for an Information which is but the King's Suit the Reason being the same in both But it may perhaps be thought that in respect of the Persons concern'd in it this was too high a Flight and too bold an Attempt and that the height and eminence of some persons may exempt them from common Justice and from the Power even of a Parliament In answer to which I would observe that some Laws are more especially levell'd against the Highest Subjects By the Statute of W. 1. c. 5. The King forbids that nul haute homme no High or Great Man upon pain of grievous forseiture disturb Elections but Elections ought to be free The like may be observ'd in the Statute of W. 1. c. 35. Des hautes bommes c. And the greater the Persons are if they are in the rank of Subjects they must be subject to the King's Laws and they are the more proper for the undertaking and encounter of this High Court. It will not be Impar congressus I cited before the Mirror of Justices Chap. 1. Pag. 9. where it is said that Parliaments were ordained for to hear and determine in such wrongs and against such Persons especially against whom otherwise Common Right cannot be had I will cite no Historians to prove what hath been done in Antient Times within this very Kingdom of this Nature against the highest Subjects I will keep still within my own Sphere and cite none but Authorities in Law. And so keep my self in the way that belongs to me and so doing I am under the Protection of this Court and of the Law and may relye upon the performance of that Blessed Promise He will keep thee in all thy ways There must be no respect of Persons in doing Justice The great Judge of all the World gives it as a Rule and himself gives the Example God is no respecter of Persons The King was pleas'd to charge both Houses to make a strict and impartial Enquiry I shall cite two Authorities in Law that come to this point The first is in Case of a Brother and an Heir apparent too and of a Person that did after succeed in the Crown King Richard the 1st in his Magna Curia petiit sibi Judicium fieri de Comite Johanne fratre fuo qui contra fidelitatem quam ei juraverat Foedus contra eum cum inimico suo Rege Franciae inierat That was the Offence charg'd It may possibly be Objected that the King himself complain'd True but he complains to the proper Judicature This proves their Power Hunts Arguments for Bishops fol. 80. But what did the High Court do upon that Complaint They pronounc'd a very severe Sentence tho' it were but in the Nature of a mean process to make him appear and Answer Seld. Tit. of Hon. fol. 707. The Lords Order or adjudge that if John Earl of Moreton did not appear within 40 Days after Summons Judicaverunt Comitem Johannem demeruisse Regnum Let me remember you of a stronger and higher Case and I have it out of an Author of the Law too Crompt Jurisd of Courts in his Chapter of the Court of the King 's Bench. In a Case of Corpus cum Causa Whidden one of the Judges of the Court cited a Case that did happen in the time of Gascoign Ch. I. in the Reign of King H. 4. Gascoign committed the Prince of Wales who was afterwards our King H. the 5th to Prison for endeavouring to take away a Prisoner from the Bar of the King's Bench and the Prince humbly submitted and went to Prison and the King hearing of it commended it If the King's Bench being an Inferior Court to that high Court might soar so high how much more the highest Court of the Realm where the King sits in the Exaltation of his Orb and is in his greatest Splendor The King indeed is presum'd in Law to be in this Court which makes the style of its proceedings to be Coram Rege and some of our Kings have been said to have sate here But the King is in his High Court of Parliament per Eminentiam as K. H. 8. one of the highest and most resolute of our Kings said in the Case of Ferrers which I cited before to another Point That he was informed by his Judges who were all then present that he in no time stood so high in his State Royal as in the time of Parliament Then if we consider the Person whom the Ch. I. Gascoign Committed He was a continuing settled fixed Heir and then Prince of Wales whose Chair now stands Vacant in the Lord's House in time of Parliament and afterwards this Prince of Wales proved a Renowned King. Nescit Imperare qui nescit obtemperare The Sacred Scriptures tell us that the Heir differeth nothing from a Servant I may say also from a Subject until the time appointed of the Father Gal. 4. 1 3. What would the Author of the Sermon preach'd before the University have said in these Cases that I have cited He would have call'd them Unwarrantable Proceedings and would have affirm'd that the Persons thus proceeded against were too sacred to be touch'd with such unhallowed Hands This hath been the Bold Language from the Pulpit and the Press if the Title of the Book be true from a Cambr. Dr. Oblitus Professionis suae quae nil nisi lene suadet justum And the Author while he was guilty of gross Flattery on the one hand was not afraid to run into the other Extream of speaking Evil of Dignities on the other hand of one of the three Estates of the Realm of the Representative of the Great Body whereof he himself makes but a small inconsiderable Atome We know from certain and undoubted Histories of our own that in the time of King H. 8. greater Persons in the Account of the Law than the Prince of Wales and yet but Subjects of the King have been brought to Tryal and that before Lords Commissioners and however in other Respects their Cases might be very hard yet it was never doubted but they were Subject to the Law and Justice Now to proceed to my second Point wherein I shall be brief viz. That however the Matters Charged in the Attorney General 's Information are not to be imputed to the Defendant in this Case He being but the Minister or Mouth of the House and Acting only by their Order He is frequently in the Parliament Records styled the Mouth of the House whose Speaker he is Mr. Hakewell in his Treatise of Parliaments fol. 200. among the Catalogue of Speakers begins with Petrus de Mountf whom he makes Speaker 44 H. 3. of the House of Commons and he cites the Register of St. Albans for it Fol. 207. where it is said that Petrus de Mountford Vice totius Communitatis consented to the Judgment of Banishment of Adomar de Valence Bishop of Winchester and Sir Robert Cotton agrees with Mr. Hakewell in this Point Mr. Pryn in his Preface to Sir Cotton's Abr. is of an Opinion by himself that tota Communitas signifies the whole Baronage But it appears by the Body of the Letter there written that Communitas is distinguished from the Majores Sir Sir Cotton's Abridgement 6 E. 3. fol. 12. in the upper part It is said the Lords and Great Men by the Mouth of Sir Henry Beaumont Mr. Hakewell in his aforesaid Treatise speaking of William Trussel
them unto And Sir Robert Filmer fol. 40. allows neither Lords nor Commons any Power but by the King 's bare Permission and thus they are growing in their Invasions against the Court of Parliament and impeach one first and the other will follow more easily And Sir Robert Filmer further holds the Legislative Power rests solely in the King and fol. 39. he hath these words But the truth is saith he The Liberties and Priviledges of both Houses have but one and the self-same Foundation which is nothing else but the meer and sole Grace of Kings And Doctor Heylin in his Life of Arch-Bishop Laud fol. 91. denies the Priviledges of Parliament to be the Peoples Birth-Right but holds them not otherwise exercis'd than by the Grace and Goodness of the King. Mr. Pryn Sir Robert Filmer and Mr. Dugdale lay great stress upon the diversity that is in the Writs of Summons between the Summons for the Lords and the Summons for the Commons That to the Lords say they is super negottis praedictis tractaturi vestrumque consilium impensuri But that to the Commons is say they only ad faciendum consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem de communi cousilio dicti regni contigerint ordinari It is true that for many years of late that distinction hath been so used in the Summons but not constantly so As to this point I will cite Mr. Dugdale's and Mr. Prin's own Books against their own Opinion The very first writ of Summons which as they say is now extant for the Summoning of the Commons by Election viz. 49 H. 3. runs in these words Nobiscum ac cum praedictis praelatis magnatibus nostris super praemissis tractaturi at que consilium impensuri Dugd. Orig. Jur. pag 18. The Writ De expensis Militum qui venerunt ad Parliamentum venientibus saies that Writ usque ad Westmonasterium ibidem de diversis negâ—ciis nobiscum tractaturis See Mr. Pryn's 4th part of a Register of Parliament Writs fol. 8. In Mr. Ryley's Placita Parliamentaria it appears that as the Summons to the Temporal Lords fol. 318. was ad tractandum and so likewise the Summons to the Prelates fol. 319. so also fol. 320. it is entred in these words Mandatum fuit singulis Vicecomitibus per Angliam quod de quolibet comitatu duos milites de qualibet civitate duos cives de quolibet burgo duos Burgenses eligi ad dictum Parliamentum venire facerent ad tractandum c. In the same Book fol. 570. An. 15 E. 2. there is mention of a Writ of Summons for Knights out of Wales to a Parliament at York ad tractandum consilium impendendum In Mr. Pryn's Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva fol. 274. there is the very Indenture return'd by the Sheriff of Norsolk for great Yarmouth ad tractandum consulendum consentiendum And fol. 68. of that Book another Writ de expensis militum reciting the Cause for which they had been Summon'd to the Parliament viz. ad tractandum c. And in the same Book fol. 145. it appears that 18 E. 3. the Writs to the Sheriffs for chusing Knights mention'd what their work was to be in these words viz. Nobiscum cum praelatis proceribus praedictis super diversis arduis negotiis nos statum regni nostri specialiter tangentibus tractaturi suum consilium impensuri And fol. 147. and 149. the like words in the Writs And fol. 177. And 276. and 283. and 381. Indentures return'd from Reading Bristol London with the same words And ib. fol. 178 and 179 and 291 for Windsor and 365. So that in the Reigns of seven several Kings and those of the most Ancient Kings there was no such distinction in the Writs of Summons Another Argument used by these late Authors to prove that the whole Power and all the Priviledges of the House of Commons are not from the Original Constitution of the Government as I Affirm and I hope have proved they are but of a later Original and by the meer Grace and Indulgence of Princes as indeed they must be if the House of Commons began within Memory is taken from the Words and Phrases of our Historians who have written since the coming in of the Normans and ascribe the making of Laws and all the Determinations and Decrees in Matters of Judicature and all the Actings of the Ancient Parliaments before the time of the Normans to the King and Lords only Exclusive to the Commons and that the Commons had no part in them till this time of 49 H. 3. And they ground this Opinion upon the Form of Penning of our Ancient Acts of Parliament which seem by the Words of them to be meer Concessions of our former Kings and to have proceeded only from their Royal Bounty and at their sole Will and Pleasure And they Confirm themselves in that Opinion from observing the Course used in the beginning of Parliaments when the Speaker makes his humble Petitions to the King for the Granting of them Freedom from Arrests and Freedom of Speech Now to discover the Falsity of these Grounds and the Weakness of these Arguments taken from the Words and Phrases us'd by our Historians I shall shew that our Historians who have written since the time of the coming in of the Normans and have Translated the Saxon Annals have in those Translations instead of the Saxon Titles used the Titles that were never in use before their own Times which Titles used in the Saxons times had quite different Significations from the Titles used in the times of the Translators The Title Earl for Example is used in the Penning of the Saxons Laws as among those of Athelstan as we may see by Mr. Lambert in his Book de Priscis Anglor Legibus and the Title Comes came in amongst us since from the Empire and signified a different thing from Earl. Now our Translators mistaking those two Titles Earl and Comes to signifie the same thing wherever they met with Earl in the Annals of the Saxons they have rendred it Comes in their Translations and whatever in those times was done by Earls and whatever Power the Earls then used is by our Translators ascribed to our Comites who are therefore also called Earls when in Truth they had different Significations and were different in their Powers Mr. Selden takes notice of this Error in our Norman or English Translators proceeding from their Ignorance But from this Error false Conclusions have been raised and false Measures taken in our Discourses concerning the Power of the Peers Sir H. Spelman observes the same Error in our Translators in rendring Words and Titles Non èmore Saeculi antiquioris but according to the Titles used in their own times when many times they signified different things Nobilis says Mr. Selden in the Saxons times denoted every Gentleman Now because
Affairs set out by a Learned Lawyer and the Son of a Judge and it is the Case that I lightly touch'd upon but now that of Mr. Hollis Selden c. The offence charg'd upon Mr. Denzill Hollis who was afterwards the Lord Hollis Mr. Selden Sir John Elliot Sir John Hobart and divers other Parliament-men was for a force used upon the then Speaker Sir John Finch afterwards Lord Keeper in keeping him in the Speaker's Chair against his will when he would have left it and pressing him to put a question which the King had forbidden him to put For this supposed offence after the Parliament was Dissolv'd these Parliament-men were first convened before the Council where they refus'd to answer the Charge it being for matters done in Parliament Then the Judges had Questions propounded to them to which they gave their resolution that for things done not in a Parliamentary way a Parliament-man may be punished after the Parliament is ended if he be not punished in Parliament otherwise as J. Croke said There would be a failure of Justice but that regularly he cannot be compell'd out of Parliament to answer things done in a Parliament in a Parliamentary course This Answer seems to be very oracular for it resolves that a Parliament-man shall not Answer for things done in Parliament in a Parliamentary course If it be done in a Parliamentary course what occasion can there be to answer for it But who shall judge what is a Parliamentary course but a Parliament not Judges of the Common-Law for the Parliamentary course differs from the Rules of the Common-Law But they refusing to answer at the Council-Board were committed close Prisoners to the Tower. After this Sir Robert Heath the King's Attorney preferr'd an Information in the Star-Chamber against them that was not proceeded in The Lord Keeper was under difficulties about it says the Author The Judges of the King's-Bench were to consult with the rest of the Judges in granting a Habeas Corpus for bailing the Prisoners The rest of the Judges would hear arguments so it was put off and delay'd as our Author reports it At last an Information was exhibited against them in the King's-Bench The Defendants pleaded to the jurisdiction of the Court their plea was over-rul'd and they refusing to plead over judgment was entred by nihil dicit and they fined and imprison'd Mr. J. Croke at the latter end of those Reports gives this further account of that Case that afterwards in the Parliament 17 Car. 1. It was Resolv'd by the House of Commons that those Parliament-men should have a recompence for their damages sustain'd for the services to the Commonwealth in the Parliament 3 Car. 1. If a Judge hath thought fit to report this it may be as fit for me to mention it I take that to be the first precedent or resolution given in any case for what was done in Parliament and it stands alone I have heard of none since that neither It seems to be directly against the provision made by it it is clearly within the Equity and Reason of it Strode's Act. I wish I could not say that even those times of 3 Car. 1. were not full of trouble It appears much by the difficulty the Judges seem'd to be at in the proceedings of that Case this detracts much from that veneration that otherwise is justly due to a Resolution so solemn as that of all the Judges The Lord Chancellor Bacon in his profound Book of the Advancement of Learning dislikes all Precedents that taste of the times and advises that Precedents should be deriv'd from good and moderate Times The only reason that I find given for that proceeding in the case of Denzill Hollis is that given by Mr. J. Croke viz. That otherwise there would be a failure of Justice This reason must be grounded either upon the Infrequenecy of Parliaments or upon an opinion that Parliaments will be partial in cases of their own Members As to the first of these the long intervals between Parliaments This under favour ought to be no reason especially to come from a Judges's mouth I have a great honour for the memory of that Reverend Judge who must needs know and ought to assert it That by the Law Parliaments ought to be very frequent and Judges ought to take part with the Law and to maintain it Before the Conquest as 't is untruly call'd by the Law Parliaments were to be held twice a year as appears by King Edgar's Laws c. 5. in Lamb. de priscis c. And the Mirror of Justice c. 1. Sect. 3. tells us that King Alfred ordain'd for a perpetual Usage that twice in the year and if need were oftner The Seniors or Earls should assemble themselves at London to speak their minds And 't is reckon'd among the Abusions as they are there term'd of the Common-Law That whereas Parliaments ought to be twice in the year for the salvation of the Souls of Trespassers and at London too that they are there but very seldom and at the pleasure of the King for Subsidies and Collections of treasure And by the Statute of 4 E. 3. c. 14. Parliaments ought to be once a year and oftner if need be I have heard a Civilian in the House of Commons give this construction to that short Act that the words If need be should referr to the Parliaments being once a year aswell as to the words and oftner and I never heard that any man was of that opinion but himself but I remember he himself laught when he spoke it but he was more laught at for that ridiculous exposition And should that sense be put upon it it would make the Law a very ridiculous thing indeed for then the short of it would be this That we should have a Parliament when there is need But to refute that fancy there is another Statute of the same King's time namely 36 E. 3. c. 10. which says that for redress of divers mischiefs and grievances which daily happen it s accorded that a Parliament shall be holden every year without any such restriction If need be And by the Act of 16 Car. 2. c. 1. These Acts are declared to be in force And farther it is Declared and Enacted That the holding of Parliaments shall not be discontinued above three years at the most Now how can any man say in Defiance of these Laws That there can be any long discontinuance of Parliaments His now Majesty has been pleased graciously to declare his Resolution often to meet his People in Parliaments and in the word of a King there is power Nay we have the King's Oath for it for he is sworn to observe the Law And eadem praesumitur esse mens Regis quae legis And it is an high presumption for any man to think or say otherwise For that other ground of that reason given by Mr. Justice Croke viz. That there would be a failure of Justice if
will make a Foelix tremble We have often heard it confidently said from the Pulpit That our Laws are like the Spiders Webs which catch the little Flies but the great ones break through them Now it is quite contrary with this great Court this great Court encounters only with great Offenders It is like the Imperial Eagle Aquila non capit Muscas it leaves them to this and other Inferiour Courts but that takes to task the Animalia Majora In the great Case Rot. Parl. 40 E. 3. num 7. King John had resign'd up the Crown of England to the Pope by the hand of Pandolphus his Legate and sordidly submitted to take the Crown at his hand again at a yearly Tribute In the Region of our noble King Edward the 3d. the Pope demanded his Rent and all the Arrears The Prelates Dukes Counts Barons and Commons resolv'd that neither the King nor any other could put the Realm nor the People thereof into subjection sans l'assent de eux This intimates that with their joint consent the Crown may be dispos'd of This was the highest Resolution in Law in one of the highest points in Law concerning the King's Claim of an Absolute Power and in a time when the Pope was in his height And the Commons join in the Resolution both against the Pope's and King John's pretence to a Despotick Power Sir Tho. Smith who was a Secretary of State in his Commonw l. 2. c. 2. fol. 50 51. In Comitiis Parliamentariis posita est omnis absolutae potestatis vis taking in the King as the Head of them as it ought to be understood this shows where the rightful absolute Power under Almighty God is And among other Magnalia he tells us Incerti Juris Controversias dirimunt This shews their transcendent Judicial Power they determine the greatest Disputes and Doubts in Law. They would quickly decide this Dispute and Controversie were it once before them without Argument This appears to be the proper business of a Parliament even from the Writ of Summons both to Lords and Commons for they did not Anciently differ in any thing material as I have abundantly shown already they are De Arduis Regni tractitare Concilium impendere here is their Councelling Power According to that Equitable Rule Quod omnes tangit ab omnibns tractari debet Their Legislative Power is most clearly set out by Bracton a Judge in the time of K. H. 3d. in whose latter times our Innovators would have the House of Commons to begin I cited him before Legis vigorem habet says he quicquid de Consilio de Consensu Magnatum Reipubl communi Sponsione anthoritate Regis praecedente juste fuerit definitum approbatum 5 H. 4. Num. 11. The Record there uses too gross a Word The Commons says the Roll require the King it should have been made it their Request to the King and the Lords accorded that four special Persons should be remov'd out of the Kings House This in some Ages as in the Reign of K. R. the 2d would have been thought a very high presumption and a sawcy thing to speak in the Language of the Pulpit and Press too from a late Cambr. Dr. and a Chaplain in Ordinary if the Title of the Print may be credited but said to be printed by the of that University A sawcy thing with their Prophane and Unhallowed Hands to presume to meddle in a thing so Sacred Thus says the late Printed Sermon But it was a Sacred or Consecrated thing indeed in this Roll of Parliament mention'd One of the 4 required to be remov'd out of the King's House where he was a Domestick was no less than the King's Confessor And it was not in the Reign of a R. the 2d or H. the 6th but of K. H. 4th one of our Wisest and most Active Valiant Kings But it may be thought that these four Persons were in some desperate Popish Plot of killing the King as the four we have heard of were No the King himself will resolve that Doubt That noble King said in answer to it He knew no cause wherefore they should be remov'd but only for that they were hated of the People And yet that great King charged those Four to depart from his House This proves their Councelling Power I might enumerate a vast multitude of Animalia Majora no small Flies that have in several Ages been catched in the Net or Webb of an Inquiry made by the House of Commons who fish only for such greater Fish such as we call the Pike who by Oppression live upon the smaller Fish and devour them The Commons to that end fish with a Net that has a wide and large Meshe such as le ts go the small Frye and compasses none but those of the largest size Such as the Lord Latimer in the time of E. 3. An. 50. Such as Michael de la Pool E. of Suff. and Lord Chancellour in 10. R. 2. Tho. Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury 21 R. 2. and such like William de la Pool D. of Suff. 28 H. 6. who were all impeach'd by the House of Commons in several Parliaments And I my self have seen a Lord Chief Justice of this Court while he was Lord Chief Justice and a Learned Man by leave from the House of Commons pleading before that House for himself and excusing what he had done in a Tryal that came before them in the West whereof Complaint was made to the House And he did it with that great Humility and Reverence and those of his own Profession and others were so far his Advocates as that the House desisted from any further prosecution In the the late Act of 13o. of his now Majesty for safety of his Royal Person there is a Proviso for the saving of the Just Antient Freedom and the Priviledge of either of the Houses of Parliament or any of their Members of debating any Matters or Business which shall be debated or propounded in either of the said Houses or at any Conferences or Committees of both or either of the said Houses or touching the Repeal or Alteration of any old or the preparing any new Laws or the Redressing of any publick Grievances I observ'd but now out of Trewinn Case in the Ld. Dier that the Judgment of the House of Commons in a Case of the priviledge of that House in that Report is called a Judgment of the most high Court of Parliament which proves they are not without a Judicial Power 3 H. 6. Sir Rob. Cott. Abr. fol. 574. The great Case between the E. of Warwick and the Earl Marshal for Precedency fol. 576. was determin'd by the King. By Advice and Consent of the Lords and Commons and yet one would have thought that a Case of Precedency between two Peers should have been a peculiar of the Lords In the Case of 1 H. 7. in the Year Books fol. 4. about reversing of Attainders it is advis'd by all the Judges that those
says the Commons aswered by his Mouth 13 E. 3. 2 R. 2. Numb 16. Sir Cotton's Abr. fol. 174. The Commons return their Answer to the King by Sir James Pickering their Speaker 17 R. 2. Numb 17. Sir R. Cott. Abr. 353. The King advising with the Commons concerning a Peace with France return their Answer by Sir John Bussey their Speaker Mr. Hakewell in his Book before cited fol. 205. 7 H. 4. says that Sir John Tiptoft while he was Speaker signed and sealed the Deed of Entailing the Crown with these words Nomine totius Communitatis Mr. Elsing in his Treatise of Parliaments fol. 125. tells us that what was spoken by the Speaker is entred in the Rolls as spoken by the Commons But take what is done by the Defendant to be his proper acting yet he acting only as a Minister and Servant to the High Court of Parliament by the ordinary Rules of Law in Cases of Officers he is not suable nor any way punishable for it This is Resolved in the Rutland's Case 6 Rep. 54. and the same Case likewise Reported in Moor's Rep. 765. That an Officer or Minister executing Process which is erroneously awarded as where a Capias is awarded against a Peer the Officer is to be excus'd for he must not dispute the Authority of the Court but obey And in that Case the Secondaries of the Counter and the Serjeants in London were excus'd and held not guilty of any offence So in the Case of the Marshelsea 10 Rep. 76. Where the distinction is If the Court have a Jurisdiction the Officer is excus'd though the Process be Erroneous Qui jussu Judicis aliquod fecerit non videtur dolo malo fecisse quia parere necesse est Keilwey 99. a Med. by Brudnel and the Lord Dier in Trewinnard's Case fo 60. b Where a Writ of Priviledge in case of a Parliament-man Arrested is granted where it ought not to be and the Sheriff by virtue of that Writ discharged the person Arrested Yet the Sheriff saith that Case is not chargeable in an Action for this Parere necesse est What that necessity is we may see in that Case of Trewinnard Dier fo 61. a Med. if the Sheriff refuse to execute the Writ And as a fair warning to Sheriffs and other Officers not to resist or disobey the Commands and Orders of the House of Commons the Lord Dier mentions what punishment was inflicted upon the Sheriffs of London in the Case of Geo. Ferrers They were committed to the Tower for their contempt in not letting a Parliament-man taken in Execution to go at large when the Serjeant at Arms of the House of Commons came for him without a Writ Nay the Lord Dier says in the latter end of that Case of Trewinnard that if the Parliament err'd he speaks it of the House of Commons yet there is no default in the Sheriff When the late King being in Person in the House of Commons and sitting in the Speaker's Chair ask'd the then Speaker Whether certain Members whom the King named were then in the House The Speaker answer'd readily and wisely and with a good presentness of mind which arose from the Genius of that House That he had neither Eyes to see nor Tongue to speak but as the House was pleased to direct him III. POINT As to the last Point That for matters done in or by the Parliament as the matters in our Case are neither the King's-Bench nor any other Court but the Court of Parliament it self can by Law take Cognizance of it This is the great Point of the Case I shall first offer to prove it by Reasons and then I shall back and enforce those Reasons by many Authorities and those of the highest sort 1. Reason The Parliament gives Law to this Court of the Kings-Beneh and to all other Courts of the Kingdom and therefore it is absurd and preposterous that it should receive Law from it and be subject to it The greater is not judged of the less 2. The Parliament is the immediate Court for Examining the Judgments of the Court of King's-Bench and if they be erroneous they reverse them and if this Court should against Law take upon them to proceed in this Cause and give Judgment the Parliament when it Meets no doubt will set it aside as Erroneous And no Man does in the least doubt but they have power to do it and there is as little doubt but they will do it therefore it is wholly in vain for this Court to take Cognizance of it and it cannot be revers'd elsewhere it being in a matter of Jurisdiction See the Statute of 27 Eliz. c. 8. The Preamble reciting that Erroneous Judgments given in the King's-Bench are only to be reform'd by the High Court of Parliament which Court of Parliament was not in those days 〈◊〉 often holden as in Ancient time it had been Neither yet in respect of the greater Affairs of the Realm could they well be consider'd of and determin'd in Parliament c. There is an Exception of Errors that concern'd the Jurisdiction of the King's-Bench those remain as before and in the Errors that are referr'd to the Judges of the Common-Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer by 27 Eliz. c. 8. the Jurisdiction of the Parliament is to Examine them c. 3. This Court as all the Courts of Common-Law Judge only by the ordinary Rules of the Common-Law But the proceedings of Parliament are by quite another Rule The matters in Parliament are to be discuss'd and determin'd by the Custom and Usage of Parliament and the Course of Parliament and neither by the Civil nor the Common-Law used in other Courts 4. The Judges of this and of the other Courts of Common-Law in Westminster are but Assistants and Attendants to the High Court of Parliament And shall the Assistants judge of their Superiors 5. The High Court of Parliament is the dernier resort and this is generally affirm'd and held but it is not the last if what they do may yet again be examin'd and controll'd 6. The Parliament is of an absolute and unlimited power in things Temporal within this Nation I shall now proceed to Authorities that are full to this Point and do second and back those Reasons that I have offer'd wherein I shall not observe any method by reducing or ranking of them under these Reasons that I have offer'd because some of the Authorities justifie several of these Reasons all at once That the Parliament hath the highest and most