryed or condemned then by lawfull judgment of his Peers or the law of the Land nec super eum mittemus that is That no Judges Commissioners or Justices of the King shall by force of any Writ or Commission from the King under the Great Seal in his absence arraign try or condemn any man but by the lawfull judgment of his Peers or by the law of the Land Now this legale judicium parium suorum or lawfull judgment of a mans Peers is and hath alwayes had a two-fold construction in law the one is When a Lord of the Parliament hath committed treason or felony or other capitall offence whereby he is indictable at the Kings Suite there he by vertue of this Charter ought to be tryed by his Peers that is such as are Lords of Parliament that sit there by reason of their Nobility for no Noble-man that is not a Lord of

f. 10. Be tit Parl. 42. We find that in Parliament the King would that I. S. shouldbe attainted and lose his Land and the Lords did agree and nothing was spoken of the Commons and this by all the Judges was held no good attainder or judgment and therefore he was restored to his Lands for there can be no attainder by Parliament but by Act of Parliament that is by judgment of both Houses and consent of the King for the King as Sir Edward Cook saith is of the Parliament caput principium finis the head the beginning and the end But some will say that the Lords have a Judicature a-part from the Commons which they have long used It is true they have and it is only in some particular cases and their power is given them by Act of Parliament by the stature of 14. E. 3. c. 5. in case of delay of Justice difficulty of judgment or cases of errours and is confirmed unto them by the stature of 25. El. c. 8. and 31. El. c. 1. But we cannot find by any of our bookes in Law and wee are confident no man can shew us that the Lords by themselves apart or without the assistance and without judgment of the Commons did hold plea in any of those cases before that statute of 14. E. 3. For the first cases that we find of any proceedings in those cases before the Lords were in 16. E. 3. Fitzh tit briefe 561. and in 24. E. 3. f. 46. 22. E. 3. Fitz. error 8. and other bookes out of which good notes may be drawn to fortifie our assertions withall if need in so plain a case did require By all which cases and presidents we may assuredly conclude That the Lords in their House have no jurisdiction over the Commons in any other cases then delay of Justice difficulty of Judgment or matter of Errour as aforesaid And this is agreeable to the statute of 25. E. 3. c. 4. Where it is accorded assented and established that from hence-forth none shall be taken by petition or suggestion made to our Lord the King or to his Councell unlesse it be by indictment or presentment of his good and lawfull people of the same neighborhood or by processe made by Writ originall at the common-law and to the other statutes afore-mentioned and bindes the House of Peers as well as any other Court of Judicature at Westminster as they are of the Kings Councell and sit by vertue of the Kings writ and Commission as they have often by their own Declarations manifested If it be objected that their Lordships being a Court of Judicature are only to proceed secundum legem consuetudinem Parliamenti according to the Law and Custome of the Parliament We answer that we grant that it must be secundum legem according to law which is according to the Great Charter and the laws before cited and as touching the custome of Parliament we say that the Lords house cannot have any pretence by custome to judge a Commoner of England since that it appeares by the presidents afore-mentioned namely Sir Simon de Berisfords case which was 4. E. 3. and by that of the same date cited out of Sir Edward Cooke that before the division of the Houses it was enacted and assented that the Peers for the time to come should not judge a Commoner as being against Law as aforesaid And therefore that Custome being against Law and prohibited by Act of Parliament must needs be void in Law For no Custome that is against Law or an Act of Parliament is valid in Law Neither can they have any good Custom by usage of such power since the division of th Houses though they have actually judged Commoners it being within time of memory since the Houses were divided that is to say since the time of King Richard the first which is the limitation of prescriptions and since which time no good custome can bee grounded the contrary appearing by matter of Record as aforesaid And albeit they have judged Commoners it makes not for them for a facto ad jus non valer argumentum because they have done it in fact therefore they may now do it of right followes not For if those Commoners that were judged by them did not stand upon their priviledge nor demand an exemption from the judgment of the Lords they did only lose to themselves the particular benefit of Appeale for vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt the lawes only assist those that claime the benefit of them not those that pray not in aid of them and such presidents ought not to be cited in prejudice of others that are more watchfull over their liberties But wee have another objestion made that there is matter of scandall against a Peer of that House contained in Mr. Lilburres Charge and therefore fit to be examined there We acknowledge the Earl of Manchester to be a person of great honour and will not blemish him as he stands unheard with a supposition of his being guilty But neverthelesse we conceive that it would not have lessened his honour to have preferred some Information in the Kings Bench or brought some Action at Common-Law upon some of the statutes de scandalis magnatum for the supposed slander contained in the bookes written by Mr. Lilburn whereunto Mr. Lilburn might have pleaded his lawfull plea either by may of justification or deniall as his case would require him In both which cases Mr. Lilburn should have been tryed by a Jury of 12 honest men Commoners his equals and my Lord have avoyded any suspition of being partiall in his own cause as it is said in the book of 8. H. 6. f. 14. Br. Co●●sans 27. of the Chancellour of Oxford or that he went about by this so sudden and summary proceeding to hinder or fore-stall the evidence that might bee against him in his own cause and Mr. Lilburn had had a legall way for his defence for if he had justified the supposed scandall and proved it it had bin no scandal the Jury must have acquitted him if he had pleaded not guilty and for the words proved against him he must have paid dammage to the Earle as the Jury should have assessed And this had been and is the only way of tryal in such a case and is according to the statute of Magna Charta and the Law of the Land and it is a Maxime in Law That where remedy may bee had by an ordinary course in Law the partie grieved shall never have his recourse to extraordinaries Therefore if a man should say of the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal that he was a corrupt Judge and that he gave a corrupt judgment in such a Cause depending before him upon an English Bill in Chancery The Lord Chancellor or Lord Keepers remedy against that person for this scandal is upon these statutes and not by an English Bill in Chancery before himself to be

and are like Foxes but are not Foxes These Jackals they follow the prey close at the heeles and hunt it till it be weary The greater beast followes after grunting at a distance When these Jackals have wearied the prey this counterfeit Lion comes and seises upon it and fills his panc and leaves the rest to be devoured by the lesser Whippets and between the one and the other there is no harmlesse beast that is not wholly eaten up being once seised on Just so is the poore prisoners case And we shall observe this further that as the Divell when hee tempted our blessed Saviour as you may read Matth. 4. 6. could cite this part of the Scripture Cast thy selfe down for it is written He shall give his Angels charge over thee But concealed another part of the Scripture which made against his ends to wit It is written Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God So deales this Lieutenant or Grand Goaler West with his prisoners for all that makes against his title to his fees he leaves out in his allegation to his prisoners of which that he may not plead ignorance hereafter wee shall tell him his pretended title to these fees In the time of Sir Allen Apsley much about 21. yeares since when he was Lieutenant of the Tower there were divers prisoners in the Tower that were poor and lay upon his hands for maintenance of which hee informed the then Lords of the privie Councell and petitioned that he might be allowed competency for their maintenance out of the Kings Exchequer The Lords according to law ordered that he should have 3. l. a week with increase according to their qualities allowed for each prisoner to maintain them in diet for they being the Kings prisoners were by law to be maintained by the King Sir Allen Apsley having procured this order and some of his Successors after him did contract with some of the Warders or Victuallers in the Tower to diet those sometimes at 30. s. per week sometimes at 20. s. per week sometimes at 35 s. a week as they could agree whereby Sir Allen Apsley put up into his purse 30. s. a week or more or lesse upon allowance of every prisoner and had his full pay out of the Kings Exchequer This was entred into their Bookes as a gain to them And being grounded upon a Cheat is now become a president of future extortion being confirmed by a Goalers Prescription of 21. yeares But wee would have them know that if every thing that hath been practised 21. years bee lawful they may as well goe to Suiters-hill and there take purses as to demand those fees Besides we desire them to take notice that by this Parliament the foundation of this pretended duty is taken away by that Act of Parliament which takes away the power of the Councell-boord But wee have done with the pretence of their fees wee now come to shew that this Office of Gentleman Goaler is a new erected office and a grievance to the subject being created within time of memory and consequently no fees due to him though he pretend to a fee of 50. s. at the prisoners going away For this Officer one Yates to tell the truth is but the Lieutenants man and if he be a Gentleman Goaler it is to be doubted he is a better man then his Master for we make a scruple Whether a PORTER of a Colledge in Bishopsgate-street can beget a Gentleman But whatsoever he be being of an old Yeoman of the Guard become a young Gentleman Goaler he knowes how to lick his fingers and make profit out of the plague it selfe For wee could tell you that when a Gentleman the last yeare a prisoner was closely locked up and the plague round about him and in danger to be infected desired him to speak to the Lieutenant that he might be removed he brought him word that unlesse he would give him ten pound hee could not be removed The Gentleman made answer that hee had not so much money but all that he had he would give him if he would procure him to be removed The summe agreed was 20. s. which this Gentleman Goaler took and put in his pocket and never came at him more in ten weeks space let the plague take his course with the poore prisoner And that albeit the Gentleman complained to the Lieutenant of this unjust and fraudulent dealing and did desire that either he might be compelled to make restitution or otherwise to give it to the poore or into the Warders Box at Christmas yet the Gentleman could obtaine neither Here is Mulus mulum scabit again We could tell you that the prison lodgings have been and are let out to prisoners at 20. l. some more some lesse per annum We could tell you of 10. l. taken of a Gentleman that was sick and made a close prisoner for to have liberty to walk in fresh aire out of his chamber some 4. or 5. times the length of a Cannon We could tell you another that by no Rule of Instruction or Warrant was to be kept close prisoner and yet was so almost a yeare because he would not give 10. l. to walk the length of a Malt-pole We could tell you of a Gentleman of quality of above 70 yeares of age after hee had his enlargement from the Honorable House of Commons was detained in close prison 20. weeks because he would not pay such fees as were demanded and a demand of above 330. l. made of him for these pretended extortions and unjust fees Nay a boord nailed up before his window to prevent him for taking any fresh aire and a Sentinell set at his doore to keep him in his chamber A new way of these monstrous Tyrants to excise the Aire We could name a prisoner that for six moneths together in the Tower had a Sentinel kept at his door to keep him in his lodging yea when he was sick and had contracted that sicknesse and infirmity by a tedious close imprisonment We could tell of the prisoners Beere and Wood stopped and their servants kept from them because they would not pay such fees as were demanded And when the prisoners sent to the Lieutenant to have their Beere and Firing his answer was That he wanted money HERE ARE THE FOURE ELEMENTS EXCISED TO THE POORE PRISONERS Nay wee could tell you of some that were shut up for eating of Venison and to make their peace must drop something a parcell of 20 l or something else For we must keep our fingers in use Nay there is but few of these ravening creatures but he hath all the inventions his wit can reach to excoriate their prisoners We could tell you how prisoners are valued Some have been valued at 5. s. a week and diet Anothe● at diet only a third hath been offered to be exchanged with 20. s. boot Nay we could tel yon of a prisoner that was made in joincture to a Warders wife who contracted by