John Selden, Of the judicature in parliaments a posthumous treatise, wherein the controveries and precedents belonging to that title are methodically handled.

CHAP. II.

In what Cases Judicature belongs to the Parliament.* 1.1

JUdicature belongs to the Parliament in these six Cases.

1. In Judgments against Delinquents as well for Capital crimes as misde∣meanors, wherein is to be considered,

• 1. The Accusation.
• 2. The Parties Answer.
• 3. The Replication.
• 4. The proof by Examination of wit∣nesses, or otherwise.
• 5. The Judgment.
• 6. The Execution.

2. In the Reversing erronious Judg∣ments in Parliament are to be consi∣dered,

• 1. The Petition.
• 2. The bringing in the Record.
• 3. The Assignment of Errors.
• 4. The Reversal thereof.

3. In the Reversing of erronious Judgments given in the Kings Bench are to be considered

• 1. The Petition.
• 2. The Writ of Error.
• 3. The bringing in the Record.
• 4. The Assignment of Errors.
• 5. The Writ of Scire facias.
• 6. The Defendants answer.
• 7. The Reversal of the Judgment.

4. In deciding of Suits long depend∣ing either for difficulty or delay, where∣in is to be considered

• 1. The Petition.
• 2. The advice with the Judges.
• 3. The determination of the Lords.

5. In hearing complaints of particular Persons on Petitions, wherein is to be considered,

• 1. The Petition.
• 2. The Defendants answer.
• 3. The Proof.
• 4. The Orders of the Lords.

6. In setting at Liberty any of their own Members or Servants imprisoned, and in staying the proceedings at the Common-Law during the Priviledge of Parliament, wherein consider,

• 1. The Quality of the Person Im∣prisoned.
• 2. The Parties Answer at whose Suit he is imprisoned.
• 3. The manner of his Charge.

In certifying the Elections and Re∣turns of Knights and Citizens for the Parliament. But now the Commons alone determine of this: Wherefore I will only shew that the Commons did heretofore Petition to the Lords for re∣dress herein, and what course was then taken. I leave it to the Clerk of that House to shew how the Commons pro∣ceed herein at this day. Of the rest in Order; And first,

Of Judgments on Delinquents.

§ 1. In Judgment against Delin∣quents,* 1.2 is first to be considered, the Accusation. For as in the Kings Bench

the Justices proceed not to the Arraign∣ment of any Offender without an In∣dictment, So the Lords have not pro∣ceeded to Judgment, unless the Crimes have first been presented to them by way of Accusation: If otherwise their Judg∣ments have been reputed erronious, as that against the Spencers was in 15 E. 2. Rot. 2. claus. lit. penden. For the same Persons cannot be both Accusers and Judges.

I have observed four manner of Ac∣cusations in Parliament.* 1.3

• 1. First by the Commons, either by their Complaints, or their Im∣peachments.
• 2. Secondly by Information. Ex. parte. Dom. Regis.
• 3. Thirdly by Complaint of private Persons.
• 4. Fourthly by Appeal of some of the Lords in Parliament, which was abolished, p. Stat. 1. H. 4. c. 14.

The Accusation of the Commons.

The manner of Accusation ought to be by the Commons alone, and not by the Lords and them together, for so,

Earls, Prelates, Barons, and other Peers of the Land, and Commons of the Realm, did accuse Hugh de le Spencer, 15 E. 2. and one of the Errors assigned for the Reversal was, that the Lords had no Record before them of the Causes con∣tained in their Award, vis. Rot. claus. 15 E. 3. in the Parliament at York. The Reasons may be, because the Lords joyn∣ing in the Accusation with the Com∣mons, have declared their opinion of the Fact, and there needs no further Tryal thereof. Wherefore the Lords who are only Judges may neither accuse any to themselves, nor joyn in the Ac∣cusations with others.

The complaint of the Commons is either by Petition or demand in general, or by Impeachment in particular which is their Declaration against the party accused.

Precedents of their Complaints by Peti∣tion are.* 1.4

Anno 21 E. 3. n. 38. The Commons complain of Extortion used by certain Merchants, who were Farmers of the Kings Customs of Wools, not naming the Parties, for which they pray remedy

and that the said Merchants may be put to their answer in this Parliament for such outrage and distress done to the people. Which Petition is thus an∣swered.

Let the Merchants be called into the Parliament, Et oient lour Respons, In codem Parl. n. 49. The Commons in another Petition complain:* 1.5 That where∣as diverse aids have been granted to the King for his Wars, certain Merchants by confederacy between them, and in manner of usury have bargained for the same, to the Kings great loss, and the grievance of the Commons, &c. His people pray these Particulars may be examined, in presence of some by the said Commons deputed by good wise and Loyal men during the Parliament.

The King shall assign some of the Sages of his Council to hear,* 1.6 and deter∣mine the things contained in this Article. And if any of the Commons can in∣form the King, for his profit of any of the Points herein contained, let him put it in certain, and he shall be heard, to the end that Right and reason may be done.

And the Justices which shall be as∣signed to enquire of false Mony, shall

have power to enquire of the excess of such Ministers. Though these complaints were general, yet they pointed so di∣rectly to the Parties accused, that John de Worsenham, and Walter de Chairton, did exhibit their Petitions also in their own defence, desiring to come to their An∣swers. What further proceedings were herein is not recorded; The Commons were directed to impeach the Parties whom they accused. If any of the Commons can inform, &c. Let him inform in certain, and he shall be heard, &c. So that although the Com∣mons accusation by complaint be gene∣ral, yet if the complaint be received, and the Parties brought to answer, the Commons may then impeach the said Parties, viz. declare against them in special; and then the Suit is theirs, prout. Anno 50 E. 3. against Lyons, Ellis, the Lord Latimer, the Lord Nevile, Peecher and others.

But if the Commons do only accuse by any way of complaint whatsoever, and do not declare in special against the Party accused, then the Suit is the Kings, and the Party is to be arraigned, or otherwise proceeded against by com∣mandment, Ex parte Dom. Regis, prout

Gomeniz Weston, and Alice Peirce. 1 R. 2.

Anno 1 H. 4. The Commons pray the Lords Apellants in the 21 R. 2. may be put to their answer, and so they were 10 Placit. Coron. of that Parl. n. 1. 2. 3. &c.

Anno 29 H. 6. The Commons pray that the Duke of Somerset, the Dutchess of Suffolk, the Bishop of London, and many others may be abandoned from the Kings Presence during their lives, and not come within twelve Miles of the Court, for that the people spoke evil of them.

The King of his own meer motion is contented that all shall depart,* 1.7 unless they be Lords, and a few of them whom he may not spare from his presence, and so to continue one year, to see if any man can misprove them. n. 6. inter Pe∣titiones Communium. For this was no Accusation, for the Commons did not require they might be banished the Court.

Anno 38 H. 6. The Commons among their Petitions accuse the Lord Stanley of sundry Particulars, as to be of con∣federacy with the Duke of York, and pray he may be committed to Prison.

The King will be advised.* 1.8

Primo. Jac. 26 Maii. The Commons by message accuse the Bishop of London, for words spoken of them in the upper House. Of the other kind of complaint by way of demand, I have seen these two Precedents only.

Anno 1 R. 2. The Subsidy to be treat∣ed upon between the Lords and Com∣mons, as the manner then was; The Commons delivered to the Lords a Schedule of their demands to be dis∣patched before Treaty should proceed. Amongst which one was, That all such who without Cause have lost or given up any Castle, Town, or Fortress, to the dishonour of the King, and damage of the People, may be put to their Answer before the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament.

The Complaint herein is general, They accuse such as had delivered up Castles, &c. if it be an Accusation: But they name not the Parties, yet two Delinquents hereupon who were Im∣prisoned in the Tower, for delivery of Castels, &c. were put to their Answer, viz. Gomeniz and Weston, Anno 7 R. 2.

The Commons grant a Subsidy, according to the Tenor of a Schedule indented deli∣vered in Parliament, requiring it may be enrolled in the Parliament Roll verbatim; in which Schedule is this Protestation, That it is not their meaning to grant the said Subsidy, without the Conditions ensuing.

Inprimis, That the Clergy make the like Grant.

Item, That the Bishop of Norwich, and others, be compelled to answer such Sums, as they have received for Service by them undertaken, and not perfor∣med, &c. Numb. 13.

Here the Commons name one of the Parties, against whom they complain, but they impeach him not; and yet he, and divers others, were censured on that general demand.

Of the Impeachments of the Commons,* 1.9 there be these Precedents: Anno 50. E. 3. The Commons having granted the Sub∣sidy, they protested their good will, and firm purpose, to aid the King; and said, That it seemed to them for truth, that if the King had always about him Loyal Subjects, good Councellors, and faithful Officers, he had been rich in Treasure,

and needed not have charged his Com∣mons with Subsidies, &c. Then they desired that three things might be enqui∣red of.

1. First, the withdrawing the Staple from Callis, by the Council and Procure∣ment of some Privy Councellors about the King.

2. Secondly, of Loans to the King by way of Usury, receiving again greater Sums than they disbursed, wherein some Privy Councellors have been Partners.

3. Thirdly, of buying the King's Debts by way of Bargain, some for the 10^th Peny, some for the 20^th, or 100^th Peny, and procuring the King to pay the entire Debt; to the King's loss, and profit of some Privy Councellors, and others of their Covyn: Of which three Articles, and their Dependencies, the Commons said, They would make farther Decla∣ration in special, whensoever it shall please the King to hear them, Numb. 15, 16. Then follows their particular Im∣peachments and Accusations.

First, Richard Lyons, Merchant of London, is impeached and accused by the Commons of many Deceits, Extor∣tions, and many other ill deeds by him done to our Lord the King, and his Peo∣ple, as well during the time he was retain∣ing to the King's House, and to the King's Council, as otherwise, whilst he was Farmer of the Subsidy and Customs of the King. And in special of this, that the said Richard, by Covyn made between him, and some of the Privy-Council of our Lord the King, for their private Profit and Advantage, hath procured many Patents, and Writs of License, to trans∣port great quantities of Wools, and Wool-fells, and other Merchandize be∣yond the Seas, to other places than the Staple at Callis, contrary to the Ordinan∣ces, &c. And so they declare of many other Villanies in great deceipt of the King, and of his Court. Whereunto the said Richard being then present in Parliament, said, &c.

Then follows his Answer in particular to what was particularly alledged against him, and in general to what was gene∣rally charged upon him.

The Lords reassured him for that which was particularly objected against

him, and granted Commissions to en∣quire of the Extortions wherewith he was charged in general.

Then the Commissioners in like man∣ner accused and impeached William Lord Latimer of divers Extortions, Grievances, Deceits, and ill Deeds, viz. of divers Oppressions, when he served the King in Britain, for being Partner with Richard Lyons, &c. and for loss of Towns and Forts beyond the Seas. Numb. 21.

Item, William Ellis of Great Tarmouth was impeached in this present Parlia∣ment in divers manners.

First, by Surmise of the Commons, &c. Numb. 11.

And afterwards John Botheil, and Wil∣liam Cooper, exhibited their two Bills in form which followeth:

To their thrice redoubted Lord the King, and to the said Council shewn, &c. com∣plaining of the Oppressions of the said William Ellis, unto them, and others, &c. and their Oath was taken against him. Numb. 32.

Item, John Peecher of London, Mer∣chant, was accused and impeached by

the said Commons, That he, by the assent and aid of Richard Lyons, and of other Privy Councellors, for their private profit and advantage, have purchased a Patent under the Great Seal of our Lord the King, containing that none shall sell sweet Wines within the Francheses of the City of London, but only the said John. Numb. 38.

Item, John Nevill was likewise im∣peached, &c. for buying the King's Debts, &c. and for loss of Towns beyond the Seas.

Here I observe, that though the Com∣mons complained,* 1.10 50 E. 3. but of three Grievances, viz. of the withdrawing the Staple from Callis; of Loans to the King upon excessive Usury; and of buying the King's Debts; yet when they who were accused appeared, they declared against them for other matters also: As against Lyons, for new Impositions upon Wools, without assent in Parliament; and against the Lord Latimer, for his misgovernment beyond the Seas, and loss of Forts there; and against Peecher, for a Monopoly of sweet Wines, &c.

I observe also,* 1.11 that their Declaration is not made according to the strict forms

of Law, as you may perceive by that against Lyons, wherein so many Extor∣tions are so generally set down against him, that he made no answer to them, neither could, &c. Which Impeach∣ment the Lords notwithstanding did not reject, but supplied the defects thereof, by granting Commissions to enquire thereof. Ibid. Numb. 20. in fine.

Item, In this Parliament of 50 E. 3. an Ordinance was made against Wo∣men's pursuing businesses in the King's Court, and especially against Alice Peirce, Numb. 45. I find no Accusation against Alice Peirce; I only conjecture that the Commons complained of her, though it be not entred, for she is in the number of them whom in the next Parliament of 50 E. 3. Numb. 87. the Speaker of the Commons names to be unjustly convi∣cted in this Parliament: And none were there convicted, but those whom the Commons complained of.

Item, Adam de Bury, Citizen of Lon∣don, was impeached by the Clamor of the Commons in this Parliament of many Deceits, and other ill things done to the King, and to his People, whilest

he was Mayor of Callis, and Captain of Bullingam, and other ways, as more at large appears in one great Bill, delivered in Parliament the last day of this Parlia∣ment at Eltham. And thereupon the said Adam was sent for to come to answer in Parliament, and he came not, neither could be found. Wherefore it was awarded, that all his Goods and Chat∣tels should be put in Arrest; and so it was done by Writs sent to the Sheriffs of London and Kent: And the said Bill is on File with the special Petitions of Parlia∣ment, 50 E. 3. Numb. 11.

Out of this last Precedent, concerning Adam de Bury, I observe two things:

1. First, whom they complained of: The Lords sent for him only to appear before them; they sent not to apprehend him as a Delinquent, until he contemn'd their Demand, whereof more hereafter in the Title of the Parties Answer.

2. Secondly, that the Commons deli∣vered not their Impeachment (that is, their Declaration) against the Party accused, until he appeared before the Lords, and then they kept it untill the last day of the Parliament, in hope that

he would be brought before the Lords; and when they saw he could not be found, they then delivered their Impeach∣ment against him, to the end (as I con∣cieve) the particulars of their Accusa∣tion might remain upon Record against them hereafter.

Here I also observe an Error of the Clerk, that he hath omitted the Procee∣dings against Alice Peirce, John de Leyce∣ster, and Walter Spooner, who were all convicted in this Parliament, as appea∣reth by the Speaker's motion to the King for their Pardons in the next Parliament. 50 E. 3. Numb. 87.

Thus much touching the Commons Accusations and Impeachments.

The next Precedent is in 11 R. 2. in which Parliament the whole Commons with one assent assembled, came before the King, Prelates, and Lords, in the Par∣liament Chamber, complaining grie∣vously of Michael de la Poole, Earl of Suffolk, Chancellor of England, there present, accusing him openly by word of Mouth:

1. First, that whereas he being Chan∣cellor, was bound by Oath to further the King's Profit and Commodity in all

things: He notwithstanding contrary to the said Oath, and not regarding the King's great necessity, had purchased of the King Lands and Tenements to a great value, procuring the same, by reason of his Office, to be Surveyed at an under value.

2. Item, Whereas at the last Parlia∣ment, nine Lords were appointed to see and examin the State of the King and Realm; which being done, and their Advice delivered to the King, as well by word as writing, by what means the same might best be remedied: The Chancellor promised in open Parlia∣ment, that the same should be put in Execution, which was not done, through his default, he being a Principal Officer.

3. Item, Whereas the Subsidy, granted the last Parliament, was appointed by the assent of the King and Lords, in what sort it should be expended, and not other ways employed; in this was his default, he being Principal Officer.

4. Item, Whereas John Tidman had a certain Annuity from E. 3. which he had since forfeited, and the payment thereof

was discontinued for the space of 20 or 30 years: The said Chancellor knowing this, purchased his Interest, and procu∣red the King to confirm the same unto him, &c.

5. Item, That whereas the great Master of St. Antony being a Schismatic, had thereby forfeited to the King all his Re∣venue within this Realm, the same Chan∣cellor had taken the same to Farm of the King for 20 Marks. And whereas the Master should have livery thereof again, he could in no wise get the same, until he had bound himself to pay 100 l. yearly to the Chancellor and his Son.

6. Item, That during the time of his Chancellorship, there had passed divers Charters of Pardon, as well for Murders, Treasons, and Felonies, as also for rasing of Rolls, and imbezelling of Laws and Records; and especially since the begin∣ning of this Parliament, a Charter of Franchises was granted to the Castle of Dover, to the disinheritance of the Crown, and to the Subversion of all the Places and Courts of the King, and his Laws.

7. Item, That at the last Parliament divers Sums were allotted for the defence of the Town of Gant, notwithstanding the same Money was lost, &c. by his default, &c.

Of all which Articles, the Com∣mons demand Judgment of the Parlia∣ment, &c.

I have been long upon this, conside∣ring all the Precedents follow at large. These are the most formally set down of all the Accusations hitherto of the Com∣mons, yet most of these are very general and uncertain: Howbeit the Chancellor took no exceptions to the insufficiency thereof, but answered to every parti∣cular.

The next Accusation of the Commons is 11 R. 2. in the 21. of the King, they accused divers of those whom the Lords had first appealed; whereof, when we speak of all Appeals. Anno 21 R. 2. the Commons accused and impeached of Treason the Archbishop of Canterbury, Numb. 15. and demanded Judgment against him, and had it. Numb. 16.

Eodem Parl.* 1.12 The Commons accused and impeached of Treason Tho. Morty∣mer, and John de Cobham, a Baron of

Parliament, and had Judgment against them both.

Anno 28 H. 6. William de la Pool,* 1.13 Earl Marshal, and Duke of Suffolk, was accu∣sed and impeached by the Commons in manner following, viz. The Duke being the great Favorite of the King and Queen, the common People laid all the fault of the evil Government on him, and made Ballads thereof, (which I have seen) taxing his Loyalty to the King.

The Parliament of 28 H. 6. begun the 6th of November, and held to the 6th of December, and was then Prorogued to the 22th of January.

The Duke of Suffolk, whether pro∣voked by the Ballads then made on him, or by some Speech in the House of Com∣mons, whereof nothing is recorded, did require of the King that he might be specially accused, and be heard to answer, for that many reported him to be an un∣true man; and he made a solemn Prote∣station of his Loyalty, wherein he shew∣eth, that his Father, and three of his Bre∣thren, died in the Service of the King, and of his Father and Grandfather. That he himself had served 34 years in the Wars, being then but a Knight. That he had been taken Prisoner, and paid

20000 Marks for his Ransom. That he had been 30 years of the Order of the Garter; Chancellor to the King 15 years; and had been 17 years in the King's Wars, without returning home. And he prayed God so to pardon him, as he had been true to the King; and required his Purgation. Numb. 14, 15.

Whether this was sent to the Com∣mons, or what notice they had of it, appears not; but on the 2th of January, the Commons required the Duke might be committed to Ward for his own Con∣fession, for that, as I concieve, he him∣self confessed,* 1.14 That the general Fame went of him: And the Lords, on Con∣sultation of the Justices, thought the same to be no good Cause of Commit∣ment, unless some special Matters were objected against him. Numb. 16.

On the 28th of January, the Speaker declared to the Lords, how the Duke of Suffolk, as it was said, had sold this Realm to the French, who prepared to come hither. And that the said Duke, for his own defence, had furnished Wallingford Castle with all Warlike Munition. And then on request, the Duke was commit∣ted to the Tower.

On the 7th of February, the Chan∣cellor, and some other Lords, were sent by the King to the Commons, (a thing not usual) but wherefore they were sent is not expressed, happily to be informed what they could say against the Duke, or to reconcile the business. But the Com∣mons delivered to this Chancellor, and those other Lords, a Bill of Articles against the Duke, wherein they accused him of divers Treasons, viz. For inten∣ding to marry his Son to the Heir of the Duke of Somerset, and thereby for want of Issue of the King, to claim the Crown. For practising with the French, &c. Numb. 18, 19. and they require Prosecu∣tion against him. Numb. 17.

March 19. The Commons delivered another Bill of less Offences against him, Numb. 28, 29, 30, &c. requiring those Articles also to be inrolled, and the Duke put to his answer.

These before recited are all the ancient Precedents I find recorded; the follow∣ing are of later times.

Anno 1 Jac. The Commons accused and impeached by word of Mouth Sir Giles Mompesson, and Sir Fr. Michell, Knights; for many Oppressions done to the People: They impeached them to the

Lords at a Conference, and afterwards delivered their Declaration against them.

First, Concerning a Patent for Inns and Osteries. Secondly, A Monopoly for Gold and Silver Thread. Thirdly, Concerning a Patent of Con∣cealments.

Eodem Parl.* 1.15 They accused Francis Lord Viscount St. Alban (at a Conference) of Bribery, and Corruption, in his Office of Chancellor. They delivered no Writing, but a Committee of the Lords having considered the Proofs, and drawn up the Particulars in form of a Charge, they were sent to the Lord Chancellor, and his answer required to each particular.

In the same manner in the same Par∣liament, they accused John Bennet, Judge of the Prerogative Court, of Bribery and Corruption in his Office.

In the same manner they accused and impeached Lyonel Earl of Middlesex, and Lord Treasurer of England, of Bribery and Extortion, and Impositions on French Wines and Grocery, which being repor∣ted to the House, a Committee was ap∣pointed to consider of the Commons

complaint, and also of a Committee, who had reported to the House a great want of Powder in the Stores, through the Lord Treasurer's negligence.

A Committee appointed to consider thereof, did, after many Examinations taken, draw up out of the whole Com∣plaint of the Commons, a Charge against him; as also out of the Report of the Committee for Munition touching the want of Powder; and of a Complaint made to the House by Sir Thomas Dalli∣son, and of some Misdemeanors whereof they are informed in the great Ward∣robe, and Court of Wards: Which Charge the House sent unto the Trea∣surer, and required his Answer. 21 Jac.

In eodem Parl. 21 Jac. The Commons at a Conference, accused and impeached by word of Mouth the Bishop of Nor∣wich of some Misdemeanors, which being reported to the House, the said Bishop made a present Answer thereunto, as it was.

In the Parliament 1 Car. 1. Febr. 6. The Commons at a Conference accused and impeached George Duke of Buckingham, of many Misdemeanors, and delivered their Declaration in Writing, that the said Duke might be put to his Answer.

§ 2. The second manner of Accusation is Ex parte Domini Regis,* 1.16 which is threefold.

The two first are immediately from the King, and the third from the Com∣mandment of the Lords, by a formal Information exhibited in Parliament by the King's Attorney, or Council learned, as was that of E. 3. against Roger Mor∣timer Earl of March, and divers others; and 4 R. 2. against Sir Ralph Ferrers, K^t; and 1 Car. 1. against the Earl of Bristol.

By the King's Commandment, either upon the Petition of the Delinquent, and upon the return and view of any the Proceedings taken elsewhere, as against the Earl of Northumberland, and Lord Bar∣dolph, upon former Proceedings against them in the Court of Chancery. And 2 H. 6. upon request of the Commons against Sir John Mortimer, Knight, indi∣cted in London. In these Cases no Arti∣cles are exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis, as in the former.

By Articles exhibited Ex parte Domini Regis, Ex parte Dominorum against such as the Complaint is made upon in gene∣ral by the Commons, prout 1 R. 2. against

Gomeniz, Weston, and Alice Peirce; 7 R. 2. against the Bishop of Norwich, and divers others. Which Articles, though drawn and exhibited Per manda∣tum Dominorum, yet were the Parties charged therewith Ex parte Domini Regis.

Of Accusation by Information Ex parte Domini Regis.

In Rot. claus. 4 E. 3. There is a Procla∣mation of the death of Edmond Earl of Kent,* 1.17 where it is said, certain Letters of his containing Treason, were shewed to the King; wherefore he was Arrested, and freely acknowledged the same before the Earls, Barons, and other Grandees and Nobles of the Realm, in the Parlia∣ment at Winchester, 4 E. 3.

Here appears plainly, that Articles of Treason are exhibited in Parliament against the Earl of Kent.

In the next Parliament in the same year, Edmond, Son and Heir of the said Edmond, exhibited his Petition, praying the King, that the Record and Process whereupon the said Earl was put to death, might be brought before him in Parliament, and if Errors be found, that Right be done. Numb. 11. The which

being read before the King, Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other Grandees in the said Parliament, the King by his Royal Power and Dignity by assent in Parlia∣liament, repealed the said Judgment. Numb. 12.

Note, That in this Repeal no Error was alledged, nor any Exceptions taken for this, that the Lords proceeded upon the Articles only, which were objected against him the said Earl.

This is out of the Close Roll.

The first Precedents recorded in our Parliament Rolls of Accusations in this kind, are these of 4 E. 3. in the Parlia∣ment at Westminster, which are added at large amongst divers others, at the end of this Discourse, the effect whereof doth follow, viz. These are the Treasons, Felonies, and ill Deeds done to our Lord the King, and to his People, by Roger de Mortimer, and others of his Covin, reci∣ting them all, and concludeth thus: Whereas our Lord the King doth charge you the Earls, Barons, and other Peers of this Realm, that for as much as these things touch him principally, and you, and all the People of this Realm, That

you do unto the said Roger right and law∣ful Judgment, as is fit for such an one to have who is very guilty of all the crimes above written, for that he believed the said things are notorious, and known for truth unto you, and to all the People of the Realm, Numb. 1.

The followeth the Judgment against him.

Item, In the said manner our Lord the King charged the said Earls, Barons, and Peeres, to give right and lawful Judg∣ment on Simon de Bereford Knight, who was ayding and counselling unto the said Roger de Mortimer in all treasons and ill deeds, for which the said Roger was so awarded, and done to death, as the thing that is known, and notorious to the said Peers, as the King believeth.

Then followeth the Judgment against him also.

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,* 1.18 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,* 1.19 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.

It begins thus.

Placita Coronae tenta coram Dom. Rege, Ed. 3. post conquestum Angliae in pleno Parliamento suo predicto. Et allocutus de hoc quod cum Dominus, Edwardus nuper Rex Angliae Pater Dom. Regis nunc, in custodiam Thomae & cujusdam Johannis Matrevers extitit deliberatus, ad salvo custodiendum Castro ipsius Thomae de Berk∣ley in Com. Gloucester, & in eodem Castro in custodia ipsorum murderatus extitit, & interfectus, qualiter se velit de morte ipsius Regis acquietare: dicit, &c. Numb. 16.

Then follows his Answer.

Here the cause why the Lord Berkley was tryed is mentioned, but the Articles objected against him, and by whom he was accused, who questioned him, whe∣ther the Chancellor or Steward of Eng∣land, or who else; All these circum∣stances are omitted. It appears not I say in what manner this crime of the Lord Berkley was presented to the Lords, whe∣ther

by the former general Information against Mortimer, & autres de la Covyn, or by some such Particular Information against him alone, which I rather be∣lieve.

Some such Information there must be of necessity, else how could he be questi∣on'd for his crime in Parliament? But here it appeareth that the Lords brought him to his Answer, which they omitted to Mortimer, and in that Point their Proceedings against Mortimer were er∣ronious. And had his manner of Accu∣sation been erronious also, No doubt but the Lords would have avoyded that error now against Berkley.

The manner how Berkley was arraign∣ed here, in pleno Parliamento, is explained in the Precedent of, 1 R. 2. Gomeniz and Weston, who were brought Prisoners by the Constable of the Tower, before the Lords in full Parliament sitting in the white Chamber, where they were ar∣raigned at the commandment of the said Lords in full Parliament, by Sir Richard le Scroop Knight, Steward of the Kings House. The words full Parliament sig∣nify the Lords and Commons. For that Record saith, the Commons prayed that

all such that have surrendred any Forts, &c. might be put to their Answer be∣fore the Lords and Commons, &c. Whereupon they were brought to their Answers in full Parliament for that Offence. So here I conceive the Lord Berkley being accused by the King, for the murder of King E. 2. was brought before the Lords and Com∣mons: For the Commons are to be present at such arraignment as shall be shewn hereafter, and the Clerk of the Crown having read the Accusation against him, Allocutus fuit: That is the Lord Steward of England recited the Fact, whereof he was accused and de∣manded of him how he could acquit himself.

This I conceive to be the manner thereof, Vide the Appeals 21 R. 2. for the form thereof.

I marvel the Lords permitted the Lord Berkley to wave his Peerage, and put himself super Patriam.

Anno 4 R. 2. Sir Ra. Ferrers Knight, was brought into Parliament under the guard of the Marshal of England, and there arraigned on the Kings behalf, for suspition of Treason, &c. Numb. 21. In the Process against him is recorded

that for suspition of Treason surmised against him, he was arrested in the Marches of Scotland, by Monsieur de Lan∣caster, and other Lords Temporal there being in the said Marches, and that he was brought under the said Arrest by commandment of the Lords to Answer in this Parliament, to that which shall be surmised against him, in special con∣cerning certain Letters, which were found and sent to the King and his Coun∣cel. The Letters were also recorded, and read in Parliament, Numb. 17. 18, 19, 20. but the Information exhibited against him, whereupon he was ar∣raigned is not recorded. It is only said, He was arraigned, Ex parte Domini Regis.

§. 3. Here might be two Questions.* 1.20

[ 1] First, Whether was this Sir Ra. Fer∣rers legally brought to his Answer in Parliament by the commandment of the Duke of Lancaster, and those other Lords who were then with him in the Marches of Scotland.

[ 2] Secondly, Whether he being no Baron or Lord of Parliament (for he never had Summons) might be legally

arraigned in Parliament for life and death, upon an Information, Ex parte Dom. Regis, which is contrary to the Law, as was resolved in Parliament, 4 E. 3. Numb. 2. and 6.

For resolutions of these doubts,* 1.21 I am of opinion that the Duke of Lancaster might send Sir Ra. Ferrers to the Par∣liament, because it was then sitting, and might examine the Treason whereof he was suspected, though they could not proceed to Judgment against him, with∣out the Commons, he being a Com∣moner, and not their Peer: And it fell out in the Examination of this business, they found the Letters to be counter∣feited, and so he was acquitted thereof: And so far their proceeding was not ille∣gal. For the Parliament may entertain and examine any Cause, and then direct the Judgment thereof to its own proper Court if it belong not unto them as, they did in, 5 R. 2. Numb. 43. & 44.

Here Sir William Cogan Knight, being accused by Sir Richard Clurdon of matter sounding to Treason.* 1.22 After the Lords had heard the Cause, they remitted both the parties to the Common-Law. And in this Case of Sir Ra. Ferrers (if they had found he had been guilty) they

might have proceeded to Judgment a∣gainst him according to the Precedent of Sir Tho. Mortimer in 2 H. 4. who was indicted in London, and the Indictment returned into the Chancery, and thence brought into the Parliament, where the Commons affirmed the same, and pray∣ed Judgment against him.

Anno 2 H. 4. The Lords Temporal gave Judgment on one Tho. Holland Earl of Kent, John Holland late Earl of Huntington, John Mountague late Earl of Salisbury, the late Lord de Spencer, and Ralph Lumley who were beheaded in a War they had Trayterously raised against the King. This Judgment is entred but not the Information, Ex parte Dom. Regis, which is necessary to be understood, for had it been omitted, his Son Thomas would without doubt have assigned that for one of the errors in his Petition to reverse the said Judg∣ment, 2 H. 5. apud Leicester, which he did not, though he assigned for an Error, That his Father was put to death with∣out an accusation.

In the Parliament begun at Westminster Feb. 6. 1 Car. 1.* 1.23 and continued until June 25. Anno 2. ejusdem Regis, John Earl of Bristol was charged with High

Treason in this manner, viz. Primo die Maii. The said Earl of Bristol being brought to the Bar, and kneeling till the Lord Keeper wished him to stand up; The Lord Keeper told him, he was sent for to hear his Charge of High Treason, And Mr. Attorney General being at the Clerks Table, began to open his Charge, but being interrupted by the said Earl, who with much importunity exhibited Articles against the Duke of Buckingham then present,* 1.24 which as he said he con¦ceived to be Treason, and required of the Lords that his Testimony against the Duke, and the Lord Conway, against whom he then also delivered Articles, might not be made invalid no more then the Charge against himself, which he affirmes was procured by the said Duke: yet notwithstanding the head of the Kings Charge were opened against him by Mr. Attorney, and then the said Ar∣ticles against the said Duke, and against the Lord Conway were read. And it was ordered by the Lords of the Parliament that the Kings Charge against the said Earl, should be first heard, and after∣wards the Earls Charge against the Duke, &c. But yet so, as the Earls Testimony against the said Duke be

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

not prevented, prejudiced, hindred or impeached.

Secundo die Maii. The House was moved that the Earl of Buckingham, might be indicted according to the, Stat. of 35 H. 8. the Treasons committed be∣ing beyond the Seas as was objected, and that being certified to both Houses, they to proceed against him by Tryal of Peers. But their Lordships did not resolve on the manner of proceeding. Then the Houses were moved that Mr. Attorney might provide an Indictment, against the said Earl to be returned to the House on Saturday next, Maii 6. And if he doubt of the Form, to confer there∣of with the Judges. And if any great difficulty, appear to resort to their Lord∣ships and acquaint them with it. And it was ordered that Mr. Attorney pro∣ceed with the preparation, but the Houses not to be concluded at their next meet∣ing on Thursday. And the Sub-Com∣mittee for Priviledges, &c. to search for Precedents in the mean time. Die Jovis Maii 4. The Sub-Committee for Privi∣ledges reported one onely President, viz. the Tryal of the Earl of Northumberland, 5 H. 4. which the Clark read unto them out of the Parliament Roll of that year.

Whereupon after long debate, It was ordered first that Mr. Attorney prepare the heads of the Charge, against the Earl of Bristol, and to bring them in on Saturday next.

Secondly, The Earl then to receive his Charge at the Bar.

Thirdly, That when the Earl hath heard his Charge, the Lords will deter∣mine when he shall Answer, But he is not to be inhibited if he will Answer presently.

Fourthly, The Cause of the Earl of Bristol is to be retained wholly in this House.

After the Earls Charge is brought in and his Answer, then their Lordships to proceed to hear Mr. Attornies proofs amongst themselves, and then to put the Cause into a way of Proceeding in this House.

Die Sabati Maii 6. The Lord Keeper shewed how Mr. Atturney desired that in regard the House, hath already heard the nature of the crimes objected against the said Earl of Bristol.

That the Clark of the Crown in the Kings Bench, may attend the reading of the Charge here according to a Pre∣cedent of former times, which was

denyed in regard the Clark of the Crown in the Kings bench, is no Minister of this Court, And also for that it was ordered May 4. that this Cause was wholly to be retained within this House. The said Order being read, the Earl was brought to the Bar, and the Lord Keeper com∣manded Mr. Attorney to read the Charge against him, who read the same out of a Parchment ingrossed in Court-hand, and signed by himself, Ro. Heath.

It containeth diverse Articles of High Treason, and other great Enormities, Crimes, Offences, and contempts com∣mitted by the said Earl, &c. prout postea. Thus much touching the Charge against the said Earl by Information in the Kings behalf.

A Question was demanded of me and others in private,* 1.25 the last Parliament: Thar seeing by Order of the Lords House May 4. the Earl of Bristols cause should be wholly retained in this House, how that might now be done in respect of the Stat. of 35 H. 8. By which it was enacted, That all Treasons committed beyond the Seas, as this Earls were, shall be tryed in the Kings Bench, or before Commissioners Assigned by the King; And an Order of the upper House can∣not

avoid the Statute. Some were of opinion, that the Earl was first to be indicted before Commissioners, appoint∣ed by the King, and that Indictment being returned into the Parliament to be tryed thereon by his Peers, and vouched that Precedent of 2 H. 6. Of Sir John Mortimers Indictment returned into the Parliament.

But then the Cause cannot be wholly retained in the Parliament, neither can it be inferred out of the Precedent of Sir John Mortimer, that the Parliament can try any of Treason unless he be In∣dicted elsewhere. For then the Parlia∣ment should not have so much power, as hath the Kings Bench and other in∣feriour Courts, wherein Capital Of∣fences may be both enquired of and de∣termined. Neither can Sir John Mor∣timers. Indictment thus returned be a leading Case, for Tryal of Peers in Par∣liament for he was but a Commoner, and therefore not to have been judged by the Lords, unless they had first ac∣cused him, and the Commons did so by Informing the Indictment to be true, before the Lords gave Judgment upon him. But their can be no Precedent shewn, that a Peer of Parliament hath

been tryed in Parliament on an Indict∣ment taken elsewhere.

To resolve this Question two things are Considerable.

First,* 1.26 The Statute of 35 H. 8. Whe∣ther the meaning thereof were to li∣mit the Tryal of a Peer in the time of the Parliament (for Forreign Treasons assigned) taken in the Kings Bench, or before Commissioners Assigned by the King, and not elsewhere. But I con∣ceive the Statute hath no such meaning. The Preamble saith, it was doubted whether such Treasons might by the Common-Law of the Land be enquired into, heard, and determined within this Realm of England. For a plain remedy Order, and Declaration herein to be had and made, Be it enacted, &c. So that if such Treasons have not been hereto∣fore enquirable by the Common-Law, then this Statute provides a Remedy and Order for the same hereafter. But this Statute doth not abridg the Parliament of the power it had to enquire of, and determine such Treasons in time of Par∣liament. Whereof there are diverse Precedents, viz. 1 R. 2. Weston and Gomeniz, 50 E. 3. for William Latimer, and John Nevil, 7 R. 2. for the Bishop

of Norwich, & ibid. Numb. 17. for Cressingham and Shipworth, & ibid. Numb. 24. for Sir William Elsingham, Sir Thomas Trevet, and Sir Henry de Ferrers, all Tryed in Parliament for matters done be∣yond the Seas.

The second thing to be considered is, The Order it self which I conceive to be of force notwithstanding the Statute, of 35 H. 8. for that it is neither directly contrary to the Statute, nor repugnant to the Common-Law, otherwise the Act of one House alone cannot alter a former Statute made by consent of both Houses. And this is to be remembred,* 1.27 that the Proceeding against a Peer in Parliament is not necessary.

But thus it was used to be, viz.

The Peer accused to be brought be∣fore the Lords and Commons, and then the Lord Steward to sit in the Chancel∣lors place, on the Woolsack and the Ar∣ticles to be read against him by the Clark of the Crown, and upon his An∣swer the Lords do determine of their Judgment, which is afterwards pro∣nounced by the same Lord Steward.

A Question might be whether the Com∣mons have used to sit with their Speaker at these Tryals. If they have then the Court of Requests, or some such place may be provided for the purpose. And thus that whole Cause might be retained in Parliament notwithstanding the Stat. of 35 H. 8. Thus much touching the Accusation, ex parte Dom. Regis, exhi∣bited in a formal Accusation by the Kings Atturney.

The Duke of Clarence was arraigned in Parliament, 18 E. 4. upon the like Information, but the Precedent is not in the Parliament Rolls: Therefore I omit it.

§. 4. The second kind of Accusation on the Kings behalf is, ex mandato Dom. Regis, upon the Roll and view of any proceedings elsewhere against the Delin∣quent, or upon his Petition; The Pre∣cedents thereof are these.

Anno 5 H. 4. The Earl of Northum∣berland was Tryed in Parliament, ex mandato Dom. Regis, upon his own Peti∣tion. The Accusation and manner was thus. The said Earl had raised Forces to have joyned with his Son Hotspur,

in Rebellion against the King: Hotspur was slain in the Battel of Shrewsbury, 21 July 4. H. 4. before the said Earl could joyn with him. Whereupon he dismissed his Forces, and retired to Worksworth Castle. The King after the Battel came to York, and sent for the said Earl, and being come pardoned him for his life but abridged him of his Liberty. The next Parliament was summoned the 20 of October to begin at Coventry the 3. of December. And the Earl had his writ of Summons. This Parliament was prorogued till the 23. of November by new Writs (as the man∣ner then was) returnable Crastino Hillarii then following. But the Earl had no new Summons thither.

But thither he comes a Petitioner.

Speed saith he was abridg'd of his liberty, but the Record saith, he came before the King and Lords. And not that he was a Prisoner as Gomeniz, and Weston, 1 R. 2. Nor that he was caused to be brought as a Delinquent, sent for as Alice Peirce, 1 R. 2. But that he came before the King, Lords, and Commons of Parliament. And then the Chancellor

told him that upon Wednesday last past, he had been before the King and Lords, and Commons in the same Parliament; and besought the King as he had done before, at his coming before him at York. That the King would do him grace for his misprisions against him, in not keep∣ing his Laws and Statutes, as by one Petition delivered by him in Parliament written in English, The tenor whereof followeth.

To my most dreadful and Soveraign Leige Lord.

I your humble Subject beseech your High∣ness,* 2.1 to have in remembrance my coming into your Gracious Presence at York, of your free will by your goodly Letters.

The which Petition per Commandment du Roy, was examined by the Justices to have their Counsel and Advice therein.

But the Lords by Protestation made claimed the Judgment, to belong unto them only in such Cases, &c.

And so the Lords Tryed him, and acquited him of Treason and Felony, but found him guilty of a Trespass only

which the King pardoned. Here no In∣formation was exhibited against the said Earl, yet the Kings Counsel opened his Offences to the Lords, else how could they appear.

Anno 7 H. 4. The King commanded the Lords Temporal in Parliament, to advise what manner of Process should be made against Henry late Earl of Nor∣thumberland, and Tho. Bardolph late Lord Baron, for certain ill deeds which they had lately committed contrary to their Allegiance. At their meeting the Con∣stable of England, shewed them the Process made in the Court of Chivalry, against Henry de Peircy upon the Articles of Treason committed by him and others of his Covyn.

In which Articles are named the Arch-Bishop of York: Tho. Newberry Earl Marshal, the said Earl of Northum∣berland, the said Lord Bardolph and many others, and their several Treasons are therein contained. The Lords having advised therein, and considered the proofs delivered their opinion to the King touching the said Earl of Northum∣berland, and the said Lord Bardolph only, and proceeded to Judgment against them. Then the King caused to be

demanded of the Lords Temporal, Peers of the Realm what they would say touching the Act of the said late Arch-Bishop of York, and of the said Earl Marshal, who lately with a great mul∣titude of people were armed, and train∣ed in the field within the Realm of Eng∣land with Banners displayed, &c.

Unto which demand the said Lords Temporal said, That according to the Information to them given by the said Constable. It seemeth unto them to be Treason: yet notwithstanding the Lords desired that with good deliberation, when they next returned to the Parlia∣ment they might speak thereof, unto our Lord the King as no error might be found in their doings in time to come. This was done on that day the Parlia∣ment was adjorned. Here the Lords had no other Accusation against those two Peers but the Kings commandment, upon view of former Process against them in the Court of Chivalry.

And the Lords declared their opinion touching the Archbishop of York, and the Earl Marshal (though their Treasons were contained in the same Process also) least Error might be found in their doings hereafter. But whether they

thought their Error to be, that the King had not commanded them first to advise thereon, touching the said Archbishop, and the Earl Marshal as he had done touching the others. Let the Reader Judge; For my part I think that would have been error: Could the Lords pro∣ceed upon Process elsewhere unless the King commands them?

2 H. 6. The Judgment against John Mortimer, is drawn up very briefly by John Hales one of the Justices of the Kings Bench, wherein he first shews that the said Sir John Mortimer was In∣dicted in London sitting the Parliament before the Lord Mayor of London, and other Commissioners appointed by the King. For that the said Sir John being committed to the Tower, for suspition of Treason, corrupted his keeper and broke Prison: That the said Indictment was returned into Chancery, Ex man∣dato Dom. Regis, and by the Chancery brought into the Parliament before the Duke of Gloucester the Kings Protector, and the Lords Temporal, the King being then an Infant.

And the Protector being Authorized by Commission to hold the Parliament,

de Precepto Dom. Regis. That the said Sir John Mortymer by Vertue of the Writs was brought before the said Duke, and Lords, and Commons. That the said Commons affirmed the said Indictment to be true, and desired Judg∣ment against him, as convict of Trea∣son and Felony.

And lastly, That he was thereupon adjudged. In this is set down all the essential parts of the Lords proceedings against Mortymer. The Ceremonious or formal parts thereof are omitted, as, who complained of or accused Mortymer to the Parliament.

The King or the Commons did not, for then there needed no Indictment: And therefore it must move for the King either before the Indictment, or rather upon the Return thereof unto the House. For had the Accusation been before the Indictment, it had been a shorter way to Arraign him also before the Com∣missioners in London, (he being no Member nor Peer of Parliament) then to return the Indictment into the Chan∣cery, and then be brought into the Par∣liament.

Here is also omitted the Conference before hand, between the Lords and Commons touching this matter: For it is very unlikely that the Lords did sud∣dainly send for the Commons, and then abruptly read the Information before them, and they as suddainly affirm the same, all these are necessarily under∣stood. That the Commons affirmed the Indictment, &e.

It appears that the Lords cannot of themselves Judge a Common Person, for an Offence for he is no Peer accord∣ing to that of, 4 E. 3. Numb. 26.

The manner of Accusation by Infor∣mation, Ex parte Dom. Regis, is when the Commons as any other private Per∣son accuse any man unto the Lords in general, but do not declare the Offences in particular, other then by the Com∣mandment of the King. Articles are drawn up against the Delinquent, Ex parte Dom. Regis.

The Precedents are these.

2 R. 2. The Constable of the Tower, was commanded to bring Gomeniz and Weston, (whose Offences were com∣plained of in general by the Commons

that they named) before the Lords in Parliament, to Answer to the Articles objected against them on the behalf of the King, and they were severally ar∣rained▪ at the Commandment of the Lords, &c.

Eodem anno, Alice Pierce being com∣plained of by the Commons was ac∣cused, and commanded to come before the Lords in Parliament, to Answer to certain things objected against her on the Kings behalf.

And here upon Sir Richard le Scroope, Chief Steward of the Kings House by Comandment of the Lords, rehersed in Parliment in the presence of the said Alice, a certain Ordinance, &c. Made in the Parliament of 50 E. 3. against her.

And this Rehersal being made, the said Steward surmised unto the said Alice. That it seemed to the Lords of the Parliament that she had incurred the pain comprised in the said Ordinance in certain points, and especially in two, That is to say, &c.

By these two Precedents it appears plain enough that the Lords commanded the Articles to be drawn, and exhibited though ex parte Dom. Regis, for all these

are said to be done by their Command∣ment, And the practise at this day is, that out of the Complaints of the Com∣mons, as of Mompesson, The Lord Chan∣cellor, and the Lord Tresurer, and a Committee of the Lords did draw up the Charges. But they wanted the words Ex parte Dom. Regis.

The reason why in this Cause the Articles are, Ex parte Dom. Regis, seemed to be this:

The Commons complain but impeach not, Notwithstanding the Impeachment the Lords cannot proceed neither can they Impeach any to themselves:* 2.2 So it rests that the party is to be Impeached at the Kings Suit.

It may be lawful for me to examine the proceedings of the Lords in the Complaint against Mompesson, and to compare them with ancient Proceedings in like Cases, And they will appear to differ much.

And touching Mompesson the Com∣mons did not only complain but accuse him: He fled, in his absence they ought to have proceeded to Judgment against him, before Proclamation first made for

him to appear before the King, and then at a day, the ancient use in such Cases was this.

The Lords considered of the Com∣plaint, and examined the Proofs produ∣ced by the Commons: Then agreed on their Judgment and caused Proclama∣tion to be made throughout England for the party to appear at a day, else Judg∣ment shall be pronounced against him, with which the Commons are to be ac∣qnainted before the Proclamations are sent for. Then the Return of the Pro∣clamations to be reviewed and examin∣ed, and if any Errors be therein, new Proclamations are to be made in the next Shire only for the party to appear at a short day: If they find no Errors in the Return, then Judgment is to be pro∣nounced and not before. Thus it was in 21 R. 2. in Thomas Mortymors Case, &c. In 7 H. 4. in the Earl of Northum∣berlands Case. But there needed no Ar∣ticles to be drawn up, Ex parte Dom. Regis, out of the Impeachment of the Commons for the Suit is theirs and not the Kings.

Touching the Lord Treasurer, First the Commons did swerve from the An∣cient Course in this, they delivered not

their Accusation in writing (he being absent;) Had it been in the open House, an Impeachment by word of mouth had been sufficient, and the Suit had been theirs: but it being at a Commit∣tee, how could the Lord Treasurer take notice of their Impeachment? where∣fore the Lords of necessity did draw up a Charge against him out of their Ac∣cusation, and then it became the Kings Suit, and they were abridged of their power to reply, or demand Judgment, Prout in Weston & Gomeniz, Case 1. R. 2.

And Alice Peirce, ibid. Neither was it now necessary for the Commons to be acquainted with the Delinquent's An∣swer, or any of the Proceedings, for that they neither demanded he might be put to his Answer before the Lords and them, nor impeached by word in open House, nor in Writing, One of which is required in an Impeachment.

And the Lords they varied in this, that they did mingle other Complaints with these of the Commons, when each should have been apart of it self, prout 43 E. 3. Sir Joh. at Lees Case. Neither did the Lords anciently use to omit any part of the Commons Complaint and

Accusation, as they did the Imposition on the French-Wines: And the Articles of the Charge they sent to the Lord Treasurer ought to have been examined ex parte Domini Regis prout in the for∣mer Precedents of 1 R. 2. The next Precedent is 7 R. 2. upon the Demand of the Commons against the Bishop of Norwich and others.

§. 5. Of Accusation by Complaint of pri∣vate Persons.

I do not remember any Precedent of this manner of Accusation for publick Offences unless the Parties Complainant be particularly interessed therein; yet I doubt not but such Complaints have been, and may be received, and the Parties proceeded against in Parliament, or else that High Court should not have so much Authority to receive Informa∣tion pro Domino Rege from private per∣sons, as the Inferiour Courts have: But what hath been done shall appear; I will omit all Complaints of particular wrongs, evcept it be of Bribery, Ex∣tortion or Oppression, in Men of Autho∣rity.

Anno 43. E. 3. William Latimer exhi∣bited

his Petition in Parliament unto our Lord the King, and to his Council, shew∣ing that he had the Wardship and Mar∣riage of the Heir of Robert Latymer, by mean Grant from the King, and held the same until Monsieur John at Lee, then Steward of the King's House, sent a Serjeant at Arms to bring them to Lon∣don, and commanded him, being come, not to depart without his leave,* 2.3 upon payment of 1000 l. and afterwards would not give him leave to depart un∣til he had surrendred the Body of the said Heir, and the King's Patent unto him the said Monsieur John at Lee; and thereupon the said John was put to rea∣son before the Lords, &c. no. 20, 21. and also the said John was put to reason be∣fore them for this; When he was Stew∣ard of the King's House, he caused di∣vers to be attached by their Bodies, some by Serjeants at Arms, and some otherwise, as W. Latymer and others to be brought before the King's Council, &c. n. 22. and also for executing the Authority of Steward out of the Verge, n. 23. and also for discharging out of Newgate, by his own Authority, and against the Judges Commandment, Hugh Levenham, an* 2.4 Approver, who

had appealed several men of Felonies, &c. n. 24. and also, that he being sworn by the King's Councel, did bar∣gain with Nicholas Levayn for the Man∣nor of Cainham in Kent, which the faid Nicholas claimed to hold during the Mi∣nority of John Staynton, whereas the said John at Lee knew the same was ne∣ver holden of the King in Chief of the Castle of Dover, n. 25.

These be the Particulars wherewith the said John at Lee was Charged. It appeareth W. Latymer accused him at the first, but not the rest; and I imagine that the Commons accused him of the Second and other Particulars, for that they are said somewhat generally, and are offences against the Liberties of the Commons; and also for that divers of the Commons were present at the hear∣ing; And for the Fourth and Fifth Par∣ticulars, I conceive the King's Councel accused him thereof, for that one is an Offence against the legal Proceedings of Justice, which then was that of the Ap∣prover, viz. He which accuseth any one of Felony, &c. should remain in Prison as well as the accused until Trial. Of later times the Accuser puts in Sureties to prose∣cute; and the other Offence is a parti∣ticular

wrong done unto the King in his Revenues: And had any private per∣son accused him of this, their Petitions would have been recorded as well as La∣tymer's: But the Lords proceeded against him upon Latimer's Accusation, and then upon the rest severally, and they did not mingle one with another.

Anno 50 E. 3. The Commons accused and impeached W. Ellis, n. 31. and after∣wards John Botheil and W. Cooper exhi∣bited their Bills against him, to this ef∣fect;

To their Thrice Redoubted King, and to his Sage Councel, sheweth John Botheil of London, That the Monday next after the Ascention, in the Fortieth Year of our Lord the King, that now is, a Ship of Scotland in Pruse, was chased by Tempest into Likebread (whereof the Master's Name is Henry Luce) Charged with divers Mer∣chandizes, &c. and that the same day one William Savage, Clerk, and Servant to William Ellis, by Command of the said William, took of the said Ship for the Merchandizes not discharged there, 17 Nobles and a Last of, &c. and because that W. Ellis knew that W. Cooper was to

come to the Parliament, and shew these and other Grievances in aid of the Merchants, and also to shew how the great Prices of Herrings might be amended in aid of the whole Realm, the said W. Ellis, by false suggestion, caused the said W. Cooper to be Arrested and put in Prison in the Tower for three Weeks.

May it please you, &c.

Here I observe that the Accusation of a private person ought to be legal and certain, as that was.

This Accusation consists of two parts; The unjust taking of 17 Nobles, &c. from the Merchant of Pruse, and the Impri∣sonment of the Petitioner by false sug∣gestion to the King.

Upon hearing of the Matter, the Lords Ordered, That as for the Complaint tovching the 17 Nobles, it should be sent to the Kings-Bench to be tried there; but the Lords themselves determined the Imprisonment upon the false suggestion to the King, and awarded Ellis to prison, to pay Fine and Ransom to the King, and Dammages to the Accusers.

The Lords received the latter part of this Complaint for two Causes; The

one, for the false Suggestion to the King, limited by the Statute of 31 E. 3. to be punished by the Chancellor, L. Treasurer, and the Councel if he be untrue; all which were present in the Parliament.

The other, For a Scruple which might arise out of the Words of the Statute, which provides for false Suggestions on∣ly to the King himself. Whereas Ellis his false Suggestion was by a Letter written to one of the Kings Servants, which being shewed to the King, his Majesty caused the Petitioner to be imprisoned. And this the Lords expounded to be in Ellis a Suggestion unto the King himself. And had this Point been truly triable at the Common Law, the Lords had referred it thither: This is but my own Conceipt.

Anno 5 R. 2. Numb. 4. Richard Cleve∣don Esquire, by his Bill exhibited to the King in Parliament, accuseth Sir William Cogan Knight.

Anno 5 R. 2. Numb. 45. The Mayor, Bayliffs and Commonalty of Cambridge were accused, &c.

The next of this kind is a very slan∣derous Accusation of the Chancellor, which I will briefly declare, and the

whole proceedings therein, for that it differs in some points from the rest.

The Parliament of 7 R. 2. at Salisbury began the Friday after the Feast of St. Mark the Evangelist, April 29. On the 24th-of May next,* 2.5 John Cavendish Fish∣monger, complained in this Parlia∣ment:

First, Before the Commons of England in that Assembly, in presence of some Prelates and Temporal Lords, and af∣terwards before all the Prelates and Temporal Lords in full Parliament.

In the beginning of this Complaint, he desired the Lords (for God's sake) to grant sure and speedy protection for the safety of his Life, and that he might have sufficient Surety of the Peace against those of whom he would complain; and especially he demanded Surety of Monsieur Michael de la Poole, Chancellor of England; and according∣ly the Chancellor did (at the Command∣ment of the King) find Sureties, viz. Two Earls, &c. Then the Fishmonger rehearsed, how that all the last Parlia∣ment which was held at Westminster, at Allhallontide in the same year, he did sue by his Bill to have restitution of certain Merchandizes of great value,

(from Geo. Mansfield and three others) which was lost upon the Seas by them at such time as they had undertaken the Safeguard of the Seas, and of the Merchandizes passing and coming in the mean time, against all Enemies ex∣cept Royal Power. The which was en∣dorsed, saith he, and committed to the Chancery, to discuss and determine the Matters therein comprized, according to Law and Reason. Whereupon he dealt with one John Otrey, a Clerk, and Houshold-Servant to the said Chancellor, for his Master's Favour and Furtherance in the Business. The Clerk, after he had viewed a Copy of the Bill, and considered of the Business, promised, that for Forty Pounds to his Lord's use, and Four Pounds to his own use, he should have speed: That he gave his Bond for 44 l. to be paid at a Day to come, and afterwards delivcred unto the said Otrey certain Herrings and Sturgeon, to the value of 9 or 10 Marks, to the use of the said Chancellor in part, and three yards of Scarlet, which cost him 32 s. unto Otrey, for his own use, in part of the said 4 l. Notwithstand∣ing all which, he found no Favour from the Chancellor in his Suit, but was de∣laied,

and still is, and cannot have Ju∣stice therefore.

That the said Otrey told him, that he could have had more Money of his Ad∣versaries to have been against him; which made him suspect the worst. But, said he, whether the Chancellor shall be reputed privy to this, God knoweth; judge you My Lords; for the Chancellor hath paid him for his Herrings and o∣ther Fish, and sent him his Bond can∣celled; but whether he did it out of Conscience, or to avoid Slander and Re∣proach, he knew not; Judge you, My Lords: but he was not paid for his three yards of Scarlet.

Unto this the Chancellor made his An∣swer,* 2.6 not presently, but at another time; for the Record saith, He Answered first before the Prelates and Lords, and af∣terwards before the Lords and Com∣mons; whereas the Commons were present when the Complaint was made, it being in pleno Parliamento.

And in the Judges Award, to whom this Matter was afterwards referred, it is said to be coram Magnatibus & Commu∣nitat' in Parliamento. So that the Answer was made some other way.

First, He protested his Innocency touching the Delay of Justice, and shewed how the Delay was through the Difficulty of the Cause, and vouch∣ed the Justices and the Serjeants, who had often heard the Pleadings.

Touching the Bribery, he swore by the Sacrament he had no knowledge thereof, until upon Accompt with his Officers, he found those Fishes not paid for; and then he presently caused them to be paid for, and the Bond cancel∣led, and sent him. He denied that his Clerk moved him in that Business; all which he offered to prove in such man∣ner as the King and the Lords should or∣dain, and demanded Justice against the Fishmonger for the Slander. Unto which the Fishmonger presently answered, and said, He did not accuse the Chancellor him∣self, but his Clerk only. The Lords examined the Fishmonger and the Clerk about the Bond, and his Adversaries on their Allegiance, whether they had giv∣en any thing, or promised to give? And finding tde Chancellor free from Bribery,* 2.7 the Lords acquitted him of his Accusa∣tion aforesaid; then at the Chancellor's Request, the Fishmonger was committed until he found Sureties to appear de die in

diem before the Lords, and before any Judges who should be assigned. The Lords committed the Clerk also; and af∣terwards the Parliament growing to an end, the Complaint was referred whol∣ly to the Judges to hear and determine the same, as well for the King, as for the Parties. Auxi avant come les Peres de Parliamento, might have done, if the Plaint had been fully treated in their presence, and in the Parliament.

The Proceedings before the Judges were in a Schedule, annexed to the Parliament-Roll, and were thus;

A Commission was granted in Parli∣ament unto Tressilian, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and Bellknap, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, to hear and determine.

They met at Westminster June 19. and were assisted by the Lord Treasurer, Lord Keeper, Lord Privy Seal, the Master of the Rolls, and the King's two Serjeants, &c. and they called the Fishmonger be∣fore them, and cause to be recited the said Accusation, and the Chancellor's An∣swer; and then demanded of him what he could say why he should not undergo

the Penalty of the Statute against such Scandals, especially whenas the Chancel∣lor hath acquitted himself in Parliament, and is yet ready to acquit himself by any way possible?

The Fishmonger denied that he slan∣dered the Chacellor, but the Clerk only, &c.

The Commissioners considering the Accusation and Answer in Parliament, and especially that the Fishmonger said he could not have Justice in his Cause before the Chancellor, the contrary whereof was expressed and proved out of the Records of the Chancery,* 2.8 They adjudged him guilty of Defamation, and to pay one hundred Marks to the Chancellor, and to be imprisoned until he could pay the same, and a competent Fine due to the King.

It should seem the Lords could find no time to examine the Injustice he com∣plained of, and therefore referred it to the Judges. Anno 6. R. 2. Octab. Mich. Numb. 59. Divers Bills were exhibited this Parliament by the Mayor, Alder∣men and Citizens of London, concern∣ing the Fishmongers, and the said Mayor, and Aldermen, and Fishmongers were present at the reading thereof; where Nicholas Exton, who spake for the Fish∣mongers

prayed the King to receive him and his Company into his Majesties pro∣tection, Numb. 59. which was granted, Numb. 60. Then one Walter Sybil, a Fishmonger, craved Audience, and said, These Bills were not exhibited for any good zeal to the Commonweal, but for meer Malice to the Fishmongers, for that the chief Exhibiters of these Bills being commanded to prison for sundry Mis∣demeanors in the time of E. 3. were then imprisoned by certain of the Fishmon∣gers, who then were chief Officers in London, for which cause Malice was born at that time, Numb. 60.

To that, one John Moore a Mercer an∣swered, The Citizens of London went to keep the Peace towards them, unless they went about to let into the said Ci∣ty the Rebels of Kent and Essex, as the said Walter, and others did. Numb. 60.

The said Walter Sybill took advantage of those words, and desired the Lords to bear witness.

John Moore thereupon expounded his words, saying (as the Report then went) and prayed the Lords that the Truth thereof might be further enquired of in the City.

There is one only Precedent of a Com∣plaint

made by a private person in the House of Commons, and of the Com∣mons proceeding therein, against a Lord of the Parliament; which was thus:

Anno 15. H. 6. Tho. Philips exhibited unto the Commons his Bill of Complaint against John Bishop of London, for his long Imprisonment upon suspition of Heresie.

The Commons sent up the Bill, being written in Paper, amongst other, to the Lords, without any Message, for ought appeareth upon Record. On Mon∣day following the Bill was read, and the Lords Excogitabant, That it did not belong to their House de talibus frivolis rebus consultare, and returned it to the Commons.

Hereupon the Commons sent—to the Bishop for his Answer in writing unto this Complaint; which yet the Bishop did forbear to do, until he knew the Opinion of the Lords herein, and acquainted their Lordships therewith. The next day the Lords answered all with one voyce, Quod non consentaneum fuit aliquem Procerum alicui in eo loco re∣sponsurum, Lunae 2. Martii. In the Par∣liament begun at Westminster, An. 16. Jac. Sir John Bowser Knight, complained

of the Bishop of Lincoln,* 2.9 the then Lord Keeper; but he was not compellable to answer before the Commons.

10 R. 2. The Commons accused de la Poole openly in Parliament before the King and Lords; unto which the Coun∣cellors made a good Answer (in the O∣pinion of this Age) yet upon the many Replications of the Commons, and the enforcement of his Oath strictly against him, he was Fined and Imprisoned, &c. In this Parliament also the Lords and Commons procured Commission unto certain of the Lords to enquire of the Enormities of the Realm, and to re∣dress them.

The King was so highly displeased with these Proceedings, that on the last day of this Parliament, being the 25th. of November, he himself protested that nothing done therein should turn to the Prejudice of him or his Crown. After∣wards he sought all means to overthrow those Lords who procured that Com∣mission, viz. the Duke of Gloucester, the Earls of Danby, Arundel, Warwick, and Earl Marshal. And at a Consultation thereupon, he sent for the Chief Ju∣stice Tressilian, and some other Judges, and his Serjeants at Law unto Notting∣ham,

where, on August 25. Anno 11. he propounded certain Questions contain∣ing all the points of Advantage against the Proceedings of the last Parliament, which the Judges affirmed to be Treason under their Hands and Seals. Then the King thought to proceed judicially against those Lords, but they kept to∣gether with the Duke of Gloucester, at Heringby with a strong Guard: And the King sent for them, and all doubts of danger to their Persons, being first removed,* 2.10 they came Novemb. 3. Anno 11. and kneeling before the King's Ma∣jesty, he demanded why they were As∣sembled at Heringby-Park in warlike manner? They answered, for the good of the King and Kingdom, and to re∣move certain Traytors from about him, meaning the Lord of Ireland, the Arch∣bishop of York, Michael de la Poole, Sir Robert Tresilian, and Sir Nich. Brembre. And with that they threw down their Gloves and Gages of the Challenging to prove the same. Unto which the King replied, This shall not be done so; but at the next Parliament, which shall be the Morrow after Candlemas Day, and then all parties shall receive according as they deserve.

In the mean time he conveys away the parties accused, and acquits them by Proclamation; then summoned a Parliament at Westminster, Crast. Purifi∣cat. 11 R. 2.

Where these few Lords Appellants came well Armed, which made the King unwilling to come amongst them; yet at last he came. Haec ex Ep. fol. 603.

On the first Day of this Parliament, the Duke of Gloucester (one of the said Appellants) kneeling before the King, shewed, That whereas he understood his Majesty was informed, that he in∣tended the Deposing of him, and Ad∣vancing himself to the Crown, he was ready to declare his Innocency herein, in such sort as the Lords would ordain. Whereupon the King answered, He held him thereof acquitted.

On the second Day of this Parlia∣ment, the said Appellants exhibited their Petition to the King concerning several Articles against divers Lords and Commons, whom they appealed of Treason. The said Articles being read in presence of the King and Lords in Parliament, the said Appellants offer∣ing to make Proofs thereof, required

that the said Appellees might be called to Answer; and for default of their Appearance, demanded Judgment a∣gainst them. Hereupon the King and Lords deliberated. The Judges of the Common Law, and the Sages of the Civil Law were charged by the King to give their best Counsel to the Lords of the Parliament how to proceed in their Appeal rightly. Who, after long Con∣sultation, answered the Lords, That the Appeal is in no point made and decla∣red according to the Order of the Common or Civil Law.

The Lords after long Debate, decla∣red by the Assent of the King, that the Offences being committed by the Peers, the Cause should be determined in Parliament only, and that by the Law and Order of Parliament only, and adjudged the said Appeal with the Pro∣cess thereon depending, to be good, ac∣cording to the Laws and Course of Parliaments.

And the Default of Appearance was Recorded, and Judgment given, &c. a∣gainst those who made their default.

After which Sir Nicholas Brembre, a Commoner, was brought Prisoner be∣fore the King and the Lords at the re∣quest

of the said Appellants: And the said Articles being read, he pleaded Not Guilty; which he was ready to de∣fend with his Body. Whereupon, the Commons of the Parliament said, that they had seen and considered all the said Articles, which they found to be true, and that they likewise as much as in them lay, did also accuse the said Ap∣pellees, which they would have done, and it appertained to them to have done, had not the aforesaid Appellants pursued the said Appeals. Whereupon was an∣swered by the Lords of Parliament, That the Battel doth not lie in this Case; but that they upon examination of the Articles, would proceed to Judg∣ment.

Here I note,* 2.11 That the Lords cannot proceed against a Commoner, but upon a Complaint of the Commons: But here is not expressed how the Com∣mons came daily to have a sight of these Articles. I deny not, but after they were read in their presence, (for their presence is always understood in Judi∣cature upon Life and Death prout postea) they demanded a sight of the Articles, and considered of them apart, and then supplied the Defects thereof. And this

also is to be observed, that the Com∣mons accuse Commoners, as the Lords do their own Peers. I suppse that Bram∣bre was denied the Battel, because the Commons accused him also; otherwise he ought to have it granted upon an Ap∣peal.

Afterwards the Commons themselves accused and impeached divers Common∣ers, prout 2 Mar. Sir Rob. Belknap, L. Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir John Carey, late Chief Baron, and other Ju∣stices, &c. The Records were brought into the Parliament, at the Demand of the Commons, and the Commons accu∣sed the Justices for their untrue Answer made unto sundry Questions before the King at Nottingham, to the emboldning of the aforesaid Offenders in their trai∣terous Designs and Attempts, &c. Unto which they answered, &c. were adjudg∣ed, &c.

And then follows another Impeachment of the Commons; thus:

The Accusements and Impeachments made by the Commons of the Realm, against Simon de Burle, Sir John Beau∣champ, Sir John Salisbury, and Sir James

Berners, Knights, do ensue underwrit∣ten, whereof the Commons pray Judg∣ment in this present Parliament.

Thus much touching the Appeal of 11 R. 2. But this begot another Ap∣peal in the 21th. of the said K. R. 2. in the Parliament begun Sept. 14. being the Feast of St. Oswald.

Edmond Earl of Rutland, Tho. Earl of Kent, John Earl of Hunt. Tho. Earl of Nottingh. Joh. Earl of Somerset, Jo. Earl of Salisbury, the Lord Despencer, and William Scroop Chancellor unto our Lord the King, in their proper persons delivered unto our Lord the King, then sitting in the great Hall within the Ca∣stle at Nottingh. in his Royal Estate, with a Crown on his Head, a Bill of Appeal against Tho. Duke of Gloucester, Richard Earl of Arundel, and Tho. Earl of Warwick. The which Bill of Appeal is recited in that Parliament, and as it seems per Copiam verborum inde, was pen∣ned by the Advice of some Civil Law∣yer. It seems also they were very care∣ful herein to avoid all Errors of the for∣mer Appeals.

For in that of 11 R. 2. they appealed divers Commoners, but here the Lords appealed none but Peers; then it was

done by word of mouth, they being cal∣led to the King upon some other occa∣sion, but now it was done solemnly in writing, and was delivered to the King sitting in his Throne of State. There they offer'd to prove their Accusation by Battel (a thing not meet for the Parlia∣ment) or in what course his Majesty would ordain it; but here the Bill was read in Parliament, and they said, they have been, and are ready to prove, &c. as you our thrice Redoubted King, and this Honourable Court of Parliament should ordain. Nor were they less care∣ful in their proceeding to Judgment, to avoid the Errors in the former, prout in the Answer. But these Appeals are now abolished by 1 H. 4. c. 14. and not with∣out cause; for as this Accusation was extraordinary, so were the Proceedings carried with a strong hand; the former by the Lords, this by the King prout ex Chroniculis in quinto comparet cum Codice 1 Maij, A Brief whereof, so much as concerns this Appeal, follows hereafter at large, with the Precedents of 21 R. 2. Ad quod Parliamentum convenire jussit Rex omnes Dominos sibi adhaerentes, cum Sagit∣tariis & viris armatis, tanquam ad bellum, & contra hostes omnino progressuri fuissent.

Ipse vero Rex ut efficacius proficere possit, nequam conceptus malefactores de Comit' Cestr' congregari fecit ad velandum locum stramine, &c. Erexerat autem Rex quan∣dam domum amplissimam in Palatio West∣monaster' quae pene totum Palatii spatium occupavit; in qua sibi Thronus parabatur altissimus, & pro cunctis Regni Statibus locus largus; & pro Appellantibus, in uno latere locus specialiter deputatus, & in alio latere locus largus pro Responsu assignatus; seorsim vero pro Nobilitatibus Parliamenti, & qui non fuerunt electi per Communita∣tem. Et Forale nuncupatur Parliamentum. Thus much of Accusation by Appeal, (which when any of the Lords accused others out of Parliament) was summon∣ed;* 2.12 but God be thanked, they are abo∣lished, 1 H. 4. c. 14.

Notes

• * 1.1

  In whnt Cases, &c.
• * 1.2

  Of Judg∣ments on Delin∣quents.
• * 1.3

  Four man∣ner of Ac∣cusations in Parlia∣ment.
• * 1.4

  Complaints by Peti∣tions.
• * 1.5

  Petition.
• * 1.6

  Respons.
• * 1.7

  Answer.
• * 1.8

  Answer.
• * 1.9

  Impeach∣ments of the Com∣mons.
• * 1.10

  Observe.
• * 1.11

  Observe.
• * 1.12

  Mortymer and Cob∣ham.
• * 1.13

  William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk, impeached.
• * 1.14

  General Fame.
• * 1.15

  Lord Visc. St. Alban, Chancellor, accused, who was Sir Francis Bacon.
• * 1.16

  Accusation Ex parte Domini Regis.
• * 1.17

  Of Accu∣sation by Informa∣tion Ex parte Do∣mini Re∣gis.
• * 1.18

  The Judg∣ment, de∣fective in all points.
• * 1.19

  The Lord Berkley arraigned waved his Peerage.
• * 1.20

  Quest.
• * 1.21

  Resolv.
• * 1.22

  Observ.
• * 1.23

  The Earl of Bristol charged with Trea∣son.
• * 1.24

  Articles against the Duke of Bucking∣ham.
• * 1.25

  Quest.
• * 1.26

  Resolve. 1.
• * 1.27

  Observ.
• * 2.1

  A Petition.
• * 2.2

  The Lords cannot im∣peach any to them∣selves.
• * 2.3

  A great Oppressi∣on.
• * 2.4

  Prom••o∣ter.
• * 2.5

  The Fish∣monger contra L. Chancellor.
• * 2.6

  The Chan∣cellors Answer.
• * 2.7

  The Chan∣cellor ac∣quitted.
• * 2.8

  The Fish∣monger guilty of the Defa∣mation.
• * 2.9

  Bish. Wil∣liams Lord Keeper.
• * 2.10

  The Hi∣story of the Appeal of 11 R. 2.
• * 2.11

  The Lords cannot pro∣ceed against a Commoner but upon complaint of the Com∣mons.
• * 2.12

  Appeals a∣bolished per Stat. 1 H. 4. c. 14.