the Attainders repealed by Bill afterwards In the Parliament of 25 H. 8. c. 12. Elizabeth Barkin Richard Master Edward Barkin and sundry others were attainted and condemned of High Treason John Fisher Bishop of Rochester Thomas Gold and others of misprission of High Treason by Act of Parliament In the Parliament of 28 H. 8. c. 7. Queen Anne George Lord Rochford Sir Henry Norris Sir Francis Weston William Breerton Esquire and Mark Sutton were convicted and attainted of High Treason and their lands forfeited by Bill In the Parliament of 32 H. 8. Thomas Lord Cornwell was convicted and attainted of High Treason by Bill against Law and the great Charter without ever being called to answer or any legal hearing for the Treasons therein expressed according â—o his own intentions to have thus proceeded against others without legal tryal In the Parliament of 33 H. 8. c. 21. Queen Katherine Jane Lady Rochford were convicted and attainted of High Treason by Bill to which Act the king was enabled to give his royal assent by Letters Patents signed by him under his hand with his great Seal notified and published in the HIGHER HOUSE to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons there assembled without comming to the House in person to give his royal assent thereto In the Parliament of 2 3. Ed. 6. ch 17. Sir william Sharington Knight being indicted and attainted of High Treason for forging and coyning of mony called Testons his attainder was confirmed by Act of Parliament and his lands forfeited And ch 18 Sir Thomas Seymor Lord Seymor of Sudley and high Admiral of England for his trayterous aspiring to the Crown of this Realm and to be King of the same and for compassing and imagining by open Act to deprive the King of his royal estate and title of his Realms and for compassing and imagining the death of his Noblemen and most trayterously to take away and destroy all things which should have sounded to the let or impediment of this his most trayterous and ambitious enterprise as the Act recites and for other his misdemeanors innumerable untruths falshoods deceiptfull practises outrages against the King oppression manifest extortion upon the Subjects of the Realm was adjudged and attainted of high Treason by Bill and to sustain such pain of death and other forfeitures aes in cases of High Treason have been used being a Member so unnaturul unkind and corrupt and such a heynous offender of his Majesty and his Laws that he cannot nor may not conveniently be suffered to remain in the body of the Commonwealth but to the extreme danger of the Kings Highness being the head and of all the good Members of the same and of too pernicious and dangerous example that such a person so bound to his Majesty by sundry great benefits and so forgetfull of them and so cruelly and urgently continuing in his false and treacherous intents and purposes against his Highness and the whole estate of his Realm should remain among us In the Parliament of 1 Mariae ch 1. the Attainder of Queen Katherine is reversed by Bill and ch 16. the Attainders of John Duke of Northumberland Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury William Marquess of Northampton John Earl of Warwick Sir Ambrose Dudley with other Knights and Gentlemen formerly convicted and attainted of Treason according to the Law of the Realm for their detestable and abominable Treasons in proclaiming and setting up Queen Jane to the peril and great danger of the person of Queen Mary and to the utter loss disherison and destruction of the Realm of England if God in his infinite goodness had not in due time revealed their trayterous intents as the Act recites at the Petition and with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament were confirmed and ratified by a special Act. In the Parliament of 29 Eliz. c. 1. the Attainders of Thomas Lord Paget Sir Francis Englefield and sundry other Knights and Gentlemen who were lawfully indicted convicted and attainted of many unnatural detestable and abominable Treasons to the fearfull peril and danger of the destruction of the Queens Majesties person and of the Realm were confirmed by a special Act and ch 3. there is another Act to avoid fraudulent assurances made in certain cases by Traytors In the Parliament of 3 Jacobi ch 2. Sir Everâ—rd Digby Robert Winter Guy Fawkes Robert Catesâ—y and all the rest of the Gunpowder Traytors who undertook the execution of the most barbarous execrable and abominable Treason that could ever enter into the hearts of most wicked men by blowing up the Lords House of Parliament with the King Queen Prince Lords Spiritual and Temporal Judges Knights Citizens and Burgesses of Parliament therein assembled were attainted of High Treason and their former attainders and convictions confirmed by a special Act And in this very last Parliament the Earl of Strafford Lord Deputy of Ireland and William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury after judgement of high Treason upon their several impeachments and trials given against them by the Lords in their House were likewise attainted of Treason and their judgements ratified by a special Bill and Ordinance to which the Commons assented as well as the Lords their assents to Attainders by way of Act or Bill being so necessary that if the King in Parliament Wills that such a man shall be attainted of Treason and lose his lands and the Lords assent and nothing is spoken of the Commons in the Bill this is no Act nor good Attainder in Law and the petson shall be restored by the opinion of all the Judges 4 H. 7. f. 18. Broke Parliam 42. Fitz. 3.7 H. 7.14 11 H. 7.27 Broke Parliam 107. Plowden 79.32 H. 6.18 As the Commons in our English Parliaments have assented to all these and some other Bills and Acts of Attainder cited in Sir Edward Cooks 4 Institutes ch 1 2. and Mr. St. Johns Argument at Law concerning the Bill of Attainder of High Treason of Thomas Earl of Strafford printed by Order of the Commons House 1641. So I find that the Commons in Ireland have done the like in the Parliaments held in Ireland as the Printed Statutes of Ireland 28 H. 8. c. 1. for the Attainder of the Earl of Kildare and others of High Treason 11 Eliz. ch 1. for the Attainder of Shan O Neyle and others of High Treason of 13 Eliz ch 6. 7. for the Attainders of Fiâ—zgerald and others of High Treason Of 27 Eliz. ch 1. for the Attainders of Iames Eustace and others of High Treason of 28 Eliz. ch 8. 9. for the Attainders of the Earl of Desmond John Brown and others and of 11 Jacobi ch 4. for the Attainders of the Earl of Tyrone and others of High Treason for their several rebellions insurrections wars against their Soveraigns and other Treasons mentioned in these respective Acts abundantly evidence But yet the Commons assents to all these Bills
committed to the Tower of London The 7 day of February the Commons by William Trussel their Speaker brought up and presented to the King and Lords in the Lords House a Bill against the said Duke containing an impeachment of several High Treasons committed by him against the King requiring of the Lords all their Articles therein to be enacted with prosecution therein The 9. of March they exhibited new articles of complaint against the Duke comprising sundry misdemeanors against the king and other persons which they require might be enrolled and that the Duke might answer to them The 9. of March the Duke was brought by the kings writ from the Tower into the Parliament Chamber before the King and Lords where the Articles were rehearsed to him who desired Copies of them which was granted And he for more ready answer was committed to certain Esquires to be kept in the Tower within the kings palace The 14 of March the Duke appeared before the K. Lords where on his knees he denied as untrue the 8 Articles of Treason and the same offered to prove as the King shall appoint The Chief Justice thereupon by the kings command asked this Question of the Lords what advise they would give the King what is to do further 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 Spiritual and Temporal then being in Town being 24 in all into his Inner Chamber within his Palace of Westminster where when they were all assembled he then sent for the Duke thither who coming into the Kings presence kneeled down and continued kneeling till the Chancellor of England had delivered the kings command to him and demanded of him what he said to the Commons Articles not having put himself upon his Peerage Whereupon the Duke denied all the Articles touching the kings Person and state of the Realm as false and scandalous And so not departing from his said Answers submitted himself to the kings Rule and Governance without putting himself upon his Peerage Where thus the Chancellor told him That as touching the great and horrible crimes contained in the first Bill the king holdeth him neither declared nor charged And as touching the second Bill containing misprisions which are not criminal the king by force of his submission by his own advice and 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 coming he should absent himself out of the kingdom of England and all other his Dominions in France or elsewhere and that he nor no man for him should shew or wait 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 Beaumont in behalf of the said LORDS both spiritual and Temporal and by their advice assent and desire said and declared to the Kings Highness That this that so was decreed and done by his Excellency concerning the person of the said Duke proceeded not by their advice and Counsels but was done by the Kings own demeanoir 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 should not be nor turn in prejudice nor derogation of them their heirs ne of their successors in time coming but that they may have and enjoy their liberty as they or any of their Ancestors and Predecessors had and enjoyed before this time This is the sum of this large Record which makes nothing to the purpose for which Sir Edward Cook cites it in his 4 Institutes p. 25. That it is ERROR when both Houses joyn not in the Judgement For first here is nothing but an impeachment only by the Commons of a Peer who ought to be tryed judged only by his Peers 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 own Chamber in presence of the Lords Thirdly the Lords entred a special protestation against it as not made by their advice or consent Fourthly they enter a special claim in the Parliament Roll for the preservation of their Right and Freedom of Peerage for hereafter both of being tried and judged only by their Peers in Parliament and so an express resolution that the Peers in Parliament are and ought to be Judges especially of Peers not the Commons These Records of these cited at large lest Sir Edward Cooks brief quotation and mis-recital of them should deceive the credulous or ignorant Readers In the Parliament of 31 H. 6. rot Parl. n. 28. Thomas Earl of Devonshire was accused of Treason tried for and acquitted thereof by his Peers before Humfrey Duke of Buckingham Steward of England for the time being And for that the Duke of York thought the loyalty of the said Earl to be touched thereupon the said Earl protesting his Loyalty referred himself to further Trial as a Knight should doe upon which declaration THE LORDS in Parliament acquitted him as a loyal Subject Edward Duke of York with the Earls of March Warwick Salisbury Rutland John Lord Clinton and others were impeached and attainted by Judgement of the Lords in Parliament of High Treason for raising forces and levying war against King Henry the 6. and afterwards attainted by Bill in the Parliament of 38 H. 6. n. 7. to 26. In the Paâ—liamenr of 1 E. 4. n. 17. to 71. The Duke of Exeter Viscount Beamont the Earls of Pembroke Wilts and Devonshire the Lords Nevil Roos Gray Dacre Hungerford and others were first attainted and condemned of High Treason by THE LORDS and after by Bill for levying warr against King Edward the fourth The Duke of Somerset and others in the Parliament of 4 E. 4. n. 28. to 39. and John Vere Earl of Oxford with others in the Parliament of 14 E. 4. n. 34. to 41. were in the same manner for the same offence attainted of High Treason and their Lands forfeited To pretermit all other Attainders of this Nature in cases of High Treason in the reigns of Henry the 8. Edward the 6. Queen Mary Queen Elizabeth and King James both in our English and Irish Parliaments formerly touched p. 196 197 198 199. In the Parliaments of 18 21 Jacobi Sir Francis Bacon Viscount St. Alban Lord Chancellor of England and the Earl of Middlesex Lord Treasurer of England were impeached accused convicted of Bribery Corruption and other misdemeanors removed from their places fined Middlesex 50000 l. imprisoned made uncapable of any Office and thus censured by Iudgement of the Lords house as the Journals of those Parliaments
against Judge Thorp should be brought into the Parliament and there read openly BEFORE THE LORDS to have every of their advice concerning it whether this Iudgement were legal or not et nullo contradicente all the Lords affirmed the judgement to be legal and good considering that he against his Oath received Bribes And therefore it was agreed by all the Lords that if the like case should hereafter happen the King might take to him such Nobles as he should think meet and therein do according to his pleasure Provided this judgement should not be drawn into example against any other Officers who should break their Oaths but only against those qui praedictum Sacramentum fecerunt of Justices et fregerunt et habent leges Regales Angl. ad custod Here the Lords were sole Judges of the Judge who was a Commoner and gave judgement against him without the Commons yea declare the Law in this new case both in and out of Parliament In the Parliament of 21 E. 3. n. 68. The Commons by divers Bills complained to the Lords of divers extortions grievances prejudices done to the King and Commons by John Wattenham and Walter de Cheriton Merchants who desired the King would command them to come before THE COUNCIL LORDS in Parliament to answer what should be objected and clear themselves In the Parliament of 50 E. 3. n. 17 18 19 20. The Commons accused Richard Lyons Merchant of London of divers deceits extortions and misdemeanors whiles he was farmer of the Customs and last subsidy for transporting wools and staple Commodities procuring new Impositions on staple ware for buying debts from the Kings Creditors at under rates and making the King to pay the whole for taking of bribes and defrauding the King To some of which charges he answered and to the rest submitted himself to the King touching Body Lands and Goods Whereupon THE LORDS adjudged him to prison during the Kings will that his lands tenements and goods should be seised to the Kings use that Commissions should issue throughout all England to inquire of his Extortions whiles farmer of the subsidies and that he should be disfranchised Upon this Judgement in the Fine Roll of 50 E. 3. m. 19 21 22. there issued out writs for the arresting and selling the goods of Richard Lyons to the Kings use which were his on the 19 of March certis de causis coram Nobis et Concilio nostro in praesenti Parliamento nostro propositis c. per Concilium in Parliamento The same Parliament 50 E. 3. n. 31 32. William Ellis of great Yarmouth was accused by the Commons of sundry extortions whiles he was Deputy Farmer of the kings subsidie to Richard Lyons To which he seemed sufficiently to answet yet was BY THE LORDS adjudged to prison and to make a fine at the Kings pleasure Ibidem Num. 33. Iohn Peach of London was impeached by the Commons for procuring a license under the Great Seal that he only might sell sweet wines in London by colour whereof he took 4 s. 4 d. of every man for every Tun thereof sold which he justified he lawfully might doe Notwithstanding JUDGEMENT was given against him by THE LORDS that he should be committed during the Kings pleasure and make recompense to all parties grieved Num 37. Adam de Bury was accused of divers deceits and wrongs done by him whiles Mayor of Callice and Captain of Bellingham Being sent for to come to the Parliament he came not nor could he be found Thereupon the Lords agreed that all his goods and chattels should be arrested and so they were All these Commons were first impeached by the Commons and thus judged and censured by THE LORDS in this GOOD PARLIAMENT as Historians and others stile it And in the Commons petitions therein there are divers Petitions of Grievances from sundry Counties Towns persons complaining of wrongs and grievances presented to the King and Lords for redresse of oppressions extortions Monolies c. In the Parliament of 1 R. 2. n. 41 42 43. Dame Alice Pâ—etrees was brought before THE LORDS by Sir Richard Scroop Knight and there charged for pursuing matters at the Court contrary to an Order made in the Parliament of 50 E. 3. n. 35. and procuring King Edward to restore Richard Lyons to his lands and goods c. she denied she pursued any such thing for singular gain against that Ordinance whereupon diverse Officers Counsellers and Secretaries of king Edward 3. were examined against her who proved she made such pursutes and that for private gain in their conceits Whereupon the Lords alone without the Commons gave Iudgement against her that she should be banished according to the order aforesaid and forfeit all her Lands Goods and Tenements to the King The same Parliament 1 R 2. n. 32 33. The Lords committed William Fitz-Hugh Goldfiner and Citizen of London to the Tower for refusing to averr a Petition exhibited by him in the name of the poor Commonalty of that mystery complaining against John Chichester and John Bolcham of the same mystery of divers oppressions done by them to the said Commonalty In this very Parliament of 1 R. 2. n. 38 39 40. The Commons prayed that all those Captains who had rendred or lost Castles or Towns through default might be put to answer it in this Parliament and severely punished according to their deserts BY AWARD or Judgement OF THE LORDS and BARONS to eschew the evil examples they had given to other Governors of Towns and Castles Whereupon Sir Alexander de Buxton Constable of the Tower was commanded to bring BEFORE THE LORDS IN PARLIAMENT William de Weston and Lord of Gomynes both of them Commoners on Friday the 27 of November to answer such Articles as should be surmised against them on the Kings behalf Being brought BEFORE THE LORDS in full Parliament they were severally articled against at the command of THE LORDS by Sir Richard le Scrop Knight Steward of the Kings House and their several Articles and answers to them in writing read before THE LORDS Which done the Constable was commanded to bring them again before THE LORDS on Saturday next ensuing being the 20 of November on which day it was shewed unto them severally by the said Steward by THE LORDS COMMAND That THE LORDS OF THE PARLIAMENT whose names are particularly mentioned in the Roll had met together and considered of their respective answers and that IT SEEMED TO THE LORDS AFORESAID that the said William had delivered up the Castle of Onâ—herwycke to the Kings enemies without any duress or want of victuals contrary to his allegiance and undertaking safely to keep it and therefore the Lords above-named sitting in full Parliament adjudge you to death that you shall be drawn hanged But because our Lord the King is not informed of the manner of the Judgement the execution of it shall be respited till the king be thereof informed After which Judgement given
the King wherein he accused Sir William Cogan knight for extorting 300 l. by menaces from the Prior of St. Iohns Sir William appearing upon Summons prayed Counsel which was denied for that it concerned Treason whereupon he pleaded Not Guilty After which the same Parliament n. 46. to 61. The Mayor Baylifs and Commonalty of Cambridge were accused before the King and Lords that in the late insurrection they confederating with other Malefactors did break open the Treasury of the University of Cambridge burn sundry Charters of the University and compel the Chancellor and Scholars under their common Seal to release to the said Mayor and Burgesses all manner of Liberties real and personal actions and also to become bound to them in great sums of money Whereupon special writs were directed to the Mayor Baylifs and Commonalty to appear in Parliament to answer the premises The Mayor and Baylifs appear in person and plead that they 〈◊〉 not privy to any such act but if any thing was done it was by compulsion by others which the Kings learned Counsel disproved whereupon they pleaded Not Guilty The Commonalty appeared by Attorney and delivered in the Release and Bond of the University complained of under their Seal which were ordered to be cancelled After which the Chancellor and Scholars of the University exhibited Articles against the Mayor and Baylifs shewing their whole carriage and discourse in this tumult Upon reading whereof it was demanded of them in the Kings behalf What they could say why their Liberties lately confirmed should not be seised into the Kings hands as forfeited They thereupon required a Copy of the Articles Councel and respite to answer To the Copy of the Bill it was answered by the Lords that seeing they had heard it read it should suffice for by Law they ought to have no Copy For Councel it was said That to such articles if any were wherein Councel was to be had they should have it otherwise not Wherfore they were then appointed to answer to no crime or offence but only to their Liberties To which they answered by their Council That this Court ought not to have any Conusance or Jurisdiction of them for certain causes then alleged But at last they were ordered to say what they could otherwise they would give Iudgement against them as those who had nothing to say Whereupon they pleaded they did nothing but by Duress and constraint of the Rebels At last after many dilatory shifts touching their Liberties they wholly submitted themselves to the Kings mercy and grace saving their answer to other matters The KING therefore by the assent of the Prelates and Lords in Parliament â—o is the Rolâ— seised their Liberties into his hands as forfeited and by assent of the Lords and Prelates in Parliament granted to the Chancellor and Scholars the Assise and correction of bread weights measures and forestallers and fines thereof within the Town and Subâ—rbs of Cambridge which the Townsmen had before The King Lords and Prelates being Judges and giving the Judgement in this case of Commoners as the record a â—ge attests Walsingham relates that in a Parliament holden at London this year about the feast of St. John upon the Petition of the knights of Shires John Straw Captain of those in the insurrection at Bury and Myldenhale tractationi et suspentioni ADJUDICATUR to wit by the King and Lords licet multi putassent eum fuisse pecunia redimendum In the 7. year of R. 2. Rege vocante congregati sunt multi de Nobilibus Regni apud Rading to restrain the seditious motions of John de Northampton late Mayor of London qui ingenia facinora nisus est de quibus et convictus est ibidem his familiar Clerk accusing him both of divers practises and designes projected by him as well to the prejudice of the King as of the whole City of London and objecting them against him When Judgement was to be given against him in the Kings presence he pleaded that such a Judgement ought not to be given against him in the absence of the Duke his Lord whereby he raised a sinister suspition as well in the people AS NOBLES against the Duke of Lancaster The Justice who was to pronounce the Judgement told him He ought to refute his charge by Duel or by the Laws of the Realm to submit himself to drawing hanging and quartering At which when he stood mute and said nothing DECRETVM EST ut perpetuo carceri tradiretur et eâ—us bona regis usibus confisâ—arentur ut Londonias non appropinquaret per centum miliaria in vita sua whereupon he was sent prisoner to Tyntagel Castle in Cornwall and his goods seised on by the Kings Officers In the Parliament of 7 R. 2. holden at Westminster the Monday next before the feast of All Saints num 17. Bryers Cressingham and Iohn Spicâ—worth Esquires were accused before the LORDS for surrendring the Castle of Drinkham in Flanders to the kings enemies for money without consent of the kings Lieutenant Spickworth proved that the same was not in his custody and thereupon he was discharged Cressingham pleaded that he yeelded the same upon necessity without money and submitted himself to the Lords order who thought this no good cause and therefore committed him to prison The same Parliament n. 24 25. Sir William de Elinsham Sir Thomas Trivet Sir Henry de Ferriers and Sir William Farnden knights and Robert Fitz-Ralph Esquire were accused before the Lords in Parliament for selling the Castle of Burburgh with all the arms ammunition and provisions therein to the French the kings enemies for sundry summs of gold received by them of the French without authority from the king or his Lieutenant who pleaded they surrendred it for salvation of themselves and their people c. After all their excuses made they were upon consideration adjudged insufficient by the Lords and the Chancellor by their order pronounced this Judgement against them That they should repay all the monies they received from the Enemy to the King be committed to prison ransomed at the Kings will and moreover that Sir Will. de Farnden being the greatest Offender should be at the Kings mercy both for body and goods to do with them as he pleaseth In this Parliament there was a Duel fought between John Walsh an English Esquire and one of Navarr who accoused him of Treason against the King and Realm effectually but yet falsly out of envy Walsh having layen with his wife whiles he was under Captain of Cherburgh as he afterwards confessed This Dueâ— was fought within the lists in the presence of the King and Nobles of the Realm where this Navarrois being vanquished by Walsh REGALI JVDICIO tractus et suspensus est quanquam Regina et plures alii pro eo preces sedulas porrexissent In the 2. of Parliament of 7 R. 2. n. 13.10 19. John Cavendish a Fishmonger of London praying Surety of the peace
spiritual Cour◠for a temporal cause belonging to the Crown and Common Law which was adjudged by the Lords upon examination to be untrue To passe by the accusation of Sir Philip Courtney of divers hainous matters oppressions dissensions before the King and Lords in the Parliament of 16 R. 2. n. 6.13 14. of which more anon In the Parliament of 17 R. 2. n. 20 21. John Duke of Lancastre Steward and Thomas Duke of Gloucester Constable of England complained to the King that Sir Thomas Talbot Knight with other his adherents conspired the deaths of the said Dukes in divers parts of Cheshire as the same was confessed and well known and prayed That the Parliament might judge of the fault Whereupon the King and the Lords in Parliament without the Commons adjudged the said fact to be open and High Treason And thereupon they awarded two Writs to the Sherifs of Yorks and of Derby to take the body of the said Sir Thomas retornable in the Kings Bench in the month of Easter next ensuing And open Proclamation was made in Westminster Hall That upon the Sherifs retorn and at the next coming in of the said Sir Thomas he should be convicted of Treason and incurr the loss and pain of the same and that all such who should receive him after the Proclamation should receive the like losse and pain In the Parliament of 20 R. 2. n. 15 16 23. Sir Thomas Haxey Clark was by the King Lords in Parl. adjudged to die as a Traytor and to forfeit all his Lands Goods Chattels Offices and Livings for exhibiting to the House of Commons a scandalous Bill against the King and his Court for moderating the outragious expences of his Court by Bishops and Ladies c. Upon the Bishops intercession the King spared his life and delivered him into the custody of the Archbishop to remain as his Prisoner In the Parliament of 21 R. 2. n. 19 20. Pl. Parl. n. 2. to 15. The Lords Appellants appealed Sir Tho Mortimer Knight of High Treason for raising war against the King accroaching royal power and purposing to surrender his homage and allegiance and depose the King Who flying into the parts of Ireland thereupon the Lords in Parliament assigned him a certain day to come and render himself to the Law or else to be adjudged and proceeded against as a Traytor and Proclamation thereof was made accordingly in England and Ireland to render himself within 3 months And that after that time all his Abettors and Aiders should be reputed for and forfeit as Traytors He not coming at the day The Duke of Lancaster Steward of England by assent of the Lords in Parliament adjudged him a Traytor and that he should forfeit all his Lands in fee and see tayl together with all his Goods and Chattels The like Judgement in like manner was in the same Parliament given against Sir John Cobham Knight for the like Treason Placit Coronaen 16. On the 22 day of March 22 R. 2. n. 27. The King by assent of the Lords adjudged Sir Robert Plesington Knight then dead a Traytor for levying war against him with the Duke of Glocester at Harrengary for which he should lose all his Lands in fee or fee tayl and all his goods And n. 28. Henry Bowht Clerk for being of Counsel with the Duke of Hereford in his device was adjudged by the King and Lords to die and forfeit as a Traytor after which his life was pardoned and he banished In the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 79. As the Commons acknowledged that the Iudgements in Parliament had always of right belonged to the King and Lords and not unto the Commons So therein the King and Lords alone without the Commons gave Judgement in sundry cases as Judges in Parliament 1. In Sir Thomas Haxey his case who in his own name presented a Petition in this Parliament a nostre tresedoute seigniour le ROY a LES SEIGNIORS DU PARLIAMENT shewing that in the last Parliament of 21 R. 2. that he delivered a Bill to the Commons of the said Parliament for the honour and profit of the said King and of all the Realm for which Bill at the will of the King he was by the King and Lords adjudged a Traytor and to forfeit all that he had praying that the record of the said Judgement with the dependants thereupon might be vacated and nulled by them in this present Parliament as erronious and that he might be restored to all his degrees farms estate goods chattels ferms pensions lands tenements rents offices advow sons and possessions whatsoever and their appurt and enjoy them to him and his heirs notwithstanding the said Iudgement or any grant made of them by the King The Commons House exhibited a Petition likewise on his behalf to the like effect adding that this judgement given against him for delivering this Bill to the Commons in Parliament was eneontre droit et la course quel avoit estre use devant in Parlement en anientesment des Customs de◠le◠Communes Upon which Petitions Nostre Seignior le ROY de Induis assent des touz les Seigniors esperituelz et temporelz ad ordinez et adjudges que le dit juggement renus vers le dit Thomas in Parlement soit de tout casses revorses repellez et adnullez et tenus pur nul force n'effect et que le dit Thomas soit restitut a ses nom et fame c. nient obstant mesme le juggement 2ly In the case of Judge Rickhill 1 H· 4. n. 92. On the 18 of November the Commons prayed the King that Sir William Rickhill late Just of the Common Bench arrested for a Confession he had taken of the Duke of Gloucester at Calice might be brought to answer for it devant les Seigniors du Parlement whereupon he was brought into Parliament before the Kings presence and all the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons assembled in Parliament where Sir Walter Clapton Chief Justice of the Kings Bench by the kings command examined the said Sir William how and by what warrant he went to Calice to the said Duke of Glocester and upon what message Who answered that king Richard sent him a special Writ into Kent there recited verbatim commanding him by the faith and allegiance whereby he was obliged to him and under pain of forfeiting all he had to goe unto Caleys And that at Dover he received a Commission from the said king by the hand of the Earl Marshal to confer with the Duke of Glocester and to hear whatsoever he would say or declare unto him and to certifie the king thereof in proper person wherever he should be fully and distinctly under his Seal Whereupon he went thither and took the said Dukes Examination in writing according to the purport of the said Commission a Copy whereof the Duke himself received c Upon the hearing of his answer and defence
every temporal Lord being in full Parliament examined touching the answer of the said Sir William and the matters and evidences which they had examined said severally that the said William had done his message well and legally and that in the person of the said William there was no fault nor evil touching the said message nor any thing that he did to the person of the said Duke Whereupon Walter Clapton Chief Justice of the Kings Bench by command of the king adjudged and declared that the said William should be fully excused and acquitted for ever in time to come touching this matter 3ly The last day of this Parliament it was agreed by the King and Lords that all the remembrances called Raggemans or Blantâ—es Charters lately sealed in the City of London and divers Counties Cities and Burroughs of England should be sent to the City of London and from every County City and Burrough from whence they came and Writs sent to every of them rehearsing That the king held all the resiants and Inhabitants in them for his good and loyal Subjects and that no confession by them made comprised in the said remembrances are nor shall be in derogation of the estate of any such person and that the same remembrances shall be burnt and destroyed in the most open place of the said Counties Cities and Burroughs and if any thing remain of record in any Court or place the king wills that it shall be cancelled and totally adnulled revoked and repealed and held for no record and of no force nor value for time to come 4ly The 19th of November in the said Parliament Placita Coronae coram Domino Rege in Parliamento suo c. Anno regni Regis Henrici quarti post Conquestum primo n. 17. The Commons prayed she King that rhe pursute arrest and judgements made against Sir William le Scropâ— knight Henry Green knight and John Bassy knight might be affirmed and held good Whereupon Sir Richard Scroop humbly prayed the King that nothing which should be done in this Parliament might turn to his or his Childrens dis-inherison Of which Sir Richard it was demanded whether the said pursute arrest and judgements were good or not who answered that he feared not to say and must confesse that when they were made thâ—y were good and profitable for the King and Realm and that his Son was one of them for which he was very sorrowfull Whereupon the king rehearsed that he claimed the Realm and Crown of England with all their members and appurietenances as heir of the bloud by the right line of king Henry the 3d. and although through the right which God had sent him by the aid of his Parents and friends he recovered the said Realm which was at the point to be undone by default of government and defesance of the Laws and customs of the Realm yet it was not his will that any should think that by way of Conquest he would disinherit any man of his heritage franchise or other right which he ought to have nor out any man of that which he had or should have by the good Laws or Customs of the Realm except these who had been against the good purpose and common profit of the Realm of which only the King held the said Sir William Henry and John for such and guilty of all the evil which had come upon the Realm and therefore he would have and hold all the Lands and Tenements they had within the Realm of England or elsewhere by conquest Whereupon fuist demande de touts les Seigniors temporellez lour advys de les pursuite arreste juggem 〈◊〉 suiâ—diâ—z Les queux Seigniors touz de â—ne accorde disorent que mesmes les pursuite arreste juggement quinâ—que fuist fait come defuist dit uist bons et les affirmente Piur bons et profitables 5ly In the case of John Hall 1 H. 4. Placita Coronae n. 11 to 17. who being in custody of the Marshal of Englana was brought by him before the Lords in Parliament and there charged before them by Walter Clapton Lord Chief Justice by the King command with having a hand in the murther of the Duke of Glocester who was smothered to death with a Featherbed at Calues by king Richard the seconds command the whole transaction whereof he confessed at large and put in writing before James Billingford Clerk of the Crown which was read before the Lords upon reading thereof the King and all the temporal Lords in Parliament resolved that the said John Hall by his own confession deserved to have as hard a death as they could adjudge him to because the Duke of Glocester was so high a Person and thereupon toutes les Seigneiors temporelz per assent du Roy adjuggerent all the temporal Lords by assent of the King ADJVDGED that the said Jo. Hall should be drawn from Tower hill unto the Gallows at Tiburn and there bowelled and his bowels laid before him and after he should be hanged beheaded and quartered and his head sent to Calice where the murther was committed and his quarters sent to other places where the king should please and thereupon command was given to the Marshal of England to make execution accordingly and it was so done the same day Lo here the Lords in Parliament gave judgement against a Commoner in case of a murther done at Calice and so not â—riable in the Kings Bench but in Parliament and passe a Judgement of High Treason on him for murthering of a great Peer only In the Parliament of 2 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 23 24. The Commons shewed to the King that William Bagot had been impeached of many horrible deeds and misprisions the which if they had been true the Commons supposed the the King aad ths Lords would have had good notice thereof for that they had made many examinations thereof whiles the said William was in distress And therefore the said Commons prayed the King that the said Sir William being in Flanders and no offence found in his person upon the slanders in his impeachment aforesaid that he would be pleased to restore him to his lands To which prayer was answered in the Kings behalf that although the said Sir William upon the said impeachment made the last Parliament was put to his answer before the King and the Lords and there pleaded a general Charter of pardon against which Charter it seemed to all the Lords then present that the said Sir William ought not to be impeached nor put to answer by the King on his part for that the said Sir William was not attainted of any impeachment suggested against him and that the King had done him justice in this behalf therefore he would in the same manner doe him justice in the residue at the Commons request A most full proof of the Kings and Lords judicial power in Parliaments even in case of a Commoner The same Parliament 2. H. 4. num 29. William
but by Bill The 8th President that may be objected is this Adam de Arleton or Tarlton Bishop of Hereford in a Parliament held at London Anno 1322. was apprehended by the Kings Officers and brought to the Bar to be arraigned for Treason and Rebellion in aiding the Mortimers and others in their wars with men and arms where having nothing to say for himself in defence of the crimes objected and standing mute for a space at last he flatly told the King That he was a Minister and Member of the Church of Christ and a consecrated Bishop though unworthy therefore I neither can nor ought to answer to such high matters without the consent of my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury my direct Judge next after the Pope and of the other Fathers the Bishops my PEERS At which saying the Archbishops and Bishops there present rose up and interceded to the King for their Colleague and when the King would not be intreated they all challenged the Bishop as a Member of the Church exempt from the Kings Justice and all secular judicature The King forced thereunto by their claimors delivered him to the Archbishops custody to answer elsewhere for these crimes Within few days after being apprehended again and brought to answer before the Kings royal Tribunal in the Kings Bench at Westminster for his Treasons the Archbishops of Canterbury York and Dublin hearing of Tarltons arraignment came with their Crosier staves carried before them accompanied with 10 Bishops more and a great company of men entred into the Court and by open violence rescued and took away the Bishop from the Bar before any answer made to his charge chasing away the Kings Officers and proclaiming openly That no man should lay violent hands on this Trayterly Bishop upon pain of excommunication and so departed The King exceedingly incensed at this High affront to Justice and himself commanded an Inquest to be impanelled and a lawfull inquiry to be made of the Treasons committed by the Bishop in his absence being thus rescued from Justice The Jury without fear of the King or any hatred of the Bishop found the Bishop guilty of all the Articles of Treason and Rebellion whereof he was indicted Whereupon the King banished the Bishop seised all his temporalties lands and goods But yet notwithstanding the Bishop by consent of all the Prelates was by strong hand kept in the Archbishops custody till he had reconciled him to the King After which by way of revenge he was a principal instrument of the Kings deposing and murther which having effected in the Parliament of 1 E. 3. 6. this Bishop petitions that the Indictment and Iudgement against him and the proceedings therein might be brought into Parliament and there nulled as erronious which was done accordingly Et quia recitatis et examinatis coram nobis et consilio nosâ—ro recordo et processu praedictis Et etiam coram Praelatis Comitibus Baronibus Magnatibus tota communitate regni nostri praesenti Parliamento nostro praesentibus compertum fuit quod in eisdem recordo et processu errores manifesti intervenerunt per assensum totius Parliamenti adnullatur and so he had restitution I answer that as this rescue of proceeding and judgement against this trayterous Bishop were singular So is this repeal and reversal of it as erronious before and by all the Commons and whole Parliament as well as King Prelates and Nobles and that no doubt at the special instance of this and all the other Bishops highly concerned in this cause Wherefore this one Swallow makes no Summer and proves no judicial authority joyntly with the King and Lords since they never joyned with them before nor since in reversing of any such error upon Judgement in the Kings Bench but only where an erronious Attainder by Bill in one Parliament was reversed by Bill in another The 9th is the Clause of King Edward the thirds Letter to the Pope in the 4th year of his reign already answered p. 274. The 10th is Sir John at Lees case 42 E. 3. n. 20. said to be ADJVDGED by the Lords and COMMONS I answer this Case is somewhat mâ—staken For the Record only mentions That the 21 day of May the King gave thanks to the Lords and Commons for their coming and aid granted on which day all the Lords and sundry of the Commons dined with the King After which dinner Sir Iohn at Lee was brought before the King LORDS COMMONS next aforesaid who dined with the King to answer certain objections made against him by William Latymer about the wardship of Robert Latymer that Sir John being of power had sent for him to London where by duresse of Imprisonment he inforced the said William to surrender his estate unto him which done some other Articles were objected against the said Sir John of which for that he could not sufficiently purge himself HE was committed to the Tower of London there to remain til he had made fine and ransom at the Kings pleasure and command given to the Constable of the Tower to keep him accordingly And then the said Lords and Commons departed After which he was brought before the Kings Councel at Westminster which COUNCEL ORDERED the said ward to be reseised into the Kings hands So as this record proves not that this judgment was given in the Parliament house nor that the Lords and Commons adjudged Sir Iohn but rather the King and his Councel in the presence of the Lords and Commons after the Parliament ended The 11 12 13. Are the cases of the Lord Latymer Lord Nevil and Richard Lyons forecited Here p. 283 284 350. which are nothing to purpose the Lords alone giving judgement in them without the Commons who did only impeach them and the King removing the Lord Latymer from his Council at their further request So that these 3. cases refute their opinions who object them The 14. is the Case of Weston and Gomines 1 R. 2. n. 38 39. In which the Lords alone gave the Judgement as I have proved p. 332 333 Therefore pointblank against the Objectors The 15. president is that of Iohn Kirby and Iohn Algar two Citizens of London in the Parliament of 3 R. 2. n. 18. who conceiving malice against John Imperial an Ambassador sent hither from the State of Genoa who had procured a Monopoly to furnish England with all such wares as come from the Levant keeping his staple at Southampton killed him in London upon a sudden quarrel picked with him for which they being committed this being a new and difficult case and the Judges being in doubt whether it were Treason or no it was thereupon propounded in Parliament according to the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. like that of 25 E. 3. Parl. 2. of those who are born beyond the Seas 14 E. 3. c. 5. 13 E. 1. c. 24.32 E. 1. rot 17. 22. Claus 46 H. 3. n. 3. Claus 14
3. Stat. 5. c. 4. because contrary to Magna Charta it self as he now expounds it Let him therefore unriddle assoyl this his own Dilemma or for ever hold his tongue and pen from publishing such absurdities to seduce poor people as he hath done to exasperate them to clamour against the Lords for being more favourable in their censure of him than his transcendent Libels and contempts against them deserved Fifthly This Statute is in the disjunctive by the Lawfull Judgement of his Peers OR BY THE LAW OF THE LAND which this Ignoramus observes not Now by the Law of the Land every inferiour Court of Justice may fine and imprison men for contempts or misdemeanors against them and their authority therefore the Lords in Parliament being the highest Tribunal may much more do it and have ever done it even by this express clause of Magna Charta and the Law and Custom of Parliament as well as they may give judgements in writs of Error against or for Commons without the Commons consent as himself doth grant yea and by the Kings concurrent assent declare what is Treason and what not within the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 20. in the cases of Commoners as well as Lords without the Commons as they did in the forecited cases of William de Weston and Lord of Gomines 1 R. 2. n. 38 39 40. Of William Thorp 25 E. 3. n. 10. Of Thomas Haxey 20 R. 2. n. 15 16.23 Of Sir Thomas Talbot 13 R. 2. n. 20 21. Of Sir Robert Plesington and Henry Bowhert 22 R. 2. Plac. Coronae in Parliamento n. 27 28. Of John Hall 1 H. 4. Plac. Coronae in Parl. n. 11. to 17. Of Sir Ralph Lumley and others 4 H. 4. n. 15. 19 20 21. Of Sir John Oldcastle 5 H. 5. n. 11. and of Sir John Mortymer 2 H. 6. n. 18. as the Commons and Judges in all those Parliaments agreed without contradiction against the erronious opinion of Sir Edward Cooke to the contrary in his 3. Institutes p. 22. Sixthly It is granted by Lilburn that by this express Law No Freeman of England ought to be judged or censured but only by his Peers and that Commoners are no Peers to Nobles nor Noblemen Peers to Commoners Then by what Law or reason dared he to publish to the world That the House of Commons are the Supreme Power within this Realm and THAT BY RIGHT THEY ARE THE LORDS JUDGES certainly this is a Note beyond Ela a direct contradiction to Magna Charta in this very clause wherein he placeth his strength and subverts his very ground-work against the Lords Jurisdiction in their censure of him For if the House of Commons be by right the Lords Iudges then by Magna Charta c. 29. they are and ought to be their Peers and if the Commons be the Lords Peers then the Lords must be the Commons Peers too and if so then they may lawfully be his Judges even by Magna Charta because here he grants them to be no other than his Peers Lo the head of this great Goliah of the Philistin Levellers cut off with his own sword and Magna Charta for ever vindicated from his ignorant and sottish contradictory Glosses on it Now to convict him of his Errour in affirming the House of Commons to be by right the Lords Judges I might inform him as I have formerly proved at large that Magna Charta it self c. 14. 29. and Sir Edward Cook his chief Author in his commentary on them are express against him that in the Parliament of 15 E. 3. ch 2. in print it was enacted That whereas before this time the Peers of the Land have been arrested and imprisoned and their Temporalties Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels seised into the Kings hands and some put to death without Iudgement of their Péers that no Peer of the Land Officer or other by reason of his office nor of things touching his office nor by other cause shall be brought in judgement to lose his Temporalties Lands Tenements Goods Chattels nor to be arrested or imprisoned outlawed exiled nor forejudged nor put to answer nor to be judged but by award of the said Péers in Parliament which privilege of theirs was both enjoyed and claimed in Parliament 4 E. 3. n. 14 15 E. 3. n. 6 8 44 49 51. 17 E. 3. n. 22. 18 E. 3. n. 7. to 16. 10 R. 2. n. 7 8. 11 R. 2. n. 7 c. and sundry other Parliament Rolls See Cook 4. Instit p. 15. 17 E. 3. 19. Cromptons Jurisdiction of Courts f. 4. 12 13. Stamford f. 151 152. This Paradox therefore of his is against all Statutes Law-Books Presidents whatsoever and Magna Charta it self And as false an assertion as that the Subjects are the Judges of their Soveraign the Servants of their Masters the children of their Parents the Wiâ—es of their Husbands the Soldiers of their General and the feet and lower members of the Head The second only Objection more of moment is this If the House of Peers may without the Commons fine and imprison Commoners then if their fine and imprisonment be unjust and illegal they shall be remediless there being no superior Court to appeal unto which will be an intollerable slavery and grievance not to be indured among free-born people I answer first That no injustice shall or ought to be presumed in the highest Court of Justice till it be apparently manifested Secondly If any such censure be given the party as in Chancery upon just grounds shewed may Petition the House of Peers for a review and new hearing of the cause which they in justice neither will nor can deny and if they do then the party grieved may petition the house of Commons to intercede in his behalf to the Peers for a rehearing but for them to discharge free any Commoner judicially censured by the Lords I have hitherto met with no president in former Parliaments nor power in the house of Commons to doe it who cannot reverse Erronious judgements in any inferiour Courts by writ of Error but the Lords alone much less then the judgements of the Higher House of Peers which is paramount them Thirdly I conceive the House of Peers being the Superior Authority and only Judicatory in Parliament may relieve or release any Commoners unjustly imprisoned or censured by the Commons house or any of their Committees and ought in justice to doe it or else there will be the same mischief or a greater in admitting the house of Commons to be Judges of Commoners if there be no appeal from them to the Lords in case their sentences be illegal or unjust Thirdly This mischief is but rare and you may object the same against a sentence given or Law made in Parliament by the King and both Houses because there is no appeal from it but only to the next or some other Parliament that shall be summoned by petition in the nature of a Writ of
gratia nunc Cantuariensi electo tunc Wintoniensi Episcopo et Angliae Thesaurario câ—nceptis et dictatis manu magistri Willielmi de Mees Clerici sui Secretarii publici Notari conscriptis et in publâ—cam formam redactis Quam quidem concordiam ad mei excusationem duxi praesent bus inferendam quae talis est Accorde est qe sire Edward fiz aisne du roy ait le government del Roialme et soit rois Coronne par les Causes qe sensiwent 1. Primerment Pur ceo qe la persone ly Roy nest pas suffisaunt de governer Car en touz son temps ad il este mene et governe par autres qe ly ount mavoisement consaillez a deshoneur de ly et destruction de sâ—int Eglise et de tout son people saunz ceo qe il le vousist veer ou conustre le quel il sust bon ou mavoys ou remedie mettre ou faire le vousist quant il fuist râ—quis par les graunts et sages de sâ—n Roialme ou suffrir qe amende fuist faite 2. Item Par tout son temp 〈◊〉 se voloit doner a bon consail no le croire ne a bon governemeâ—t de son Roialm meys se ad done toux jours as ouraignes et occupationes nient covenables entre lessaunt lesploit des bosoignes de son Roialme Item Par defaute de bon governement ad il perdu le Roialme Descoce et autres terres et seignuries en Gascoygne Hytland les quex son pere li lessa en pees amiste ly Roy de Fraunce et detz moults des autres graunts 4. Item Par sa fierte qualte par mavoys consail ad il destruit seint Eglise les persones de seint Eglise tenuz en prisoun les uns Et les alires en destresce et auxint â—lusours graunts et nobles de la terre mys a hountose mâ—nt enprisâ—nez exulâ—tz disheritez 5. Item La ou il est tenuz par son serement a faire droit a toux il ne bad pas volu faire pur son propre profâ—it et convetise de ly de ces mavois conâ—saili es â—e ount este preâ— de ly Ne ad garde les autres pointz del serement qil fist a son corounement si com iâ— feust tenuz 6. Item Il deguerpist son Royalme et fist taunt come en ly fust qe son Roialme son poâ—ple fust perduz qe pys est pur la crualte de ly defaute de sa personne il est trove incorrigible sauntz esperaunce de amendement les quex choses fount si notoires qil ne poount estre desdiâ—z The form and instrument of his deposition is thus recorded by Ranulp Cistrensis and Henry de Knyghton Also that year in the Octaves of Twelfth day was made a Parliament at London There BY ORDINANCE with a solemn message is sent to the King that was in prison 3 Bishops 3 Earls 3 Barons 2 Abbots 2 Justices for to resign to the King that was then in warde the homage that was make to him some time for they would no longer have him for their Lord One of them Sir William Trussel Knight and PKOCURATOR OF ALL THE PARLIAMENT spake to the king in the name of all the other and said I William Trussel in the name of all men of the lond of Englond and of all the Parleament Procurator I resign to thee Edward the homage that was made to thee sometime And from this time forthward now following I defie thee and pryve thee of all ryal power and I shall never be tendant to thee as for King after this time Also this was openly cryed at London The true form of his deprivation is thus recorded in the Chronicle of Leycester and transcribed out of it by Henry de Kryghton in French Jeo William Trussel Procurator dez Prelatez Conrez et Barons et altrez Gentz en ma procuracye nomes Eyantal ceo ployne suffysant poure eâ— Homages et Fealtez au vous Edward Roy Dengleterre come al Roy avant ces â—enres de par lez ditz persones en ma procuracye nomes renk et rebaylle sus a vous Ed. et deliver et face quiâ—ez lez persones avant ditz en la meâ—lâ—our manere que ley et custome donnent E face protestacion en nom de eaux qils ne voillent deformes estre en vostre sâ—alâ—e ne en vostre lyance ne cleyment de vous come â—e Roy â—iens teniâ— Encz vous teignent de â—horse priveye persone sans nule manere de â—eale dignite Cum haec Rex audisset multum de fuis malefactis doluit rugitus et lamenta emittens eo quod per falsos et proditiosos consiliarios sic omni suo tempore ductus fuerat Thomas of Walsingham thus relates the proceeding Convenit etiam illuc tota regni Nobilitas citata per prius ad Parliamentum tenendum ibidem trastino dicti â—esti ubi cuncti centuerunt regem indignum diademate et propteâ— plures articulos deponendum er Edwardum filium ejus primogenitum in regem unanimiter eligendum Quod etiam consequenter factum fuit et electio in aulâ— magna Westmonasterii publice divulgare per quendam ex Magnatibus sapientem Cui electioni consensit populus universus Archiepiscopus vero Cantuariâ—e praesenti consensit electioni ut omnes Praelati Archiepiscopus quidem assumpto themate vox populi vox Dei sermonem feci populo exhortans omnes ut apud regem regum intercederent pro electo Facto sermone discessum esâ— Ut autem notuit Reginae filliâ—ni electio et viri dejectio plena dolore ut foris apparuit sere mente alienata fuit Edwardus quoque filius suus mateâ—no doâ—ori compassus juravit quod invito patre nunquem susciperet coronam regni Idcirco communi decreto ex parte totius regni tres Episcopi duo Comiteâ— et duo Abbates et de quolibet Comitatu regnitre milites ac etiam de Londoniis et aliis civitatibus et magnis villis ut praecipue de portubus de qualibet certus raimerus persoâ—arum missi sunt ad regem apud Kenelworth qui nunciaâ—ent electionem filii sui et requirerent diligenter quod renunciaret dignitati regiae et coronae et permitteret eundem filium suum regnare pro eo alioquin ipsi reddirent sibi homagia et procederent in praetactâ—s Rex autem ut haec audivit â—um stetu et ejâ—latu respondit quod multum doluit de eo quod sic demeruit erga populum sâ—i regni et ab omnibus qui aderant veniam precabatur Sed ex quo aliter elâ—e non potuit gratias egit quod filium suum primogenitum elegissent Nuncii vero ad Parliamentum Londonias rede untes cum regis responâ—o et insigniis plebem laetam fecerunt mox tota regni
E. 3. n. 1.10 R. 2.17 R. 2. n. 6.7 8 H. 4. n. 66 67. some of the valiantest wisest discreetest Spiritual and Temporal LORDS were by Petition of the Commons and special Order of the Lords in Parl. placed about these Kings to BE THEIR PRIVY COVNSELLORS to advise counsel them and manage all the Great affairs of the Realm under them so in this Parliament they exhibited this Petition to the like eâ—â—ect Primerement que plese a nostre dit Seigniour le Roy ordeigner et assigner en cest present Parlement les pluis vaillantz sages et discretes Seigniours espirituelx et temporelx de son roialme pur estre de son counseil en eid et supportation del bone et substancial gouvernance et la bien de Roy et de Roialme et que les ditz Seigniours de counseill et les Justices de Roi soient overtement jurez eny cest present parlement de eux bien et loialment en lour counseill et faitz acquiter pur le bien de Roy et de Royalm en toutz pointz saunz favour pur affection ou affinite faire a ascune manere de persone Et que plese nostre dit Seigniour le Roy en presence de toutz les Estates de parlement comander les ditz Seigniours et Justices sur lour foy et ligeance que lui devont qils feront pleyne justice et droit ouelment a chescuny sanz tarians si bonement come ils purront sanz ascun commandement on charge de queconque persone a contrarie Le Roy le voet was the answer which was answered See the like Petitions afterwards in 1 H. 6. n. 26.2 H. 6. n. 15 16.8 H. 6. n. 27 28.11 H. 6. n. 41. I shall conclude with these 2. memorable late presidents In the Parliament of 8 Eliz. upon the death of Thomas Williams Esquire Speaker of the Commons house Richard Onstoe Esquire the Quâ—ens Sollicitor first chosen a Member of the Commons house and after called by Writ to attend the Lordâ— House as an Assistant at the request of the Commons to the Queen and Lords was sent down again to the Commons house without any new election and there chosen and presented by them for their Speaker and allowed of by the Queen and Lords So in the Parliâ—ment of 23 Eliz. upon the Queens making John Bell Esq then Speaker chief Baron of the Exchequer Iohn Popham Esq then Queens Sollicitor called from the Commons house to the Lords as an Assistant by writ at the Commons request to the Queen and Lords was remitted to them again upon his old without any new election and thâ— chosen presented accepted for their Speaker Which 2. late presidents infallibly prove 1. That the King hath an absolute power over any Members of the Commons house upon a just occasion to call them thence by writ to be Assistants to the Lords house or else to create them Peers and call them to be Members of the Lords house as he did Sir Francis Seymore Mr. Arthur Capell and others created Lords the last long Parliament 2ly That the calling of any to the Lords house from the Commons by writ as Assistants only doth not totally disable them to be Members of the Commons house again the self-same or the next Parliament but that upon the Commons Petion and assent of the King and Lords they may be remanded to the Commons house and be Members and Speakers thereof again but not by the Commons votes or order but only by the Kings with the Lords assent who may refuse to remand them if they please A very pregnant argument chat the power of removing judging suspending approving readmitting Members of the Commons house upon Elections or Misdemeanors belongs not of right to the Commons house but to the King and House of Peers as I have formerly evidenced Admitâ—ing then that the Commons have de facto gained exercised this privilege of late years to judge suspend or eject their own Members in such cases without the King and House of Peers yet having most grosly abused it of late to the ruine subversion of Parliaments I must conclude with the Canonists Privilegium meretur amittere qui abutitur potestate Jer. 6.16 Thus saith the Lord Stand ye in the wayes and see and ask for the old pathes where is the good way and walk therein and ye shall find rest for your souls But they said We will not walk therein Prov. 24.21 22. My son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with those who are given to change For their Calamity shall rise suddenly and who knoweth the ruine of them both Jer. 21.3 4. c. 17.25 27. Thus saith the Lord Execute ye judgement and deliver the spoiled out of the hands of the Oppressor and do no wrong do no violence to the stranger the fatherless nor the widdow neither shed innocent bloud in this place For if ye do this thing indeed then shall there enter into the Gates of this House KINGS PRINCES sitting upon the Throne of David riding in chariots and on horses they and their PRINCES the men of Iudah and the inhabitants of Ierusalem and this City shall remain for ever But if you will not hearken unto me c. then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof and it shall devour the PALACES of Ierusalem and it shall not be quenched FINIS An Omission in pag. 30 l. 7. RAnulph de Glanvil Chief Justice under King Henry the 2. In his Tractatus de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae written in the 33 year of his reign hath this memorable passage relating to the Parliamentary Councils in that age l. 2. c. 7. Est autem magna Assisa REGALE QVODDAM BENEFICIUM CLEMENTIA PRINCIPIS DE CONSILIO PROCERUM POPVLIS INDVLTUM to wit in a Parliamentary Council of the King and Lords without any Commons quo vitae hominum et status integritati tam salubriter consulitur ut in jure quod quis de libero soli tenemento possidet retinendo duellâ— casum declinare possunt homines ambiguum c. Ex aequitate autem maxiâ— prodita est LEGALIS ISTA INSTITUTIO Jus enim quod post multas longas dilationes vix evincitur per duellum per beneficium ISTIUS CONSTITUTIONIS commodius et acceleratius expeditur By which it is evident that the Grand Assize was no original Processe or Trial at the Common Law but a legal institution and beneficial constitution proceeding from the Grace of the Prince and indulged to the People BY THE COUNSEL OF THE LORDS assembled together in a Parliamentary Council which Lib. 2. c. 9. Glanvil stiles Recordum per Assisam DE CONSILIO REGNI inde factum for the speedier and better recovery of their freeholds without endangering their lives by a Duel to recover them which was fuller of delays but less certain and more unjust than a recovery by verdict in this new
Peers made this memorable Petition and Remonstrance of their Privileges to the King The humble Remonstrance and Petition of the Peers MAy it please your Majestie we the Peers of this Realm now assembled in Parliament finding the Earl of Arundel absent from his place amongst us his presence was therefore called for But thereupon a message was delivered us from your Majestie by the Lord Keeper That the Earl of Arundel was restrained for a misdemeanor which was personal to your Majesty and lay in the proper knowledge of your Majesty and had no relation to matter of Parliament This Message occasioned us to inquire into the Acts of our Ancestors and what in like cases they had done that so we might not erre in a dutifull respect to your Majesty and yet preserve our right and privileges of Parliament And after diligent search made both of all Stories Statutes and Records that might inform us in this case we find iâ— to be an undoubted Right and constant Privilege of Parliament That no Lord of Parliament sitting in Parliament or within the usual time of Privilege of Parliament is to be imprisoned or restrained without sentence or order of the House unlesse it be â—or Treason or Felony or for refusing to give surety for the Peace And to satisfie our selves the better we have heard all that could be aleged by your Majesties learned Counsel at Law that might any way infringe or weaken this claim of the Peers and to all that can be shewed or alleged so full satisfaction hath been given as that all the Peers in Parliament upon the question made of this Privilege have una voce consented that this is the undoubted right of the Peers and hath been inviolably enjoyed by them Wherefore we your Majesties loyal Subjects and humble Servants the whole body of the Peers in Parliament assembled most humbly beseech your Majesty that the Earl of Arundel a Member of this Body may presently be admitted by your gracious favour to come sit and serve your Majesty and the Commonwealth in the great affairs of this Parliament And we shall pray c. Upon which Remonstrance and Petition the King refusing to inlarge him thereupon the Lords to maintain their Privilege adjourned themselves on the 25 and 26 of May without doing any thing and upon the Kings refusal to release him they adjourned from May 26 till June 2. refusing to sit and so the Parliament dissolved in discontent his imprisonment in this case being a breach of privilege contrary to Magna Charta In this very Parliament the Lord Digby Earl of Bristol being omitted out of the summons of Parliament upon complaint to the Lords House was by order admitted to set therein as his Birthright from which he might not be debarred for want of Summons which ought to have been sent unto him ex debito Iustitiae as Sir Edward Cook in his 4 Institutes p. 1. The Act for ttriennial Parliaments and King John great Charter resolve And not long after the beginning of this Parliament upon the Kings accusation and impeachment of the Lord Kimbolton and the five Members of the Commons House both Houses adjourned and sate not as Houses till they had received satisfaction and restitution of those Members as the Journals of both Houses manifest it being an high breach of their Privileges contrary to the Great Charter If then the Kings bare not summoning of some Pears to Parliament who ought to sit there by their right of Perage or impeaching or imprisoning any Peer unjustly to disable them to sit personally in Parl. be a breach of Privilege of the fundamental Laws of the Realm and Magna Charta it self confirmed in above 40 successive Parliaments then the Lords right to sit vote and judge in Parliament is as firm and indisputable as Magna Charta can make it and consented to confirmed by all the Commons people and Parliaments of England that ever consented to Magna Charta though they be not eligible every Parliament by the Freeholders people as Knights and Burgesses ought to be and to deny this birthright and privilege of theits is to deny Magna Charta it self and this present Parliaments Declarations proceedings in the case of the Lord Kimbolton a Member of the House of Peers Fifthly The Treatise intituled The manner of holding Parliaments in England in Edward the Confessors time befose the Conquest rehearsed afterwards before William the Conquerour by the discreet men of the Kingdom and by himself approved and used in his time and in the times of his successors Kings of England if the Title be true and the Treatise so antient as Sir Edward Cook others now take it to be When as its mention of the Bishop of Carlisles usual place in Parliaments which Bishoprick was not founded till the year of our Lord 1132. or 1134. as Matthew Paris Matthew Westminster Roger Hoveden Godwin and others attest in the later end of Henry the first his reign Its menâ—ion of the Mayors of London other Cities and writs usually directed to them to elect two Citizens to serve in Parliament whereas London it self had no Mayor before the year 1208. being the 9. year of King John nor other Cities Mayors til divers years after nor can any Writs for electing Knights of Shires Citizens or Burgesses to serve in Parliament which it oft times writes of be produced before 49 H. 3. nor any Writs to levy their expences or wages for their Service in Parliaments which it recites be produced before the reign of King Edward the 1. Nor was the name of Parliament which it mentions and writes of so much as used by any Author before the later end of King Henry the 3. his reign after whose reign this Modus was certainly compiled towards the end of K. Richard the 2. or after as other passages in it evidence beyond all contradiction This magnified Treatise be it genuine or spurious determines thus of the Kings and Lords rights to be personally present in all Parliaments The King is bound by all means possible to be present at the Parliament unless he be detained or let there from by bodily sickness and then he may keep his Chamber yet so that he lye not without the Manour or Town where the Parliament is held and then he ought to send for twelve persons of the greatest and best of them that are summoned to the Parliament that is two Bishops two EARLS two BARONS two Knights of the Shire two Burgesses and two Citizens to look upon his person to testifie and witness his estate and in their presence he ought to make a Commission and give Authority to the Archbishop of the Place the Steward of England and Chief Justice that they joyntly and severally should begin the Parliament and continue the same in his name express mention being made in that Commission of the cause of his absence thence which ought to suffice and admonish the OTHER NOBLES
in barr of the Writs of Summons directed to them because those writs themselves did ennoble and make them their posterity successors Peers of Parliament though they held no Lands by Barony 8ly it is undeniable by sundry presidents that the Kings general writs of Summons create none Lords or Peers of Parliament for life or Inheritance if they hold not by Barony which I shall evidence by these presidents in point To the Parliament of 49 H. 3. there were no less than 64 Abbots 36 Priors the Master of the Temple and 5. Deans of Cathedral Churches namely of York Exeter Salisbury Lincoln Bath and Wells summoned by general writs as the Bishops Earls Barons and other Nobles were yet this did not make themselves nor their Successors Barons or Peers of Parliament for neither of these Deans nor their successors were ever afterwards summoned to Parliament as they would and must have been had this writ made them or their successors Barons and Lords nor any of the Abbots or Priors but such only who held by Barony who were constantly summoned but those who then held not by Barony or Militare servitium if casually summoned to one Parliament were yet upon their complaints thereof omitted and discharged in the next as the Writs of Summons themselves attest and Mr. Selden manifests out of them Therefore the Writs did neither create them Barons for life much less their successors after them for then they should still have of right been summoned to succeeding Parliaments and ought not to have been discharged In the 18 of Ed. 2. A Writ of Summons was sent by the King Magistro Gilberto de Middleton Archidiacono Northampton Officiali Curiae Cantuariensis Magistro Roberto de Sancto Albano Decano de Arcubus London But no writ was ever directed to them afterwards but in this one Parliament only therefore it made them not Lords and Barons for life inheritance or succession The like is evident by the forecited presidents of the Abbots of St. James Leicester and other Priors So the Gardians of the Spiritualties of Bishops during the vacancy and their Vicars Generals during their absence beyond the Seas have been frequently summoned to Parliaments by writs But being summoned only as substitutes or in the right of the Bishops or Bishopricks it made them no Barons or Peers neither were they ever esteemed such heretofore or at this day as Mr. Selden informs us And as it was thus amongst Abbots Priors Deans and other Clergy-men that these writs made them not Barons for life nor yet in succession so by the selfsame Law and Reason they made no Laicks who held not by Barony such for life or inheritance Whence we find many such in the summons to Parliament of King Henry 3. Ed. 1 2 3. R. 2. H. 4 5 6. who were summoned once twice or thrice but never afterwards nor any of their name or posterity of which no other solid reason can be given but that these general writs of summons made them neither Barons for life nor inheritance no more than they did Abbots Priors or Clergymen For example I find Edmond Barstaff Robert de Crendon H. Huse Ader de Estlye Serton de Hansladorn and sundry others summoned by Writ to Parliament in 33 E. 1. Peter Corbet Andrew de Hamloe Henry Tregor Maurice de Buen Roger Banuent and some others in 13 E. 2. Simon Ward Henry Dandle William Blunt in 4 E. 3. Roger de Claudes Ralph de Bevil William de Kineston in 14 E. 3. Ralph Bulmer Thomas Bugworth in 22 E. 3. William de Ridehal in 27 E. 3. Robert de Colvil John de Kirton John de Wodhurst John Northwood John de Strivelin in the Parliament summons of 37. and one of them again of 38 E. 3. Henry Quarts in 6 H. 4. Henry Cuart in 7 H. 4. William Cheyney Chief Justice in 4. 6 H. 6. But neither of their persons nor any of their posterity were ever after summoned that I find to any other Parliaments as no doubt they would have been had those their writs of summons made them Lords and Barons In the Clause Roll of 5 E. 3. m. 12. dorso the King sent writs into Ireland to William de Burgh Earl of Ulster James de Botâ—ler Earl of Ormond William de Bremigham Knight and Walter de Burgh strictly enjoyning them with all speed to come over into England Nobiscum tractaturi vestrumque Consilium impensuri concerning his intended Voyage in person into Ireland and setting the peace and affairs therof and I read in the reign of King Henry 3. Edward the 1. 3. and other of our Kings that the King of Scots and his Nobles were oft summoned by Writs to our English Parliaments concerning the affairs of Scotland yet these writs made none of them Peers and Barons of our English Parliaments From all which I may safely conclude Sir Edward Cooks and others Opinions to be no Law but a clear mistake that a general writ of Summons doth or can create any who hold not by Barony Peers or Barons for life much less in fee or fee-tayl Therefore such may be afterwards elected Knights or Burgesses of Parliament and be Members of the Commons house and refuse to sit or serve in the Lords house upon summons without contempt or fine but no Baron or Peer of the Realm may be thus chosen or neglect his service in the Lords house Finally Mr. Cambden in his Britannia p. 120 122. Apologia p 11. and Mr. J. Selden in his Titles of Honour part 2. chap. 5. Sect. 31. p. 708. to 718. assert That as some Spiritual Barons who were conceived to be Barons by writ as well as by tenure though sometimes summoned to Parliament by writ were wholly omitted at length as not having of right Voice and Place with the rest because they held not by Barony So sundry of the Lesser Barons and Tenants in Capite holding only of the King as Vavasors by Knights service and not by an intire Barony were likewise excluded the Parliament and not summoned thereunto by King John Henry the 3. Edw. the 1. being not great and honourary Barons nor having estates sufficient to support that dignity and that as Mr. Selden conceites by some Law made not long before the Great Charter of King Iohn procured by MAJORES BARONES who foreseeing that their power and dignity might suffer much diminution if the new tenants in chief or Patentees of Escheated Baronies and the rest that were decayed should have equality with them and be indifferently Barons of the Kingdom every way as they were procured a Law in some of the Parliaments that preceded the Great Charter of King John by which themselves only should hereafter be properly stiled summoned as BARONS and the rest only Tenants in chief or Knights which Titles shold be given them as distinct names from Barons which could not but much lesen the dignity and honor of the rest
the most best Antiquaries and English Historians I have seen who Treat of our Parliaments except that Gross Impostor who composed that ridiculous Treatise stiled Modus tenendâ— Parliamentum when there was never any Parliament held in any age in England or Ireland in such manner as â—e there relates prescribes with Sir Edward Cook and some other injudicious Antiqâ—aries seduced by this pretended forged Antiquity have not presumed to derive the Antiquity of the Knights Citizens and Burgesses summons to and siâ—ting in our Parliaments higher than the Parliament held under Henry the 1. at Salisbury Anno Dom. 1116. the 16 year of his reign To which Polydor Virgil Hist Angl. An. 1116. Judge Dodridge and others in the Antiquity of the Parliamenâ—s of England p. 18 19 20 40 80 86 87. Holinshed in his Chronicle vol. 3. p. 38 39. John Speed in his History of Great Britain p. 438 439. referre their Original if not the beginning of Parliaments themselves But under these learned mens correction who produce no warrant from histories or records in that age for proof of what they affirme I dare confidently assert that there is nothing to be found in History or Record to warrant this their fancy but many direct evidences against it which I shall briefly clear being very pertinent to the present controversie and judicature of the Lords House 1. It is most clear that to this Parliamentary Council held at Salisbury Anno 16 H. 1. No Commons Knights Citizens elected by the people were called by this Kings Writs as some of these Authors with the Manuscript of Canterbury positively assert and others of them seem to incline unto but only the Lords spiritual and temporal of the Realm as Holinshed himself relates whom Speed stileth the Estates both Spiritual and Temporal This is evident by Eadmerus who then lived and thus records the proceedings of that convention under this King 13 Kal. Aprilis factus est Conventus Episcoporum Abbatum et Principum totius regni apud Serberiam cogente eos illuc sanctione Regis â—enrici Which Rog. de Hoved. thus seconds Comites et Barones totius Angliae apud Salisberiam convenerunt who as Mat. Paris and Mat. Westminster with them relate Jurarunt fidelitatem Willielmo filio suo Simeon Dunelmensis â—â—iles it Conventus Optimatum et Baronum totius Angliae wherein jussu Regis omnes Comites et Barones cum Clero totius Regni swore fealty to him and his Son as the Chronicle of Brompton also relates not any of our antient Historians making mention of any Commons Knights Burgesses but only of Bishops Abbots Earls Lords and Barons of the Realm there present at it In this Parliament after the Earls Barons and Great men had done homage to William the Kings Son and sworn allegiance to him the Cause and complaint between Ralph Archbishop of Canterbury and Thurstan elected Archbishop of York was there heard and debated which had been agitated between them a whole year before Thurstan being admonished by Ralph to make his subjection to the See of Canterbury and to receive his consecration from him after the ecclesiastical and usual manner Answered That he would willingly receive his consecration from him but he would by no means make that profession of subjection to the See of Canterbury which he exacted but only that which Pope Gregory and after him Pope Honorius the 6. had ordained who made this agreement between the two Archbishops of England Ut neuter alteri subjectionis professionem faceret nisi tantum ut qui prior ordinatus esset quamdiu viveret prior haberetur quod proprium est servorum Dei ut verahumilitate sibi invicem acclives sint nullus super alium primatus ambitionem exercere debet Sicut Dominus noster Verae humilitatis praedicator amator discipulos suos de hac re litigantes redarguens dixit eis Qui major est vestrum erit omnium minister Nullus siquidem post beatum Auguâ—â—inum â— qui non tam Archiepiscopus quam Apostolus Anglorum dicendus est Archiepiscoporum Cantuariensium primatum totius Angliae sibi vendicare praesumpsit usque ad Theodorum Archipraesulem cui propter singularem in Ecclesiastica Disciplina solertiam omnes Angliae Episcopi subjici consenserunt sicut Beda in Ecclesiastica Historia Angliae testatur Quamobrem Turstinus nullam aliam subjectionis professionem Cantuariensi Pontifici facere voluit nisi quam beatus Papa Gregorius instituiâ— Ralph on the other side pleaded the subjection of his predecessors made to his Predecessors Rex autem Henricus ubi advâ—rtit Turstinum in sua stare pervicatia aperte protestatus est illum aut morem antecessorum suorum tam in professione facienda quam in aliis dignitatis Ecclesiae Cantuariensis ex antiquo jure competentibus executurum aut Episcopatu Eboracensi cum benedictione funditus cariturum His auditis ille suo cordis consilio inpraemeditatus credens renunciavit Pontificatui spondens Regi Archiepiscopo se dum viveret illum non reclamaturum nec aliquam calumniam inde moturum qui cunque substitutus fuisset But Thurstan afterwards repenting of his rashness contrary to his agreement in Parliament going to the Pope against the Kings command to the Council at Rhemes was there consecrated Archbishop of York by Pope Calixtus himself contrary to his promise to the Kings agent and Canterburies who there publikely protested against his consecration without making any subjection to the See of Canterbury Whereupon the King prohibited Thurstan to return into England or any of his Dominions swearing that he should never return whiles he lived unless he would make his subjection to the See of Canterbury Which Oath he refused to violate at the Popes personal request to him though he then absolved him voluntarily from this Oath saying Quod dicit se quoniam Apostolicus est me à fide quam pollicitus sum absoluturum Si contra eandem fidem Thurstinum Eboraci recepero non videtur regiae honestati convenire hujusmodi absolutioni consentire Quis enim fidem suam cuivis polâ—câ—ntii amplius crederetur cum eam meo exemplo tam facile absolutione annihilari posse videret As in this famous Parliamentary Council of Salisbury so in all precedent and subsequent Great Councils and Conventions during the whole reign of king H. 1. the Prelates Earls Barons spiritual and temporal Lords were only summoned as Members not any Knights Citizens Burgesses or Commons elected by the people which I shall next make good In a Parliamentary Council in the 1. year of his reign Anno 1100. he was elected and crowned King of England abolished ill Laws confirmed King Edwards Laws and the Great Charter of Liberties under his Seal Communi Concilio Baronum regni Archiepiscoâ—is Episcopis Comitiâ—uâ— Proceribus Magnatibus et Optimatibus totius Regni Angliae there subscribing to his Charter then granted as witnesses See here p. 58
vote down the Lord Mayor and Aldermen and reverse their Orders and Judgements in their Court upon appeals unto them They being in nature of Grand Jury men and the General Inquisitors of the Realm to inquire of present and impeach transmit delinquents of all sorts in Parliament to the Lords House their only Judges Cooks 4. Instit p. 24. 3ly That the King and House of Lords are now of right and still ought to be the only true and proper Judges of all Parliamentary Causes and Controversies Civil Ecclesiastical or Criminal whether they concern Peers Clergymen or Commoners as they were originally before any Knights Citizens or Burgesses summoned to them To clear this from all Scruples and avoid mistakes I must inform you that there is a twofold way of proceeding and judgeing in Parliaments The 1. extraordinary and extrajudicial by way of Bill Act or Ordinance by the Legislative power alone such Bills Acts Ordinances ratifying only the precedent judgements of the Lords passed against Malefactors being not any proper actual Judgements in their own name This is evident by one of the first cases wherin the Commons after their admission into our Parliaments were made parties to a Judgement by way of Bill In the Parliament of 15 E. 2. there were sundry Articles of High Treason in accroaching royal Power in divers cases c. as likewise of misdemeanour and Breach of the Great Charter exhibited against the 2. Hugh Spencers both privy Counsellors of the realm which upon examination were found true BY THE EARLS BARONS OTHER PEERS OF THE LAND Parquoy NOVS PIERS DE LATERRE COUNTS BARONS en la presence nostre SEIGNOUR LE ROY AGARD que Sir Hugh le Despenser le Fitz Sir Hugh le Despenser le piere soient disheritz a touts jours come disheritours de la corone enemies du roy de son people que ilz soient de tout exiles hors du royalme Dangliterre sans retourner in nul temps si ceo ne soit de assent nostre Seignor le Roy de lassent DES PRELATS COUNTS ET BARONS et ceo en parlement duement somons Et les donons port a Dover nul parte aillours a voyder a passer hors du royalm Dangliterre enter cy la feast de sainct John le Baptist prochein avenir cest jour accompte Et si lesâ— it Sir Hugh Sir Hugh demurgent en le royalme Dangliterre oustre le dit jour que done lour est de voyder de passer come desuis est dist ou que apres le dit jour retournet adonques soit fait de eux come de enemies de roy de roialme This judgement being given against them in Parliament only by the Peers Earls and Barons in the presence of the King as the Close of the Act for their banishment and Clause Roll of that year recite thereupon there was an Act drawn up wherein all the Articles and the judgement given against them are recited for confirmation of this Judgement wherein the Prelates and Commons were made parties though not to the judgement it self beginning thus Al honeur de deiu c. luy monstrent Prelates Counts Barons et les autres Pieres de la terre COMMON de Royalm contre Sir Hugh c. To which Act the King much against his will to prevent a warr consented The History of the Lords proceedings against these Spencers is thus related by Walsingham There falling out a difference between Hugh Spencer the younger and Earl of Hereford about lands which Spencer purchased of William de Brews which the Earl desired to buy and had first contracted for but Spencer by his power at Court bought from him the Earl thereupon being much incensed complained of this injury to Thomas Earl of Lancaster qui allicientes caeteros pene cunctos Comites Barones in partem suam conjurationem fecerunt maximum ad vivendum moriendum pro justitia regni proditores pro viribus destruendis praecipue utrunque Hugonem de Spencer patrem scilicet atque filium quos odio inexorabili perstringebant eo maxime quia regem ducebant pro suae voluntatis arbitrio in tantum quod nec Comes nec Baro nec Episcopus quicquam valuit expedire in Curia sine horum consilio vel favore Omnium ergo livore persequebantur qui omnibus pene dominabantur quo plus crevit eorum gloria eo amplius contra illos crevit invidia quae semper accrescit abundantia aliorum Igitur Barones duce Thoma de Lancastria apud Shirborn in Elmedon convenerunt faederati prout dicitur juramentis astricti ad prosequendum propositum usque ad corporis animae divisionem Sed tamen pene cuncti praeâ—er Thomam de Lancastria Humfridum Comitem de Herefordia paucos alios ante finem negotii retrorsum abierunt prae timore mortis sese Regi dediderunt sed haec inferius plenius videbuntur Cumque Barones ut praefertur apud Shirburnam convenissent quosdam artirulos proscriptionem dictorum Hugonis Hugoniâ— composuerunt sed tamen vias juris et aequitatis in hac parte penitus omiserunt suorum pro tempore exequentes impetus animorum Nam illorum bona qui illis vel amicitia vel affinitate juncti fuerant furibunde invadebant capientes castra per violentiam vastantes praedia per malitiam perimentes famulos reperâ—os iâ— custodiis eorundem dolentes ob hoc tantummodo quod eorum personas capere quos oderunt minime potuerunt praedicta furia de die in diem vires sumente Barones vexillis explicatis ad sanctum Albanum veniunt per viam deripientes ubique victualiâ— pauperes terrae gravantes In hac comitiva fuerant quidam qui propter inveteratum odium monasterium sancti Albani dictique loci Monachos se gravaturos devoverant Sed tamen disponente Deo qui neminem temptari permittit supra vires horum magister autor tantae malitiae in villa de Alysbury priusquam ad sanctum AlbanuÌ„ attingeret morbo percussus irremediabili propriis seipsum descerpit manibus post duos dies miserabiliter expiravit Caeteri tam formidabili tremefacti vindicta casum pro miracuâ—o reputantes ab executione voti illiciti timore magis quam amore destiterunâ— Magnates vero apud sanctum Albanum cum suis armatis exercitibus per triduum perhen inâ—ntes miserunt solennes ad Regem nuncios Londoniis commorantem Londoniensem Sarisburiensem Eliensem Herefordensem Cicistrensem Praesules qui tunc apud sanctum Albanum convenerant pro pace reformanda mandantes ut dominus rex non solum suam vacuaret curiam sed regnum suum de regni Proditoribus Hugone Hugone le Spencer per communitatem terrae in multis condemnatis articulis exiliumque meritum subire permitteret si diligeret regni pacem Petierunâ— Barones insuper
inform us In the Parliament of 2. Caroli the Duke of Buckingham impeached the Earl of Bristol and the Earl of Bristol impeached this Duke before the Lords in sundry Articles for divers misdemeanours touching the Spanish match King Prince to seduce him in his religion praying judgment of the Lords thereupon against each other In the Parliament of 3. Caroli the Duke of Buckingham was accused and Impeached by the Commons before the Lords for sundry high Misdemeanors and the Parliament thereupon dissolved to prevent his censure In this very Parliament of King Charls now sitting Thomas Earl of Strafford was accused and impeached by the House of Commons of High Treason and other misdemeanors comprised in sundry Articles which they transmitted â—o the House of Lords desiring that he might be put to answer them and such proceedings examination trial and judgement thereupon had and given against him by the Lords as is agreeable to Law and Justice Hereupon he was openly tried in Westminster Hall before the House of Lords there sitting as his Judges where the House of Commons prosecuted and gave in Evidence against him sundry dayes and in conclusion demanded the Lords to give Iudgement against him in the Iudicial way After which they proceeded against him by way of Bill not to decline their Lordships Iustice in a Iudicial way but to husband time by preventing some doubts and as the speediest and soonest way Upon the passing of which Bill he was beheaded and executed as a Traytor On the 26 of February 1640. William Laud Archbishop of Canterbury was accused and impeached of High Treason by the House of Commons of 14. Articles then transmitted by them to the House of Lord The first whereof was this That he had trayterously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental Laws and Government of the Realm and instead thereof to introduce an Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law And the last of them this That he had laboured to subvert the rights of Parliament and the ancient Course of Parliamentary proceeding which the New-modellers of our Parliaments more guilty hereof by many degrees than he may do well to consider Upon which they prayed from the Lords such proceedings examination trial and Iudgement against him as is agreeable to Law and Justice Upon these Articles he was brought to a publike Trial in the Lords House the 12. of March 1643. and after 17. whole dayes spent in his meer Trial and proof of the Charge against him and his defence thereto morning and evening and several other dayes spent in the hearing of him and his Council and the Commons Reply touching his Charge and the matters of Law whether the Charge prâ— against him amounted to High Treason the Lords upon most mature deliberation voted him Guilty of all the Articles and matters of fact charged against him and also of High Treason and thereupon passed an Ordinance for his Attainder by vertue whereof he was beheaded as a Traytor on Tower-Hill January 10. 1644. To these I might add the seveeal Articles of Impeachment transmitted by the House of Commons this Parliament to the Lords against Matthew Wren Bishop of Norwich the 20. of July 1641. against William Pierce Bishop of Bath and Wells and against the Bishops of Winchester Coventry and Litchfield Glocester Chichester Exeter St. Asaph Hereford Ely Bangor Bristol Rochester Peterborough and Landaffe August 4. 1641. requiring such proceedings from the Lords against them as to Law and Justice shall appertain All which are a superabundant impregnable Evidence of the Lords inherent Judicial power and right of Judicature in our English Parliaments even by the Commons House own Impeachments and acknowledgements against the Levellers pretences to the contrary By all these forecited presidents it is most apparent 1. That the King and Lords in our Parliaments in all ages both before and since the Commons admission to sit and vote in Parliaments have been the sole Judges of Ecclesiastical Peers and Lords in all criminal cases without the Commons 2ly That the Lords and Peers of the Realm except only in case of appealâ— both in and out of Parliament are triable only by their Peers And therefore the Trial condemnation and execution of any of them by Marshal Law or now misnamed High Courts of Justice by Commoners and others who are not their Peers is most illegal unjust and nought else but murther as the Parliaments of 1 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 45. of 1 E. 4. rot Parl. n. 18. resolve and as it was adjudged in the case of Thomas Earl of Lancaster Paâ—ch 39 E. 3. Coram Rege Rot. 92. Wiâ— Cooks 3. Institutes p. 52 53. Secondly The next and main question now conâ—roverted will be Whether the King House of Peers have any lawfull or sole power of Judicature in and over the persons of the Commons of England as well as over Peers in criminal causes misdemeanours offences or breaches of their Parliamentary privileges so farr as to fine imprison censure judge or condemn them in any kind without the House of Commons concurrent vote or judicature This the ignorant sottish Levellers Sectaries seduced by their blind guides John Lilburn and Overton peremptorily deny the contrary whereof I shall here infallibly make good to their perpetual shame and refutation by unanswerable Reasons and presidents in all ages 1. I have already manifested That the Parliament being the supremest Court of Judicature in the Realm must consequently have a lawfull Jurisdiction over all persons and members of the Realm whether Spiritual or Temporal Lords or Commons in all criminal and civil Causes proper for Parliaments to judge or punish That this power of judicature was originally and primitively vested in the King and Lords alone before there were any Knights Citizens Burgesses or Commons summoned to our Parliaments as is evident by the antient writers Glanvil Bracton Fleta Horn the Parliament of Clarindon Anno. 1164. and other forecited authorities and never transferred by them to the House of Commons upon or after their admission into our Parliaments but remaining intirely in the King and Lords as at first as the whole House of Commons acknowledge upon record 1 H. 4. rot parl n. 79. Therefore they may lawfully exercise this their judicial power and jurisdiction over the Commoners of England in all such causes now and hereafter and that of right as this record resolves they may do in positive terms 2ly Our Histories Law-books and Records agree that in ancient times our Earls who were called Comites or Counts from the word County had the chief Government and Rule of most of the Counties of this Realm under our King and that they and the Barons were the proper Judges of the Common people both in criminal and civil Causes in the Tourns County-Courts even by vertue of their Dignities and Offices as our Sheriffs are now in which Courts they did instruct the people in the Laws of the Land and administer Justice
against Sir Michael de la Pool Knight Lord Chancellor of England first before the Commons and afterward before the Lords which was granted Then he accused him BEFORE THE LORDS for bribery and injustice and that he entered into a bond of 10 l. to Iohn Ottard a Clerk to the said Chancellor which he was to give for his good success in the business in part of payment whereof he brought Herring and Sturgeon to Ottard and yet was delayed and could have no justice at the Chancellors hands Upon hearing the cause and examining witnesses upon Oath before THE LORDS the Chancellor was cleared The Chancellor thereupon required reparation for so great a slander the Lords being then troubled with other weighty matters let the Fishmonger to Bail and referred the matter to be ordered by the Judges who upon hearing the whole matter condemned Cavendish in three thousand marks for his slanderous complaint against the said Chancellor and adjudged him to prison till he had paid the same to the Chancellor and made fine and ransom to the King also which the Lords confirmed In the Parliament of 8 R. 2. n. 12. Walter Sybell of London was arrested and brought into the Parliament before the Lords at the sute of Robert de Veer Earl of Oxford for slandering him to the Duke of Lancaster and other Nobles for maintenance Walter denied not but that he said that certain there named recovered against him the said Walter and that by maintenance of the said Earl as he thought The Earl there present protested himself to be innocent and put himself upon the trial Walter thereupon was committed to Prison by the Lords and the next day he submitted himself and desired the Lords to be a mean for him saying he could not accuse him whereupon THE LORDS CONVICTED and FINED HIM FIVE HUNDRED MARKS TO THE SAID EARL for the which and for his fine and ransom to the King he was committed to prison BY THE LORDS A direct case in point By these two last Presidents of the Lords â—ining and imprisoning Cavendish and Syber two Commoners in Parliament for their standers and false accusacions only of two particular Peers and Members of their house it is most apparent the Lords now may most justly not only imprison but likewise fine both Lilburn and Overion for their most scandalous Libels against all the Members just Privileges Judicatory and Authority of the whole House of Peers which they have contemned vilisied oppugned and libelled against in the highest degree and most scurrillously abused reviled in sundry seditious Pamphlets to incite both the Army and whole Commonalty against them In the Parliament of 11 R. 2. the Duke of Glocester and other Lords came to London with great forces to secure themselves and remove the kings ill Counsellors and bring them to judgement whereupon the King for fear securing himself in the Tower of London and refusing to come to them at Westminster contrary to his faithfull promise the day before they sent him this threatning Message nisi venire maturaret juxta condictum quod eligerent alium sibi Regem qui vellet et deberet obtemperare consiliis Dominorum Wherewith being terrified he came unto them the next day Cui dixerunt PROCERES pro honore suo regni commodo oporterâ—â— ut Proditores susurrones adulatores et male fici detractores juratores à suo Palatio et Comitive etiam eliminarentur Whereupon they banished sundry Lords Bishops Clergy-men Knights and Ladies from the Court and imprisoned many other Knights Esquires and Lawyers to answer their offences in Parliament The first man proceeded against in Parliament was the Chief Justice Tresylian whom the Lords presently adjudged to be drawn and hanged The like Iuegement the Lords gave against Sir Nicholas Brambre Knight Sir Iohn Salisbury Sir Iames Burwâ—yes Iohn Beauchamp Iohn Blakes who were all drawn and hanged accordingly as Trayâ—ers one after another and Simon Burly beheaded after them by like judgement notwithstanding the Kings and Earl of Derbies intercessions for him to the Lords After their Execution Robert Belknapâ— John Holâ— Roger Fulthorp and William Burgh Justices were banished by the Lords sentence and their lands and chattels confiscated out of which they allowed them only a small annual pension to sustain their lives After which these Judgments against them were confirmed by Acts of Attainder as you may read in the Statutes at large of 11 R. 2. where their Crimes and Treasons are specified in Cokes 3 Institutes c. 2. p. 22 23. and in Knyghton Holinshed Fabian Speed Trussel with other Historians In the Parliament of 13 R. 2. n. 12. Upon complaint of the Bishop Dean and Chapter of Lincoln against the Mayor and Bayliffs thereof for injustice in keeping them from their rights and rents by reason of the franchises granted them which they abused Writs were sent to the Mayor and Baylifs to appear at a certain day before the Lords and to have full authority from the whole Comonalty to abide their determination therein At which day the Mayor and Bayliffs appearing in proper person for that they brought not full power with them from the said Commonalty they were anâ— goâ— by the Lords to be in contempt and so were the Mayor and Bayliffs of Cambridge for the self same cause this very Parliment n. 14. In the Parliament of 15 R. 2. n. 16. The Prior of Holland in Lancashire complained of a great riot done by Henry Treble John Greenboâ— and sundry others for entring into the Parsonage of Whitwâ—rke in Leicestershire thereupon John de Ellingham Serjeant at Armes by vertue of a Commission to him directed brought the said Treble and Greenbow the principle malefactors into the Parliament before the Lords who upon 〈◊〉 confessed the whole matter and were therefore committed to the Fleaâ— there to remain at the Kings pleasure after which they made a fine in the Chancery agreed with the Prior and found sureties for the Good behaviour whereupon they were dismissed The same Parliament n. 19. Sir Will. Bryan was by the King with the assent of the Lords committed prisoner to the lower during the Kings will and pleasure for purchasing a Bull from Rome to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to excommunicate all such who had broken up his house and taken away divers Letters Privileges and Charters which Bull was adjudged prejudicial to the King his Councâ—l and in derogation of the Law Num. 20. Thomas Harding was committed to the Fleet by the King and Lords assent there to continue during the Kings pleasure for falsly accusing Sir John and Sir Ralph Sutton as well by mouth as writing of a conspiracy whereof upon hearing they were acquitted And n. 21. John Shadwell of Baghsteed in Sussex was likewise committed to the Fleet by THE LORDS there to remain during the Kings pleasure for misinforming of the Parliament that the Archbishop of Canterbury had excommunicated him and his neighbours wrongfully in his
of 26 H. 6. n. â— upon his excuse Whereupon William Tresham was elected in his place presented to and approved by the King n. 7. 5ly That when he is elected and approved yet in case of sickness and infirmity he may be removed and another chosen and presented in his place and that upon the Commons special Petition to the king in his behalf out of his meer Grace to discharge him and accept of another Thus in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 62 63 64. Sir John Cheyney Knight after his election and approbation was discharged and Sir John Dorew Knight elected presented and admitmitted by the Kings license to be Speaker in his room So in the Parliament of 1 H. 5. n. n. 7 9 10.11 Will. Sturton Esquire after he was chosen and allowed Speaker was removed for grievous sickness and John Doreward chosen in his place At the Parliament holden 15 H. 6. n. 10 27. Sir John Tirril knight was chosen and allowed yet removed for grievous sickness and William Beerell chosen in his place and that by the Kings special license and approbation to whom all those new Speakers were again presented by the Commons for his royal assent thereto 6ly That if he be altered by his Majesty by assent of the Council Lords as the entry is in the Parliament Rolls then he maketh a protestation or Petition to the king which consisteth of three parts 1. That the Commons in this Parliament may have freedom of speech as of right and custom they have used and all their antient and just Privileges and Liberties allowed them which the King usually granted with this caution That he hoped or doubted not That the Members would not speak any unfitting words or abuse this freedom and privilege for abuse whereof some have been committed Prisoners to the Tower by our Kings and Queens command 2ly That if he shall commit any Error in any thing he shall deliver in the name of the Commons no fault may be imputed to the Commons and that he may resort again to them for declaration of his good intent and that his Error may be pardoned 3ly That as often as necessity for his Majesties service and the good of the Common-wealth shall require he may by direction of the House of Commons have access to his Majesty If then the King hath the sole power and jurisdiction thus to nominate approve confirm disallow refuse discharge and remove the very Speakers of the Commons House themselves and not the Commons but by and with his special license grace and royal assent yea to grant them freedom of speech and their usual Privileges and liberties every Parliament upon their Petition and to pardon theirs and their Speakers Errors and that sitting in the Lords House with their assents then doubtlesse the king and Lords alone are the sole Judges of the Speakers and all other Members of the Commons House and have the sole power to judge of their undue elections retorns misdemeanors breaches of Privileges and all other matters concerning their Membership not the Commons And if they can neither constitute elect nor remove their own Speaker for sickness or any other cause without the kings privity and consent declared in the House of Lords much lesse can they suspend seclude or eject any Member out of the House when chosen and returned by the Freeholders Citizens or Burgesses as their Attorny or Trustee in equal power with themselves without the Kings or Lords consents for any pretext of unfitness or undue election And if the king as Sir Edward Cook grants and these presidents prove may discharge the Speaker from his Office for grievous sickness and inability to discharge it I mak no question but he may likewise upon the like Petition of the Commons or Speaker discharge him of his attendance in the House or any other Member for the self same reason and grant a Writ to elect another able and fitting person in his place according to the opinion of 38 H. 8. Brooks Parliament 7. and Crompton in his Jurisdiction of Courts f. 16. approved by the whole House of Commons and accordingly practised in 38 H. 8. against Sir Edward Cooks bare opinion without reason to the contrary In the Parliament holden at Westminster 5 H. 4. rot Parl. n. 38. Thomas Thorp his Case Item because that the Writ of Summons of Parliament returned by the Sherif of Roteland was not sufficiently nor duly returned as the Commons conceived the said Commons prayed our Lord the King and the Lords in Parliament that this matter might be duly examined in Parliament and that in case therâ— shall be default found in this matter that such a punishment might be inflicted which might become exemplary to others to offend again in the like manner Whereupon 〈◊〉 said Lord the King in full Parliament commanded the Lords in Parliament to examine the said matter and to do therein as to them should seem best in their discretions And thereupon the said Lords caused to come before them in Parliament as well the said Sherifs at William Oneby who was returned by the said Sherif for one of the Knights of the said County and Thomas Thorp who was elected in full Countie to be one of the Knights of the said Shire for the said Parliament and not returned by the said Sherif And the said parties being duly examined and their reasons well considered in the said Parliament it was agreed by the said Lords that because the said Sherif had not made a sufficienâ— return of the said Writ that he shall amend the said return and that he shall return the said Thomas for one of the said Knights as he was elected in the said County for the Parliament and moreover that the said Sherif for this default shall be discharged of his Office any committed Prisoner to the Fleeâ— and that he should make sins and ransome at the Kings pleasures â—oâ— here the Lords in Parliament at the Commons request and by the Kings command examine and give judgement in case of an undue election and retorn even without the Commons In this same Parliament Richard Cheddar Esquire a menial servant and attendant on Sir Thomas Brook chosen one of the Knights to serve in Parliament for the County of Somerset was horribly beaten wounded blemished and maimed by one John Savage Whereupon the Commons complained thereof to the King and Lords petitioning them for redress both in his particular case for the present and all others of that nature for the future that they might make fine at the Kings 〈◊〉 and render double damages to the party maimed whether Members of theirs Servants Whereupon it was ordained and established by the King and Lords that for as 〈…〉 deed was done within the time of the said Parliament that Proclamation be made where it was done that the said John appear and yield himself in the Kings Bench within a quarter of a year after the Proclamation
but are enforced to petition the King and Lords for his enlargement 3ly The Lords in the kings name command the Commons to chuse and present another Speaker in his room and that with all speed which they accordingly did and then present him to the King and Lords for their approbation who allowed of their choice In the Parliament of 38 H. 6. n. 35. There were divers Knights of Counties Citizens and Burgesses named returned and accepted some of them without any due or free election some of them without any election at all against the course of the Kings Lawes and the Liberties of the Commons of the Realm by vertue of the Kings Letters without any other election and by the means and labours of divers seditious and evil disposed persons only to destroy certain of the great faithfull Lords and Nobles and other faithfull liege people of the Realm out of hatred malice greedy and unsatiable covetousness to gain their Lands Inheritances Possessions Offices and goods as the Statute of 39 H. 6. c. 1. relates The Commons were so farr from having power to exclude or confirm their elections themselves that they petitioned the King by advise and assent of the Lords That all such Knights Citizens and Burgesses as were thus returned to this Parliament by vertue of the Kings Letters without any other election should be good and that no Sherif for returning them might incurr the pain therefore provided by the Statute of 23 H. 6. c. 15. Which the King and Lords assented to at their request In the Parliament of 39 H. 6. n. 9. Walter Clerk one of the Burgesses of Parliament for Chippenham was arrested and imprisoned in the Fleet for divers debts due to the King and others upon a Capias Vilagatum whereupon the Commons complained thereof to the King and Lords by Petition and desired his release and rendred them an Act of Parliament ready drawn for that purpose to which Petition and Bill of theirs the King by the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal assented And thereupon he was freed Not by the Commons power order or judgement but by the Kings and Lords advice and assents William Hyde a Burgess of Chippenham in Wiltshire being taken in Execution upon a Capias ad satisfaciendum and imprisoned in the kings Bench during the Parliament contrary to his privilege the Commons thereupon by a Petition praved the King that by advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal he might be delivered for the present by a Writ of privilege out of the Chancery which the King by the advice and assent of the Lords granted saving the right of his Prosecutors to have execution upon him again after the Parliament ended 14 E. 4. n. 55. In the Parliament of 17 E. 4. n. 36. John at-Will a Burgess for Exeter was condemned in the Exchequer upon 8. several Informations during the Parliament at the prosecution of Iohn Taylor of the same Town upon complaint thereof by the Commons to the King and Lords in Parliament by Petition the King by advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal ordered that he should have as many Supersedeas against the said Judgements and Informations as he pleased until his coming home from the Parliament In these last recited cases the Commons had no power at all to deliver or enlarge their own Members when imprisoned as of late years they have practised but always petitioned to the King and Lords for their release and relief who thereupon released and relieved them against the breaches of their privileges when they saw good cause Which cases I have examined by and transcribed out of the Parliament Rolls themselves in the Tower and not taken upon trust or the Abridgements of them which leave out the main ingredients the Commons Petitions to and advice and assent of the King and Lords expressed in the Rolls at large Richard Strode Gentleman one of the Burgesses of Parliament for the Burge of Plympton in Devonshire in the Parliament of 4 H. 8. for agreeing with the Commons house in putting out Bills against certain abuses of the Tinners being a Tinner himself by the malice of John Furse Tinner Under-Steward of the Stannâ—ries and his misinformation that the said Richard Strâ—de at the last Parliament heldâ—n at Westminster would have avoided and utterly destroyed all Liberties Privileges and Franchises concerning the Scanneâ—ies was upon 4. Bills thereof made by the said Furse presented and found guilty of the premises in 4. several Stannery Courts and condemned to forfeit 40 l. on every Bill to the King upon an Act and Ordinance made by the Tinners to which he was never warned nor called to make answer contrary to all Laws right reason and good conscience And one John Aguiâ—â—iam begging 20 l. of the said forfeiture from the King caused the said Richard to be taken and imprisoned in Lidford Castle in a dungeon and deep pit under ground where he was fed only with bread and water to the peril of his life and was to have irons laid upon him Upon which he petitioned the Parliament for remedy and that it might be ordained and enacted by the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal that the condemnations against him for the said 160 l. in the Stanneries and every parcel thereof and judgements and executions had or to be had for the premises might be utterly void and of none effect against him which was done for him accordingly And moreover it was enacted That all sutes accusations condemnations executions fines amerciameuts punishments corrections grants charges and impositions put or had or hereafter to be put or had upon the said Richard to every other person or persons that were in this Parliament or that of any Parliament hereafter shall be for any Bill speaking reasoning or declaring of any matter or matters concerning the Parliament to be communed or treated of be utterly void and of none effect And that any person vexed or troubled or otherwise charged for any causes as aforesaid shall have an action of the case against every person or persons so vexing or troubling him contrary to this Ordinance and recover treble damages and costs And that no protection Essoign or wager of Law shall in the said action in any wise be admiâ—red nor received as you may read in the Statutes at large 4 H. 8. ch 8. intituled an act concerning Richard Strode The Commons themselves being unable to releive him in this high breach of privilege but by a petition to the King and Lords and a special Act of Parliament made for him In the Parliament of 34 H. 8. there fell out this famous case thus at large recorded by Holinshed and Crompton out of him In the Lent season whilst the Parliament yet continued one George Ferrers Gentleman servant to the king being elected a Burgess for the Town of Plimmouth in the County of Devon in going to the Parliament House was arrested in
LORDS and GREAT MEN as well Ecclesiastical as secular were present inquiry was made whether any were unjustly spoiled and deprived of their rights Whereupon it was shewed that Arch-Bishop Wulfred was unjustly deprived of his just Lordship and Jurisdiction near six years space and forced under pain of confiscation of his goods and banishment to convey three hundred Hydes of Land to him upon condition that he should bee restored to his full Archiepiscopal authority which condition was not performed After the Kings death Abbesse Kenedrytha his daughter and heir was summoned to this Council where the Arch-Bishop complained of the injuries done to himself and Christ-Church in Canterbury by her Father requiring reparations for them from the Abbesse if it were just Whereupon ALL THE COUNCIL held it just and DECREED BY AN UNANIMOUS DECREE that all the Lands and things taken away from the Arch-Bishop by her Father should bee restored together with the profits thereof lost for so long a space as also all the Books and Writings by the Abbesse being heir to the King which was accordingly performed by her King Bertulfus Anno 850. Holding a Great Council with the Prelates and Nobles of the whole Realme of Mercia upon the complaint of Siward and the Monks of Croyland of certain injuries maliciously done unto them by their adversaries in violating the Bounds and Priviledges of their Sanctuary to the great prejudice of their Abby Thereupon the King Prelates and Nobles in this Council for redress of this injury prescribed a Perambulation of their Bounds to be made by the Sheriffe of the County and to certifie the same unto them when made which was accordingly made certified to and confirmed by THE KING PRELATES and NOBLES in the Council held by them at Kingsbury in the year 851. as you may read at large in Ingulphus upon the petition of Abbot Siward After the death of King Edgar Anno 975. there being a great difference between the Nobles of the Realme about electing a new King some of them siding with Ethelred others with Edward his two Sons all the Bishops Abbots and NOBLES assembled in a great Parliamentary Council to debate and determine their rights and titles to the Crown Wherein they elected and crowned Edward the elder Brother King In this Council and two or three more succeeding it at Winchester and Calne the married Priests complained TO THE LORDS that they were unjustly expelled out of their Churches by the Monks and their prevailing party during King Edgars Reign to their dishonour and the great injury of the Nation desiring that the Monks might bee ejected and they restored to their Churches they anciently injoyed about which there were great contests and disputes in sundry Councils the King and LORDS inclining to restore them against Arch-Bishop Dunstans and other Monkish Prelates wills About the year 982. There was a Witenagemâ—t or Parliamentary Council held at London to which the DUKES PRINCES and NOBLES resorting from all parts Adelwold Bishop of Winchester complained that one Leofsi who had purchased Lands of him in the Isle of Ely not only refused to pay for them but also disseised him of three other Mannors The cause being opened and pleaded by the Bishop and the Lawyers flocking thither from all parts They ALL ADJUDGED that the Lands and Mannors should bee restored to the Bishop together with all his dammages and that Leofsi for this his rapine should also pay a fine and ransome to the King Queen Edgen in a civil cause and suit in the County Court between her and Goda appealed from that Court to King Ethelred and a Parliamentary Council at London Congregatis Principibus sapientibus Angliae In the time of St. Edward a suit between the Bishops of Winchester and Durham coram Principibus et Episcopis Regni in praesentia Regis ventilata finita est In the tenth year of King William the Conquerour Episcopi Comites et Barones Regni regia potestate ediversis Provincis ad universalem Synodum pro causis audiendis et tractandis convocati sunt as the Leger Book of Westminster records Hence I suppose it was that what we now call a Parliament was sometimes stiled by our ancient Historians in former ages MAGNUM PLACITUM because of the great Pleas and suits therein decided and judged BY THE KING and LORDS King William the first Anno 1071. held a great Council of his PRELATES and NOBLES at Winchester In hoc Conciliâ— dum caeteri trepidi ut pote Regis aegnâ—scentes animum ne suis honoribus privarentur venerandus Vir Wulstanus Wigorniensis Episcopus quamplures possessiones sui Episcopatus ab Aldredo Archiepiscopo duâ— Ã Wigorniensi Ecclesia ad Eboracensem transferretur sua potentia retentas qui eo tunc defuncto in Regiam potestatem devenerant constanter proclamabat JUSTITIAMQUE INDE FIERI tam AB IPSIS QUI CONCILIO PRAEERANT quam a Rege FLAGITABAT At quia Eboracensis Ecclesia non habens Pastorem qui pro ea loqueretur muta erat JUDICATUM EST ut ipsa querela sic remaneret quousque Archiepiscopo ibi constituto qui Ecclesiam defenderet dum esset qui ejus querelae responderet objectes responsis posset ebidenâ—us et Iustius Iudicium fieri sicque tunc a querela ad tempus remansit But Thomas being soon after consecrated Arch-Bishop of York thereupon reverendi Wulstani Wigorniensis Episcopi mota est iterum querela Archiepiscopo jam consecrato Thoma qui pro Eboracensi loqueretur Ecclesia in Concilio in loco qui vocatur Pedreda celebrato coram Rege ac Doroberniae Aâ—chiepiscopo Lanfranco Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Primatibus totius Regni Dei gratia adminieulante Terminaâ—um Cunctis siquidem machinationibus non veritate stipatis quâ—bus Thomas ejusque fautores Wigorniensem Ecclesiam deprimere Eboracensi Ecclesiae subjâ—cere aniliamque facere modis omnibus satagebant justo Dei judicio in scriptis evidentissim is detritis penitus annihillatis non solum vir Dei Wulstanus proclamatas expetitas possessiones accepit sed suam Ecclesiam Deo clamante Rege concedente ea libertate liberam suscepit qua primi fundatores ejus sanctus Rex Ethelredus Offa c. ipsam liberaverunt By which History it is apparent that the King and Lords in that age had the sole judicature in civil causes in the Parliaments then held and decided civil Titles and controversies therein between Bishops and spiritual as well as temporal persons In the year-Book of 21 Ed. 3. fol. 60. There is a recital that upon the complaint of the Abbot of St. Edmonds de Bery against the Bishop of Norwich for infringing the liberties of the Abby in the Reign of William the Conquerour in a Parliament held under him most likely in this Council of Pedreda it was ordained per le Râ—y et per Larchebesque de Canterbury et per touts les Auters Ebesques de
Picardy ready to be transported into England But when it was certainly certified that King Richard was dead and that their enterprise of his deliverance was frustrate and void the Army scattered and departed asunder But when the certainty of King Richards death was declared to the Aquitaynes and Gascons the most part of the wisest men of the Country fell into a bodily fear and into a deadly dread for some lamenting the instability of the English people judged them to be spotted with perpetual infamy and brought to dishonour and loss of their antient fame and glory for committing so hainous a crime and detestable an offence against their King and Soveraign Lord. The memory whereof they thought would never be buried or extincted Others feared the loste of their goods and liberties because they imagined that by this civil dissension and intestine division the Realm of England should so be vexed and troubled that their Country if the Frenchmen should invade it should be destitute and left void of all aid and succour of the English Nation But the Citizens of Burdeaux took this matter very sore at stomach because King Richard was born and brought up in their City lamenting and crying out that since â—he beginning of the world there was never a more detestable or more villanous or hainous act committed which being sad with sorrow and inflamed with melancholy said that untrue unnatural and unmercifull people had betrayed and slain contrary to all Law and Justice and honesty a good man a just Prince and lawfull Governour beseeching God devoutly on their knees to be the revenger and punisher of that detestable offence and notorious crime 15ly The proceedings against King Richard the 2. in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. were in the Parliament of 1 E. 4. n. 9 10 11 12. condemned as illegal the Tyrannous usurpation of Henry the 4th with his hainous murdering of King Richard the 2. at large set forth his reign declared by Act of Parliament to be an intrusion and meer usurpation for which he and the heirs of his body are utterly dis inabled as unworthy to enjoy any inheritance estate or profits within the Realm of England or Dominions of the same for ever and that by this memorable Petition of the Commons wherein the pedigree of King Edward the 4th and his title to the Crown are likewise fully set forth a Record most worthy the publike view being never yet printed to my knowledge Ex Rotulo Parliamenti tenti apud Westm anno primo Edwardi Quarti n. 8. Memorandum quod quaedam Petitio exhibita fuit praefato Domino Regi in praesenti Parliamento per praefatos Communes sub eo qui sequitur tenore verborum For as much as it is notary openly and evidently known that the right noble and worthy Prince Henry King of England the third had issue Edward his furst gotten Son born at Westminster in the 15 kalende of Juyll in the vigille of Seint Marce and Marcellian the year of our Lord M. C.C.XLV the which Edw. after the death of the said King Henry his Fader entituled and called King Edward the furst had issue his furst gotten Son entituled and called after the decease of the same Edward the furst his Fader King Edward the second which had issue the right noble and honourable Prince King Edward the third true and undoubted King of Englond and of France and Lord of Irelond which Edward the third had issue Edward his furst gotten Son Prince of Wales William Hatfield secund gotten Son Leonel third gotten Son Duke of Clarence John of Gaunt fourth gotten son Duke of Lancaster Edmund Langley the fifth gotten son Duke of York Thomas Wodestoks the sixth gotten son Duke of Gloucester and William Wyndesore the seventh gotten Son And the said Edward Prince of Wales which died in the life of the said King Edward the thurd his Fader had issue Richard which after the death of the same King Edward the third as Cousin and heir to him that is to say Son to the said Edward Prince of Wales Son unto the said King Edward the third succeeded him in royal estate and dignity lawfully entituled and called King Richard the secund and died without issue William Hatfield the secund gotten Son of the said King Edward the third died without issue the said Leonel Duke of Clarence the third gotten Son of the same King Edward had issue Phelip his only daughter and died And the same Phelip wedded unto Edmund Mortimer Earl of Marche had issue by the same Edmund Roger Mortymer Earl of Marche her Son and heir which Edmund and Phelip died the same Roger Earl of March had issue Edmund Mortymer Earl of March Roger Mortymer Anne and Alianore and died And also the same Edmund and Roger sons of the foresaid Roger and the said Alianore died without Issue And the same Anne wedded unto Richard Earl of Cambridge the Son of the said Edmund Langley the fifth gotten son of the said king Edward the third as it is afore specified had issue that right noble and famous Prince of full worthy memory Richard Plantagenet Duke of York And the said Richard Earl of Cambridge and Anne his Wife died And the same Rich. Du. of York had issue the right high and mighty Prince Edward our Liege and Soveraign Lord and died to whom as Cousin and heir to the said King Richard the Crown of the Realm of England and the royal power estate dignity preheminence and governance of the same Realm and the Lordship of Ireland lawfully and of right appertaineth of the which Crown Royal power estate dignity preheminence governance and Lordship the said King Richard the second was lawfully rightfully and justly seised and possessed and the same joyed in rest and quiet without interruption or molestation unto the time that Henry late Earl of Derby son of the said Iohn of Gaunt the fourth gotten son of the said King Edward the third and younger Brother of the said Leonel temerously agenst rightwisnes and Iustice by force and Arms agenst his faith and liegeaunce rered werre at Flynte in Wales agenst the said King Richard him took and enprisoned in the Tower of London of grete violence And the same King Richard so being in prison and living usurped and intruded upon the royal power estate dignity preheminence possessions and Lordships aforesaid taking upon him usurpously the Crown and name of K. and L. of the same Realm and Lordship And not therewith satisfied or content but more grievous thing attempting wickedly of unnatural unmanly and cruel tyranny the same King Richard King anointed crowned and consecrate and his Liege and most high Lord in the Earth agenst Gods Law Mans liegeance and Oth of fidelite with uttermost punicion attormenting murdred and destroyed with most vile hainous and lamentable death whereof the heavy exclamation in the doom of every Christian man soundeth into Gods hearing in Heaven not forgotten in the Earth specially in this
it was shewed to the said John Lord of Gomynes by the said Steward how the said LORDS had assembled and considered of his answer and THAT IT SEEMED TO THE LORDS sitting in full Parliament that without duresse or default of victuals or other necessaries for the defence of the Town Castle of Arde and without the Kings Command he had evilly delivered and surrendred them to the Kings Enemies by his own default against all appearance of right or reason contrary to his undertaking safely to keep the same Wherefore THE LORDS aforesaid here in full Parlia-ADJUDGE YOU TO DEATH And because you are a Gentleman and a Baronet and have served the Kings Grandfather in his wars and are no Liege man of our Lord the King you shall be beheaded without having OTHER JUDGEMENT And because that our Lord the King is not yet informed of the manner of this Judgement the execution thereof shall be put in respite until our Lord the King be informed thereof Loe here two express Judgements given in Parliament by the LORDS alone without King or Commons in case of Treason even against Commoners themselves And an express acknowledgement by the Commons of the Lords right to award Iudgement in these cases without the King or them than which a fuller and clearer proof cannot be desired In the Parliament of 2 R. 2. n. 34 35. Sir Robert Howard knight was committed prisoner to the Tower upon the complaint of the Lady Nevil by the Lords in Parliament for a forcible imprisonment of her daughter to which he was accessory that she might not prosecute a divorce in Court Christian In the 50 year of King Edward the 3. in the Parliament called the good Parliament Sir John Anneslee Knight accused Thomas Katrington Esquire of Treason for selling the Castle of St. Saviour in the Isle of Constantine to the French for an inestimable sum of money cum nec defensio sibi nec victualia defuissent whereupon he was taken and imprisoned but in King Edwards sickness enlarged by the Lord Latymers means as was reported In the Parliament held at London Anno 1380. the 3. of R n. 2. he was again accused by Sir John Anneslee and there resolved that being a Treason done beyond Sea not in England it ought to be tried by duel before the Constable or Marshal of the Realm Whereupon a day of battel was appointed in the Court at Westminster the 7. of June and lists set up On which day in the morning they fought the battel in the presence of the KING Nobles and Commons of the Realm which Walsingham at large describes till both of them were tyred and lay tumbling on the ground where the Esquire got upon the Knight as if he had conquered him Others said the Knight would rise again and vanquish the Esquire Interea Rex pacem clamari prâ—cepit et militem erigâ— The Knight refused to be lifted up as the Esquire was desiring he might be laid upon him again for he was well and would gain the victory if he were laid upon him again When he could not obtain his request being lifted up he went chearfully to the King without help when as the Esquire could neither stand nor go but as two held him up and thereupon was set in a chair to rest himself The Knight when he came before the King rogavis Eum et Proceres ut sibi illam concederunt gratiam ut itâ—rum in loco quo prius posset reponi et armiger super eum Rex vero et Proceres cum vidissent miliâ—em tam animose â—am vivide bellum repetere et insuper magnam summam auri offerre publice ut id posset effici decreverunt eum iterum reponendum armigerum super eum modo universaliter servato quo â—acuerant ante prostrati But the Esquire in the mean time in a swoun fell out of the chair as dead between the hands of those who stood by him Whereupon many running to him chafed him with wine and water but could not recover him till they pulled off his arms Quod factum et Militem victorem probavit Arm gerum esse victum After some space the Esquire reviving opened his eyes and began to lift up his head and to look terribly on every one that stood round about him which the knight being informed of went presently to him in his arms which he never put off and speaking to him et Proditorem et falsum appellans quaerit si iterum audeat Duellum repetere Ille verò nec sensum nec spiritum habente respondendi â—lamatum est pugnam finitam et ut quisque ad propria remearet The Squire was carried to his bed senceless and died the next morning Here we have a Duel ordered by Parliament and the King and Lords Iudges in it not the Commons for a Treason done beyond the Seas not triable here by Law In the Parliament of 4 R. 2. n. 17. to 26. Sir Ralph Ferrers being arested for suspition of Treason on the borders of Scotland was brought into the Parliament before the Lords to answer the same where divers Letters under his hand and Seal as was pretended were produced and read against him sent to the Lord Admiral of France and other French Officers informing them that he in the behalf of the French had made a League and alliance with the Scots and desiring them to make payment of the monies promised him and of his own fee and inviting the French to invade England c. with discoveries of the Kings designs against the French and answers to them Sir Ralph desired Counsel in this case which was denied him These Letters were found by a beggar besides London divers of his familiars were called into the Parliament house before the Lords and likewise the beggar and the whole matter strictly examined The Letters sent by Sir Ralph to the parties beyond Seas and certain Letters sent by them in answer to his were all sealed together and all of one hand and the Seal larger than the Seal of the said Sir Ralph whereupon they seemed to be forged by some of his Enemies for his overthrow himself being once or twice urged to answer Whether the Letters were his or no answered that he did not remember they were his own Letters and that he was ready to approve as the Lords should think fit having formerly offered combate with any that would justifie it from which he was put In conclusion the Lords thought him to be innocent whereupon he was delivered to 4. Earls and 2. Lords who became pledges body for body to answer when he should be called between that and the next Parliament and so he was inlarged The Letters and his Seal were delivered to Sir John Cavendish Chief Justice of England and the beggar being thought privy to this falshood was committed to prison by THE LORDS In the Parliament of 5 R. 2. n. 44 45. Richard Clindow Esquire exhibited a Bill to