Domino Rege in Parliamente sue at the end of each Parliam Roll wherein the King and Lords or only the King and Lords alone generally gave Iudgement of imprisonment fine banishment and death it self even against CoÌ„moners themselves without the Commons the thing now principally controverted and denied for proof whereof I shall cite some few punctuall presidents and records in stead of many which might be insisted on In the famous Parl held at Claredon x Mat. Paris p. 6 97. M. Seldens Titles of Honor part 2. c 5 p. 703. 705 under K. Hen. 2. 〈◊〉 D. 1164. there was a recognition made of all the ancient Customs of the Realm which all the Prelats Abbots Earls Barons and Nobles swore firmly to observe to the King and his Successors whereof this was one That the Arch-b Bishops and other Clergy men who held of the King in Capite by Barony Sicut caeteri Barones debent interesse JVDCIIS CVRIAE REGIS CVM BARONIBVS * Petrus Blesâ—sis De Instit Episcopi Bibl Patrum tom 12. par 2. p. 447 quousque perveniatur AD DIMINVTIONEM MEMBRORVM VEL AD MORTEM which proves the power and right of Iudicature even in those times and long before to be setled in the Barons as well in Parliament as in the Sheriffs Tourne and that in case of Commoners as Peers In the Parliament of 4. E. 3. num 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Roger Mortimer Earle of March a Peer Sir Simon Bereford Knight of Councell and assistant to the said Earle John Mautravers Bose de Bayous and Iohn Deverall for being guilty of the death of Edward Earle of Kent Thomas Gournay VVilliam of Ocle for murthering King Edward the second after his deposition were attainted and condemned of High treason and some of them then in cuâ—â—odie accordingly executed by Iudgement of the Lords and Peeres alone who AS JUDGES OF THE LAW by the Kings consent gave judgement of death against them as the Parliament Rolls more largely relate It is true indeed that after these Judgements given the LORDS the same Parliament num 6. entred this Protestation * See Cooke 2. Instit p. 50. That alboit the Lords and Peers of the Realme AS JUDGES OF THE PARLIAMENT in the presence of the King had taken upon them to give Judgement of such who were NO PEERS OF THE REALM that he eafter NO PEERS should be compelled to give Judgement ON ANY OTHERS WHO WERE NOT THEIR PEERS according to the Law From this Protestation of the Lord which Lilburne principally insists on hee and * Cooke 2. Instit p. 50. some others conolude that the Peers in Parliament have no right at all to imprison fine judge or passe sentence of death against any Commoner for any offence no not for breach of their own Priviledges but only the Commons To which objection I answer First that this is no Act of Parliament as Sir Edwards Cooke mistakes but a bare Protestation of the Lords without Kings or Commonâ— assent and that neither the House of Commons nor the Commoners then attainted of Treason and judged to death by the Lords ever demurred or excepted against their Jurisdiction as Lilburne and Overton doe but acknowledged and submitted to it Secondly That in this very Protestation the Lords professe and justifie their right of BEING JVDGES in Parliament without admitting or acknowledging any joynt or sole right of Judicature with them in Parliament in the Commons Thirdly That this Protestation was meerly voluntary not in derogation but preservation of their own Honour and Peerage and the Parliaments too and the substance of it no more then this That the Lords in Parliament should not bee 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 against such who were no Peers who in such caseâ— * Magn. Ch. c. 29. 25. E. 3. c. 2. 4. 28. E. 3. c. 3. 37. E. 3. c. 8. 42. E. 3. c. 3. Cooke 2. Instit p. 50 51. by the Law might and ought to be tried in the Kings Courts at VVestminster or before the Iustices of Oyer and Terminer by a Iury of their equalls but onely in such cases which could not well be tried else-where and were proper for their Judgement in Parliament This is the whole summe and sence of their protestation To argue therefore from hence That they cannot passe sentence or judgement against any Commoners in any case proper for their Judicature in Parliament because they protested only against being COMPELLED to gâ—ve Judgement against such as were no Peers in cases triable else-where and not proper for their tribunall as the Objectors hence conclude is quite to mistake their meaning and to speak rather non-sence then reason or Law Fourthly This Protestation was made only against the Lords giving sentence in Felony and Treason and that in the Kings own presence in Parliament who usually pronounced the Judgement himself with the Lords assent and did not charge the Lords to pronounce it as here hee did not against sentencing fining and imprisoning any Commoner for rayling and Lybelling against their Persons Jurisdiction and proceedings refusing to answer and contemning their Authority to their faces at the Barre and appealing from their Judicature in case of breach of Priviledge of which themselves alone and no others are or can be Judges the case of Lilburne 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 injudiciousnesse and folly rather then a justification of their Libellous Invectives against the Lords injustice 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 To prove this by some instances In the Parliament of 1. H. 4. Placita Coronae num 11. to 17. Iohn Hall being in custody of the Marshall of England and brought by him before the Lords in Parliament and there charged by him by VValter Clâ—pton Lord chiefe Justice by the Kings command with having a hand in the murther of the Duke of Glocester who was smothered to death with a featherbed at Calayes by King Richard the seconds command the whole relation whereof he confessed at large and put in writing before James Billing ford Clerk of the Crown which was read before the Lords upon reading whereof the King and ALL THE TEMPORALL LORDS IN PARLIAMâ—NT resolved that the said Iohn 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 TOVTE LES SEIGNEIURS TEMPORELZ per assent du ROY ADJVGGERâ—Nâ— all the temporall Lords by assent of the King AJVDGED that the said Joh. Hall should be drawn from Tower
awarded him to the custody of the Marshall and to make fine and ransome at the Kings pleasure Whereupon the Commons REQUIRED by way of petition that he might lose all his Offices and no longer be of the Kings Councell which the King granted The Commons not joyning at all with the Lords in his judgement neither could they so joyne he being a Peer And for the Lord Nevill in that Parliament num 33. he was only accused not judged by the Commons Sixthly The case of 2. H. 5. rot Parl. num 15. that Error is there assigned that the Lords gave judgement without Petition or assent of the Commons is a grosse mistake For the record only recites That Thomas Mountague Earle of Salisbury Sonne and Heire of Iohn Mountague Earle 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 Whereupon he exhibited certaine reversals of Judgements given in Parliament as making on his behalfe to the Lords consideration reversed for some errors assigned in those jadgements to wit one judgement given against Thomas heretofore Earle of Lancaster before King Edward the second at Pomfract the monday before the feast of the Annuntiation in the fifteenth yeare of his reigne and another Judgement against Roger de Mortymer late Earle of March in the Parliament of King Edward the third the Monday after the Feast of St. Katherine in the fourth yeare of his reigne at Westminster Which judgements being distinctly and openly read and fully understood Jo seemed TO THE KING and LORDS that the case of the death and execution of the said John late Earle of Sarum and of the judgement aforesaid against him given is not nor was like to the case of the executing of the said Thomas heretofore Earle of Lancaster nor to the case of the killing of Roger Earle of March nor to any judgement given against the said Thomas and Roger as aforesaid but that the judgement and declaration had and given against the said Iohn late Earle of Sarum WERE A GOOD JUST and LEGALL DECLARATION and JUDGEMENT Per quod CONSIDERATUM FUIT in praesenti Parliamento PER PRAEDICTOS DOMINOS tunc ibidem existentes DE ASSINSU dicti Domini nostri Regis quod praefatus nunc COMES Sarum NIHIL CAPIAT PER PETITIONEM aut prosecutionem suam praedictam Et ulterius TAM DOMINI SPIRITUALES QUAM TEMPORALE supradicti JUDICIUMET DECLARATIONEM praedicta versus dictum Ioannem quondam Comitem Sarum ut praemâ—ttitur habita five reddita DE ASSENSU IPSIUS DOMINI REGIS AFFIRMARUNT FORE ET ESSE BONA JUSTA ET REGALIA et ea pro hujusmodi EX ABUNDANTI DISCREVERUNT ADJUDICARUNT TUNC IBIDEM This is all that is mentioned in this Parliament Roll concerning this businesse It appeares by the Parliament Roll of 2 H. 4. num 30. That Thomas Holland Earl of Kent Iohn Holland Earle of huntingdoâ— Iohn Mountagne Earle of Sarum Thomas Lord de Dispencer and Ralph omely Knight were impeached of high treason before the King and Lords in Parliament for levying actuall Warre against the King to destroy the King and his Subjects and for this taken and beheade and hereupon ALL â—â—E LORDS TEMPORALL BEING IN PARLIAMENT BY ASSENT OF THE KING DECLARED AND ADJVDGED all the said persons TRAITORS for leavying Warre against the King and that as Traytors they should forfeit all the lands they had in fee simple the 5 day of Jannary the first yeare of the raigne of the King or after according to the Law of the Land with all their goods and chattells notwithstanding they were slaine upon the said levying of Warre without processe of Law So this Record To reverse this judgement was this Petition of Thomas Earle oâ— Sarisbury in 2. H. 5. exhibited without the errour assigned as appeares by the Parâ—iament roll but if it were that the Lords only gave Judgement without Petition or assent of the Commons as Sir Edward Cooke imagins 〈◊〉 the King and Lords who upon solemned bate over-ruled the errour abuses and Petitions and found this judgâ—ment and Declaration of 2. H. 4. given by the Lords alone with the Kings assent without the Commons TO BE GOOD JVST and LEGALL as they did ex abundâ—nti is a most undeniable proofe of the King and Lords sole right of JVDGEING and DECLARING HIGH TREASON in Parliament without the Commons as well in case of Commoners as Lords Ralph Lomely being but a Commoner and Knight though the rest were Peers and yet all joyntly adjudged Traytors and declared such only by the King and Lords without the Commons and the Judgement assured to be good by the Commons who in the Parliament of 13. H. 4. num 19. Petitioned the Iohn Lomley might be restored by act of Parliament and made capable to inherit his fathers lands thus attainted to which the King by ASSENT OF THE LORDS SPIRITVALL and TEMPORALL consented Seventhly the Parliament Roll of 28. H. 6. num 18. c. containes onely an Impeachment of High Treason against the King and other great misdemeanors against the Kingdome and wrongs to particular persons comprised by way of Articles in two distinct Bills brought up by the Commons and presented by William Tresham their Speaker to the King in the Lords House the 7. day of February against William de la Pole Duke of Suffolke to which they desired the Duke might give in his Answer by a certaine day which he did absolutly denying the Treason against the King and denying and excusing himselfe of the rest without putting himselfe upon the Tryall of his Peeres The Chiefe Iustice thereupon the 14. day of March by the Kings command asked this Question of the LORDS WHAT ADVISE THEY WOULD GIVE THE KING what is to doe futrher in this matter which advise was deferred till Monday then next following whereon nothing was done in that matter On Tuesday the 17. of March the King sent for all the Lords Spirituall and Temporall then being in Towne being 42. in all into his Inner Chamber within his Palace of Westminster where when they were all assembled hee then sent for the Duke thither who comming into the Kings presence kneeled downe and continued kneeling till the Chancellour of England had delivered the Kings command to him and demanded of him what he said to the Commons Articles not having put himselfe upon his Peerage Whereupon the Duke denyed all the Articles touching the Kings Person and state of the Realme as false and scandalous And so not departing from his said Answers submitted himselfe wholly to the Kings Rule and Governance without putting himselfe upon his Peerage Where thus the Chancellour told him That as touching the great and horrible things contained in the first Bill the King holdeth him neither declared nor charged And as touching the second Bill containing misprisons which are not criminall the King by force of his submission by his owne advise and
Committees and proceedings contrary to the rules of Law and Iustice to right all grieved Petitioners especially such who have waited at least seven yeares space at your doores for reparations relieve poore starved Ireland and raise up the almost lost honor power freedome and reputation of Parliaments by acting Honorably and heroically like your selves without any feare favour hatred or selfe-ends and confining your selves the Commons House to the ancient bounds and rules of Parliamentary Iurisdiction and proceedings and to excell all others as farre in Iustice Goodnesse and publike resolutions as you do in Greatnesse and Authority Which that you may effectually performe shall be the the prayer of Your Lordships in all humble Service W. PRYNNE A PLEA For the LORDS OR A short yet full and necessary Vindication of the Judiciary and Legislative Power of the House of Peeres and the Hereditary just Right of the Lords and Barons of this Realme to sit vote and judge in the high Court of Parliament THe treasonable and destructive designe of divers dangerous Anabaptists Levellers Agitators in the Army City Countrey and of Lilburne Overton their Champions and Ring-leaders in this Seditious Plot to dethrone the King unlord the Lords new-modell the House of Commons extirpate Monarchy suppresse the House of Peers and subvert Parliaments the onely obstacles to their pretended Polarchy and Anarchy are now so legible in their many late printed Petitions Libells Pamphlets and visible in their actings and publike proceedings that it rather requires our diligence and expedition to prevent then hesitancy to doubt or dispute them they positively protesting against and denying both King and Monarchy in their a A Remonstrance of many thousand aâ—zens to their own House of Commons p. 6. the just mans Justification p. 10. Regall Tyranny Discovered A Declaration from his Excellency and the Generall Counsell of the Army Ian. 11. 1647. p. 7. Speeches c. at a Conference newly published by Walker printed verbatim out of Dolman the Iesuit his Booke condemned Pamphlets and Remonstrances with the Power and Judicature of the House of Peers and their undoubted just Hereditary right to Vote act or sit in Parliament because they are not elected by the people as Knights and Burgesses are asserting b Lilburnes Iust Man in Bonds p. 1 2. A Pearl in a Dunghill The Free-mans Freedome 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 Bowells of the House of Lords his Petition and Appeale 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. That they are no naturall issues of our Lawes but the Exorbitances and Mushromes of Prerogative the Wenns of just Government the Sons of Conquest and usurpation not of choice and election intruded upon us by power not made by the people from whom ALL POWER PLACE and OFFICE that is just in this Kingdome OUGHT TO ARISE meere arbitrary Tyrants Vsurpers an illegitimate and illegall power and Judicatory who act and Vote in our affaires but as INTRUDERS who ought of right not to judge censure or imprison any Commoner of England even for libelling against them refusing to appeare before them reviling and contemning them and their Authòrity to their faces at their very Barre as Lilburne Overton bost and print they did or breaking any of their undoubted Priviledges And to accomplish this their designe the better they endeavour by their most impudent flattery to ingage the House of Commons against the House of Peers the better to pull them downe stiling and proclaming them in their c Overtons Petition and Appeal to the High and mighty States the Knights and Burgesses in Parliament assembled Englands legall Soveraigne Power The Râ—monstrance of many thousands to their own House of Commons A printed Petition now in agitation of many Freeborne people to the only Supreme Power of this Realme 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. Petitions and Pamphlets The ONLY Supreme legall Judicatory of the Land who ought BY RIGHT to judge the Lords and their proceedings from whom they appeale for right and reparations against the House of Peeres affirming That in the Commons House alone resides the formall and legall Supreme Power of England who ONELY are chosen by the people and THEREFORE IN THEM ONELY is the power of binding the whole Nation by making altering or abolishing Lawes without the Kings or Lords concurrent assents to whom they now absolutely deny any Negative voice making the Commons a compleat Independent Parliament of themselves and therefore present all their Petitions and addresses to them alone without any acknowledgement or notice of the House of Peers to whom they deny any right or title to sit or vote in Parliament unlesse they will first divest themselves of their Peerage and Barons right of Session and submit to stand for the next Knights and Burgesses place in the House of Commons that shall fall void where if they may have any voice or influence the meanest Cobler Tinker Weaver or Water-man shall be elected a Knight or Burgesse sooner then the best and greatest Peer and John of Leyden preferred before King or Prince Charles Sic Sceptra ligonibus aequanti which Petitions and Pamphlets of theirs have so puffed and bladdered up many Novices and raw Parliament-men in the Commons House unacquainted with the bounds proceedings and originall Constitution of Parliaments and the Lawes and Customes of England that they begin to act vote and dispose of the Army Navy c. without and against the Lords not expecting their concurrence contrary to all former proceedings of Parliament the Lords just Priviledges and their own Solemne League and Covenant to maintaine them which may prove destructive to both Houses the Parliament Kingdome and oppressive to their Representatives the people who generally dislike it if not timely redressed and breeds such a deadly feud between the Houses as may ruine them both and the Kingdome to boot The end of these Anabaptists Levellers and Lilburnians being only to * See M. Edwards Gangraena part 3. where this is fully demonstrated destroy the Parliament by setting both Houses at variance they inveighing as bitterly against the power proceedings Ordinances Votes Power Members undue Elections and unequall Constitutions of the House of Commons as the Lords and therefore have so earnestly pressed in their d Lilburnes Letter to a friend Innocency and Truth justified and his late Letters to Cromwell Martin Sir Thomas Fairfax and others Englands Birthright Englands lamentable Slavery Another word to the wise Comparata Comparandis Liberty against Slavery The
to make such Knights Citizens and Burgesses lawfull Members of Parliament and to represent the Commons of England without any election of the people the Laws made by our Ancestors in Parliament See Littleton Fitz-Herbert Brut. Ashly Tit. VVarranty Obligat Covenant c. obliging their posterity whiles unrepealed as well as their Warranties Obligations Statutes Feofements Morgages and alienations of their Lands as the Objectors must acknowledge therefore they must of necessity grant their present sitting voting and judging too in Parliament to be lawfull because thus warranted by the Lawes and Customes of the Realme 4. If all Power in Government and right of sitting judging and making Lawes or Ordinances in Parliament be founded upon the immediate free election of all those that are to be Governed and of necessity that all those who are to be subject and they ought to be represented by those who have power in Government the Summe of f See M. Edwards his Gangraena part 3. p. 142. to 162. Lilburnes Overtons and the Levellers reasons against the Lords Iurisdiction then it will of necessity follow that the orders Votes Ordinances and Lawes made by or consented to by the Knights Citizens and Burgesses in Parliament ought not to bind any Ministers Women Children Infants Servants Strangers Freeholders Citizens Burgesses Artificers or others who cannot well or properly be represented but by persons of their owne sex degrees trades and callings and so every sex trade calling in each County and Corporation in England should send Members of their own to Parliament to represent them but only such Freeholders and Burgesses who had voices in and gave free consent to their Elections not any who have no voyces by Law or dissented from those elected and returned yea then it will necessarly follow that those Counties Cities and Burroughs whose Members have been injuriously impeached suspended driven away or thrust out of the House of Commons by the objectors and the Armies practise and violence contrary to all former presidents are absolutely free exempted and not bound by any Votes or Ordinances made or taxes imposed by the Commons House because they have no Members to represent them residing in Parliament and that those Counties and Burroughs whose Knights and Burgesses are dead or absent are no wayes obliged by any Votes Ordinances or Grants in Parliament And then how few in the Kingdome will or ought to yeeld obedience to any the Acts Ordinances or Votes of this present Parliament or to any Mayors Sheriffes Aldermen or Heads of Houses made by their Votes and Authority usually made by election heretofore or to any Iudges Justices Governours Generalls Captains or other Military Officers made by their Commission or appointment without the generality of the peoples Votes or consent especially when above halfe or three full parts of the Members were absent or driven from both Houses by the Objectors violence and menaces These Answers premised I shall now proceed to the proofe of the Lords undeniable Right and Authority to sit Vote and give Judgement in Parliament though not actually elected and called by the people as Knights and Burgesses are 1. It is evident by the Histories Republikes of most ancient and modern Kingdomes and Republikes in the world that their Princes Nobles Peers and great Officers of State have by the Originall Fundamentall Lawes and Institutions by right of their very g 31. H. 8 c. 10 See M. Seldens Titles of Honor Cassanaeus Catalogus Gloriae Mundi Alanso Lopez in Nobiliario and others who write of Nobility Cambd. Brit. of the Noâ—â—lity and Courts of Iustice in England Nobility Peerage and great Offices without any particular election of the people a just right and title to sit consult Vote enact Lawes and give Iudgement in all their Generall Assemblies of State Parliaments Senates Diets Councells as might be mainfested by particular instances in the Kingdomes Republikes Parliaments Diets and Generall Assemblies of the Iewes Egyptians Grecians Romans Persians Ethiopians Germans French Goths Vandalls Hungarians Bohemians Polonians Russians Swedes Scythians Tartars Moores Indians Spaniards Portugalls Danes Saxons Scots Irish and many others And to deny the like priviledge to our English Peers and Nobles which all Nobles Peers in all other Kingdomes Nations Republikes anciently have done and yet doe constantly enjoy without exceptions or dispute is a grosse unjury injustice and over-sight yea a great dishonor both to our Nobility and Nation Secondly By and in the very primitive constitution of our English Parliaments it was unanimously agreed by the Kingdomes and peoples generall consents that our Parliaments should be constituted and made up not of Knights and Burgisses onely elected by * E. H 6. c. 7. 10. H. 6. c. 2. 32 H. 6 c. 15. Crumpton Jurisdict p. 1. 2. 3. Cooke 4 Instit c. 1. Freeholders and Burgesses not by the generality of the vulgar people who would now claime and usurpe this right of election but likewise of the King the Supream Member by whose h Cooke Instit c. 1. n. 1. 10. Modus Tenendi Parliamentum Crompton Jurisdiction of Courts Tit. Parliament M. Seldens Tit. of Honour par 2. c. 5. writs the Parliaments were to be sommoned and by the Lords Peers Barons ecclesiasticall and civill and great Officers of the Realme who ought of right to sit vote make Lawes and give Judgement in Parliament by vertue of their Peerage Baronries and Offices without any election of the people the Commons themselves being no Parliament judicatory or Law-givers alone without the King and Lords as Modus tenendi Parliamentorum Sir Edward Cooke in his 4. Institutes ch 1. Mr. Seldens Titles of Honor part 2. ch 5. Vowell Camden Sir Thomas Smith Cowell Minshaw Crompton with others who have written of our English Parliaments assert and all our Parliament Rolls Statutes and i 33. H. 6. 16. Br. Parliam 4. 39. E 3. 7. 35. 11. H. 7 27. Br Parl. 107. 4. H. 7. 18. 7 H. 7. 14 Crumptons Iurisd f. 9. Co. 4. Institutes n 15 35. Fit f. 20. Dyer 92. Iudge Huttons Argument of Mr. Hamdens case p 32. 33. Law-bookes resolve without whose threefold concurrent assents there is or can be no Act of Parliament made Thirdly This right of theirs is confirmed by prescription and custome from the very first beginning of Parliaments in this Kingdome till this present their being no one president to be found in History or Record of any one Parliament held in this Island since it was a Kingdome without the King personally or representatively present by a Protector Custos or Regni Commissioners as he ought to be or without Lords and Peeres anciently stiled Aldermen Heretockes Senators Wisemen Nobles Princes Earles Counts Dukes c. by our Historians who make mention of their resorting to fitting voting and judging in our Parliaments Generall Assemblies and Councels under those Titles without the peoples Election long before the Conquerors time in the anciented Parliaments and Councels we read of
right to award Judgement in these cases without the King or them then which a fuller and clearer proofe cannot be desired In the self-same Parliament 1. R. â— num 41 42 43. Dame Alice Piers was brought before THE LORDS and charged by Sir Richard le Scrope with sundry misdemeanors which she denied hereupon divers Witnesses were examined against her Whereupon JVDGEMENT WAS GIVEN BY THE LORDS AGAINST HER that she should be banished and forfeit all her lands goods and tenements whatsoevèr To this Judgement neither King nor Commons were parties but the Lords only To these I might adde the cases of c See the doom of 〈◊〉 and treachery 〈◊〉 14 15. where the record is transcribed Sir William de Eleuham Sir Thomas Trivet Sir Henry de Ferriers and Sir William Farnden Knights and Robert Fitz Ralph Esquire Rot. Parl. 7. R. 2. num 24. sentenced and condemned by judgement of the Lords in Parliament pronounced by the Chancellour for selling the Castle of Burbugh with the armes and ammâ—nition in it to the Kings enemies without the Kings license 21. R. 2. Parl. Rot. Plac. Coronae num 27. where Sir Robert Pleasington is adjudged a Traytor after his death by the King by â—SSENT OF THE LORDS and num 15. 16. Sir Thomas Mortimers case num 17. Sir John Cobhams case * 31. H. 6. n. 45. 64. 65. â— 3. n. 16. to â—8 and num 28. Henry Bonoits case condemned in like manner of treason by the Lords with hundreds of Presidents more I shall only cite three more at large which are punctuall 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 suit 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 triall 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 HVNDRED MARKS TO THE SAID EARL for the which and for his fine and ransome he was committed to prison BY THE LORDS A direct case in point In the second Parliament in 7. R. 2. num 13. to 19. Iohn Cavendish a Fishmonger of London accused Michael de la Pool Knight Lord Chaâ—cellour of England first before the Commons and afterward before the Lords for bribery and injustice and that he entereâ—â—â—nto a Bond of x. l. to Iohn Ottard a Clerk to the said Chancellour which he was to give for his good successe in the businesse in part of payment wâ—â—â—eof he brâ—ught Herring and Sturgeon to Ottard and ye was delayed aâ—d could have no justice at the Chancellours hâ—nds and upon hearing he cause and examining wiâ—â— oâ—fes upon Oath before THE LORDS the Chancellour was cleared The Chancellour thereupon required reparation for so great a slander the Lords being then troubled with other weighty matters let the Fish-monger 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 Chancellour and adjudged him to prison till he had paid the same to the Chancellour and made fine and ransome to the King also which the Lords confirmed In the Parliament of 15. R. 2. nu 21. Iohn Stradwell of Begsteed in the County of Sussex was committed to the fleet by JVDGEMENT OF THE LORDS there to remain during the Kings pleasure for that he informed the Parliament that the Archbishop of Canterbury had excommunicated him and his neighbours wrongfully for a temporall cause appertaining to the Crown and Common Law whâ—ch was ADIVDGED BY THE LORDS upon examination and hearing to BE VNTRVE These three eminent Presidents to which many more might be added of the Lords fining and imprisoning meere Commons only for slandering Peeres of Parliament even by false accusations against them in Parliament by way of complaint will â—â—stify the Lords proceedings against Lilburn and Ovâ—rton for their professed Libells both against their Persons and Jurisdictions too To proceed to latter times in Parliaments of 18. and 21. Jacobi and 3. Car. not only the Lord * Cook 4. Instit p. 23. Chancellour Bacon and the Earl of Middlesex Lord Treasurer upon complaint of the Commons were censured and judged by the Lords alone but likewise Sir Giles Mompesson Sir Iohn Michell and Dr Manwering all Commoners JUDICIALLY SENTENCED Doctor Pocklinton and Doctor Bray even for erroneous Books and Sermons were sentenced this Parliament by the Lords alone since these Master Clement Walker Esquire was imprisoned in the Tower and fined by the Lords for some words pretended to be spoken against the Lord Say and within these few moneths onâ— Morrice and foure or five more of his confederates were censured fined and imprâ—soned by the Lords alone for forging an Act of Parliament upon Sir Adam Littletons complaint with all the Commons privity or consents and above one hundred Commoner more have been imprisoned by them or fined this very Session of Parliament for breach of Priviledge contempts or misdemeanours by the Lords alone without the Commons yet no demurrer nor exceptions were taken by them or the Commons to their Iurisdiction who applauded this their Justice in some of these cases From all these cleare confessions of the Commons themselves in Parliament and punctuall presidents in print in former late Parliaments 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 Judicature without the Commonâ— vested in them not only of Peers themselves but likewise of Câ—mmoners in all extraordinary cases of Treason Felony Trespasse and other Misdemeanors triable only in Parliament which hath been constantly acknowledged practised and submitted to without dispute much more then have they such a just and rightfull power in case of breach of their owne priviledges of d Cooke 4 Instit p. 15. which none are or can be Judges but themselves alone And to deny them such a power is to make the Highest Court of Iudicature in the Realme inferiour to the Kings Bench and all other Courts of Justice who have power to judge and try the persons and causes of Commoners and to commit and fine them for contempts and breaches of Priviledges as our e See Brooke and Ashes Tables Tit. Contempts Fines pur Contempt Imprisonment Law bookes resolve and every mans experience can testifie The Lords right of Judicature being thus fully evicted against the false and ignorant pretences of illiterate Sectaries altogether unacquainted with our Histories and Records of Parliament
which they never yet read nor understood there remaines nothing but to answer some Presidents and Objections The Principall president insisted on by Lilburne Object 1. is the Protestation of the Lords in the case of * Cooke 2. Instit p. 50. Sir Simon Beresford 4. E. 3. nu 6. which I have already fully answered retorted and shall therefore here pretermit The second is Sir Edward Cookes Authority Object 2. and the presidents cited by him in his 4. Institutes p. 23. 24. of Judicature in Parliament where thus he writes It is to be knowne THAT THE LORDS IN THEIR HOUSE HAVE POWER OF JUDICATURE And the Commons in their House have power of Judicature and both Houses together have power of Judicature But the handling thereof according to the weight and worth of the matter would require a whole Treatise of it selfe and to say the truth it is best understood by reading the Judgements and Records of Parliament at large and the Journalls of the House of the Lords and the Booke of the Clerke of the House of Commons which is a Record as it is affirmed by Act of Parliament in An. 6. H. 8. c. 16. To which he addes these marginall Notes Vide Placita in Parlians Anno 33. E. 1. rot 33. Nicholas Seagrave adjudgâ— Par Praelatos COMITES BARONES ET ALIOS DE CONCILIO At the Parliament at Yorke Ap. 12. E. 3. Consideratum est per Praelatos Comites BARONES ET COMMVNITATEM ANGLIAE the Lord Audleys care At the Parliament at Westm 15. E. 2 Hugh le pier adjuge per les SEIGNIEURS COMMONS Rot. Parl. 50. E. 3. n. 34. Lord Nevils case Then he aâ—des See Rot. Claus 1 R. 2. n. 5. 8. 38. â—0 A tresage Councell le Roy Les SEIGNIORS COMMONS c. Rot. Parl. 2. H. 5. nu 1â— Errâ—ra sinned THAT THE LORDS gave Judgement WITâ—OVT PETITION OR ASâ—â—NT OF THE COMMONS Rot. Parl. 28. H. 6. nu 10. and many others in the Reigne of King H. 6. and Kin E. 4. And of later times see divers notable Judgements at the prosecution of the Commons By THE LORDS at the Parliaments â—â—â—den 18. and 21. Iac. Regis against Sir Giles Mompesson Sir Iohn Michell Viscount St. Albon Lord Chancellor of England the Earle of Middlesex Lord Treasurer of England whereby the due proceedings of Iudicature in such Caces doth appeare Then hee cites the cases of * 8. Eliz. Thomas Long * 23 Eliz. Arthur Hall * 2. Aâ—â—â—l 1. Maâ—â—â— and Muncton censured by the House of Commons only and by them fined and imprisoned without the Lords Aâ—d concludes thus If any Lord of Parliament spirituall or temporall have committed any Oppression Bribery extortion or the like the HOUSE OF COMMONS BEING THE GENERALL INQUISITORS OF THE REALME comming out of all parts thereof may examine the same and if they find by the Vote of the House the charge to be true then they TRANSMIT THE SAME TO THE LORDS WITH THE WITNESSES and PROOFES From which passages of his some ignorantly have concluded That the Lords have no power of Judicature without but only joyntly with the Commons That all Commoners ought to be judged only by the Commons not by the Lords and That the Commons have a sole power of Judicature in cases of Commoners and the Lords no power but joyntly with them or upon their preceding Petitions and impeachments neither in case of Commoners nor Peers I answer that Sir Edward Cookes words are much mistaken and rightly understood warrant no such inferences but the contrary For first he clearely confesseth in direct termes That the Lords in their House have a power of judicature even without the Commons ha he deâ—med particularly in whose and in what cases out of the Judgements Records and Journals of Parliament at large to which he refers the Reader a being best understood by reading them which warrant the Lords judging fining imprisoning and condemning to death not only of Peers but of Commoners themselves without the Commons as I have fully manifested their could no such inference have been made Secondly â—e addeâ— That the Commons in their House have a power of Judicature From whence Lilburne and others inferre That they are and ought to be the sole Judges of all Commoners and not the Lords in all cases triable in Parliament But this is a most grosse mistake Sir Edward Cooke confining this Judicature of theirs only to these three câ—ses First to matters and abuse concerning elections of Knights Citizens and Burgesses being Members of the Commons House the judgment and determination whereof the Commons alone of late times only have usually taken upon them without the Lords which he proves by Thomas Longs case 8. Eliz. and no greater antiquities of which elections the King and Lords in former times have been sole Judges for which I shall cite some memorable records worthy the Lords and â—â—mmons consideration who now take upon them to suspend ejeâ—â— Judge their own Members elections without the Kings or Lords concurrence or privity a practice not heard of in former ages and of late originall In the Parliament holden at Westminster 5. H. 4. Rot. Parl. num 38. Thomas Thorpe his case Item because that the writ of summons of Parliament returned by the Sheriffe of Roteland was not sufficiently nor duely 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 their shall be default found in this matter that such a punishment might be inflicted which might become exemplary to others to offend againe in the like manner Whereupon our said Lord the King IN FULL PARLIAMENT commanded THE LORDS IN PARLIAMENT TO EXAMINE THE SAID MATTER and to doe therein AS TO THEM SHOULD SEEME BEST IN THEIR DISCRETIONS And thereupon the SAID LORDS caused to come BEFORE THEM IN PARLIAMENT as well the said Sheriffe as William One by who was returned by the said Sheriffe for one of the Knights of the said County and Thomas Thorpe 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 Sheriffe And the said parties being duely examined and their reasons well considered in the said Parliament IT WAS AGREED BY THE SAID LORDS that because the said Sheriffe had not made a sufficient returne 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 Countie for the Parliament and moreover that the said Sheriffe for this default SHALL BE DISCHARGED OF HIS OFFICE and COMMITTED PRISONER TO THE FLEET and that he should MAKE FINE and RANSOME AT THE KINGS PLEASURE Loe here the Lords in Parliament at the Commons request and by the Kings command examining and giving judgement in case of undue election even without the
thâ—â—r Speaker to them desiring his inlargement whereupon the said Lords spirituall and temporall not intending to hurt or impeach the priviledge of the Commons but equally after the Courts 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 priviledge 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 to that question for it hath not been used aforetime that the Iustices should in any wise determine the priviledge of this high Court of Parliam 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 that priviledge belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Iustices but as for declaration of proceedings in the lower Courts in such cases as writs of Supersedeas of Priviledge of Parliament be brought and delivered the said chief Iustice said that there be many and divers Supersedeas of priviledges of Parliament brought into the Courts but there is no generall Supersedeas â—rought to surâ—eâ—se all Processes for if there should be it should seem that this High Court of Parliament that ministreth all Justice and equitity should let the processe of the common Lawes and so it should put the party plainant without remedy for so much as * Vpon this ground 1. R. 2. n. 20. 87. 114. 2. R. 2. n. 8. 49. 5. R. 2. n. 44. 13 R. 2. n. 10. 30. 33. 15. R. 2. n. 9. 17. R. 2. n. 10 We find the Commons and Parliament very zealous to maintain the Common Law and referring causes and petitions to it when proper for it and unproper for the Parliament 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 freedome and Liberty freely to attend upon the Parliament After which answer and Declaration it was throughly agreed assentted and concluded by the Lords spirituall and temporall that the said Thomas according to the law should remain still in Prison for the causes abovesaid the priviledge 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 comâ—â— 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 premises for as much as they were matters of Law by the commandements of the Lords were opened and declared to the Commons by the mouth of Walter Mâ—yle one of the Kings Sergeants at Law in the presence of the Bishop of Ely accompanied 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 took good and effectuall conclusion and end VVhereupon thâ— 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 In the Parliament of 39. H. 6. n. 9. Walter Clerke one of the Burgesses of Parliament for Chippenham was arrested and imprisoned in the Fleet for divers debts to the King and others upon a Capias Uâ—lagatâ—m whereupon the Commons complained thereof to the King and Lords and desired his release and tendred them an Act of Parliament ready drawn for that purpose to which Petition and Biâ—â— of theirs the King by the ASSENT OF THE LORDS SPIRITUALL and TEMPORALL assented And thereupon hee was freed In like maner Richard Chedder In the Parliament of 35. Eliz. Thomas Fitz-Herbert of Staffordshire was elected a Burgesse of Parliament and two houres after before the Indenture returned the Sheriffe tooke him in upon a Capiâ—â— Utlagatum Whereupon he petitioned the House that he might have a Writ of Priviledge and be enlarged After many dayes debate and Argument of this case in the House by sundry Lawyers and Sir Edward Cooke then Speaker it was agreed That no Writ of Priviledge 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 Iudges should be advised with and determine it not the House And at last he was outed of his Priviledge by the Houses resolution In 28. H. 8. Dyer 60. The case of Trewinnerd a Commoner in point of Priviledge of Parliament concerning an arrest was argued and debated before the Judges in the Kings Bench And so was Chedders case in 8. H. 4. 12. 13. So as the Commons only are not the sole Judges of such Priviledge as many now concerve but the House of Peers and Kings Councell and Judges as well as they In these three cases only and no other that I find Sir Edward Cooke admits the Commons to be sole Iudges now though not anciently without the Lords Therefore to extend it generally to all or any other cases of Commoners but these is to pervert his words and extend them farre beyond his meaning Now Lilburnes Overtons Cases are none of these but directly under the Lords sole Iudicature because infringements of their Priviledges of which the Lords only are the Iudges as the Commons pretend they are of their Priviledges as his following passages manifest Thirdly hee addes that both Houses together have power of Indicature but determines not in what cases nor in what way of Judicature which hath caused the Objectâ—rs mistake But the Judgements Records and Iournals of Parliament to which he refers and the cases he cites in the Margin will affoyle this doubt and cleare his meaning which is this First That in attainders and judgements of High Treason Felony or other Misdemeaners in Parliament where the proceedings are not by way of tryall and ordinary Judicature but by * See 31. H 6. n. 45. 64. 38. H. 6. n. 9. to 36. Bill or Act of Parliament there both Houses together and the King too joyntly with them have the power of
Iudicature and this is all which is proved by 15. E. 2. Hugh Spencers case who was judged and banished by an Act of Parliament intituled Exilium Hugonis le Spencer printed in old Magna Chartaes as Sir Edward Cooke himselfe reports in Calvins case 7. Report f. 11. b. and the Lord Audlyes case 12. E. 2. is the same the Commons having no right to judge them being Peers by the very * See Cooke 2. Instit f. 49. 50. 51. Statute of Magna Charta c. 29. but only the Peer except in a Legislative way by Act or Bill Secondly That in all cases of difficultie where the King shall please to demand the advise and opinions of both Houses of Parliament joyntly there both of them may and ought to joyne in delivering their opinions and Judgements of the case or thing propounded and this is all that * Cooke 3. Iâ—qâ— p 7. where is Case of â—â—grave is cited at large Sir Nicholas de Seagraves case proves 31. E. 1. rot 33. Who being charged in Parliament in presence of the King Earles Barons and OTHERS OF THE KINGS COUNCEL not the Commons or Burgesses but the Iudges and Kings learned Councell at Law * See the Free-holders Grand Inquest 2. 39. 40. 41. 42. and Privy Councell who were assistants to the Lords as I conceive and others of his Privy Councell which Sir Edward Cooke would have to expresse the Commons in Parliament then and there present that the King in the wars of Scotland being among his enemies Nicholas Seagrave his leigman who held of the King by Homage and fealty and served him for his ayd in that warre 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 hee would answer him in the Kings Court c. and thereupon gave him his faith After which Nicholas withdrew himselfe from the Kings host and ayd leaving the King in danger of his enemies and adjourned the said John to defend himselfe in the Court of the King of France and prefixed him a certaine day and so as much as in him was subjected and submitted the Dominion of the King and Kingdome to the subjection of the King of France and to effect this hee tooke his journey towards Dover to passe over into France All which he confessed and submitted himselfe therein de alto et basso to the Kings pleasure And hereupon the King willing HABERE AVISAMENIUM to have the advise of the EARLES BARONS LORDS magnatum and OTHERS OF HIS COUNCELL enjoyned them upon the Homage fealty and allegiance wherewith they were obliged to him quod ipsi fideliter CONSVLERENT they should faithfully ADVISE HIM what punishment should be inflicted for such a fact thus confessed Qui omnes habito super hoc diligenti tractatu avisamento c. Who all having had thereupon diligent debate and advise having considered and understood all things contained in the said fact DICVNT not by way of Iudgement judicially pronounced but of answer to the Kings question propounded and as their opinion of the cause Said that this fact DESERVES losse of life and 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 himselfe but only an opinion and advise touching his 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 proofe of any actuall proper Judicature vested in both Houses Secondly For ought appeares this question was only propounded to the Earles Lords Barons and the Kings Councell that assisted them and so only to the House of Peers not to the commons and answered resolved only by them * See the Freeholders grand Inquest p. 39. 40. 41. 42. 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 And then it followes 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 Cooke citing this president to prove That both Houses together have power of Iudicature must grant that even in 33. E. 1. there were two distinct Houses of Parliament who upon speciall occasions as now at conferences c. met and advised together and therefore the division of the Houses was before Edward the third his raigne and very probable as ancient as this summoning of Knights Citizens and Burgesses of the Parliament which some make no ancienter then King Henry the first or King Henry the third In the 40. yeare of his reigne Father to King Edward the first So as this president makes quite against the Levellers and Lilburnians designes The Freeholders Garnd Inquest p. 13. 14. 15. and opinions Fourthly Sir Iohn at Lees case 42. E. 3. num 20. said to be adjudged by the Lords and Commons is somewhat mistaken For the record only mentions That the 21 day of May the King gave thanks to the Lords and Commons for their coming and ayd granted on which day ALL THE LORDS SVNDRY OF THE COMMONS dined with the â—ing After which dinner Sir Iohn at Lee was brought before the King LORDS COMMONS next aforesaid who dined with the King to answer certaine 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 obâ—ected against the said Sir Iohn Of which for that he could not sufficiently purge himselfe HE was committed to the Tower of London there to remaine till he had made fine and ransome 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 Councell at Westminster which COVNSELL ORDERED the said ward to be released into the Kings hands So as this record proves not this judgement was given in the Parliament house nor that the Lords and Commons adjudged Sir Iohn but rather the King and his Councell in the presence of the Lords and Commons Fifthly The judgement given against the Lord Latymer 15. E. 3. Parl. rot num 27. which was for his default in government against the profit of the King and Realm procuring of grants to the destruction of the Staple and Towne of Calayes and levying Impositions upon woolls was given in full Parliament BY THE BISHOPS and LORDS who
not reporting him to the advice of the Lords nor by way of judgement for he is not in place of judgement putteth you to his rule and governance that before the first of May next comming hee should absent himselfe out of the Kingdome of England and all other his Dominions in France or elsewhere for five yeares space and that hee nor no man for him should shew or waite any malice nor hate to any person of what degree soever of the Commons in the Parliament in no manner of wise for any thing done to him in this Parliament or elsewhere And forthwith Viscount Peamont in behalfe of the said LORDS both Spirituall and Temporall and BY THEIR ADVICE ASSENT AND DESIRE said and declared to the Kings Highnesse that this that so was decreed and done by his Excellencie concerning the person of the said Duke PROCEEDED NOT BY THâ—IR ADVICE AND COVNSELS but was done by the Kings owne demeanour and rule Wherefore they besought the King that this their saying MIGHT BE ENACTED IN THE PARLIAMENT ROLL FOR THEIR MORE DECLARATION HEREAFTER WITH THIS PROTESTATION THAT IT SHOVLD NOT BE NOR TVRNE IN PREJVDICE NOR DEROGATION OF THEM THEIR HEYRS NE OF THEIR SVCCESSOVRS IN TIME COMMING but that they may HAVE AND INJOY THEIR LIBERTY AS THEY OR ANY OF THEIR ANCESTORS PREDECESSORS HAD AND ENIOYED BEFORE THIS TIME This is the sum of this large record which makes nothing to the purpose for which it is cited that it is errour when both Houses joyne not in â—udgement For first here is nothing but an impeachment onely by the Commons of a Peere who ought to be tryed judged by his Peerage not by Commoners Secondly there was no judgement given in Parliament in this case but only a private Award made by the King out of the Parliament House in his owne Chamber in presence of the Lords Thirdly the Lords entred a speciall protestation against it as not made by their advice or consent Fourthly they enâ—er a speciall claime in the Parliament Roll for the preservation of their Right and Freedome of Peerage for hereafter both of being tryed and judged onely by their Peeres in Parliament and so an expresse resolution that they in Parliament are and ought to be Iudges not the Commons The last Records I have cited at large lest Sir Edward Cookes briefe quotation and mis-recitall of them should deceive the credulous or ignorant Reader Eighthly the cases of Sir Giles Monpesson Sir John Michell Viscount S. Alban and the Earle of Middlesex whom the Commons onely impeached and the Lords alone without the Commons votes or presence judged and sentenced are direct proofes that the power of Iudicature and Censure as well of impeached Commoners as Lords resides onely in the Lords House the Commons being but generall Inquisitors to search out and present both Lords and Commoners publike offences to the Lords to whom they transmit the charge and witnesses the Lords the onely Iudges to heare and determine the charge examine the witnesses upon oath and passe and record the sentence and see it executed and no more Iudges in the Parliament then the grand enquest are Iudges at the Assizes or Sessions The second and principall objection insisted upon by that Ignoramuâ— Object 2. Lilburne and his disciples the Levellers is the Statute of Magna Charta chap. 29. That no Free man shall be imprisoned outlawed exiled or any other way destroyed Nor we shall not passe upon him nor condemne him but BY THE LAWFVLL IVDGMENT OF HIS PEERES or BY THE LAW OF THE LAND Whence thus they argue The Lords in Parliament are not Commoners Peers but the Commons only therefore they cannot be judged in Parliament by the Lords but by the Commons alone and if Peers there judge Commoners it is a tyranny and usurpation even against Magna Charta it selfe though it be in case of priviledge To take away this grand seeming objection Answ and give it a satisfactory answer I say First in generall that there is scarce one Parliament ever since Magna Charta was first confirmed but the Lords have sentenced and given judgment against some Commoners capitally or penally in body or purse or both without the Commons and did so doubtlesse before Magna Charta was made as I have already manifested yet never did the Commons in any one of those Parliaments till this present complain of it as a violation of Magna Charta or a tyrannicall usurpation as Lilburne and Overton stile it but acknowledged it as a just right in the Lords even in 3. Caroli it selfe when the Petition of Right was passed in the Lords Iudgment and Sentence against Doctor Manwaring a Commoner impeached by the Commons And therefore for this one Ignoramus alone against the judgements of all the Commons in Parliament in all ages to averre this a breach of Magna Charta for imprisoning and fining him for the highest affront and breach of priviledge over offered to any Parliament is the extremity of ignorance malice and singularity Secondly I answer that the Statute of Magna Charta extendeth not to nor was ever intended of the high Court of Parliaments Iudgements and Proceedings but onely to the proceedings and Iudgements in the Kings great Courts of Iustice at Westminster Hall the Exchequer his Privy Councell and other inferiour Courts held before Judges Iustices of Assize and other Officers as is evident by comparing this objected Chapter with c. 11 12 13 14 18. 28 â—0 3â— 37. by the Statutes of 25. E. 3. Stat. 5. c. 4. 28. E. 3. c. 3. 37. E. 3. â— 18. 38. E. 3. c. 9. 42. E. 3. c. 3. 17. â—2 c. 6. and the Petition of Right it selfe 3. Caroli which so expound it there being never any complaint against the Parliament it selfe or House of Peeres in any age for breach of Magna Charta in censuring or imprisoning Commoners till now Therefore this misapplying of this Law to the Parliament and House of Peers is a grosse oversight Thirdly the very literall sence of this Law is much mistaken by the Objectors For that any Freeman of England is a Peer to another Freeman quatenus such a one within this Law though of an higher degree in point of honour dignity office and estate and this clause * 〈…〉 No Freeman shall be imprisoned and but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers extends onely to exclude villaines and those who are not Freeholders from being Iudges of Freemen and Freeholders in tryalls by Iury whence the Writs to the Sheriffes to summon Iurors require them alwayes to returne Liberos Legales homines not to exclude Lords or Peeres who are Freemen in the higest degree to be Iudges of Commoners who are Freemen So as the Argument from the true meaning of this Law can be but this villaines and those who are no Freemen are not to be Iudges or impannelled in Iuries to condemne Freemen because they are not their Peeres nor Freemen as well as they Therefore
hill unto the Gallows at Tiburn there kenelled his bowels laid before him and after he should be hanged beheaded and quartered and his head sent to Calayes where the murther was committed and his quarters sent to other places where the King should please and thereupon command was given to the Marshall of England to make execution accordingly and it was so done the same day Lo here the Lords in Parliament gâ—ve judgement against a Commoner in case of a murther done at Calayes and so not triable at the Kings Bench but in Parliament and passe a judgement of High treason on him for murthering of a great Peere only And which is most remarkable all the Commons In this very Parliaments of 1 H. 4. nu 70. Nov 3. made their Protestation and further remonstrated to the King Nota. Com LES JVGGEMENTS DV PARLEMENT APEIRTEIGNENT SOVLEMENT AV ROY ET AS SEIGNEIVRS ET NIENT AS COMMVNES how the judgement of the Parl. appertained ONLY TO THE KING and TO THE LORDS and NOT VNTO THE COMMONS except in case it should please the King OF HIS SPECIALL GRACE to shew unto them the said JVDGEMENTS purcase de eux que null record soit fait in Parlement encoutreles ditz Communes quill soit ou serront parties ascunes juggements donez ouadoues en Apres in Parlement Whereunto it was answered by the Archbish of Canterbury by the Kings command how the said Commoners are petitioners and demanders and that THE KING THE LORDS de tont temps ont eves et aueront DE DROIT LES JVGGEMENT EN PARLEMENT en manere come me me les communes ount monstres HAVE ALVVAYES HAD AND SHALL HAVE OF RIGHT THE JVDGEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT in manner as the Commons themselves have declared except in making Statutes or in making Grants and Subsidies or such things for the common profit of the Realm wherein the King will have especially their advice and assent and that this order of proceeding shall be held and kept IN ALL TIMES TO COME By which record in Parliament it is apparent by the House of Commons own confession First that the Judgements in Parliament even in cases of Commoners appertain ONLY TO THE KING and LORDS in the affirmative Secondly that they appertain NOT TO THE COMMONS in the negative Thirdly that the King and LORDS HAVE ALWAYES HAD and ENJOYED THE RIGHT of Judgements in Parliament Fourthly that they should alwayes hold and enjoy this Right IN ALL TIMES TO COME Fifthly that the Commons speciall advise and assent was and is required by the King in Parliament only in making of Statutes Grants and Subsidies and such like things for the common profit of the Realm So full and punctuall a Parliamentary decision of the present controversie as is uncapable of any answer or evasion In the Parliament Roll of 17. y See Cook 3. Instit c. 2. p. 22. R. 2. num 20. 21. John Duke of Gayen and of Lancaster Steward of England and Thomas Duke of Glocester Constable of England the Kings Uncles complained to the King that Thomas Talbot Knight a Commoner and no Peere with other his adherents conspired the death of the said Duke in divers parts of Cheshire as the same was confessed and well known and prayed that the Parliament might judge of the faulâ— to wit whether it were treason according to the clause of the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. It is accorded that if any other case supposed Treason which is not above specified doth happen before any Justices the Justices shall tarry without any going to judgement of the Treason till the cause be shewed and declared before the King and His Parliament whether it ought to be judged Treason or Felony whereupon the KING and THE LORDS IN THE PARLIAMENâ— without the Commons though in case of a Commoner ADJVDGED THE SAME FACT TO BE OPEN and HIGH TREASON and thereupon they award two writs the one to the Sheriffes of Darby to take the body of the said Sir Thomas retornable in the Kings Bench in the moneth of Easter then next following and open Proclamation was made in Westminster Hall upon the Sheriffes return and the next coming in of the said Sir Thomas that the same Thomas SHOVLD BE CONVICTED OF TREASON and incurre the losse and pain of the same and that all such as should receive him after the same Proclamation should incurre the same losse and paine Sir z 3. Instit p. 22. Edward Cooke relating this Judgement addes his own opinion at the end That this judgement wanting the assent of the Commons was no Declaration of Treason within the Act of 25. E. â— because it was not by the King and his Parliament according to this Act but by the King and Lords ONLY But the record of Parliament and the Judges and Commons then admitted it to be good and processe issued out and judgement was given accordingly the parties concerned taking no such exceptions to it See 21. R. 2. n. 15. 16. So that this Record is a pregnant evidence That the King and Lords are the sole Judges in Parliament in the case of Commoners even in declaring and judging what is or what is not treason within the Statute of 25. E. 3. because the Commons are no Iudges in Parliament and so cannot Iudge or declare unles in a legislative way by Act of Parliament what is Treason or Pelony but the King and Lords alone To put this out of question I shall cite one notable record more to this purpose a Cooke 3. Instit p. 22. c. 1. p. 10. In the Parliament of 5. H. 4. 11. 12. on the 8. of February the Earle 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 alegiance and especially for gather of power and giving of Liveries for which he put himselfe upon the Kings grace and prayed pardon the rather for that upon the Kings Letters he yielded himselfe and came to the King at Yorke whereas he might have kept himselfe away Which Petition by the Kings command was delivered to the Justices to be examined and to have their counsell and advice therein Whereupon the LORDS made a Protestation que le Juggement appertient aeux 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 a queux tells â—uggementz apperteignent DE DROIT TO WHOM SUCH JUDGEMENT 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. yeare of King Edward the Kings Grand-father that now is concerning the Declaration of treason as the Statutes of Liveries made in this Kings raigne ADJUDGED that that which was done by the said Earle contained within his Petition was neither Treason nor Felony but Trespas for which
Commons An attendent on Sir Tho. Brooke chosen one of the Knights to serve in Parliament for the County of Somerset being grievously beaten by one Iohn Savage was upon a petition of the Commons relieved against this breach of Priviledge by * Ordinance or Act of Parliament 8. H. 4. 23. 14. made by consent of the King and Lords which is printed in 5. H. 4. c. 6. And in like maner Richard Strode Burgesse of Plimton was relieved against breaches of his priviledges as a Parliament man by a speciall act of Parliament assented unto by the King and Lords upon the Commons petition An. 4. H. 8. c. 6. the Commons alone being then unable to relieve them or punish these breaches by their owne authority as of late they presume to doe without King or Lords Quo Jure having not the power of Judicature vested in them I am yet to learne being contrary to the practice and presidents of all ancient Parliaments before our present age and the Statute of 11. H. 6. c. 11. provided for this very purpose which presents another remedy out of Parliament and not in only the Commons house In the Parliament of 16. R. 2. n. 6. The Wednesday after the Parliament began Sir Philip Courtenay returned by the Sheriffe of Devon for one of the Knights for that County came before the King in full Parliament and sayd that he understood how certaine 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 untill 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 returne of the said Sheriffe for to counsell and doe that which belonged unto his office and after 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 same The charge against him is expressed in the same Parliament rol num 13. 14. where two Petitions preferred against him to THE KING and LORDS IN PARLIAMENT for putting Thomas Peutyngdon forcibly out of possession of the Manor of Bygelogâ— without just cause Richard Somestre out of other lands detaining them from them he being so powerfull in the County that no poore man durst to sue him Which Petitions were referred by consent in Parliament to certaine Arbitrators to determine From which record it is evident First that Members of the Commons house may be complained and petitioned against for misdeameanours 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 lesse then can they expell or eject any of their members by their owne authority without the Kings and Lords concurrence and consents Thirdly that the power of restoring and readmitting a suspended Member of the Commons house belongs not to the Commons themselves but to the King and Lords to whom the Commons themselves in this case addressed themselves by petitinn for Courtneys readmission unto his office after his submission of the complaints against him to the arbitriment of those Members to whom the King and Lords referred the same In the Parliament of 17. R. 2. n. 23. It was accorded by the King and Lords at the request of the Commons that Roger Swinerton who was endited of the death of one of their companions John 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 untill 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 order at their request In the Parliament of 35. Eliz. when Sir Edward Cook was Speaker of the Commons House there fell out some questions in the Commons House about the Amendment of a mistake in the return of the Burgesse of Southwark * 5. R. 2. c. 4 8. H. 4. c. 14. 11. H. 4. c. 16. H. 6 c. 4. 8. H. 6. c. 7. 32. H. 6. c. 15 Ploud tol 11. 8 c. and after long debate it was resolved that the House could not amend it but the Lord Keeper in Chancery where the return was of Record if he thought it amendable by Law and that Masten Speaker should wait upon the Lord Keeper about it which he did who advised with the Iudges concerning it as appeares by the Journall And the Statutes made for redresse of abuse of Elections of Knights and Burgesses were made by the King and Lords upon the Commons petitions as appeares by 8. H. 4. n 83 1 9. 11. H. 4. n. 54. Neither of all which statutes gives the House of Commons alone any power of Iudicature to judge the right of Elections or punish abuses committed in them but leaves them to the Lords judicature as at first and gives the party injured an action at Law against the Sheriffe and â—others for false returns Secondly Sir Edmund Cooks words extend only matters of misdemeanor of any Members of the House of Commons committed in or against the House it self of which theâ— now though not anciently are the sole judges without the Lords which he proves by Arthur Halls case Thirdly to breaches of Priviledges of the Commons House alone in striking or arresting any of the Members or their priviledged servants which he proves by Munctons case and 11. H. 6. c. 11. 5. H. 4. c. 6. the two latter proving the contrary Yet in this case of breach of priviledge even in arresting the Commons Members and servants the Commons house were noâ— anciently the sole Judges as now In the Parliament of H. 6. n. 25. 26. 27. 28. Thomas Thorp chief Baron was chosen Speaker of the Parliament and after his election and before the Parliament which was proroged he was arrested and taken in execution at the suit of the Duke of York whereupon some of the Commons were sent up by the House to the King and Lords spirituall and temporall sitting in Parliament desiring that they might enjoy all their ancient and accustomed Priviledges in being free from arrests and propounded the case of Thomas Thorp