Viscounts and Barons who sit there by reason of their dignities which they hold by discent or creation And likewise EVERY ONE OF THESE being of full age OUGHT TO HAVE a writ of summons EX DEBITO JUSTITIAE The third estate are the Commons of the Realme whereof there bee Knights of Shires or Counties Citizens of Cities Burgesses of Burro All which are respectively by the Shires or Counties Cities Buroughs by force of the Kings writ Ex debito Justitiae and none of them ought to be omitted and these represent all the Commons of the whole Realme and trusted for them and are in number at this time 493. Headed And it is observed that when there is best appeareance there is the best succession in Parliament At the Parliament holden in the 7. yeare of H. 5. holden before the Duke of Bedford Guardian of England of the Lords Spirituall Temporall there appeared but 30. in all at which Parliament there was but one Act of Parliament passed and that of no great weight In An. 50. H. 3. ALL THE LORDS APPEARED IN PERSON and not one by Proxy at which Parliament as appeareth by the Parliament Roll so many excellent things were sped and done that it was called Bonum Parliamentum And the King and these three estates are the great Corporation or the body of the Kingdome doe sit in two Houses of this Court of Parliament the King is Caput Principium Finis The Parliament cannot begin but by the Royall Presence of the King either in person or representation by a Guardian of England or Commissioners both of them appointed under the great Seale of England c. And 42. E. 3. Rot. Parl. num 7. It is declared by the Lords and Commons in full Parliament upon demand made of them on the behalfe of the King That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the disinherison of the King and his Crowne whereunto they were sworne And p. 35. he hath this speciall observation That it is oâ—served by ancient Parliament men out of Record that Parliaments have not succeeded well in five cases First when the King hath beene in diffeâ—ence with his Lords and with his Commons Secondly When any of the great Lords were at variance betweene themselves Thirdly When there was no good correspondence between the Lords and Commons Fourthly When there was no vnity between the Commons themselves in all which our present Parliament is now most unhappy and so like to miscarry and succeede very ill Fiftly When there was no preparation for the Parliament before it began every of which hee manifests by particular instances From all these and sundry z Judge Hâ—â—rons Argument of Mr. Hampdens case p. 32. 33. Daltons office of Sherriffs other Authorities it is most evident transparent That both the King himselfe and Lords ought of right to be present in Parliament and ever have been so as well as the Commons and neither of them to be excluded since they all make up but one Parliament ought of right and duty to be present at and no Lords and Commons to depart from it without speciall leave under paine of amercement and other penalties because no binding Law can be passed without their joynt consents And that the Commons alone are no more a Parliament of themselves without the King and Lords than the Common Councell of London are an intire Corporation without the Lord Major Aldermen or the Covent without the Abbot the Chapter without the Deane or the leggs or belly a perfect man without the head or neck Sixtly The ancient and constant forme of endorsing Bills in Parliament begun in the Commons House in all Parliaments since the Houses first divided 33. H. 6. 17. Brooke Parliament 4 Cromptons jurisdiction of Courts f. 8. Mr. Hackuel of the manner of passing Bills in Parliament unanswerably demonstrates the Commons of Englands acknowledgment of the Lords right to fit vote assent or disassent to Bills in Parliament viz. SOIT'BAYLE A SEIGNEURS let it be delivered or sent up to the Lords Yea the Commons constant sending up of their own Members with Messages to the Lords and receiving Messages from them and intertaining frequent conferences with them in matters where their opinions differ in which conferences the Lords usually adhere to their dissents unlesse the Commons giveth emsatisfaction and convince them and the Lords oft times convince the Commons so farre as to consent to their alterations of Bills Ordinances Votes and oft to lay them quite afide is an unquestionable argument of their Right to sit and vote in Parliament and of their Negative Voyce too All which would prove but a meer absurdity and superfluity if the Commons in all ages and now too were not convinced that the Lords had as good right to sit and vote in Parliament and a Negative and dissenting voyce as well as they never once questioned or doubted till within this yeare or two by some seditious Disciples of Lilburnes and Overtons entering who endeavoured to evade their justice on them Seventhly This just Right of the Lords is expresly and notably confirmed by all the Commons of England in the Parliament of 31. H. 8. c. 10. concerning the placing and sitting of the Lords and Great Officers of State in the Parliament House made by the Commons consent It being in vaine to make such a Law continuing still till this very day both in force and use if they had no lawfull right to fit and vote in Parliament because they are not elective as Knights and Burgesses are And by the Statute of 39. H. 6. c. 1. made at the Commons own Petition to repeale the Parliament and all proceedings of it held at Coventry the yeare before by practice of some seditious persons of purpose to destroy some of the great Nobles faithfull and Lawfull Lords and Estates meerly out of malice and greedy and unsatiable coveteousnesse to possesse themselves of their lands possessions Offices and goods whereby many great Injuries Enormities and Inconveniences well nigh to the ruine decay and universall subvertion of the Kingdome ensued The very designe of our Lilburnists Sectaries and Levellers now out of particular malice and coveteousnesse to share the Lords and all rich Commoners lands and estates between them being poore and indigent covetuous people for the most part scarce forty of them worth one groat at least before these times This apparent Right of theirs is undeniably ratified and acknowledged not only by the very words of the writs by which the Lords themselves are summoned to the Parliament but even of the writs for election of Knights and Burgesses the forme and substance whereof are ancient and can receive NO ALTERATION NOR ADDITION but by Act of Parliament as b Institutes 4 p. 10. Sir Edward Cooke resolves By this writ the Prelates Nobles and others of the Realme are summoned to the Parliament there to treat and conferre with the King
witnesse Ingulph Beda Huntingdon Mathew Westminster Florentâ—us Wigorniensis Malmesbury Hector Boetius Speed and other in their Histories Antiquitates Ecclesiae Britanicae Spelmanni Concilia Tom 1. Sir Edward Cooke in his Preface to the 9. Report and fourth Institut c. 1. and above all others Mr. Seldens Titles of Honor. part 2. c. 5. Truth triumphing over falsehood Antiquity over Novelty p. 56. to 90. and Mr. Lambert in his Archaion there being little or no mention at all of any Knights of Sbires Citizens or Burgesses in any of our Parliaments and Councels before the Conquest or in the Conquerors time and his next Successors but of Earles Barons Nobles Archbishops and Bishops onely for the most part whom Sir Edward Cooke and others conceive were comprehended under the names of Sapientum or wise men Seniores populi extending to Peers too as they confesse or at least wise under these phrases k Spelman C. p. 194. praesentibus omnibus Ordinibus illius Gentis cum vtris quibusdam Militaribus rather Souldiers than Knights of which we finde mention in the Councel of Beâ—henceld l Spelman Ibid p. 21â— An. 697. or omnium Sapientum Seniorum POPVLORVM totius Regni coupled with these pre-eminent Titles of Omnium Aldermannorum Principum Procerum Comitum who met together in a generall Councell under King Jue An. 713. Or m Spelman p. 318. cujuscunque Ordinis viros in the Conncell of Cloveskro An. 800. which expressions we finde are now and then mentioned in some ancient Councels and Parliaments though rarely And if that of n Hist p. 870. Ingulph and other our Historians and some Lawyers be true which o First institut f. 108. Sir Edward Cooke and p Titles of Honour part 2. â— 5. sec 3. p. 614 615. c. Mr. Selden deny that King Alfred first divided the Realme into Counties as all grant he did into Hundreds and Tithings and erected Hundred Courts wherein Knights of the Shire were alwayes yet are ought to be elected there could be no Knights of Shires at least if any Citizens or Burgesses to serve in Parliament before this division though there were Earles Dukes and Barons before his raigne who were present by the Kings summons not peoples elections at our Parliaments and Generall Councels as q Titles of Honour 2. chap. 5. sec 2. 3. 4. 5. Mr. Selden and r Glossarium Tit. Comitis Comitatus Sir Henry Spelman undeniably manifest Their sitting voting and judging therefore in Parliament being so ancient cleare and unquestionable ever since their first beginning till now and the sitting of Knights Citizens and Burgesses by the peoples election in our ancientest Parliaments and Councells not so cleare and evident by History or Records as theirs we must needs acknowledge and subscribe to their Right and Title or else deny the Knights Citizens and Burgesses rights in Parliament rather than theirs who have not so ancient nor cleare a Title or right as they Fourthly This Right and Priviledge of theirs is vested legally in them by the very Common-Law and Custome of the Realme which binds all men the unanimous consent of all our Ancestors all the Commons of England from age to age assembled in Parliament since we had any Parliaments who alwaies consented to desired and never once opposed the Lords sitting voting power or Judicature in Parliament and by Magna Charta it selfe wherein they are first mentioned and provided for Hereupon King Henry the third not long after Magna Charta was granted and at the same time it was proclamed and confirmed with a most solemne Excommunication in the presence of all the Lords and Commons by all the Bishops of England against the infringers thereof summoning a Parliament at London in the yeare 1255. to ayde him in his warrs in Apulia the Earles and Barrons absolutely refused to give him any assistance at all not onely because he had undertaken that warre without their advice but also for this reason Å¿ Math. Paris An. 1255. p. 884 885. Daniel p. 172 That ALL THE BARONS were not summoned by him to this Parliament AS THEY OUGHT TO BE ACCORDING TO THE TENOR OF MAGNA CHARTA whereupon they departing in discontent and refusing to sit longer the Parliament was disolved t Mr. St. Johns Speech concerning Shipmony p. 33. 1. H. 4. n. 21. 22 25. 36. And upon this very ground among others the Parliament of 21 R. 2. with all the Acts and proceedings therein were repealed and nulled by the Parliament of 1. H. 4. because the Lords who adhered to their King were summoned by him to the Parliament and some of the opposite party imprisoned impeached and omitted and many Knights of the shire were onely elected by the Kings nomination Letters to the Sheriffes And the Parliament it self kept by force viris armatis sagittarijs minensis brought out of Cheshire as an extraordinary guard quartered in the Kings Court at Westminster and about Charing Crosse and the Muse of which u Chron p 389. 390. Grafton and other Historians writes thus That they fell suddenly into so great pride of the Kings favour that THEY ACCOVNTED THE KING TO BE AS THEIR FELLOW and THEY SET THE LORDS AT NOVGHT yet few or none of them were Gentlemen but taken from the plough and Cart and other Crafts And after these rusticall people had a while courted they entred into so great a boldnesse that they would not let neither within nor without the Court to beat and slay the Kings good subjects to take from them their victualls and pay for them little or nothing at their pleasure as our free-quarterers doe now falling at last to ravish mens wives and daughters And if any man fortuned to complaine of them to the King he was soone rid out of the way no man knew how or by whom so as they did what they listed the King not caring to doe justice upon them but favoring them in their misdoings confiding in them and their guards against any others of the Kingdome which gave Lieges of his Kingdome great matter of commotion and discontent The bringing up of which guard to Westminster to force and overawe the Parliament to effect his owne designes is one principle Article exhibited against him by the Parliament for which he was deposed I pray God our New armed Guard and Courtiers at Whithall and the Muse of as meane condition as those fall not by degrees to the selfesame exorbitances contempt of the King Lords Parliament and oppression of the people to their generall mutining and discontent In the Parliament of 6 E. 3 N 1. Parl. 2. N. 5. 6. 8. 9. and most of the ensuing Parliaments in this Kings reigne and in divers Parliaments in Ric. 2. Henry 4. c. 5. 6. was found in the Parliament Roules that the Parliaments have beene proroged and adjourned from the dayes they were summoned to meet and have not sate nor acted
said Sommons be he Archbishop Bishop Abbot Prior DUKE LORD BARON Baronet Knight of the Shire Citizen of City Burgesse of Burgh or other singular person or Commonalty do absent himselfe or come not at the said Summons except he may reasonably or honestly excuse himself to our Soveraigne Lord THE KING HE SHALL BE AMERCED and OTHERWAYES PVNISHED ACCORDING AS OF OLD TIME HATH BEEN USED TO BE DONE within the said Realme in the SAID CASE Which relates unto and agrees expresly with that forecited out of Modus tenendi Parliamentum If then all the Judges and Peares in Parliament are bound to attend the Parliament not to depart without the Kings and Houses leave under paine of Amercement and other punishment as this Statute resolves and 3. Ed. 3. 19. Fit 2. Câ—ron 161. Stamford l 3. c. 1. f. 153. Cooke Instit p. 15. 16. 17. 43 18. E. 3. Mo. 1. 2 8. and 31. H. 6. n. 46. What fine were imposed on absent Lords manifest then questionlesse they ought of right to sit in Parliament else it were the height of Injustice thus to fine them In the tenth yeare of King â— * Grafâ—oâ—â— Cron. p. ◠〈◊〉 350. 2. this King absented himselfe from his Parliament then sitting at Westminster residing at Eltham about forty dayes and refusing to come to the Parliament and yet demanding from them foure fifteenes for maintenance of his Estate and outward Wars Whereupon the whole body of the Parliament made this answer THAT VNLESSE THE KING WERE PRESENT THEY WOULD MAKE THEREIN NO ALLOWANCE Soone after they sent the Duke of Gloucester and Bishop of Ely Commissioners to the King to Eltham who declared to him among other things in the Lords and Commons behalfe how that by AN OLD ORDINANCE THEY HAVE AN ACT if the King absent himselfe 40. dayes not being sicke but of his owne minde not heeding the charge of his people nor their great paines and will not resort to the Parliament they may then lawfully returne to their Houses And now sir said they you have beene absent a longer time and yet refuse to come amongst us which is greatly to our discontent To which the King answered Well we doe consider that our owne people and Commons goe about to rise against vs wherefore we thinke wee can doe no better then to aske ayd of our Cosen the French King and rather to submit us to him then unto our owne subjects The Lords answered Sir that Counsell is not best but a way rather to bring you into danger c. By whose good perswasions the King was appeased and Promised to come to the Parliament and condiscend to their Petitions and according to his appointment he came and so the Parliament proceeded which else had dissolved by the Lords departure thence in discontent and the Kings wilfull absence Andrew Horne in his Mirrour of Justices in the raigne of King Edward the first writes That our Saxon Kings divided the Realme into 38 Counties over which they set so many Counts or Earles and though the King ought to have no Peers in his land but PARLIAMENTS all Writs and Plaints of the Moneys of the King Queene and their Children and of those especially who otherwise could not have common right of their wrongs These Companions are now called Counts after the latine word Comites For to the Estates of the Realme King Alfred assembled the COVNTS or Earles and ordained by a Perpetuall Law that twice a yeare or oftner they should assemble at London in Parliament to consult of the Government of the people of God Fleta l. 2. c. 2. p. 66. writes thus in the same Kings raigne Habet enim Rex curiam suam in concilio suo in Parliamentis suis PRAESENTIBUS Praelatis COMITIBUS BARONIBUS PROCERIBUS alijs viris peritis vbi terminatae sunt dubitationes judiciorum moris injuriis eversis nova constituuntur remedia And l. 17. c. 17. he writes thus Rex in populo regendo superiores habet Vidilicet legem perfactus est Rex Curiam suam to wit of Parliament videlicet COMITES BARONES Comites enim a Comitia dicuntur qui cum viderint Regem sine froeno Froenum sibi apponere TENENTVR ne clament sabditi Domine Jesu Christe in Chamo froeno maxillas eorum constringe Sir Thomas Smith in his Common-wealth of England * Bracton l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 l. 3. c 9. 〈◊〉 the like in the same words in Henry the 3. his reigne l. 2. c. 1. John Vowel and Ralph Hollinshed vol. 1. c. 6. p. 173. Mr. Cambden in his Britania p. 177. John Minshew in his Dictionary vuell in his Interpreter Title Parliament Powell in his Attornyes Academy and others unanimously conclude That the Parliament consisteth of the KING the LORDS SPIRITVALL and TEMPORALL and the Commons which STATES represent the body of all England which make but one assembly or Court called the Parliament and is of all other the Highest and greatest Authority and hath the most high and absolute power of the Realme And that no Parliament is or can be holden without the King and Lords Mr. Crompton in his Jurisdiction of Courts affirmes particularly of the High Court of Parliament f. 1. c. This Court is the highest Court of England in which the King himself fits in person and comes there at the beginning and end of the Parliament and AT ANY OTHER TIME WHEN HE PLEASETH ORDERING THE PARLIAMENT To this Court come ALL THE LORDS OF PARLIAMENT as well spirituall aâ— temporall and are severally summoned by the Kings writ at a certaine day and place assigned The Chancellour of England and other great officers or Judges are there likewise present together with the Knights Citizens and Burgesses who all ought to be personally present or else to be amerced and otherwise punished if they come not being summoned unlesse good cause be shewed or in case they depart without the Houses or Kings speciall license after their appearance before the Sessions ended And he resolves that the King Lords and Commons doe all joyntly make up the Parliament and that no Law nor Act of Parliament can be made to binde the subject without all their concurrent assents Sir Edward Cooke not onely in his Epistle before his ninth Report and Institutes on Littleton p. 109. 110. But likewise in his 4. Institutes published by Order of this present Parliament c. 1. p. 1. 2 c writes thus of the high Honorable Court of Parliament This Court consisteth OF THE KINGS MAJESTIE sitting there as in his royall politick capacity and of the three Estates of the Realme viz. Of the Lords Spirituall Archbishops and Bishops being in number 24. who sit there in respect of their Counties or Barronies parcell of their Bishopricks which they hold also in their politick capacity and every one of these when the Parliament is to be holden ought exdebito Justitiae to have a writ of summons The LORDS TEMPORALL Dukes Marquesses Earles
Spencers who seduced the King and oppressed the people and principall Pillars of our Laws Liberties as our m Walsingham Holingshed Daniel Speed Stow Grafton Fabian Baker Historians relate at large procured thâ—se ill Counsellours to be removed from the King even by force of Arms. In 10 11 22. of K. Rich. 2. the Lords were the principall opposers of the Kings ill Counsellours and Tyranny and protectors of the Laws and peoples Liberties to the losse of some of their lives hâ—ads and estates as our Statutes and Rolls of Parliament in those years and n Walsingham Trussle Fabian Holingshed Grafton Speed Stow. Historians witnesse whence Walsingham writing of the Duke of Gloucester's death murthered by the Kings command at Calice who was the principall Anti-royalist and head of all the Barons useth this expression Thus died this â—â—st of men the Son and Earl of a King in quo posita fuere spes solatium TOTIVS REGNI COMMVNITATIS in whom the hope and solace of the Common-wealth of the whole Kingdom were placed who resented his death so highly that in the Parl of 1 H. 4. Hall who had a hand in his murder was condemned and executed for a Traytor and his Head and Quarters hung up in severall places and K. Richard among other Articles deposed for causing him to be murthered Since then our Peâ—trs and Nobles have been alwaies persons of greatest valour power estate interest most able and forwards to preserve the Laws and peoples Liberties which they have upon all occasions defended with the hazard and losse of their Lives Liberties and Estates and upon this ground were thought meet by the wisdome of our Ancestors to enjoy this priviledge of sitting voting and judging in Parliament by vertue of their Peerage and Baronnies And since we must all acknowledge that the Lords were the chiefe instruments of calling this present Parliament and were therefore in the Act for Trienniall Parliaments principally intrusted to summon and hold all future Parliaments in the Kings and Lord Chancellours or Lord Keepers defaulâ—â— and were very active in suppressing the Star-chamber High-Commission Councel-Table Prelats and other grievances and those who first appeared in the Wars against the King and his party to the great encouragement of others witnesse the deceased Lord Generall Essex Brooke Bedford Stamford Willâ—ngh by Lincolne 〈◊〉 Manchester Roberts and others it would be the extremity of folly ingratitude and injustice to deny our Peeres this Priviledge and Honour now which their Ancestors have purchased at so deare a rate and a meanes to dis-ingage them for ever from the Commons and Republike for such an high dishonour and affront Thirdly our o See Master Sâ—ldâ—us Titles of Honour Part 2 chap. 5. and Coke 4. instit p. 1. Nobles are persons of greater Estates Families Fortunes then others and have more to keep and lose then other ordinary Commoners and therefore have greater interest in the Common-wealth and State-affaires then they And therefore our Ancestors thought it meet and just that they should have this priviledge among others above ordinary Commoners to be present in all our Parliaments by Writ onely and that of right ex debitâ— justitiae and not by election as Knights Citizens and Burgesses are being persons of meaner estate and quality and present in Parliament onely in the right of others who elect them not in their owne right as the Lords are whose estates anciently were far more worth then many whole Burroughes put together and their families retainers and followers far more in number And so their engagements to maintaine the Lawes Liberties and Properties of the Subject greater then inferiour mens Fourthly It is one principall property of Members of Parliament to be p Coke 4. Inst p. 3. constant stout inflexible and not to be bowed or turned from the right and publike good by feare favour promises rewards Now Peeres of noble birth and education and more generous heroick spirits then the vulgar sort of men are not so apt to be over-awed with regall threats terrified with menaces tempted with honours preferments and wealth which they already injoy in a higher proportion then others nor seduced with rewards and private ends from the common good and interest wherein their honour wealth and safety are imbarqued as ordinary Commoners and men of meaner ranke and fortunes as experience of former Ages and this present manifests Therefore it was thought just and reasonable by our Ancestors these Nobles in this regard should sit in Parliament in their owne rights * Modus tenendi Parliam Vowel Coke 4 Inst c. 1. without the peoples election and to leave the people to elect such other persons to represent and vote for them in Parliament in whom they most confided Fiftly our Peeres in Parliament * 12 R. 2. c. 1â— 23 H. 6. c. 11. 9 H. 6. c. 16. 31 H. 8. c. 11. 50 E. 3. n. 209. 1 R. 2. n. â— 37. though they serve for the common good of the whole Kingdome which have alwayes trusted in them in matters of counsel Judicature and making Laws yet they represent up persons but themselves onely and beare their owne expences Wherefore there is no shadow of reason why the people should elect them since they doe not represent them nor pay them wages as they doe to their Knights Citizâ—ns and Burgesses who serve for and represent them and therefore ought in reason right and justice to be elected by them And therefore they may as well argue That our Nobles ought to be elected by the people to their Lands and Estates which descend unto them from their Ancestors not from the common people as to sit in Parlâ—ament by the peoples election onely to represent themselves in their own right not the people in theirs And that the Knights of the Shire ought to be elected to their dignity of Knighthood which the King onely confers on them and to their Lands and Freeholds which they enjoy in their owne right because they are elected by the Free-holders to sit in Parliament in their right who elected them not their owne alone which Barons doe not By all which premisses it is most apparent That our Lords and Barons sitting and voting in Parliament who if you take them poll by poll have in all ages been more able Parliament men and States-men in all respects then the Commons though chosen by the people who alwayes make choice of the best and wisest men as experience manifests is not onely just and lawfull in respect of Right and Title but originally instituted upon such grounds of Reason and Policy as no rationall nor understanding man can dislike or contradict but must subscribe to as necessary and convenient and so still to be continued supported in this their Right and Honour to moderate the Excesses and Encroachments both of King and Commons one upon the other keep both of them within their just and ancient bounds for the Kingdomes peace
hill unto the Gallows at Tiburn there kenelled his bowels laid before him and after he should be hanged beheaded and quartered and his head sent to Calayes where the murther was committed and his quarters sent to other places where the King should please and thereupon command was given to the Marshall of England to make execution accordingly and it was so done the same day Lo here the Lords in Parliament gâ—ve judgement against a Commoner in case of a murther done at Calayes and so not triable at the Kings Bench but in Parliament and passe a judgement of High treason on him for murthering of a great Peere only And which is most remarkable all the Commons In this very Parliaments of 1 H. 4. nu 70. Nov 3. made their Protestation and further remonstrated to the King Nota. Com LES JVGGEMENTS DV PARLEMENT APEIRTEIGNENT SOVLEMENT AV ROY ET AS SEIGNEIVRS ET NIENT AS COMMVNES how the judgement of the Parl. appertained ONLY TO THE KING and TO THE LORDS and NOT VNTO THE COMMONS except in case it should please the King OF HIS SPECIALL GRACE to shew unto them the said JVDGEMENTS purcase de eux que null record soit fait in Parlement encoutreles ditz Communes quill soit ou serront parties ascunes juggements donez ouadoues en Apres in Parlement Whereunto it was answered by the Archbish of Canterbury by the Kings command how the said Commoners are petitioners and demanders and that THE KING THE LORDS de tont temps ont eves et aueront DE DROIT LES JVGGEMENT EN PARLEMENT en manere come me me les communes ount monstres HAVE ALVVAYES HAD AND SHALL HAVE OF RIGHT THE JVDGEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT in manner as the Commons themselves have declared except in making Statutes or in making Grants and Subsidies or such things for the common profit of the Realm wherein the King will have especially their advice and assent and that this order of proceeding shall be held and kept IN ALL TIMES TO COME By which record in Parliament it is apparent by the House of Commons own confession First that the Judgements in Parliament even in cases of Commoners appertain ONLY TO THE KING and LORDS in the affirmative Secondly that they appertain NOT TO THE COMMONS in the negative Thirdly that the King and LORDS HAVE ALWAYES HAD and ENJOYED THE RIGHT of Judgements in Parliament Fourthly that they should alwayes hold and enjoy this Right IN ALL TIMES TO COME Fifthly that the Commons speciall advise and assent was and is required by the King in Parliament only in making of Statutes Grants and Subsidies and such like things for the common profit of the Realm So full and punctuall a Parliamentary decision of the present controversie as is uncapable of any answer or evasion In the Parliament Roll of 17. y See Cook 3. Instit c. 2. p. 22. R. 2. num 20. 21. John Duke of Gayen and of Lancaster Steward of England and Thomas Duke of Glocester Constable of England the Kings Uncles complained to the King that Thomas Talbot Knight a Commoner and no Peere with other his adherents conspired the death of the said Duke in divers parts of Cheshire as the same was confessed and well known and prayed that the Parliament might judge of the faulâ— to wit whether it were treason according to the clause of the Statute of 25 E. 3. c. 2. It is accorded that if any other case supposed Treason which is not above specified doth happen before any Justices the Justices shall tarry without any going to judgement of the Treason till the cause be shewed and declared before the King and His Parliament whether it ought to be judged Treason or Felony whereupon the KING and THE LORDS IN THE PARLIAMENâ— without the Commons though in case of a Commoner ADJVDGED THE SAME FACT TO BE OPEN and HIGH TREASON and thereupon they award two writs the one to the Sheriffes of Darby to take the body of the said Sir Thomas retornable in the Kings Bench in the moneth of Easter then next following and open Proclamation was made in Westminster Hall upon the Sheriffes return and the next coming in of the said Sir Thomas that the same Thomas SHOVLD BE CONVICTED OF TREASON and incurre the losse and pain of the same and that all such as should receive him after the same Proclamation should incurre the same losse and paine Sir z 3. Instit p. 22. Edward Cooke relating this Judgement addes his own opinion at the end That this judgement wanting the assent of the Commons was no Declaration of Treason within the Act of 25. E. â— because it was not by the King and his Parliament according to this Act but by the King and Lords ONLY But the record of Parliament and the Judges and Commons then admitted it to be good and processe issued out and judgement was given accordingly the parties concerned taking no such exceptions to it See 21. R. 2. n. 15. 16. So that this Record is a pregnant evidence That the King and Lords are the sole Judges in Parliament in the case of Commoners even in declaring and judging what is or what is not treason within the Statute of 25. E. 3. because the Commons are no Iudges in Parliament and so cannot Iudge or declare unles in a legislative way by Act of Parliament what is Treason or Pelony but the King and Lords alone To put this out of question I shall cite one notable record more to this purpose a Cooke 3. Instit p. 22. c. 1. p. 10. In the Parliament of 5. H. 4. 11. 12. on the 8. of February the Earle of Northumberland came before the King Lords and Commons in Parliament and by his Petition to the King acknowledged that he had done against his Lawes and alegiance and especially for gather of power and giving of Liveries for which he put himselfe upon the Kings grace and prayed pardon the rather for that upon the Kings Letters he yielded himselfe and came to the King at Yorke whereas he might have kept himselfe away Which Petition by the Kings command was delivered to the Justices to be examined and to have their counsell and advice therein Whereupon the LORDS made a Protestation que le Juggement appertient aeux tout soulement THAT THE JUDGEMENT APPERTAINED ONLY TO THEM And after the said Petition being read and considered before the King and the said Lords as Peers of Parliament a queux tells â—uggementz apperteignent DE DROIT TO WHOM SUCH JUDGEMENT APPERTAINED OF RIGHT having had by the Kings command competent deliberation thereupon and having also heard and considered as well the Statute made in the 25. yeare of King Edward the Kings Grand-father that now is concerning the Declaration of treason as the Statutes of Liveries made in this Kings raigne ADJUDGED that that which was done by the said Earle contained within his Petition was neither Treason nor Felony but Trespas for which
right to award Judgement in these cases without the King or them then which a fuller and clearer proofe cannot be desired In the self-same Parliament 1. R. â— num 41 42 43. Dame Alice Piers was brought before THE LORDS and charged by Sir Richard le Scrope with sundry misdemeanors which she denied hereupon divers Witnesses were examined against her Whereupon JVDGEMENT WAS GIVEN BY THE LORDS AGAINST HER that she should be banished and forfeit all her lands goods and tenements whatsoevèr To this Judgement neither King nor Commons were parties but the Lords only To these I might adde the cases of c See the doom of 〈◊〉 and treachery 〈◊〉 14 15. where the record is transcribed Sir William de Eleuham Sir Thomas Trivet Sir Henry de Ferriers and Sir William Farnden Knights and Robert Fitz Ralph Esquire Rot. Parl. 7. R. 2. num 24. sentenced and condemned by judgement of the Lords in Parliament pronounced by the Chancellour for selling the Castle of Burbugh with the armes and ammâ—nition in it to the Kings enemies without the Kings license 21. R. 2. Parl. Rot. Plac. Coronae num 27. where Sir Robert Pleasington is adjudged a Traytor after his death by the King by â—SSENT OF THE LORDS and num 15. 16. Sir Thomas Mortimers case num 17. Sir John Cobhams case * 31. H. 6. n. 45. 64. 65. â— 3. n. 16. to â—8 and num 28. Henry Bonoits case condemned in like manner of treason by the Lords with hundreds of Presidents more I shall only cite three more at large which are punctuall In the Parliament of 8. R. 2. n. 12. Walter Sybell of London was arrested and brought into the Parliament before the Lords at the suit of Robert de Veer Earl of Oxford for slandering him to the Duke of Lancaster and other Nobles for maintenance Walter denied not but that he said that certain there named recovered against him the said Walter and that by maintenance of the said Earl as he thought The Earl there present protested himself to be innocent and put himself upon the triall Walter thereupon was committed to Prison by the Lords and the next day he submitted himself and desired the Lords to be a mean for him saying he could not accuse him whereupon THE LORDS CONVICTED and FINED HIM FIVE HVNDRED MARKS TO THE SAID EARL for the which and for his fine and ransome he was committed to prison BY THE LORDS A direct case in point In the second Parliament in 7. R. 2. num 13. to 19. Iohn Cavendish a Fishmonger of London accused Michael de la Pool Knight Lord Chaâ—cellour of England first before the Commons and afterward before the Lords for bribery and injustice and that he entereâ—â—â—nto a Bond of x. l. to Iohn Ottard a Clerk to the said Chancellour which he was to give for his good successe in the businesse in part of payment wâ—â—â—eof he brâ—ught Herring and Sturgeon to Ottard and ye was delayed aâ—d could have no justice at the Chancellours hâ—nds and upon hearing he cause and examining wiâ—â— oâ—fes upon Oath before THE LORDS the Chancellour was cleared The Chancellour thereupon required reparation for so great a slander the Lords being then troubled with other weighty matters let the Fish-monger to Bail and referred the matter to be ordered by the Judges who upon hearing the whole matter condemned Cavendish in three thousand marks for his slanderous complaint against the said Chancellour and adjudged him to prison till he had paid the same to the Chancellour and made fine and ransome to the King also which the Lords confirmed In the Parliament of 15. R. 2. nu 21. Iohn Stradwell of Begsteed in the County of Sussex was committed to the fleet by JVDGEMENT OF THE LORDS there to remain during the Kings pleasure for that he informed the Parliament that the Archbishop of Canterbury had excommunicated him and his neighbours wrongfully for a temporall cause appertaining to the Crown and Common Law whâ—ch was ADIVDGED BY THE LORDS upon examination and hearing to BE VNTRVE These three eminent Presidents to which many more might be added of the Lords fining and imprisoning meere Commons only for slandering Peeres of Parliament even by false accusations against them in Parliament by way of complaint will â—â—stify the Lords proceedings against Lilburn and Ovâ—rton for their professed Libells both against their Persons and Jurisdictions too To proceed to latter times in Parliaments of 18. and 21. Jacobi and 3. Car. not only the Lord * Cook 4. Instit p. 23. Chancellour Bacon and the Earl of Middlesex Lord Treasurer upon complaint of the Commons were censured and judged by the Lords alone but likewise Sir Giles Mompesson Sir Iohn Michell and Dr Manwering all Commoners JUDICIALLY SENTENCED Doctor Pocklinton and Doctor Bray even for erroneous Books and Sermons were sentenced this Parliament by the Lords alone since these Master Clement Walker Esquire was imprisoned in the Tower and fined by the Lords for some words pretended to be spoken against the Lord Say and within these few moneths onâ— Morrice and foure or five more of his confederates were censured fined and imprâ—soned by the Lords alone for forging an Act of Parliament upon Sir Adam Littletons complaint with all the Commons privity or consents and above one hundred Commoner more have been imprisoned by them or fined this very Session of Parliament for breach of Priviledge contempts or misdemeanours by the Lords alone without the Commons yet no demurrer nor exceptions were taken by them or the Commons to their Iurisdiction who applauded this their Justice in some of these cases From all these cleare confessions of the Commons themselves in Parliament and punctuall presidents in print in former late Parliaments and in this now sitting it is undeniable That the King and Lords joyntly and the Lords severally without the King have an indubitable right of Judicature without the Commonâ— vested in them not only of Peers themselves but likewise of Câ—mmoners in all extraordinary cases of Treason Felony Trespasse and other Misdemeanors triable only in Parliament which hath been constantly acknowledged practised and submitted to without dispute much more then have they such a just and rightfull power in case of breach of their owne priviledges of d Cooke 4 Instit p. 15. which none are or can be Judges but themselves alone And to deny them such a power is to make the Highest Court of Iudicature in the Realme inferiour to the Kings Bench and all other Courts of Justice who have power to judge and try the persons and causes of Commoners and to commit and fine them for contempts and breaches of Priviledges as our e See Brooke and Ashes Tables Tit. Contempts Fines pur Contempt Imprisonment Law bookes resolve and every mans experience can testifie The Lords right of Judicature being thus fully evicted against the false and ignorant pretences of illiterate Sectaries altogether unacquainted with our Histories and Records of Parliament
which they never yet read nor understood there remaines nothing but to answer some Presidents and Objections The Principall president insisted on by Lilburne Object 1. is the Protestation of the Lords in the case of * Cooke 2. Instit p. 50. Sir Simon Beresford 4. E. 3. nu 6. which I have already fully answered retorted and shall therefore here pretermit The second is Sir Edward Cookes Authority Object 2. and the presidents cited by him in his 4. Institutes p. 23. 24. of Judicature in Parliament where thus he writes It is to be knowne THAT THE LORDS IN THEIR HOUSE HAVE POWER OF JUDICATURE And the Commons in their House have power of Judicature and both Houses together have power of Judicature But the handling thereof according to the weight and worth of the matter would require a whole Treatise of it selfe and to say the truth it is best understood by reading the Judgements and Records of Parliament at large and the Journalls of the House of the Lords and the Booke of the Clerke of the House of Commons which is a Record as it is affirmed by Act of Parliament in An. 6. H. 8. c. 16. To which he addes these marginall Notes Vide Placita in Parlians Anno 33. E. 1. rot 33. Nicholas Seagrave adjudgâ— Par Praelatos COMITES BARONES ET ALIOS DE CONCILIO At the Parliament at Yorke Ap. 12. E. 3. Consideratum est per Praelatos Comites BARONES ET COMMVNITATEM ANGLIAE the Lord Audleys care At the Parliament at Westm 15. E. 2 Hugh le pier adjuge per les SEIGNIEURS COMMONS Rot. Parl. 50. E. 3. n. 34. Lord Nevils case Then he aâ—des See Rot. Claus 1 R. 2. n. 5. 8. 38. â—0 A tresage Councell le Roy Les SEIGNIORS COMMONS c. Rot. Parl. 2. H. 5. nu 1â— Errâ—ra sinned THAT THE LORDS gave Judgement WITâ—OVT PETITION OR ASâ—â—NT OF THE COMMONS Rot. Parl. 28. H. 6. nu 10. and many others in the Reigne of King H. 6. and Kin E. 4. And of later times see divers notable Judgements at the prosecution of the Commons By THE LORDS at the Parliaments â—â—â—den 18. and 21. Iac. Regis against Sir Giles Mompesson Sir Iohn Michell Viscount St. Albon Lord Chancellor of England the Earle of Middlesex Lord Treasurer of England whereby the due proceedings of Iudicature in such Caces doth appeare Then hee cites the cases of * 8. Eliz. Thomas Long * 23 Eliz. Arthur Hall * 2. Aâ—â—â—l 1. Maâ—â—â— and Muncton censured by the House of Commons only and by them fined and imprisoned without the Lords Aâ—d concludes thus If any Lord of Parliament spirituall or temporall have committed any Oppression Bribery extortion or the like the HOUSE OF COMMONS BEING THE GENERALL INQUISITORS OF THE REALME comming out of all parts thereof may examine the same and if they find by the Vote of the House the charge to be true then they TRANSMIT THE SAME TO THE LORDS WITH THE WITNESSES and PROOFES From which passages of his some ignorantly have concluded That the Lords have no power of Judicature without but only joyntly with the Commons That all Commoners ought to be judged only by the Commons not by the Lords and That the Commons have a sole power of Judicature in cases of Commoners and the Lords no power but joyntly with them or upon their preceding Petitions and impeachments neither in case of Commoners nor Peers I answer that Sir Edward Cookes words are much mistaken and rightly understood warrant no such inferences but the contrary For first he clearely confesseth in direct termes That the Lords in their House have a power of judicature even without the Commons ha he deâ—med particularly in whose and in what cases out of the Judgements Records and Journals of Parliament at large to which he refers the Reader a being best understood by reading them which warrant the Lords judging fining imprisoning and condemning to death not only of Peers but of Commoners themselves without the Commons as I have fully manifested their could no such inference have been made Secondly â—e addeâ— That the Commons in their House have a power of Judicature From whence Lilburne and others inferre That they are and ought to be the sole Judges of all Commoners and not the Lords in all cases triable in Parliament But this is a most grosse mistake Sir Edward Cooke confining this Judicature of theirs only to these three câ—ses First to matters and abuse concerning elections of Knights Citizens and Burgesses being Members of the Commons House the judgment and determination whereof the Commons alone of late times only have usually taken upon them without the Lords which he proves by Thomas Longs case 8. Eliz. and no greater antiquities of which elections the King and Lords in former times have been sole Judges for which I shall cite some memorable records worthy the Lords and â—â—mmons consideration who now take upon them to suspend ejeâ—â— Judge their own Members elections without the Kings or Lords concurrence or privity a practice not heard of in former ages and of late originall In the Parliament holden at Westminster 5. H. 4. Rot. Parl. num 38. Thomas Thorpe his case Item because that the writ of summons of Parliament returned by the Sheriffe of Roteland was not sufficiently nor duely returned as the Commons conceived the said Commons prayed our Lord THE KING and THE LORDS IN PARLIAMENT that this matter might be duly examined in Parliament and that in case their shall be default found in this matter that such a punishment might be inflicted which might become exemplary to others to offend againe in the like manner Whereupon our said Lord the King IN FULL PARLIAMENT commanded THE LORDS IN PARLIAMENT TO EXAMINE THE SAID MATTER and to doe therein AS TO THEM SHOULD SEEME BEST IN THEIR DISCRETIONS And thereupon the SAID LORDS caused to come BEFORE THEM IN PARLIAMENT as well the said Sheriffe as William One by who was returned by the said Sheriffe for one of the Knights of the said County and Thomas Thorpe who was elected in full Countie to be one of the Knights of the said Shire for the said Parliament and not returned by the said Sheriffe And the said parties being duely examined and their reasons well considered in the said Parliament IT WAS AGREED BY THE SAID LORDS that because the said Sheriffe had not made a sufficient returne of the said writ THAT HE SHALL AMEND THE SAID RETURN and THAT HE SHALL RETURN THE SAID THOMAS FOR ONE OF THE SAID KNIGHTS as he was elected in the said Countie for the Parliament and moreover that the said Sheriffe for this default SHALL BE DISCHARGED OF HIS OFFICE and COMMITTED PRISONER TO THE FLEET and that he should MAKE FINE and RANSOME AT THE KINGS PLEASURE Loe here the Lords in Parliament at the Commons request and by the Kings command examining and giving judgement in case of undue election even without the
Commons An attendent on Sir Tho. Brooke chosen one of the Knights to serve in Parliament for the County of Somerset being grievously beaten by one Iohn Savage was upon a petition of the Commons relieved against this breach of Priviledge by * Ordinance or Act of Parliament 8. H. 4. 23. 14. made by consent of the King and Lords which is printed in 5. H. 4. c. 6. And in like maner Richard Strode Burgesse of Plimton was relieved against breaches of his priviledges as a Parliament man by a speciall act of Parliament assented unto by the King and Lords upon the Commons petition An. 4. H. 8. c. 6. the Commons alone being then unable to relieve them or punish these breaches by their owne authority as of late they presume to doe without King or Lords Quo Jure having not the power of Judicature vested in them I am yet to learne being contrary to the practice and presidents of all ancient Parliaments before our present age and the Statute of 11. H. 6. c. 11. provided for this very purpose which presents another remedy out of Parliament and not in only the Commons house In the Parliament of 16. R. 2. n. 6. The Wednesday after the Parliament began Sir Philip Courtenay returned by the Sheriffe of Devon for one of the Knights for that County came before the King in full Parliament and sayd that he understood how certaine people had accused and slandered him to the King and Lords as well by Bill as by mouth of heinous matters and therefore prayed TO BE DISCHARGED OF THE SAID IMPLOYMENT untill the said accusations and complaints were tried and found true or not true and because his said prayer seemed honest TO THE KING and THE LORDS THE KING GRANTED HIM HIS REQUEST and DISCHARGED HIM IN FULL PARLIAMENT AND the Monday following at the instance and prayer of the COMMONS the KING GRANTED THAT HE SHOULD BE RESTORED and REMITTED TO HIS PLACE according to the returne of the said Sheriffe for to counsell and doe that which belonged unto his office and after because he had been good and treatable with those who had complained upon him and condescended to a good treaty he was restored in full Parliament to his good same The charge against him is expressed in the same Parliament rol num 13. 14. where two Petitions preferred against him to THE KING and LORDS IN PARLIAMENT for putting Thomas Peutyngdon forcibly out of possession of the Manor of Bygelogâ— without just cause Richard Somestre out of other lands detaining them from them he being so powerfull in the County that no poore man durst to sue him Which Petitions were referred by consent in Parliament to certaine Arbitrators to determine From which record it is evident First that Members of the Commons house may be complained and petitioned against for misdeameanours and put to answer before the King and Lords in Parliament and there fined and judged not before the Commons house and that this was the antient way of proceeding Secondly that the Commons cannot suspend or discharge any of their fellow-Commoners or Knights from sitting in Parliament but only the King and Lords in full Parliament in whom the power of Judicature rests much lesse then can they expell or eject any of their members by their owne authority without the Kings and Lords concurrence and consents Thirdly that the power of restoring and readmitting a suspended Member of the Commons house belongs not to the Commons themselves but to the King and Lords to whom the Commons themselves in this case addressed themselves by petitinn for Courtneys readmission unto his office after his submission of the complaints against him to the arbitriment of those Members to whom the King and Lords referred the same In the Parliament of 17. R. 2. n. 23. It was accorded by the King and Lords at the request of the Commons that Roger Swinerton who was endited of the death of one of their companions John de Ipstones Knight of the said Parliament for the County of Stafford slain in coming towards the said Parliament by the said Roger should not be delivered out of prison wherein he was detained for this cause by bail mainprise or any other manner untill he had made answer thereunto and should be delivered by the Law the Commons alone by their own power having no authority to make such an order even for the murther of one of their own Members without the King and Lords who made this order at their request In the Parliament of 35. Eliz. when Sir Edward Cook was Speaker of the Commons House there fell out some questions in the Commons House about the Amendment of a mistake in the return of the Burgesse of Southwark * 5. R. 2. c. 4 8. H. 4. c. 14. 11. H. 4. c. 16. H. 6 c. 4. 8. H. 6. c. 7. 32. H. 6. c. 15 Ploud tol 11. 8 c. and after long debate it was resolved that the House could not amend it but the Lord Keeper in Chancery where the return was of Record if he thought it amendable by Law and that Masten Speaker should wait upon the Lord Keeper about it which he did who advised with the Iudges concerning it as appeares by the Journall And the Statutes made for redresse of abuse of Elections of Knights and Burgesses were made by the King and Lords upon the Commons petitions as appeares by 8. H. 4. n 83 1 9. 11. H. 4. n. 54. Neither of all which statutes gives the House of Commons alone any power of Iudicature to judge the right of Elections or punish abuses committed in them but leaves them to the Lords judicature as at first and gives the party injured an action at Law against the Sheriffe and â—others for false returns Secondly Sir Edmund Cooks words extend only matters of misdemeanor of any Members of the House of Commons committed in or against the House it self of which theâ— now though not anciently are the sole judges without the Lords which he proves by Arthur Halls case Thirdly to breaches of Priviledges of the Commons House alone in striking or arresting any of the Members or their priviledged servants which he proves by Munctons case and 11. H. 6. c. 11. 5. H. 4. c. 6. the two latter proving the contrary Yet in this case of breach of priviledge even in arresting the Commons Members and servants the Commons house were noâ— anciently the sole Judges as now In the Parliament of H. 6. n. 25. 26. 27. 28. Thomas Thorp chief Baron was chosen Speaker of the Parliament and after his election and before the Parliament which was proroged he was arrested and taken in execution at the suit of the Duke of York whereupon some of the Commons were sent up by the House to the King and Lords spirituall and temporall sitting in Parliament desiring that they might enjoy all their ancient and accustomed Priviledges in being free from arrests and propounded the case of Thomas Thorp
thâ—â—r Speaker to them desiring his inlargement whereupon the said Lords spirituall and temporall not intending to hurt or impeach the priviledge of the Commons but equally after the Courts of law to administer Justice and to have knowledge what the Law will weigh in that behalf declared to the Justices the premises and asked of them whether the said Thomas ought to be delivered from prison by force and vertue of the said priviledge of Parliament or not To the which question the chief Justices in the name of all the Justices aforesaid communication and mature deliberation had among them answered and said that they ought not to answer to that question for it hath not been used aforetime that the Iustices should in any wise determine the priviledge of this high Court of Parliam for it is so high and mighty in his nature that it may make that law which is not and that that is law it may make no law and the determination and knowledge of that priviledge belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Iustices but as for declaration of proceedings in the lower Courts in such cases as writs of Supersedeas of Priviledge of Parliament be brought and delivered the said chief Iustice said that there be many and divers Supersedeas of priviledges of Parliament brought into the Courts but there is no generall Supersedeas â—rought to surâ—eâ—se all Processes for if there should be it should seem that this High Court of Parliament that ministreth all Justice and equitity should let the processe of the common Lawes and so it should put the party plainant without remedy for so much as * Vpon this ground 1. R. 2. n. 20. 87. 114. 2. R. 2. n. 8. 49. 5. R. 2. n. 44. 13 R. 2. n. 10. 30. 33. 15. R. 2. n. 9. 17. R. 2. n. 10 We find the Commons and Parliament very zealous to maintain the Common Law and referring causes and petitions to it when proper for it and unproper for the Parliament actions at Common Law be not determined in this High Court of Parliament And if any Person that is a Member of this High Court of Parliament be arrested in such cases as be not for Treason or Felony or surety of the Peace or for condemnation before the Parliament it is used that all such persons should be released of all such arrests and make an Attorney so that they may have the freedome and Liberty freely to attend upon the Parliament After which answer and Declaration it was throughly agreed assentted and concluded by the Lords spirituall and temporall that the said Thomas according to the law should remain still in Prison for the causes abovesaid the priviledge of the Parliament or that the same Sir Thomas was Speaker of the Parliament notwithstanding And that the premises should be opened and declared to them that were comâ—â— for the Commons of this land and they should be charged and commanded in the Kings name that they with all goodly hast and speed proceed to the election of another Speaker The which premises for as much as they were matters of Law by the commandements of the Lords were opened and declared to the Commons by the mouth of Walter Mâ—yle one of the Kings Sergeants at Law in the presence of the Bishop of Ely accompanied with other Lords in notable number and there it was commanded and charged to the said Commons by the said Bishop of Ely in the Kings name that they should proceed to the election of another Speaker with all goodly hast and speed so that the matters for which the King called this his Parliament might be proceeded in and this Parliament took good and effectuall conclusion and end VVhereupon thâ— Commons accordingly elected Thomas Charlton Knight for their Speaker the next day and acquainted the Lords therewith and desired the Kings approbation of their choice which was accorded unto by the King In the Parliament of 39. H. 6. n. 9. Walter Clerke one of the Burgesses of Parliament for Chippenham was arrested and imprisoned in the Fleet for divers debts to the King and others upon a Capias Uâ—lagatâ—m whereupon the Commons complained thereof to the King and Lords and desired his release and tendred them an Act of Parliament ready drawn for that purpose to which Petition and Biâ—â— of theirs the King by the ASSENT OF THE LORDS SPIRITUALL and TEMPORALL assented And thereupon hee was freed In like maner Richard Chedder In the Parliament of 35. Eliz. Thomas Fitz-Herbert of Staffordshire was elected a Burgesse of Parliament and two houres after before the Indenture returned the Sheriffe tooke him in upon a Capiâ—â— Utlagatum Whereupon he petitioned the House that he might have a Writ of Priviledge and be enlarged After many dayes debate and Argument of this case in the House by sundry Lawyers and Sir Edward Cooke then Speaker it was agreed That no Writ of Priviledge could in this case be returned into the House of Commons being but a Member of Parliament and no Court of Record but only into the Chancery or House of Peers And that this being a point of Law it was meet the Iudges should be advised with and determine it not the House And at last he was outed of his Priviledge by the Houses resolution In 28. H. 8. Dyer 60. The case of Trewinnerd a Commoner in point of Priviledge of Parliament concerning an arrest was argued and debated before the Judges in the Kings Bench And so was Chedders case in 8. H. 4. 12. 13. So as the Commons only are not the sole Judges of such Priviledge as many now concerve but the House of Peers and Kings Councell and Judges as well as they In these three cases only and no other that I find Sir Edward Cooke admits the Commons to be sole Iudges now though not anciently without the Lords Therefore to extend it generally to all or any other cases of Commoners but these is to pervert his words and extend them farre beyond his meaning Now Lilburnes Overtons Cases are none of these but directly under the Lords sole Iudicature because infringements of their Priviledges of which the Lords only are the Iudges as the Commons pretend they are of their Priviledges as his following passages manifest Thirdly hee addes that both Houses together have power of Indicature but determines not in what cases nor in what way of Judicature which hath caused the Objectâ—rs mistake But the Judgements Records and Iournals of Parliament to which he refers and the cases he cites in the Margin will affoyle this doubt and cleare his meaning which is this First That in attainders and judgements of High Treason Felony or other Misdemeaners in Parliament where the proceedings are not by way of tryall and ordinary Judicature but by * See 31. H 6. n. 45. 64. 38. H. 6. n. 9. to 36. Bill or Act of Parliament there both Houses together and the King too joyntly with them have the power of
awarded him to the custody of the Marshall and to make fine and ransome at the Kings pleasure Whereupon the Commons REQUIRED by way of petition that he might lose all his Offices and no longer be of the Kings Councell which the King granted The Commons not joyning at all with the Lords in his judgement neither could they so joyne he being a Peer And for the Lord Nevill in that Parliament num 33. he was only accused not judged by the Commons Sixthly The case of 2. H. 5. rot Parl. num 15. that Error is there assigned that the Lords gave judgement without Petition or assent of the Commons is a grosse mistake For the record only recites That Thomas Mountague Earle of Salisbury Sonne and Heire of Iohn Mountague Earle of Salisbury exhibited his petition in Parliament to reverse a judgement given against his said father in the Parliament at Westminster in the second year of King Henry the fourth Whereupon he exhibited certaine reversals of Judgements given in Parliament as making on his behalfe to the Lords consideration reversed for some errors assigned in those jadgements to wit one judgement given against Thomas heretofore Earle of Lancaster before King Edward the second at Pomfract the monday before the feast of the Annuntiation in the fifteenth yeare of his reigne and another Judgement against Roger de Mortymer late Earle of March in the Parliament of King Edward the third the Monday after the Feast of St. Katherine in the fourth yeare of his reigne at Westminster Which judgements being distinctly and openly read and fully understood Jo seemed TO THE KING and LORDS that the case of the death and execution of the said John late Earle of Sarum and of the judgement aforesaid against him given is not nor was like to the case of the executing of the said Thomas heretofore Earle of Lancaster nor to the case of the killing of Roger Earle of March nor to any judgement given against the said Thomas and Roger as aforesaid but that the judgement and declaration had and given against the said Iohn late Earle of Sarum WERE A GOOD JUST and LEGALL DECLARATION and JUDGEMENT Per quod CONSIDERATUM FUIT in praesenti Parliamento PER PRAEDICTOS DOMINOS tunc ibidem existentes DE ASSINSU dicti Domini nostri Regis quod praefatus nunc COMES Sarum NIHIL CAPIAT PER PETITIONEM aut prosecutionem suam praedictam Et ulterius TAM DOMINI SPIRITUALES QUAM TEMPORALE supradicti JUDICIUMET DECLARATIONEM praedicta versus dictum Ioannem quondam Comitem Sarum ut praemâ—ttitur habita five reddita DE ASSENSU IPSIUS DOMINI REGIS AFFIRMARUNT FORE ET ESSE BONA JUSTA ET REGALIA et ea pro hujusmodi EX ABUNDANTI DISCREVERUNT ADJUDICARUNT TUNC IBIDEM This is all that is mentioned in this Parliament Roll concerning this businesse It appeares by the Parliament Roll of 2 H. 4. num 30. That Thomas Holland Earl of Kent Iohn Holland Earle of huntingdoâ— Iohn Mountagne Earle of Sarum Thomas Lord de Dispencer and Ralph omely Knight were impeached of high treason before the King and Lords in Parliament for levying actuall Warre against the King to destroy the King and his Subjects and for this taken and beheade and hereupon ALL â—â—E LORDS TEMPORALL BEING IN PARLIAMENT BY ASSENT OF THE KING DECLARED AND ADJVDGED all the said persons TRAITORS for leavying Warre against the King and that as Traytors they should forfeit all the lands they had in fee simple the 5 day of Jannary the first yeare of the raigne of the King or after according to the Law of the Land with all their goods and chattells notwithstanding they were slaine upon the said levying of Warre without processe of Law So this Record To reverse this judgement was this Petition of Thomas Earle oâ— Sarisbury in 2. H. 5. exhibited without the errour assigned as appeares by the Parâ—iament roll but if it were that the Lords only gave Judgement without Petition or assent of the Commons as Sir Edward Cooke imagins 〈◊〉 the King and Lords who upon solemned bate over-ruled the errour abuses and Petitions and found this judgâ—ment and Declaration of 2. H. 4. given by the Lords alone with the Kings assent without the Commons TO BE GOOD JVST and LEGALL as they did ex abundâ—nti is a most undeniable proofe of the King and Lords sole right of JVDGEING and DECLARING HIGH TREASON in Parliament without the Commons as well in case of Commoners as Lords Ralph Lomely being but a Commoner and Knight though the rest were Peers and yet all joyntly adjudged Traytors and declared such only by the King and Lords without the Commons and the Judgement assured to be good by the Commons who in the Parliament of 13. H. 4. num 19. Petitioned the Iohn Lomley might be restored by act of Parliament and made capable to inherit his fathers lands thus attainted to which the King by ASSENT OF THE LORDS SPIRITVALL and TEMPORALL consented Seventhly the Parliament Roll of 28. H. 6. num 18. c. containes onely an Impeachment of High Treason against the King and other great misdemeanors against the Kingdome and wrongs to particular persons comprised by way of Articles in two distinct Bills brought up by the Commons and presented by William Tresham their Speaker to the King in the Lords House the 7. day of February against William de la Pole Duke of Suffolke to which they desired the Duke might give in his Answer by a certaine day which he did absolutly denying the Treason against the King and denying and excusing himselfe of the rest without putting himselfe upon the Tryall of his Peeres The Chiefe Iustice thereupon the 14. day of March by the Kings command asked this Question of the LORDS WHAT ADVISE THEY WOULD GIVE THE KING what is to doe futrher in this matter which advise was deferred till Monday then next following whereon nothing was done in that matter On Tuesday the 17. of March the King sent for all the Lords Spirituall and Temporall then being in Towne being 42. in all into his Inner Chamber within his Palace of Westminster where when they were all assembled hee then sent for the Duke thither who comming into the Kings presence kneeled downe and continued kneeling till the Chancellour of England had delivered the Kings command to him and demanded of him what he said to the Commons Articles not having put himselfe upon his Peerage Whereupon the Duke denyed all the Articles touching the Kings Person and state of the Realme as false and scandalous And so not departing from his said Answers submitted himselfe wholly to the Kings Rule and Governance without putting himselfe upon his Peerage Where thus the Chancellour told him That as touching the great and horrible things contained in the first Bill the King holdeth him neither declared nor charged And as touching the second Bill containing misprisons which are not criminall the King by force of his submission by his owne advise and
not reporting him to the advice of the Lords nor by way of judgement for he is not in place of judgement putteth you to his rule and governance that before the first of May next comming hee should absent himselfe out of the Kingdome of England and all other his Dominions in France or elsewhere for five yeares space and that hee nor no man for him should shew or waite any malice nor hate to any person of what degree soever of the Commons in the Parliament in no manner of wise for any thing done to him in this Parliament or elsewhere And forthwith Viscount Peamont in behalfe of the said LORDS both Spirituall and Temporall and BY THEIR ADVICE ASSENT AND DESIRE said and declared to the Kings Highnesse that this that so was decreed and done by his Excellencie concerning the person of the said Duke PROCEEDED NOT BY THâ—IR ADVICE AND COVNSELS but was done by the Kings owne demeanour and rule Wherefore they besought the King that this their saying MIGHT BE ENACTED IN THE PARLIAMENT ROLL FOR THEIR MORE DECLARATION HEREAFTER WITH THIS PROTESTATION THAT IT SHOVLD NOT BE NOR TVRNE IN PREJVDICE NOR DEROGATION OF THEM THEIR HEYRS NE OF THEIR SVCCESSOVRS IN TIME COMMING but that they may HAVE AND INJOY THEIR LIBERTY AS THEY OR ANY OF THEIR ANCESTORS PREDECESSORS HAD AND ENIOYED BEFORE THIS TIME This is the sum of this large record which makes nothing to the purpose for which it is cited that it is errour when both Houses joyne not in â—udgement For first here is nothing but an impeachment onely by the Commons of a Peere who ought to be tryed judged by his Peerage not by Commoners Secondly there was no judgement given in Parliament in this case but only a private Award made by the King out of the Parliament House in his owne Chamber in presence of the Lords Thirdly the Lords entred a speciall protestation against it as not made by their advice or consent Fourthly they enâ—er a speciall claime in the Parliament Roll for the preservation of their Right and Freedome of Peerage for hereafter both of being tryed and judged onely by their Peeres in Parliament and so an expresse resolution that they in Parliament are and ought to be Iudges not the Commons The last Records I have cited at large lest Sir Edward Cookes briefe quotation and mis-recitall of them should deceive the credulous or ignorant Reader Eighthly the cases of Sir Giles Monpesson Sir John Michell Viscount S. Alban and the Earle of Middlesex whom the Commons onely impeached and the Lords alone without the Commons votes or presence judged and sentenced are direct proofes that the power of Iudicature and Censure as well of impeached Commoners as Lords resides onely in the Lords House the Commons being but generall Inquisitors to search out and present both Lords and Commoners publike offences to the Lords to whom they transmit the charge and witnesses the Lords the onely Iudges to heare and determine the charge examine the witnesses upon oath and passe and record the sentence and see it executed and no more Iudges in the Parliament then the grand enquest are Iudges at the Assizes or Sessions The second and principall objection insisted upon by that Ignoramuâ— Object 2. Lilburne and his disciples the Levellers is the Statute of Magna Charta chap. 29. That no Free man shall be imprisoned outlawed exiled or any other way destroyed Nor we shall not passe upon him nor condemne him but BY THE LAWFVLL IVDGMENT OF HIS PEERES or BY THE LAW OF THE LAND Whence thus they argue The Lords in Parliament are not Commoners Peers but the Commons only therefore they cannot be judged in Parliament by the Lords but by the Commons alone and if Peers there judge Commoners it is a tyranny and usurpation even against Magna Charta it selfe though it be in case of priviledge To take away this grand seeming objection Answ and give it a satisfactory answer I say First in generall that there is scarce one Parliament ever since Magna Charta was first confirmed but the Lords have sentenced and given judgment against some Commoners capitally or penally in body or purse or both without the Commons and did so doubtlesse before Magna Charta was made as I have already manifested yet never did the Commons in any one of those Parliaments till this present complain of it as a violation of Magna Charta or a tyrannicall usurpation as Lilburne and Overton stile it but acknowledged it as a just right in the Lords even in 3. Caroli it selfe when the Petition of Right was passed in the Lords Iudgment and Sentence against Doctor Manwaring a Commoner impeached by the Commons And therefore for this one Ignoramus alone against the judgements of all the Commons in Parliament in all ages to averre this a breach of Magna Charta for imprisoning and fining him for the highest affront and breach of priviledge over offered to any Parliament is the extremity of ignorance malice and singularity Secondly I answer that the Statute of Magna Charta extendeth not to nor was ever intended of the high Court of Parliaments Iudgements and Proceedings but onely to the proceedings and Iudgements in the Kings great Courts of Iustice at Westminster Hall the Exchequer his Privy Councell and other inferiour Courts held before Judges Iustices of Assize and other Officers as is evident by comparing this objected Chapter with c. 11 12 13 14 18. 28 â—0 3â— 37. by the Statutes of 25. E. 3. Stat. 5. c. 4. 28. E. 3. c. 3. 37. E. 3. â— 18. 38. E. 3. c. 9. 42. E. 3. c. 3. 17. â—2 c. 6. and the Petition of Right it selfe 3. Caroli which so expound it there being never any complaint against the Parliament it selfe or House of Peeres in any age for breach of Magna Charta in censuring or imprisoning Commoners till now Therefore this misapplying of this Law to the Parliament and House of Peers is a grosse oversight Thirdly the very literall sence of this Law is much mistaken by the Objectors For that any Freeman of England is a Peer to another Freeman quatenus such a one within this Law though of an higher degree in point of honour dignity office and estate and this clause * 〈…〉 No Freeman shall be imprisoned and but by the lawfull judgement of his Peers extends onely to exclude villaines and those who are not Freeholders from being Iudges of Freemen and Freeholders in tryalls by Iury whence the Writs to the Sheriffes to summon Iurors require them alwayes to returne Liberos Legales homines not to exclude Lords or Peeres who are Freemen in the higest degree to be Iudges of Commoners who are Freemen So as the Argument from the true meaning of this Law can be but this villaines and those who are no Freemen are not to be Iudges or impannelled in Iuries to condemne Freemen because they are not their Peeres nor Freemen as well as they Therefore