INprimis, that the said Sir Robert Berk­ley, then being one of the Justices of the said Court of Kings Bench, hath traite­rously, and wickedly, endevoured to subvert the fundamentall Lawes, and established government of the Realme of England; and, instead thereof, to in­troduce an Arbitrarie, and Tyrannicall government a­gainst Law, which he hath declared by traiterous and wic­ked words, opinions, judgements, practises, and actions ap­pearing in the severall Articles ensuing.

2 Whereas by the Statute made in the five & twentieth year of the raigne of the late King Henry the eighth, prices of Victualls are appointed to be rated in such manner, as in the said Statute is declared: But it is manifest by the said Statute, Corne is none of the victuals thereby intended. Neverthelesse some ill-affected persons endevouring to bring a charge upon the subjects contrary to Law, did sur­mise that the prices of Corne might be rated, and set ac­cording to the direction of that Statute, and thereupon great gaine might be raised to his Majestie, by licences and dispensations for selling Corne at other prices: And a com­mand from his Majestie being procured to the Judges, and sent to them by William Noye Esquire, his Majesties then [Page 2] Attorney generall; to deliver their opinions touching the question, whether Corne was such victuals as was intended to have the price rated within the said Statute: In answer to which demand, the said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of his Majesties Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, in fur­therance of the said unlawfull charge, endevoured to be imposed, as aforesaid, the 30. day of November, in the 8. year of his now Majesties Raigne, did deliver his opinion, that Corne was such victuall as was intended to have the price rated within the said Statute; which said opinion was con­trary to Law, and to the plaine sence, and meaning of the said Statute; and contrary to his owne knowledge, and was given and delivered by him, with a purpose and inten­tion, that the said unlawfull charge might be imposed upon the Subject.

3 That an information being preferred in the Court of Star-chamber by they said William Noy, his Majesties then Attorney generall, against John Overman, and fifteen other Soape makers Defendants, charging them with severall pre­tended offences, contrary to divers Letters Patents and Proclamations, touching the making and uttering Soape, and using the trade of Soape-makers, and other offences in the said Information mentioned, whereunto the Defen­dants did plead, and demurre as to part, and answer to other part of the said Information: And the said Plea and demurter being over-ruled, for that the particulars therein insisted upon, would appeare more fully after answer and proofe; therefore the Defendants were ordered to answer without prejudice, and were to be admitted to such excep­tions to the said Information, and advantages of the mat­ter of the Plea and demurrer upon the hearing as shall be materiall; and accordingly the Defendants did put in their answers, and set forth severall Acts of Parliament, Letters Patents, Charters, Customes, and Acts of Common-councell of the Citie of London, and other matters mate­rially conducing to their defence; and in conclusion pleaded [Page 3] not guiltie. The said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, upon the 30. day of March, in the eighth yeare of his Majesties now raigne, upon an Order of Reference to him and others by the said Court of Star-chamber, to consider of the impertinencie of the said answers, did certifie the said Court of Star-chamber, that the whole answers, excepting the foure words and ten last lines, should bee expunged, leaving thereby no more in substance of the said answers, then the Plea of not guiltie. And after upon a Reference to him and others, by order of the said Court, of the impertinen­cie of the Interrogatories and depositions of witnesses ta­ken on the Defendants part; in the same case the said Sir Robert Berkley, upon the second day of May, in the eighth yeare of his now Majesties raigne, certified that nine and thirtie of the said Interrogatories, and the depositions upon them taken, should be suppressed, with answers (except as aforesaid) and depositions, although the same did con­taine the said Defendants most materiall defence. Yet were expounged and suppressed according to the said Cer­tificates; both which said Certificates were contrary to Law, and Justice, and contrary to his the said Sir Robert Berkley's owne knowledge, and contrary to the said former order, whereby the advantages were saved to the Defen­dants, as aforesaid: And by reason thereof, the said John Overman, and the said other fifteene Defendants, were sen­tenced in the said Court of Star-chamber, to be commit­ted prisoners to the Fleete, and disabled from using their trade of Soape-makers: And one of them fined in a thou­sand five hundred pounds; two of them in a thousand pound a peece; foure of them in a thousand Marke a peece; the rest five hundred pounds a peece; which fines were estrea­ted into the Exchequer without any mitigation: And the said Defendants according to the said sentence were im­prisoned, and deprived of their trade and livelihood, tending to the utter ruine of the said Defendants, and to the over­throw [Page 4] of free trade, and contrary to the libertie of Subjects.

4 That hee the said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, and having taken an oath for the due administration of Justice, according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme, to his Majesties liege people, on or about the last of December subscribed an opinion, in haec verba: [I am of opinion, that as where the benefit doth more par­ticularly redound to the good of the Ports, or Maritime parts, (as in case of Pyracie or Depredations upon the Seas) there the charge hath beene, and may be lawfully imposed upon them, according to presidents of former times; so where the good and safety of the kingdome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in danger, (of which his Majestie is the onely Judge) there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the Realme in generall: this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason.]

5 That he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, and duly sworne as aforesaid, in February 1636. subscribed an extrajudiciall opinion, in answer to questions in a letter from his Ma­jestie, in haec verba:

‘ Charles R. When the good and safetie of the king­dome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in danger, whether may not the King, by writ under the great Seale of England, command all the Subjects of this kingdome, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, Victuall and Munition; and for such time, as hee shall thinke fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome, from such danger and perill; and by Law compell the doing thereof in case of refusall, or refractorinesse? And whether in such case is not the King the sole Judge, both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to bee prevented and avoided? C. R.’

‘May it please your most excellent Majestie, We have, [Page 5] according to your Majesties command, severally every man by himselfe, and all of us together, taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your Ma­jestie, and inclosed in your Royall letter; and we are of opinion, that when the good and safetie of the kingdome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in dan­ger, your Majestie may, by writ under the great Seale of England, command all your Subjects of this your king­dome, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, Victuall and Munition; and for such time as your Majestie shall thinke fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome, from such danger and pe­rill; And that by Law your Majestie may compell the doing thereof in case of refusall, or refractorinesse: And we are also of opinion that in such case, your Majestie is the sole Judge both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to bee prevented and avoided. John Brampston, John Finch, Humphrey Davenport, John Den­ham, Richard Hutton, William Jones, George Crooke, Thomas Trevor, George Vernon, Robert Berkley, Francis Crawley, Richard Weston.’

6 That he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, and duely sworne as aforesaid, did on the [...] deliver his opinion in the Exchequer Chamber, against John Hampden Esquire in the Case of Ship-money, That he the said John Hampden upon the matter and substance of the Case, was chargeable with the money then in question: A copie of which proceeding, and judgement, the Commons of this present Parliament have delivered to your Lordships.

7 That he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, and one of the Justices of Assize for the Countie of Yorke; did at the Assizes held at Yorke in Lent, 1636. deliver in his charge to the grand Jurie, that it was a lawfull and inseparable flower of the Crowne, for the King to command not only [Page 6] the Maritime Counties, but also those that were In-land, to finde ships for the defence of the Kingdome. And then likewise falsely, and malitiously affirmed, that it was not his single judgement, but the judgement of all his brethren, witnessed by their subscriptions: And then also said, that there was a rumour that some of his Brethren that had sub­scribed, were of a contrary judgement; but it was a base and unworthy thing, for any to give his hand contrary to his heart; and then wished for his owne part that his hand might rot from his arme, that was guiltie of any such crime; when as he knew that Mr. Justice Hutton and Mr. Justice Crooke, who had subscribed, were of a contrary opi­nion, and was present when they were perswaded to sub­scribe; and did subscribe for conformitie, onely because the major number of the Judges had subscribed. And hee the said Sir Robert Berkley then also said, that in some Cases the Judges were above an Act of Parliament; which said false and malitious words were uttered, as aforesaid, with intent and purpose to countenance and maintaine the said unjust opinions. and to terrifie his Majesties Subjects that should refuse to pay Ship-money, or seeke any remedie by Law against the said unjust and illegall taxation.

8 That whereas Richard Chambers Merchant having com­menced a suit for trespasse and false imprisonment against Sir Edward Bromfield Knight, for imprisoning him the said Chambers for refusing to pay Ship-money, in the time that the said Sir Edward Bromfield was Lord Maior of the Citie of London, in which suit the said Sir Edward Brom­field did make a speciall justification: The said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, in Trinitie Terme last, then sitting on the Bench in the said Court, upon debate of the said Case, betweene the said Chambers and Sir Edward Bromfield, said openly in the said Court, that there was a rule of Law, and a rule of government: And that many things which might not be done by the rule of Law, might be done by the rule [Page 7] of government; and would not suffer the point of lega­lity of Ship-money to be argued by the said Chambers his Councell; all which opinions, declarations, words and speeches, contained in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Articles, are destructive to the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme, the Subjects right of property, and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament, and to the petition of right: which resolutions in Parliament and petition of right were well knowne to him, and resolved, and enacted, when he was the Kings Sergeant at law, and attendant in the Lords house of Parliament.

9 That he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the Judges of the Court of Kings Bench, and being in commission of the Peace, and duly sworne to execute the office of a Justice of Peace in the County of Hertford, on or about the seventh of January, 1638. at which time the generall Sessions of the Peace for the said Countie were there holden: The said Sir Robert Berkley, then and there sitting on the Bench, did revile and threaten the grand Jurie returned to serve at the said Sessions, for presenting the removall of the Communion Table in All Saints Church in Hertford aforesaid out of the place where it an­ciently and usually stood, and setting it Altar-wayes, against the Lawes of this Realme, in that Case made and provided, as an innovation in matters concerning the Church; the said grand Jurie having delivered to them in charge at the said Sessions, by Master Sergeant Atkins a Justice of Peace of the said County of Hertford, that by the oath they had taken, they were bound to present all innovations concerning Church matters. And he the said Sir Robert Berkley compelled the fore-man of the Jurie, to tell him who gave him any such information, and thereby knowing it to be one Henry Browne, one of the said grand Jurie, he asked the said Browne how he durst meddle with Church matters; who affirming that in the said charge from Master Sergeant Atkins, the said Jurie were charged so to do; he [Page 8] the said Sir Robert Berkley told the said Browne, hee should therefore finde [...] for the good behaviour: and that hee the said Sir Robert Berkley would set a great fine on his head, to make him an example to others; and thereupon the said Browne offered sufficient baile: but hee the said Sir Robert Berkley, being incensed against him, refused the said baile, and committed the said Browne to prison, where hee lay in Irons till the next morning, and used to the said Browne and the rest of the Jurors, many other reviling and terrifying speeches; and said, he knew no Law for the said presentment, and told the said Browne that he had sinned in the said presentment: And hee compelled the said grand Jurors to say, they were sorrie for what they had done in that presentment; and did bid them to trample the said presentment under their feet, and caused Browne to teare the said presentment in his sight. And hee the said Sir Robert Berkley, when as John Houland, and Ralph Pemberton late Maior of St. Albans, came to desire his opinion on se­verall Indictments against John Browne Parson of Saint Albans, and Anthonie Smith Vicar of St. Peters in Saint Albans, at the quarter Sessions held for the said towne of St. Albans on the foure and twentieth of June, 1639. for the removall of the Communion Table out of the usuall place, and not administring the Sacrament according to the Law in that Case provided, Hee the said Sir Robert Barkley then told them that such an Indictment was before him at Hertford, and that he quashed the same, and impri­soned the Promoters; by which threatning and reviling speeches, unjust actions and declarations he so terrified the Jurors in those parts, that they durst not present any Inno­vations in Church matters, to their great griefe and trouble of their consciences.

And whereas severall indictments were preferred a­gainst John Brooke Parson of Yarmouth by John Ingrane and John Carter, for refusing severall times to administer the Sacrament of the Lords supper to them without any law­full [Page 9] cause, at the Assizes held at Norwich in [...] 1633. he the said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Judges of the Assize▪ proceeded then to the triall on the said Indictments; where the matter in issue being, that the said Brooke refused to administer the said Sacrament, be­cause the said Ingram and Carter would not receive tickets with their Sir-names before their Christen-names, which was a course never used amongst them but; by the said Brooke; He the said Sir Robert Berkley did then much dis­courage the said Ingrams Councell, and over-ruled the cause for matter of Law, so as the Jurie never went from the Bar but there found for the said Brooke. And the said Sir Robert Berkley bound the said Ingram to the good behavi­our for prosecuting the said Indictments; and ordered him to pay costs to the said Brooke for wrongfully inditing him. And whereas the said Carter, not expecting the triall at the same Assizes, he preferred his Indictment, was then absent, whereupon the said Sir Robert Berkley did cause to be en­tred on the said Indictment, a vacat quia non sufficiens in lege, and ordered an attachment against the said Carter, which said proceedings against the said Ingram and Carter, by the said Sir Robert Berkley, were contrary to Law and Justice, and to his own knowledge.

10. That the said Sir Rob. Berkley, being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, and duely sworn as aforesaid, in Trinitie Terme, an. 1637. deferred to discharge or baile Alexander Jennings prisoner in the Fleet, brought by Habeas Corpus to the Bar of the said Court, the returne of his Commitment being, that he was committed by two se­verall warrants from the Lords of the Councell, dated the fift of November 1636. the first being onely read in Court expressing no cause, the other for not paying Messengers fees; and untill he should bring a certificate that hee had paid his Assessement for Ship-money in the County of Bucks, but remitted him: And in Michaelmas Terme after, the said Jennings being brought by another Habeas [Page 10] Corpus before him, as aforesaid, and the same returned; yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley, refused to discharge or baile him, but remitted him. And, in Easter Terme, after seve­rall rules were given for his Majesties Councell to shew cause why the said Jenings should not be bailed, a fourth rule was made for the said Jenings, to let his Majesties At­torney Generall have notice thereof, and notice was given accordingly; and the said Jenings by another Habeas Cor­pus, brought to the Barre in Trinity Terme after, and the same returne with this addition of a new Commitment of the fourth of May, suggesting he the said Jenings had used diverse scandalous words in derogation and disparagement of his Majesties government: He the said Jenings after se­verall rules in the end of the said Trinity Terme, was againe remitted to prison. And he the said Sir Robert Berkley, did on the fifth of June last, deferre to grant his Majesties Writ of Habeas Corpus, for William Pargiter and Samuel Danvers Esquires, prisoners in the Gate-house, and in the Fleet: And afterwards having granted the said Writ of Habeas Corpus, the said Pargiter and Danvers were on the eighth of June last, brought to the Barre of the said Court, where the returnes of their Commitments were severall warrants from the Lords of the Councell, not expressing any cause; yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then sitting in the said Court, deferred to baile the said Pargiter and Danvers, and the eighteenth of June last, made a rule for a new returne to be received, which were returned the five and twentieth of June last, in haec verba:

Whereas his Majestie finding that his subjects of Scotland, have in rebellious and hostile manner assembled themselves toge­ther, and intend not onely to shake off their obedience unto his Majestie, but also as enemies to invade and infest this his Kingdome of England, to the danger of his Royall Per­son, &c.

For prevention whereof, his Majestie hath by the advice of his Councell-board, given speciall commandement to [Page 11] all the Lord Lievtenants of all the Counties of this Realme, appointed for their Randenvouz, in their severall and re­spective Counties, there to be conducted and drawne toge­ther into a body for this service. And whereas his Majestie, according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme, and the constant custome of his Predecessours, Kings and Queenes of this Realme, hath power for the defence of this kingdome, and resisting the force of the Enemies thereof, to grant forth Commissions under his great Seale to such fit persons as he shall make choice of, to array and arme the Subjects of this kingdome, and to compell those who are of able body, and of able estates, to arme them­selves; and such as should not be able of bodies, but of ability in estate, to assesse them according to their estates, to contribute towards the charge of arraying and arming others, being able of body, and not able in estate, to arme themselves. And such persons as should be contrariant to commit to prison, there to remaine untill the King should take further order therein.

And whereas the Earle of Exeter, by vertue of his Ma­jesties Commission to him directed, for the arraying and arming of a certaine number of persons in the County of Northampton, hath assest William Pargiter, being a man un­fit of body for that service, but being of estate and ability fit to contribute amongst others, to pay the summe of five shillings towards the arraying and arming of others of able bodies, and wanting ability to array and arme them­selves.

And whereas we have received information from the said Earle, that the said William Pargiter hath not onely in a wilfull and disobedient manner refused to pay the said money assessed upon him towards so important a service, to the disturbance and hinderance of the necessary defence of this kingdome; but also by his ill example hath mis-led many others, and, as we have just cause to beleeve, hath practised to seduce others from that ready obedience which [Page 12] they owe, and would otherwise have yeelded to his Maje­sties just command, for the publike defence of his person and kingdom; which we purpose with all convenient speed to enquire further of and examine.

These are therefore to will and require you, to take into your custody the persons of the said William Pargiter, and Samuel Danvers; and them safely to keepe prisoners till further order from this Board, or untill by due course of Law they shall be delivered: Yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley, being desired to baile the said Pargiter and Danvers, remitted them, where they remained prisoners till the ninth of November last, or thereabouts, although the said Jennings, Pargiter, and Danvers, on all and every the said returnes, were cleerly baileable by Law; and the Coun­cell of the said Jennings, Pargiter, and Danvers ▪ offered in Court very sufficient baile. And he the said Sir Robert Berkley, being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, denied to grant his Majesties Writs of Habeas Cor­pus to very many others his Majesties subjects; and when he had granted the said Writs of Habeas Corpus to very many others his Majesties subjects, and on the returne no cause appeared, or such onely as was clearly baileable by Law; yet he remanded them, where they remained prisoners very long; which said deferring to grant the said Writs of Habeas Corpus, and refusals, and delayes to discharge pri­soners, or suffer them to be bailed, contained in this Arti­cle, are destructive to the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme, and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament, and to the petition of Right; which said resolutions and petition of Right were well knowne to him the said Sir Robert Berkley, and were resolved on and enacted, when he was the Kings Serjeant at Law, and Attendant in the Lords House in Parliament.

11 That wheras there was a cause depending in the Court Christian at Norwich, betweene Samuel Booty Clerke, and [...] Collard for 2.s. in the l. for tithes, for rents, and [Page 13] houses in Norwich, and the said Collard moved by his Councell in the Court of Kings Bench for a prohibition to stay proceedings in the Court Christian at Norwich, and delivered into the said Court of Kings Bench his suggesti­ons, that the said cause in the said Court Christian was onely for tythes for rents of houses in Norwich, which was determinable by the Common Law onely: yet hee the said Sir Robert Berkley, being one of the Justices of the said Court of Kings Bench, and sitting in the said Court, deferred to grant a Prohibition to the said Court Chri­stian in the said cause, although the Councell did move in the said Court many severall times, and severall termes for a Prohibition: And he the said Sir Bobert Berkley deferred to grant his Majesties writ of Prohibition to severall other Courts on the motions of divers others of his Majesties sub­jects, where the same by the Lawes of this Realme ought to have been granted, contrary to the Laws of this Realme, and his owne knowledge.

All which words, opinions, and actions, were so spoken and done by him the said Sir Robert Berkley traiterously and wickedly to alienate the hearts of his Majesties liege people from his Majestie, and to set a division betwixt them, and to subvert the fundamentall Lawes and esta­blished government of his Majesties Realme of England: For which they doe impeach him the said Sir Robert Berk­ley one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, of high treason against our Soveraigne Lord the King his Crowne and Dignity, and of the misdemeanours above-mentioned.

And the said Commons by protestation, saving to them­selves onely the liberties of exhibiting at any time here­after, any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Robert Berkley, and also of replying to the answer, that he the said Sir Robert Berkley shal make to the said Articles, or any of them, or of offering proofe of the premisses, or any other impeachments or accusations that shall be exhi­bited [Page 14] by them, as the Case shall according to the course of Parliaments require, Doe pray that the said Sir Robert Berkley, one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench, may be put to answer to all and every the premisses; and that such poceedings, examinations, trialls, judgements and executions, may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to Law and Justice.

1. THat the said Sir Iohn Brampston, then being Lord Chiefe Iustice of the Court of Kings Bench, and having taken an oath for the due administration of justice to his Majesties liege people, according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme, did on or about the last of Novem­ber 1635. subscribe his name to an opinion, in haec verba: [I am of opinion, that as where the benefit doth more pe­culiarly redound to the good of the Ports, or Maritime ports, (as in case of Pyracie or Depredations upon the Seas) there the charge hath beene, and may be lawfully imposed upon them, according to presidents of former times; so where the good and safety of the kingdome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in danger, (of which his Majestie is the onely Iudge) there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the realme in generall: this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason.]

2 That hee the said Sir Iohn Brampston, then being Lord cheife Iustice of the Court of Kings Bench, about the Moneth of February, 1635. did subscribe an extrajudi­ciall opinion in answer to questions in a letter from his Majestie, which letter, questions and answer follow, in haec verba;

‘ Charles R. When the good and safetie of the King­dome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome [Page 16] in danger, whether may not the King, by writ under the great Seale of England, command all the Subjects of this kingdome, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, Victuall and Munition; and for such time, as hee shall thinke fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome, from such danger and perill; and by Law compell the doing thereof in case of refusall, or refractorinesse? And whether in such case is not the King the sole Judge, both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoided? C. R.’

‘May it please your most excellent Majestie, We have, according to your Majesties command, severally every man by himselfe, and all of us together, taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your Ma­jestie, and inclosed in your Royall letter; and wee are of opinion, that when the good and safety of the kingdome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in dan­ger, your Majestie may, by writ under the great Seale of England, command all the Subjects of this your king­dome, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, Victuall and Munition; and for such time as your Majestie shall thinke fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome, from such danger and pe­rill; and that by Law your Majestie may compell the doing thereof in case of refusall, or refractorinesse: And we are also of opinion that in such case your Majesty is the sole Judge both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to bee prevented and avoided. John Brampston, John Finch, Humphrey Davenport, John Den­ham, Richard Hutton, William Jones, George Crooke, Thomus Trevor, George Vernon, Robert Berkley, Francis Crawley, Richard Weston.’

Which said opinions contained in the first and second Articles, are destructive to the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme, the subjects right of property, and contrary to for­mer resolutions in Parliament, and to the petition of right.

[Page 17]3 That he the said Sir John Brampston, then Lord chief Justice of the Court of Kings Bench, about Trinity Terme, 1637. refused to baile or discharge Alexander Jennings prisoner in the Fleet, brought by Habeas Corpus to the barre before him, the returne of this Commitment being two severall warrants from the Lords of the Councell, dated the fifth of November 1635. the first expressing no cause, the other for not paying messengers fees, and un­till he should bring certificate that he had paid his Assesse­ment for ship-money, in the County of Bucks: And the said Sir John Brampston, the first warrant being one­ly read, then said, The cause of this Commitment did not appeare; and it was not fit for every Goaler to be made ac­quainted by the Lords of the Councell why they commit­ted, and therfore remitted him; and in Michaelmas Terme after, the said Jennings being brought by another Habeas Corpus, as aforesaid, and the same returned, yet hee the said Sir John Brampston, refused to discharge or baile him, but remitted him. And in Easter Terme next, after severall rules for his Majesties Councell to shew cause why he the said Jennings should not be bailed, a fourth rule was made for the said Jennings, to let his Majesties Attor­ney have notice, which notice was given accordingly, yet he remitted him. And the said Jennings by another Habeas Corpus brought to the Barre, as aforesaid, in Trinity Terme after, and the same returne with the addition of a new Commitment of the fourth of May, 1638. suggested, that he the said Jennings had used divers scandalous words in de­rogation and disparagement of his Majesties government; after severall rules, in the end of the said Trinity Terme, hee againe remitted him to prison. And he the said Sir John Brampston, about the ninth of July after, at his cham­ber in Serjeants Inne, being desired by Master Meautis, one of the Clerkes of the Councell-board, to discharge the said Jennings, for that he the said Jennings had entred into a Bond of 1000. pounds, to appeare before the Lords of the [Page 18] Councell the next Michelmas Terme after, and to attend de die in diem; yet hee the said Sir John Brampston refused to discharge the said Jennings untill hee entered into Reco­gnizance to appeare the next Terme, and in the meane time to bee of his good behaviour. And the said Jennings was continued on his said Recognizance till Easter Terme after. And the said Sir Iohn Brampston, did on the 5. of June, 1640. deferre to grant his Majesties writ of habeas Cor­pus for Samuel Danvers, and William Pargiter Esquires, prisoners in the Gate-house, and in the Fleet; and when hee had granted the said writ, the said eighth of Iune after the returne, being the order of the Councell Table, not ex­pressing any cause, hee the said Sir Iohn Brampston deferred to baile the said Pargiter. And the eighteenth of Iune after made a rule for a new returne to bee received, which was returned the five and twentieth of the said Iune, in haec verba:

Whereas his Majesty finding that his Subjects of Scot­land, have in rebellious and hostile manner assembled them­selves together, and intend not onely to shake off their o­bedience unto his Majesty, but also as enemies to invade and infest this his Kingdome of England, to the danger of his royall person, &c.

For prevention whereof his Majesty hath, by the advice of his Councell-board, given speciall commandement to all the Lord Lievtenants of all the Counties of his Realme. with expedition, to array and arme a certaine number of able men in each County, to be prepared, and ready to be conducted to such place as should be appointed for their Randezvouz, in their severall and respective Counties, there to be conducted and drawne together into a body for this service.

And whereas his Majesty, according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme, and the constant custome of his Predecessours, Kings and Queenes of this Realme hath power, for the defence of this Kingdome, and resisting the [Page 19] force of the enemies thereof, to grant forth Commissions under his great Seale to such fit persons as he shall make choice of, to array and arme the subjects of this Kingdome, and to compell those who are of able bodies, and of able estates, to arme themselves; and such as should not be of able bodies, but of ability in estate, to assesse them according to their estates, to contribute towards the charge of arraying and arming others being able of body, and not able in estate to arme themselves: And such persons as should be contra­riant to commit to prison, there to remaine untill the King should take further order therein.

And whereas the Earle of Exeter, by vertue of his Ma­jesties Commission to him directed, for the arraying and arming of a certaine number of persons in the County of Northampton, hath assest William Pargiter being a man un­fit of body for that service, but being of estate and ability fit to contribute, amongst others, to pay the summe of five shillings towards the arraying and arming of others of able bodies, and wanting ability to arme and array them­selves.

And whereas wee have received information from the said Earle, that the said William Pargiter hath not onely in a wilfull and disobedient manner refused to pay the said money assessed upon him towards so important a service, to the disturbance and hinderance of the necessary defence of this Kingdome; but also by his ill example hath mis-led many others, and, as wee have just cause to beleeve, hath practised to [...] others from that ready obedience which they owe, and would otherwise have yeelded to his Ma­jesties just command, for the publick defence of his person and Kingdome; which wee purpose with all convenient speed to enquire further of and examine.

These are therefore to will and require you to take into your custody the person of the said William Pargiter, and him also safely to keepe prisoner till further order from this Board, or untill by due course of Law hee shall be delivered [Page 20] (And the like returne was then made in all things, mutatis mutandis, concerning the said Danvers for not paying a sum of money assessed upon him:) yet hee the said Sir John Brampston defered to baile the said Danvers and Pargi­ter, but remitted the said Danvers to the Fleet, where he re­mained till the twefth of July, 1640. and the said Pargi­ter to the pison of the Gate-house, where he remained till the ninth of November last, although the said Jennings, Danvers and Pargiter, upon all and every the said returnes, ought to have been discharged or bailed by Law; and the Councell of the said Jennings, Danvers and Pargiter offered in Court very sufficient baile. And he the said Sir John Brampston being chief Justice of the Court of Kings Bench, denyed to grant his Majesties writ of habeas Corpus to very many others his Majesties subjects: and when he had gran­ted the said writs of habeas Corpus to very many others his Majesties subjects, and on the returne no cause appeared, or such cause onely as was clearly baileable by Law, yet he remanded them, where they remained prisoners very long; which said deferring to grant the said writs of habeas Cor­pus, and refusall, and delayes to discharge prisoners, or suffer them to be bailed, contained in this Article, are destructive to the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme, and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament, and to the petition of Right; which said resolutions and petition of Right were well knowne to him the said Sir John Brampston.

4 That whereas there was a cause depending in the Court Christian at Norwich, between Samuel Booty Clerke, and [...] Collard for two shillings in the pound for tithes for rents of houses in Norwich, and the said Collard moved by his Councell in the Court of Kings Bench for a prohibition to stay proceedings in the Court Christian at Norwich, and delivered into the said Court of Kings Bench his suggestions, that the said cause in the said Court Chri­stian was for tithes for rents of houses in Norwich, [Page 21] which was determinable by the Common Law onely; yet hee the said Sir John Brampston, being chiefe Justice of the said Court of Kings bench, and sitting in the said court, deferred to graunt a prohibition to the said Court christian in the said cause, although the Councell did move in the said court severall times and severall Termes for a prohibition: And hee the said Sir John Bramston deferred to graunt his Maiesties Writ of prohibition to severall other Courts on the motions of divers others his Majesties sub­jects, where the same by the lawes of this Realme ought to have been graunted, contrary to the lawes of this Realme and his owne knowledge.

And the said Commons by Protestation saving to themselves onely the liberties of exhibiting at anytime hereafter, any other accusation or impeachment, &c. ut supra, in the former charge.

1. THat he about the Moneth of November Anno Dom. 1635. then being one of the Iustices of the Court of Common-pleas, & having taken an oath for the due admi­nistration of Iustice to his Majesties liege people, according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme, subscribed an opi­nion in haec verba: [I am of opinion, that as where the be­nefit doth more peculiarly redound to the good of the Ports, or Maritime parts, (as in case of Pyracie or Depre­dations upon the Seas) there the charge hath beene, and may be lawfully imposed upon them, according to presidents of former times; so where the good and safety of the King­dome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in danger, (of which his Majestie is the onely Iudge) there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the Realme in generall: this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason.]

2. That he, in or about the moneth of February, An. Dom. 1636. then being one of the Iustices of the said Court of Common-pleas, subscribed an extrajudiciall opinion, in an­swer to questions in a letter from his Majestie, in haec verba:

‘ Charles R. When the good and safetie of the king­dome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in danger, Whether may not the King, by writ under the great Seale of England, command all the Subjects of this kingdome, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, Victuall and Munition; and [Page 23] for such time as hee shall think fit for the defence and safeguard of the Kingdome from such danger and peril, and by Law compell the doing thereof, in case of refusall, or refractorinesse: And whether in such case is not the King the sole Iudge, both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoyded, C.R.’

‘May it please your most excellent Majestie, wee have, according to your Majesties command, severally every man by himselfe, and all of us together, taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your Ma­jestie, and inclosed in your Royall letter; and we are of opinion, that when the good and safetie of the Kingdome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in dan­ger, your Majestie may, by Writ under the great Seale of England, command all the Subjects of this your King­dome, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships, with Men, Victuall and Munition, and for such time as your Majestie shall think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the Kingdome, from such danger and pe­rill; and that by Law your Majestie may compell the doing thereof in case of refusall, or refractorinesse: And wee are also of opinion that in such case your Majestie is the sole Iudge both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to bee prevented and avoyded. Iohn Brampston, Iohn Finch, Humphrey Davenport, Iohn Denham, Richard Hutton, William Iones, George Crooke, Thomas Trevor, George Vernon, Robert Berkley, Francis Crawley, Richard Weston.’

3 That he then being one of the Iustices of the said Court of Common-pleas, delivered an opinion in the Exchequer Chamber against Iohn Hampden Esquire, in case of Ship-money; that hee the said Iohn Hampden upon the matter and substance of the case, was chargeable with the money then in question, (a Copie of which proceedings and judge­ment, the Commons of this present Parliament have al­ready delivered to your Lordships.)

[Page 24]4 That hee then being one of the Justices of the said Court of Common-pleas, declared and published in the Exchequer Chamber, and Westminster Circuits, where he went Judge, That the Kings Right to Ship-money was so inherent a Right in the Crown, as an Act of Parlia­ment could not take it away. And with divers malitious speeches enveighed against, threatned and discountenan­ced such as refused to pay Ship-money. All which opini­ons and judgements contained in the first, second, and third Articles, are destructive to the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme, the Subjects right of propertie, and contra­ry to former resolutions in Parliament, and to the Petition of Right, which said resolutions and Petition of Right were well known to him.

And the said Commons by protestation, saving to them­selves only the Liberties of exhibiting at any time here­after any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Francis Crawley, and also of replying to the answer that he the said Sir Francis Crawley shall make unto the said Arti­cles, or any of them, or of offering proofe of the premisses, or of any of their impeachments, or accusations that shall be exhibited by them, as the Case shall according to the course of Parliaments require, Doe pray that the said Sir Francis Crawley, one of the Justices of the said Court of Common-pleas, may bee put to answer to all and every the premisses; and that such proceedings, exami­nations, trialls, and judgements may bee upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to Law and Justice.

THat whereas in the moneth of October, in the fourth yeare of his Majesties Reigne, the Farmours and Of­ficers of the Custome-house, having seized great quantities of Currants, being the goods of Samuel Vassall Merchant, and having conveyed them into certaine Store-houses at the Custome-house and detained them, because the said Samuel Vassall refused to pay an imposition of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of the said Currants, pretended to be due, and demanded by the said Farmours and Officers on his Majesties behalfe for the said Currants, whereas no such imposition was due or payable for the same; but the said imposition was and is against the Lawes of this Realme. And whereas also in Michaelmas Terme, in the said fourth yeare of his Majesties Reigne, his Majesties then Attorney generall exhibited an informati­on by English Bill in the Exchequer, against the said Samuel Vassall, setting forth that King James by his Letters Pa­tents dated tertio Novem. in the second yeare of his Reigne, did command the said imposition of 5. s. 6. d. upon every hundred weight of Currants should bee demanded and received: And that his Majestie that now is, by his Letters Patents dated the six and twentieth day of July, in the second yeare of his Reigne, did, by advise of his Privie Councell, declare his will and pleasure be, that Subsidies, Customes and Impost should be levied in such manner as they were in the time of King James; and the same, and [Page 26] the Farmes thereof to continue untill it might receive a setling by Parliament, and commanded the levying and receiving the same accordingly; and that the said Samuel Vassall before the said first day of October then last before the said Information exhibited, did bring into the port of London in ships foure thousand six hundred thirty eight hundred weight of Currants; and that Richard Carmar­then Surveyour in the said port of London, the said first day of October demanded of the said Samuel Vassall the said Imposition of five shillings six pence for every hun­dred weight of the said Currants; and that the said Samuel Vassall refused to pay the said imposition, and unjustly detained it from the King: To which Infor­mation the said Samuel Vassall appeared, and pleaded the Statute of Magna Charta, and the Statute of De Tallagio non concedendo, and that he was a Subject borne under the Kings Allegiance, and a Merchant of Lon­don using that trade, and that the said summe of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of Cur­rants, was and is malum taluetum, and not antiqua, seu recta consuetudo, and that it was imposed without assent of Parliament: to which Plea the said Attourney Ge­nerall demurred in Law, and the said Samuel Vassall joyned in demurer with him; and when the said cause came to bee argued, viz. in Trinity Terme, in the sixth yeare of his Majesties Reigne, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport being then Lord chiefe Baron of his Maje­sties said Court of Exchequer, did contrary to his oath, and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme, and to the great impoverishment of the said Samuel Vassall, pub­lickly deny to heare the Counsell of the said Samuel Vassall to argue for him, and said, that the Case of the said Samuel Vassall would fall under the same rule with the case of one Bates, and therefore was already judged: and when the Councell of the said Samuel Vas­sall answering that they had nothing to doe with Bates [Page 27] his Case, but desired to argue for M. Vassall, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport replied, that they knew the opinion of the Court, and should be heard no further; and said, that the King was in possession, and that they (meaning the said Court of Exchequer) would keep him in possession: And the said Sir Humphrey Daven­port shortly after did (together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) imprison the said Samuel Vassall for not paying such summes of money, as were pretended by the said Officers of the Custome-house, to bee due to his Majestie, and did delay the said Samuel Vassall from time to time, from ha­ving restitution of his said goods, being often in Court moved thereto, with intention to force the said Samuel Vassall to pay the said unlawfull imposition, and did also give his opinion and judgement upon the said Information for the King, and against the said Samuel Ʋassall; and by severall orders for that purpose made, did continue the possession of the said goods in the King, and the said Samuel Vassall could never obtaine any restitution at all of his said goods: whereas it was commanded to the Sheriffe of the County of York, by Writ under the Seale of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, dated the sixteenth day of May in the seventh yeare of his Majesties Reigne that now is, That he should distraine James Maleverer Esquire, to appeare before the Barons of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer, in the Octaves of the holy Trinity then next following, to make fine to the King for his trespasse and contempt in not comming to the presence of the King be­fore the 31. day of January in the first yeare of his said Ma­jesties Reigne, to take upon him the order of Knighthood, according to the forme of a Proclamation in that behalfe formerly made: At which day of the said Octaves of the ho­ly Trinity, the said J. Maleverer did appeare, and pleaded to the said Writs, that although his said Majesty, the said 31. day of January, and for three yeeres next before, the said 31. [Page 28] day of January was resident and remaining at his Pal­lace at White-hall in the County of Middlesex, and that the said James Maleverer the said one and thirtieth day of January, and three dayes next before the said one and thirtieth day of January, was resident and remaining at Ancliffe in the said County of York, which is distant from the said Palace of White-hall, the space of one hun­dred and fourescore miles; and that the said James Male­verer the said one and thirtieth day of January aforesaid, or at any time before, had no lands or rents in his own hands, or in the hands of Peoffees, to his use, out of the said County of York, and that that part of the said County of York which is neerest to the said Palace of White-hall, is di­stant from the said Palace of White-hall the space of one hundred and thirty miles; and that no Proclamation by vertue of any Writ of Proclamation, for the appearance of any persons whatsoever, to take the said Order of Knight­hood, was made in any part of the said County of York before the thirtieth day of January in the said first yeare of his Majesties Reigne, by reason whereof the said James Maleverer could not personally come to the presence of his said Majestie to take the said Order of Knighthood be­fore the said one and thirtieth day of January in the said first yeare of his Majesties said Reigne, yet the said James Maleverer for his fine in the premisses did humbly submit himselfe to the said Court, and demanded to bee dischar­ged of the said issues returned and imposed upon him by reason of the premisses; yet notwithstanding the said Plea and submission of the said James Maleverer, and after the same was made as aforesaid, and entred upon Record in his Majesties said Court of Exchequer, and the said Court moved for stay of the Processe, and discharge of the issues, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport being then Lord chiefe Baron of the said Court of Exchequer, con­trary to his oath, and contrary to the Laws of this Realme, and to the great impoverishing of the said James Maleverer, [Page 29] did (together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court) refuse to impose any Fine whatsoever upon the said James Maleverer, and told him that the said Court had no power to Fine him, and that hee must compound with certain Commissioners for that purpose appointed. And did farther, order and direct severall other Writs of Distrin­gas, to issue forth of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer, under the Seale of the said Court, directed to the severall high Sheriffes of the said County of York; whereby the said Sheriffes were commanded further to distraine the said Iames Maleverer to appeare, as aforesaid: upon which said Writs of Distringas, severall great and exces­sive issues were returned upon the Lands of the said Iames Maleverer, amounting to the summe of two thousand pounds or there abouts; a great part whereof, the said Iames Maleverer was enforced to pay; and in like man­ner the said Sir Humphrey Davenport (together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) did order and direct such and the like unjust and un­due proceedings; and the said proceedings were had and made accordingly against Thomas Moyser Esquire, and against severall other persons his Majesties Subjects in seve­rall parts of this Realme, to the utter undoing of many of them.

2 That a sentence of Degradation, being given by the high Commissioners of the Province of York, against Peter Smart, Clerk, one of the Prebends of the Church of Durham, for a Sermon by him formerly preached a­gainst some Innovations in the Church of Durham, a tryall was afterwards had, viz. in August in the seventh yeer of his said Majesties Reign, before the said Sir Hum­phrey Davenport Knight, then one of the Judges of Assizes and Nisi prius for the County Palatine of Durham, con­cerning the Corps of the Prebend of the said M. Smart, which was then pretended to be voyd by the said sentence of De­gradation; the said Sir Humphrey Davenport contrary [Page 30] to his oath, and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme, and to the destruction of the said Master Smart, upon reading the Writ de haeretico comburendo, did publickly on the Bench, in the presence of divers his Majesties Subjects then atten­ding, declare his opinion to be, that the said Prebends place was voyd, and gave direction to the Jury then at Barre to finde accordingly: and being then informed that although the said Master Smart had been dead or deprived, yet the profits of his Prebend had been due to his Executors till the Michaelmas following; the said Sir Humphrey Daven­port then answered, though the said Master Smart was not dead, yet if he had had his desert, he had been dead long agoe, for hee deserved to have been hanged for the said Sermon, and that he was as wicked a man as any lived in the world: call him no more Master Smart, but plaine Smart. And when the said Jurie had found against the said Master Smart, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, in scandall of his Majesties Government and Justice, and of the proceedings of his Majesties Iudges, did publickly as aforesaid speak words to this effect; That the said Iurie had well done, and that the said Smart had do remedy save by appeale to the King; and there hee should finde but cold comfort; for the King would not goe against his own Pre­rogative, upon which the Iudges and high Commissioners did depend, and therefore would not contradict one ano­thers Acts.

That the said Sir Humphrey Davenport about the Month of November, Anno Dom. 1635. then being Lord chiefe Barron of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, and having ta­ken an oath for the due administration of justice to his Ma­jesties Liege people, according to the Lawes and Statures of this Realm, subscribed his name to an opinion, in haec verba: [I am of opinion, that as where the benefit doth more par­ticulary redound to the good of the Ports, or Maritime parts, (as in Case of Pyracie or Depredations upon the Seas) there the charge hath been, and may be lawfully imposed [Page 31] upon them, according to presidents of former times; so where the good and safety of the kingdome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in danger, (of which his Majestie is the onely Judge) there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the Realme in generall: this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason]

That in or about the moneth of Februarie Anno Dom. 1636. the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, then being Lord chiefe Baron of the said Court of Exchequer, subscribed an extrajudiciall opinion in answer to questions in a letter from his Majestie, in haec verba:

‘ Charles R. When the good and safetie of the king­dome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in danger, whether may not the King, by writ under the great Seale of England, command all the Subjects of this kingdome, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, Victuall and Munition; and for such time, as hee shall thinke fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome, from such danger and perill; and by Law compell the doing thereof in case of refusall, or refractorinesse? And whether in such case is not the King the sole Judge, both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to bee prevented and avoided? C. R.’

‘May it please your most excellent Majestie, We have, according to your Majesties command, severally every man by himselfe, and all of us together, taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your Ma­jestie, and inclosed in your Royall letter; and we are of opinion, that when the good and safetie of the kingdome in generall is concerned, and the whole kingdome in dan­ger, your Majestie may by writ under the great Seale of England, command all the Subjects of this your king­dome, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, Victuall and Munition; and for such time as your Majestie shall thinke fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdome, from such danger and pe­rill; [Page 32] and that by Law your Majestie may compell the doing thereof in case of refusall, or refractorinesse: And wee are also of opinion that in such case your Majestie is the sole Judge both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to bee prevented and avoyded. John Brampston, John Finch, Humphrey Davenport, John Den­ham, Richard Hutton, William Jones, George Crooke, Thomas Trevor, George Vernon, Robert Berkley, Francis Crawley, Richard Weston.’

That whereas an Action of Batterie was brought by one Richard Legge, against Robert Hoblins, to which the said Hoblins pleaded a Justification de son assault demesne, and the said cause came to triall at the Assizes held for the Countie of Gloucester in Summer, 1636. before the said Sir Humphrey Davenport then one of the Justices of Assize and Nisi prius for that Countie: At the said triall the said Robert Hoblins did begin to make proofe of his said justifi­cation, and produced one Robert Tilly a witnesse in the cause, who proved upon oath that the said Richard Legge did make the first assault upon the said Robert Hoblins and that the occasion thereof was, that the said Richard Legge and others came upon the lands then in possession of the said Hoblins, and did take and drive away eighteen Cowes of the said Hoblins, pretending they had a warrant from the Sheriffe to distrein the same for forty shillings assessed upon the said Hoblins for Ship-money; and when the said Hoblins (being present) endevoured to hinder the said Legge and others from taking away his said Cattell, the said Legge stroke the said Hoblins with a staffe, who af­terward defended himselfe. That upon the opening of the matter the said Sir Humphrey Davenport would not suffer the said Hoblins to produce any more witnesses on his be­halfe, (though the said Hoblins desired that other of his said witnesses then present, and sworne might be heard) nor his Councell to speake for him, but being informed that the said Hoblins (when Ship-money was demanded of him) [Page 33] answered, that he would not pay the same, because it was not granted by Parliament, the said Sir Humphrey Daven­port did then (openly in the hearing of a great number of his Majesties liege people▪ then assembled and attending the said Court) in great passion reprove the said Hoblins, and told him that the King was not to call a Parliament to give him satisfaction; and did then and there also falsly and of purpose, to prevent his Majesties loving Subjects from the due and ordinary course of Law, and contrary to his oath and the Lawes of this Realme, publish, declare and affirme, that it was adjudged by all the Judges of England, that Ship-money, was due to the King, and directed the Jury sworne in that cause to finde a Verdict for the said Richard Legge; and the said Jury did accordingly, and gave him twenty pound dammages. And the said Humphrey Da­venport did then also without any cause imprison the said Robert Hoblins, and bound him to the good behaviour. That whereas in the moneth of Aprill, Decimo sexto Caroli, the officers of the Custome-house, having seized a Ship of one Samuel Warner's, laden with Tobacco, being the goods of the said Warner's, the Bulke of the said ship not being bro­ken, and no information exhibited for the King according to the course of the Exchequer, for any duty, the Barons were moved, that the said ship might be restored to the Proprietors, giving security to pay such duties as did belong to the King; But upon the Allegation of the Kings Attor­ney, that there needed no information because there was no penaltie, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, being then Lord chiefe Baron of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, to­gether with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court, did (contrary to his oath, and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme,) deny the restitution of the said ship, unlesse all the duties demanded by the Farmours of the Custome-house were first paid. Hereupon the said Warner brought an action of Trover in the office of Pleas in the Exchequer against the said Officers that seized his ship and goods; [Page 34] whereupon the Kings Attorney generall exhibited an infor­mation by English Bill in the Exchequer chamber against the said Warner; setting forth, that Customes and Subsi­dies upon Merchandize were a great part of the Kings re­vennue, and payable to him, and that the said Ship was seized for non-payment of the aforesaid duties, notwith­standing the said Warner then Proprietor, prosecuted the officers upon a suit at Law, and prayes that hee may answer the said Information before any further procee­dings be had at Law: Thereupon the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer, ordered, that the Pro­prietor moving for the delivery of the said goods, should first answer to the information; after which the said Warner demurred to the said Information, in regard no title for any certaine dutie was set forth by the Information, which demurrer yet remains not over-ruled; but the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, with the said other Barons, without over-ruling the demurrer, ordered, because Warner had put in a demurrer and not answered to the said Information, that he should not proceede upon the action of Trover. The Proprietor being thus prevented of his remedy by Action at Law, sued forth a Re­plevin, and upon pretence of viewing the said goods, caused them to be brought forth of a Cellar, hired by a deputie to the Farmours to that use; and being brought forth, they were taken by the Sheriffes of London, by vertue of the said Replevin; and upon oath made of the manner of the taking, as aforesaid, before the Barons, and upon view of the President, inrolls his case; the said Sir Hum­phrey Davenport, with the said other Barons, adjudged, that the said goods were not Replevisable, and granted an Injunction to maintaine possession of them as they were before. And the said house of Commons by pro­testations, saving to themselves onely the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter, any other accusation or [Page 35] impeachment against the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, and also of replying to the answer that hee the said Sir Humphrey Davenport shall make unto the said Arti­cles, or any of them, or of offering proofe of the premisses, or any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them, as the Case shall (according to the course of Parliaments) require, doe pray that the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, Lord chiefe Baron of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, may be put to answer to all and eve­ry the premisses; and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgements may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to Law and Justice.

1 THat the said Sir Richard Weston about the moneth of November, Anno Domini 1635. then being one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, and ha­ving taken an oath for the due Administration of Justice to his Majesties liege people, according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme, subscribed his name to an opinion in haec verba: I am of opinion, &c. ut suprà in Sir Robert Berkley's Charge, pag. 4.

2 That in or about the moneth of February, Anno Domini 1636. the said Sir Richard Weston (being then one of the Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) subscribed an extrajudiciall opinion in answer to questions in a Letter from his Majestie, in haec verba:

Charles R. When the good and safety of the Kingdome in generall is concerned, &c. ut suprà, pag. 4.

3 That the said Sir Richard Weston (being then one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer) did deli­ver his opinion and judgement in the Exchequer Chamber against John Hampden Esquire in the Case of Ship-money, That he, the said John Hampden, &c. as in Judge Crawley's Charge, pag. 23.

4 That whereas in the moneth of Aprill 16. Caroli, the Officers of the Custome-house having seized a ship of one Samuel Warner's, laden with Tobacco, being the goods of the said Warner, the bulke of the said ship not being bro­ken, and no information exhibited for the King, according [Page 37] to the course the Exchequer, for any duty, the Barons were moved, that the said ship might bee restored to the proprietors, giving security to pay such duties as did belong to the King. But, upon the allegation of the Kings Attor­ney, that there needed no information, because there was no penalty, the said Sir Richard Weston (being then one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court) did (contrary to his oath, and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme) deny the restitution of the said ship, unlesse all the duties demanded by the Farmours of the Custome-house were first paid. Hereupon the said Warner brought an acti­on of Trover upon the case in the Office of Pleas in the Exchequer against the said Officers that seized his ship and goods: Whereupon the Kings Attorney Generall exhibi­ted an information by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber against the said Warner, setting forth, that Cu­stomes and Subsidies upon Merchandize were a great part of the Kings revennue, and payable to him, and that the said ship was seized for non-payment of the aforesaid duties; notwithstanding the said Warner, the proprietor prosecuted the Officers upon a Suit at Law, and prayes that he may an­swer the said Information before any further proceedings be had at Law. Thereupon the said Sir Richard Weston, to­gether with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer, ordered that the proprietor moving for de­livery of his said goods, should first answer to the Infor­mation, after which the said Warner demurred to the said Information: in regard no title for any certaine duty was set forth by the Information: Which demurrer yet re­maines not over-ruled, but the said Sir Richard Weston (with the said other Barons) without over-ruling the de­murrer, ordered (because Warner had put in a demurrer, and not answered to the said Information) that he should not proceed upon the action of Trover: The proprietor being thus prevented of his remedy by Action at Law, [Page 38] sued forth a Replevin, and (upon pretence of viewing the said goods) caused them to be brought forth of a cellar, hired by a Deputy to the Farmers to that use, and being brought forth, they were taken by the Sheriffs of London, by vertue of the said Replevin; and upon oath made of the manner of the taking, as aforesaid, before the Barons, and upon view of the president, inrolls his case; the said Sir Richard Weston, with the said other Barons, adjudged that the said goods were not replevisable, and granted an In­junction to maintaine the possession of them, as they were before.

And the said house of Commons by Protestation, saving to themselves onely the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Richard Weston, and also of replying to the answer that he, the said Sir Richard Weston shall make unto the said Articles, or any of them, or of offering proofe of the premisses, or any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them, as the case shall (according to the course of Parliaments) require, do pray, that the said Sir Richard Weston, one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, may be put to answer, &c.

1. THat in or about November, 4. Car. divers goods and merchandizes (whereof John Rolls, George Moore, and other Merchants of London were Proprietors) being seized and conveyed into certaine Store-houses at the Custome-house, by Sir John Worstenham, Abraham Dawes, and others the Farmours and Officers of the Customes, and by them there detained, because the said Proprietors refused to pay the Subsidie of Tonnage and Poundage, preten­ded to be due, and demanded by the said Farmours and Of­ficers on his Majesties behalfe for the said Merchandizes, whereas no such Subsidie or duty of Tonnage or Poundage was due or payable for the same, no Subsidie of Tonnage and Poundage having beene granted by Parliament to his Majestie. The said John Rolls, and other the Proprietors of the said goods, having by reason of such unlawfull seisure and detainer, as aforesaid, fued forth one or more writ or writs of Replevin, directed to the Sheriffes of London (being the proper remedie provided by the Law to regaine the possession of goods taken and with-held from the owners contrary to Law) the said Sir Thomas Trevor Knight then and yet one of the Barons of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer, together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court, upon information to them given, that the said Proprietors, or some of them, had sued forth and did [Page 40] prosecute such writ, or writs of Replevin for deliverie of the said goods, did order an Injunction under Seale of the said Court to issue forth, directed to the Sheriffes of London, commanding them thereby not to execute the said writ or writs of Replevin, or any like writ thereafter to be sued forth by any person or persons for the delivery of any goods in the like nature detained: And did declare and order pub­lickly in the said Court of Exchequer, that the said goods by Law were not Replevisable, alledging for cause that the said goods were in the Kings owne possession, whereas the same did not judicially appeare to them, and they did well know that the said goods were at that time in the posses­sion of the Farmours and Lessees of the said Customes, and no lawfull cause to them appearing or suggested of the ta­king and detaining of the said goods: which Injunction and declaration so granted and made, were and are against the Lawes of the Realme, and in subversion of the common right, and remedy of the Subject for regaining the posses­sion of his goods being taken and with-holden from him without lawfull cause.

That the Sheriffes of London for that time being served with the said Injunction, did forbeare to execute the said writ or writs of Replevin: By meanes whereof the said goods continued so detained as aforesaid, contrary to Law, from the said moneth of November untill the moneth of June next following.

That the said Sir Thomas Trevor and other the Barons aforesaid, knowing the said goods to be unlawfully seized and detained for the pretended duties and Subsidie of Tonnage and Poundage, whereas no such were payable by Law, did from time to time delay the respective Proprie­tors from having restitution of their said goods, being often in Court moved therein, with intention thereby to force the said Proprietors (by wanting their goods and the use thereof) to pay all such summes as the said Officers of the Customes pretended to be due to his Majestie.

[Page 41]That to the end aforesaid the said Sir Thomas Trevor, and the said other Barons refused to accept of any securitie to be given by the said Proprietors, upon restitution had of their goods, for payment of all such duties as should bee made appeare to be payable to his Majestie in such manner as the said Barons should direct. That the said Sir Thomas Trevor and other the Barons aforesaid, knowing that the said summes demanded on his Majesties behalfe by the said Officers of the Customes not to be due by Law, did refuse to order restitution of any part of those goods, (so detained as aforesaid) to the Proprietors thereof, unlesse the said Proprietors would deposite all such summes of money as the said Officers respectively demanded of them for pre­tended duties to his Majestie; and the said Proprietors re­fusing to deposite the said summes demanded, the said Sir Thomas Trevor, and other the Barons aforesaid, did or­der the said Officers to detaine double the value of the summes by them demanded for pretended duties to his Majestie, and to restore the residue: The said Sir Thomas Trevor, and other the said Barons then knowing that the pretended summes demanded by the said Officers, were not by Law due or payable to his Majestie.

2 That in or about January 4. Car. the said Officers ha­ving seized severall Merchandize of the goods of Richard Chambers Merchant, upon the pretences aforesaid, did de­taine the same; and the said Chambers prosecuting by plaint to have his said goods replevied, the said Sir Thomas Tre­vor, together with the said other Barons, did in like manner in the said Court of Exchequer, declare the said Chambers goods not to be Replevisable, and enjoyned the Sheriffes of London to proceed no further therein, no cause to them appearing of such seisure or detainer. And the said Sir Thomas Trevor, and other the Barons of the said Court, refused to order the delivery of the said Chamber's goods, upon good security offered by him to pay all such summes as should be made appeare to [Page 42] be due, and for which the said goods were pretended to be detained and the said Barons being often moved in Court; therein, did refuse to order restitution of any part of the said Chambers goods, untill the three and twentieth of No­vember, 5. Caroli, and then ordered that the said Officers should detaine in their hands double the value of the summes by them demanded, and restitution of the resi­due to be made to the said Chambers, no cause of detain­ing any part of the said goods to them in any wise ap­pearing.

3 That whereas in the moneth of October, in the fourth yeare of his said Majesties reigne, the Farmers and Offi­cers of the Custome-house having seized great quantities of Currants, being the goods of Samuel Vassall Merchant, and having conveyed them into certaine Store-houses at the Custome house and detained them, because the said Samuel Vassall refused to pay an imposition of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of the said Currants, pretended to be due, and demanded by the said Farmours and Officers on his Majesties behalfe for the said Currants, whereas no such imposition was due or paiable for the same, but the said imposition was and is against the Lawes of this Realme. And whereas also in Michaelmas Terme, in the said fourth yeare of his Majesties Raigne, his Majesties then Attorney generall exhibited an informati­on by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber against the said Samuel Vassal, setting forth that K. James, by his Letters Patents dated 3. Novem. in the second yeare of his Raigne, did command that the said imposition of 5. s. 6. d. upon every hundred weight of Currants should be demanded and received: And that his Majestie that now is, by his Letters Patents dated the six and twentieth day of July, in the second yeare of his Raigne, did, by advise of his Privie Councell, declare his will and pleasure to be, that Subsidies, Customes and Imposts should be levied in such manner as they were levied in the time of King James; and the same, [Page 43] and the Farmers thereof to continue untill it might receive a setling by Parliament and commanded the levying and receiving the same accordingly; and that the said Samuel Vassall before the first day of October then last past before the said Information exhibited, did bring into the port of London in ships foure thousand six hundred thirty eight hundred weight of Currants, and that Richard Carmar­thon Surveyour in the said port of London, the said first day of October demanded of the said Samuel Vassall the said imposition of five shillings six pence for every hun­dred weight of the said Currants, and that the said Samuel Vassall refused to pay the said imposition, and unjustly detained it from the King: To which Infor­mation the said Samuell Vassall appeared, and pleaded the Statute of Magna Charta; and the Statute of De Tallagio non concedendo, and that he was a Subject borne under the Kings Allegeance, and a Merchant of Lon­don using that trade, and that the said summe of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of Cur­rants, was and is malum talnetum, and not antiqua seu recta consuetudo, and that it was imposed without assent of Parliament: to which Plea the said Atturney Ge­nerall demurred in Law, and the said Samuel Vassall joyned in demurrer with him.

That the said Sir Thomas Trevor, being then and yet one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court, knowing the said Currants to be unlawfully sei­zed and detained for the pretended duty of five shillings six pence imposition upon every hundred weight of the said Currants (whereas no such imposition was paiable by Law) did from time to time delay the said Samuel Vassall from having restitution of his said goods, being often in Court moved therein, with intention thereby to force the said Samuel Vassall (by wanting the said goods, and the use thereof) to pay all such summes as the said Officers of the [Page 44] Customes pretended to be due to his Majestie, and impri­soned the said Samuel Vassall, because he refused to pay such summes of money as were demanded of him for the said unlawfull imposition, and that in Trinity Terme in the sixth yeere of his Majesties reigne, the said case com­ming to be argued in open Court upon the demurrer, the said Sir Thomas Trevor, contrary to his oath, and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme, and to the great impoverish­ment of the said Samuel Vassall, did (together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) give his opinion and judgement upon the said Information for the King, and against the said Samuel Ʋassall, and by se­verall Orders for that purpose, did continue the possession of the said goods in the King, and the said Samuel Ʋassall could never obtaine any restitution at all of the said Cur­rants.

4 Whereas it was commanded to the Sheriffe of the Countie of Yorke, by Writ under the Seale of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, dated the sixteenth day of May in the seventh yeere of his Majesties Reigne that now is, That he should distraine James Maleverer Esquire, to appeare before the Barons of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer, in the Octaves of the holy Trinity then next following, to make fine to the King for his trespasse and contempt in not comming to the presence of the King be­fore the 31. day of January in the first yeare of his said Ma­jesties Reigne, to take upon him the order of Knighthood, according to the forme of a Proclamation in that behalfe formerly made; at which day of the said Octaves of the ho­ly Trinity the said J. Maleverer did appeare, and pleaded to the said Writ, that although his said Majesty, the said 31. day of January, and for three days next before, the said 31. day of January was resident and remaining at his Palace at White-hall in the County of Middlesex, and that the said James Maleverer the said one and thirtieth day of Ja­nuary, and three dayes next before the said one and thirti­eth [Page 45] day of January, was resident and remaining at Ancliffe in the said County of Yorke, which is distant from the said Palace of White-hall the space of one hundred and fourescore miles; and that the said James Maleverer the said one and thirtieth day of January aforesaid, or at any time before, had no lands or rents in his owne hands, or in the hands of Feoffees to his uses, out of the said County of Yorke, and that that part of the said County of Yorke which is neerest to the said Palace of White-hall, the space of one hundred and thirty miles, and that no Proclamation by vertue of any Writ of Proclamation, for the appea­rance of any persons whatsoever, to take the said order of Knighthood, was made in any part of the said County of Yorke before the thirtieth day of January in the said first yeere of his Majesties reigne, by reason whereof the said James Maleverer could not personally come to the pre­sence of his said Majestie, to take the said order of Knight­hood, before the said one and thirtieth day of January in the said first yeere of his said Majesties reigne, yet the said James Maleverer for his fine in the premisses, did humbly submit himselfe to the said Court, and demanded to be dis­charged of the said issues, returned and imposed upon him by reason of the premisses; yet notwithstanding the said Plea and submission of the said James Maleverer, and after the same was made as aforesaid, and entred upon Record in his Majesties said Court of Exchequer, the said Sir Thomas Trevor (being then one of the Barons of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer) contrary to his oath, and contrary to the Lawes of this Realme, and to the great impoverishing of the said James Maleverer, did (together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court) refuse to impose any fine whatsoever upon the said James Maleverer, and told him that the said Court had no power to fine him; but that hee might compound with certaine Commissioners for that purpose appointed. And did farther order and direct [Page 46] severall other writs of Distringas, to issue forth of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer, under the Seale of the said Court, directed to the severall high Sheriffes of the said Countie of Yorke, whereby the said Sheriffes were commanded further to distraine the said James Maleverer to appeare, as aforesaid: upon which said writs of Distringas, severall great and excessive issues were returned upon the lands of the said James Maleve­rer, amounting to the summe of two thousand pounds or there abouts, a great part whereof, the said James Maleverer was inforced to pay; and in like manner the said Sir Thomas Trevor (together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) did order and di­rect such and the like proceedings, and the said proceedings were had and made accordingly against Thomas Moyser Esquire, and against severall other persons his Majesties subjects in severall parts of this Kingdome, to the utter un­doing of many of them.

5 That he the said Sir Thomas Trevor, about the moneth of November, Anno Domini 1635. then being one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, and having ta­ken an oath for the due administration of Justice to his Ma­jesties liege people, according to the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme, subscribed his name to an opinion, in haec verba: [I am of opinion, &c. ut suprà in Baron Davenports Charge, pag. 30.

6 That in or about the moneth of February Anno Dom. 1636. (then being one of the Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) he subscribed an extrajudicial opinion in answer to questions in a letter from his Majesty, in haec verba:

‘ Charles R. When the good and safety of the king­dome in generall is concerned, &c. ut suprà, loco citato, and subscribed ut priùs.’

7 That the said Sir Thomas Trevor (being then one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer) did deli­ver his opinion, and judgement in the Exchequer chamber, [Page 47] against John Hampden Esquire, in the Case of Ship-money; That he the said John Hampden upon the matter and substance of the Case, was chargeable with the money then in question: a copie of which proceedings and judge­ment the Commons in this present Parliament have alrea­dy delivered to your Lordships.

8 That whereas in the moneth of April 16. Car. the Officers of the Custome-house having seized a Ship of one Samuel Warner's laden with Tobacco, being the goods of the said Warner, the Bulke of the said Ship not being broken, and no information exhibited for the King, according to the course of the Exchequer, for any duty, the Barons were moved that the said Ship might be restored to the Proprietor, giving security to pay such duties as did belong to the King; But upon the allegation of the Kings Attor­ney that there needed no information, because there was no penaltie, the said Sir Thomas Trevor, (being then one of the Barons of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer, together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court,) did (contrary to his oath, and contrary to the Laws of this Realme,) deny the restitution of the said Ship, un­lesse all the duties demanded by the Farmours of the Custome-house were first paid. Hereupon the said Warner brought an action of Trover in the office of Pleas in the Exchequer against the said Officers that seized his Ship and goods: whereupon the Kings Attorney generall exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer chamber against the said Warner; setting forth, that Customes and Subsidies upon Merchandize were a great part of the Kings revennue, and payable to him; and that the said Ship was seized for non-payment of the aforesaid duties, notwith­standing the said Warner then Proprietor, prosecuted the Officers upon a suit at Law, and prayes that hee may answer the said Information before any further procee­dings be had at Law: Thereupon the said Sir Thomas Tre­vor, (together with the rest of the then Barons of the said [Page 48] Court of Exchequer,) ordered, that the Proprietor mo­ving for delivery of the said goods, should first answer to the said Information; after which the said Warner demur­red to the said Information in regard no title for any cer­taine dutie was set forth by the Information, which demur­rer yet remains not over-ruled; but the said Sir Thomas Trevor, with the said other Barons, (without over-ruling the demurrer) ordered, (because Warner had put in a demur­rer and not answered to the said Information, that hee should not proceede upon the action of Trover. The Pro­prietor being thus prevented of his remedie by action at Law, sued forth a Replevin, and (upon pretence of viewing the said goods,) caused them to be brought forth of a Cel­lar, hired by a deputie of the Farmours to that use; and being brought forth, they were taken by the Sheriffe of London, by vertue of the said Replevin; and upon oath made of the manner of the taking, as aforesaid, before the Barons, and upon view of the President, inrolls his case; the said Sir Thomas Trevor, with the said other Barons, adjudged, that the said goods were not Replevisable, and granted an Injuncti­on to maintain the possession of them as they were before.

And the said house of Commons by protestation▪ saving to themselves only the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Thomas Trevor, and also of replying to the answer that he the said Sir Thomas Trevor shall make unto the said Articles, or any of them, or of offering proof of the premis­ses, or any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them, as the Case shall (according to the course of Parliaments) require, doe pray that the said Sir Thomas Trevor, one of the Barons of his Majesties Court of Exchequer, may be put to answer to all and every the premisses; and that such proceedings, examinations, trialls, and judgements may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to Law and Justice.