To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Then followeth the Judgment against John Matrevers, Thomas de Gurney, and William de Ogle, Numb. 5. But no par∣ticular accusations are recorded against any of them, unless they were comprised in those general words of that against
Mortimer, viz. And other of his Coyn. For some of the same Crimes are men∣tioned in the Judgments, yet no doubt but the Kings Attourny did exhibit Ar∣ticles against every of them, upon which the Lords proceeded to Judgment. Here I do ingenuously confess my own Error, when I said that this Judgment against Roger de Mortimer was afterwards re∣versed; for that he was put to death without any Accusation, which I con∣ceived to be so upon first view of the Repeal thereof.
Anno 21. E. 3. Numb. 10. Where the Petitioners Roger de Mortimer, the Grand∣child assigneth for that the said Earl was put to death, and he disinhereted: Sans Accusament, Et sans estre masone in Judgment ou en Respons.
By which words (sans accusament) I gave you to understand that the Articles were no accusation, whereas now upon better Consideration I do find that these words do intend no accusation by wit∣nesses or otherwise to prove the said Articles objected against him. For these Articles are a legal accusation in Parli∣ment, and frequently used, as appears by many Precedents of the like nature. But there was no other proof offered
by the Lords to prove the same, then that the King believeth them, and that they are notorious and known for truth unto the Lords, and all the People of the Realm.
And the Lords also having examined these Articles, said all these things con∣tained therein are notorious and known. They speak not a word of any one wit∣ness examined, or any other proof then the common fame: For this Cause and for that the said Earl was not brought to Judgment nor to answer, but con∣demned unseen and unheard upon com∣mon Fame only without any legal Proof, The whole Parliament did very justly Repeal the said Judgment and Record,* 1.1 declaring it to be erronious and defective in all points. And the Lords were wil∣ling to damn the whole Record in all points, least haply it might be alledged against themselves another time for Pre∣cedent.
Anno 15. E. 2. The Lords and Com∣mons joyned in the Accusations against the Spencers, and for that the Lords had no Record in their own pursuit upon the Cause contained in their award, and they ought not to be their own Judges, &c. having been Accusors no exceptions were
taken to the Articles but other Errors assigned, quod vide where it is said to be sans Accusament, so that they repealed it not for that there was no Accusation but for that he was not brought to his Answer.
Again, That those words Sans accusa∣ment should simply signify no Accusa∣tion, is only the Averment of the Peti∣tion. The Judgment doth not say, that there was no accusation, but that it was erronious in all points. And so it was, no proof being produced but common Fame to prove the Answer. And this first error bred a second. I do not well understand the meaning of these words (Sans accusament.) That a Peer ought to be Indicted for Capital offences in Par∣liament. But having perused all the Judgments I do not find any one Peer indicted in Parliament. In 11. R. 2. Numb. 7. All the Lords Spiritual and Temporal claimed as their liberty and franchise, that the great matters mov∣ed in this Parliament, and to be moved in other Parliaments in time to come touching the Peers of the Land, ought to be admeasured adjudged and discussed by the course of the Parliament, and not by the Civil-Law, nor by the Law
of the Land, used in the more base Courts of the Realm, which the King granted in full Parliament, eodem Anno Rot. Appeal 290.
This is said to be their ancient custom, viz. To be adjudged according to the use of the Parliament only.
Then no Peer can be indicted in Par∣liament, for that it is contrary to the use of Parliament. Let this suffice for the confession and rectifying mine own former Error herein.
But a Lord of Parliament may be in∣dicted out of Parliament, and by the Kings command proceeded against in the next Parliament, upon the same indict∣ment as in these Subsequent.
In the same Parliament,* 1.2 the Lord Berkley was arraigned, for the death of Ed. 2. and whether out of his humility or otherwise, he waved his Peerage, and put himself on the Tryal of his Country. the Articles against him though not expressed, but by the Infe∣rence out of his Arraignment are for the murder of King Ed. 2. at Berkley Castle in the County of Gloucester, unto which he answered, that he was then sick at Bradley in Worcestershire, and pleaded not guilty of the death of the said King, Et de hoc
de bono & malo ponit se super Patriam: The Precedent shall hereafter be added at large.
The Judg∣ment, de∣fective in all points.
The Lord Berkley arraigned waved his Peerage.