Who were Antiently Sum­moned to Parliament.

ARchbishops, and Bishops, Ratione specialis dignitatis & tenurae.

All Abbots and Priors which held by an Earldom or a Ba­rony, Ratione tenurae.

All Earls and Barons by reason of their Inheritable Nobility and te­nure, and their Peers also, ratione tenurae.

The Judges and Barons of the Exchequer, the Kings privy Coun­cel, and his learned Councel were summoned also, but neque tenurae, ne­que dignitatis ratione, and they made no Proxies for they had no voice.

The Knights of the Shires.

The Barons of the Cinque Ports. [Page 2] The Citizens & Burgesses were ever elected and sent to the Parliament.

The Officers, as the Clerk of the Crown.

The Clerk of the Parliament, and the gentleman-Usher attended Ra­tione officii without any summons.

Whether the Summons were an­ciently by one general Writ or par­ticular Writs.

It appears in that Antient Manu­script, Modus tenendi Parliamen­tum. That Arch-Bishops, Abbots, and Pryors which held by Baroni­am, summoneri debent.

Minores Clerici nec minores laici non summoneri debent, sed si corum pre­sentia necessaria fuerat, Rex solebat talibus brevia sua mittere, Rogand. quod Parliamentum suum interessent.

Hence it may be gathered, that in those times, viz. before the Conquest, the Lords spiritual and tem­poral, and the Peers were summo­ned to Parliament by one general Summons, and that the others who were neither Lords nor Peers had particular Writs, but it is unlikely that William the Conqueror did send [Page 3] out such Summons to the Lords: For how could the antient Baro­nage (who were translated by Con­quest to the Normans) take notice thereof, their Lands, and Honors being seised for the King? It is pro­bable he sent particular Writs of of Summons to his Normans (new created Lords) and to such English (if any) as he continued in th [...]t de­gree of honour. Vide Ma [...]. Paris. page 247. in Charta. R. his summoneri faciemus omnes Archiepisc. Episc. &c. Comites & Majores Barones, Regni no­stri singulatim per literas nostras, &c.

But as touching the Peers. Their Summons during his time continued as before, for it follows in the same Charter, Et praeterea faciemus sum­moneri in generali per vice-comites & ballivos nostros omnes alios qui in Ca­pite tenent, &c.

By these tenants in Capite, under­stand those onely who held land in capite of the King (Ad valentiam unius comitatus, vel Baroniae integrae, as it is in that antient Manuscript, modus tenendi Parliamentum) and they are there named Peers.

Divers learned Heralds not know­ing any difference between the Lords and their Peers have run into these errors, viz.

First, that all heretofore came to Parliament who had Lands of an entire County or Barony, and that Henry the third, having smarted by such a confused company of Ba­rons, did (after the battail of Eve­sham) first ordain, that those Earls and Barons to whom he directed his writs, should only come to Parli­ament, for which they vouch no Re­cord, but only the first Writ of Summons extant, Ann. 49. H. 3. 14. December, and affirm the same to be after the battail of Evesham, & that this was the first time that Ba­rons were called by special Writs.

Secondly that the Writ of Sum­mons did create a Baron.

Thirdly, the first Writ did en­noble the person so created, and if the Son was also summoned, then the blood was ennobled.

Not observing the difference be­tween Peers & Barons, the one being admitted ad libitum regis, the other [Page 5] never if once created, being of full age, within the Land, and Rectus in Curia, as shall be declared hereafter in this Chapter.

The first of these is easily refuted and satisfied, for the practice ap­pears to be otherwise touching the Earls and Barons in the time of King John, as by the aforesaid Char­ter in Mathew Paris.

And the very date of the Writs which are vouched, proves, that the practise was also in H. 3. time, who began his Raign the xixth. of Octo­ber, and the Writs of Summons bear date in December, and the battail of Evesham 49. H. 3. happily this King did first ordain that no Peer should come to Parliament, unless such as had particular Writs of Summons, and therefore the Heralds are to b [...] excused, for the Peers once Sum­moned, have been reputed Lords of Parliament, and the Peers have been anciently stiled Barons, Vide Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour: That Matthew Paris saith, that Hen. 3. did number 250 of his Barons (who were as I conceive, Barones [Page 6] minores or Peers) and not those who were Barons by Inheritance, whom Mathew Paris in the other place stiles Barons Majores, for they ne­ver attained to that number: Also by this word (Peers) are understood all the Lords spiritual and temporal in the second Parliament of 15. E. 2. & 1. E. 3. touching the banish­ment of the Spencers; so that the Heralds might easily be deceived therein, especially since the Writs unto Barons and Peers, were all one, and they were ranked together promiscuously in the Book of Sum­mons, and some Peers placed there above antient Barons.

But of this (viz.) that Peers were summoned, and omitted again (ad libitum Regis) And that Barons were ever created by Investiture of Robes, and that the Writ only did create a Baron, and that the first Writ did enoble both the person & blood of him that was created: more shall be said hereafter in this Chap­ter in the title of Omission.

Here I will only remember that this word (Baron) was anciently a [Page 7] general name to all those that held power of Judicature) as well as to the Parliament Barons: the Free-holders in a Court Baron were an­ciently named Barons, and that Court stiled (Curia Baronum in re­spect of them, and not (Curia Ba­ronis) as now in respect of the Lord of the Mannor; and the Aldermen of London, were anciently so named, and that they of the Cinque ports retain it to this day, and so do the Barons of the Exchequer who were first called (Sagi Barones) for they were, sagaces ad Compotes recipien­dos & allocandos.

§. 2. The ancient form of the Writ.

THE first writ of Summons ex­tant upon Record, is that of 49. H. 3. viz.

Henricus, dei gratia, Rex An­gliae, Dominus Hiberniae, & Dux Aquitaniae, venerabili in Christo patri. R. eâdem gratiâ Episcopo Dunelm. Salutem. cum post gravia turbationum discrimina dudum habita in Regno, Charissimus filius Edvardus primo ge­nitus [Page 8] noster, pro pace in regno nostro assensuranda, & firmanda, obses tradi­tus extitisset, & jam feduta (benedictus deus) turbatione, praedicta super deli­beratione ejusdem salubriter providen­da, & plena securitate, & tranquil­litate pacis, ad honorem dei, & Ʋti­litatem totius Regni nostri firmanda, & totaliter complenda, ut super quibusdam aliis Regni nostri negotiis, que sine consilio vestro, & aliorum prae­latorum & magnatum nostrorum no­bumus expediri; cum iisdem tracta­tum habere nos oportet: vobis manda­mus, Rogantes in fide & dilectione quibus nobis tenemini, quod omni occa­sione post posita & negotiis aliis pre­termissis, Sitis ad nos London, in Octabis sanct. Hillarii proxim. futur. nobiscum, & cum praedictis prelatis, & magnatibus nostris quos ibid. vo­cari facimus super premissis tractatur. & concilium impensur. & hoc sicut nos & honorem nostrum & vestrum, nec non & communem Regni nostri tran­quilitatem diligitis, nullatenus omit­tatis: Teste me ipso xiiii. Decemb. Ann. regni nostri 49 eodem modo mandatum est Episc. Carl. &c. sub data xiiii. Decemb.

In forma praedict. subscribitur Ab­bot. & Prioribus subscriptis, &c.

Subdata apud Woodstock xiiii. Decemb.

In forma predict mandatum est co­mitibus & aliis subscriptis dat apud Woodstock, viz.

• Comiti Leicester
• Comiti Glocester.
• Comiti Norf. & Mareschal. Angl.
• Comiti Oxon.
• Comiti Derby.
• Rad. de Camois.
• Rogero de sanct. Johanne
• Hugo de Spencer. Justic. Angliae.
• Johanni filii Johannis
• Will. de Munches.
• Nich. de Segrave
• Johanni de Vescye
• Rad. Basset de Drayt.
• Henrico de Hastings
• Galfrid. de Lucie
• Roberto de Roes
• Johanni de Eynil
• Adae de Novo Mercato
• Waltero de Colvil
• Gulielmo de Wyrmigey.
• [Page 10]Rogera de Bertram
• Roberto Basset de Sapcott.
• Gilbert. de Gaunt

Item Mandatum est singulis Comi­tibus per Anglaim quod venire faciant duos Milites de legaliorib. & discre­tioribus militibus singulorum Commi­tat. ad Regem, Lond. in Octabis prae­dictis in forma praedicta.

Item in forma praedicta scribitur Civibus Ebor. Civibus Lincoln. & Caeteris Burgensibus Angliae, quod Mittant.

Item informa praedicta Mandatum est Baronibus, & probis hominibus quin{que} Portuum, &c.

The difference between this Writ, and the Writ at this day.

THis is special, declaring the cause of the Summons, and so were divers others of Edw. the first, Edw. 2. Ed. 3. and Rich. 2. but for the most part they were gene­rall as at this day, and none speciall after the seventh year of Rich. 2. But Vide Matthew Paris, page 247. [Page 11] in Charta Regis Johannis in omnibus litteris submonitionis illius Expone­mus, &c.

And also this Writ was alike un­to the Lords and Judges (for such were Johannes de Eynil) and they that followed; and so the Writs were all alike in divers yeares of Edw. 1. in most of Edw. 2. and in many of Edw. 3.

Of the title of the party summoned.

THe Bishops Christen-names were ever mentioned and stiled anciently Venerabili in Christo Patri, &c.

But of the latter times the Arch­bishop is stiled Reverendissimus, and all others Reverendi in Christo Pa­tres.

The Christian names of the Ab­bots and Priors were never men­tioned, they were stiled Dilecto in Christo Abbati Sanct. Augustini, &c.

The Title of the Prince.

I Find no other Attribute to the Prince, then Charissimus in the time of E. 1. E 2. and E. 3. and H. 4. And that is omitted in 24. E. 3. and in the 26. E. 3. It is thus, Rex dilecto, & fideli Edwardo Prin­cipi Walliae, Duci Cornubiae, & Comi­ti Cestriae, salutem.

The Titles of a Duke, Earl, and Baron.

WEre stiled all alike, Prout, dilccto, & fideli suo Henri­eo duci Lancast. salute, Anno 29 E. 3. Neither had any of the Kings Brethren, Nephews, or Uncles, any other title in the time of Edw. 1. Edw. 2. and Ed. 3.

But when E. 3. had created his own Children Dukes, and Earls, then they were stiled Filii sui Charissimi: And R. 2. named them Avunculos, or Consanguineos suos Charissimi, but no other had that Attribute of Charissime in the title [Page 13] of his Writ, although he were the Kings kinsman, prout Anno 16 E. 2. dilecto & fideli Consanguineo Ricar. Comit. Arundel, & Surrey.

The Titles of Barons and Peers.

THey never had any other title then dilecto & fideli. After the French Wars some of them had the addition of Chivaler: The first so stiled was William de Aldeburgh, Ann. 49 E. 3. I remember no o­ther in the time of E. 3. but Wells, eodem Anno. 49 E. 3. in the Proro­gation of that Parliament, and he was summoned without that Addi­tion: Anno 50. E. 3. and after du­ring his life.

And some 4. had that Addition, Annis R. 2. H. 4. &. H. 5. but af­ter 3. H. 6. they all had that title of Chivaler, but it was not anciently a Note of honour, for in Annis 1, 2, & 3 R. 2. some of the Judges had the same, viz. John Knevet, and Roger de Aston.

The title Baron had Dominus in the Writ.

The Lord Stafford and Greystocke were usually summoned by the title of their Barony, prout Anno 27 E. 1. Edw. Baroni de Stafford, Anno 23. E. 1.

Johanni Baroni de Greystocke, o­mitting their Sirnames of Bagot, and I find others in the time of H. 6. who had the title of Dominus, happily they were but then crea­ted, which I leave to the search of others, I will onely recite their names.

Edwardo de Grey, domino de Fer­rariis de Grobye Henrico de Piercye, Carol. domino de Poynings, An. 25 H. 6. 24 Decemb.

Johanni de Beauchamp, Militi, domino Beauchamp, Jacobo Fiennes Militi domino de Saye, & de Sele, An­no 27 H. 6. 20 Januarij.

Roberto Hungerford Militi domi­no de Moleyns, Willielmo Bouchier Militi domino Fitzwaryn, Willielmo Beauchamp Domino de sancto Amand. teste R. apud Westminst. 17 die Maij, Anno 27 H. 6.

R. dilecto, & fideli suo Henrico Bromflet Militi, Baroni de Vessye. [Page 15] salutem, quia, &c. Volumus enim vos, & haered. vestros Masculos, de corpore vestro legitime exeuntes Baro­nes de Vessey existere. Teste Rege a­pud Westminster 24 day of Januarij, Anno 27 Henry 6.

R. dilecto & fideli suo Willielmo Bonevill Militi domino de Clinton salutem quia, &c. sicut in aliis brevi­bus T.R. apud Westminster x die Martii, Anno 27 H. 6.

Johanni Sturton Militi, domino Sturton, Anno 28. H. 6.— per ipsum Regem.

Edwardo Nevil Militi, domino de Bergaveny, Thomae domino de Roes Thomae Grey dom. de Ruthin, Thomae Piercy Militi domino de Egremont, Willielmo Fines, Militi domino de Say, Anno 29 H. 6. T.R. 23 April.

Per ipsum Regem.

JOhanni Domino de Clinton, Anno 33 H. 6. 26 Maij, Thomae Stan­ley, Militi domino de Stanley T. R. 15 die Januarij per ipsum Regem & consilium in Parliamento, summoned to the Parliament of the 33 H. 6. and 34. H. 6.

Richardo Fines domino de Dacre Militi, Richard. Wells, domino Willoughby, Militi Johanni Clifford, domino de Clifford, Militi eodem An­no Johanni Nevil, domino de Nevil T.R. apud Coventry 20 Novemb. per litter. de privato Sigillo, Anno 38 H. 6. 30 Julii, per ispum Regem.

Johan. Nevil domino de Moun­tag. Chr. &c. And in all these times the summons to the Lord Gristock, are Rad. Greystock Chr. omitting Barony, which he had in his ancient Writs.

And these Lords who in the time of H. 6. (Barons being then most usually created by patent) were sty­led Domini, had their summons in E. 4. not the word Chivaler onely, since when they all have no other Addition.

To the Judges.

THe Judges ever had the title of Dilecti & fideles in their Writs, and retain the same to this day.

Next to the title is considerable the form of the Mandamus, how it is to the Lords Spiritual, and how to the Lords Temporall, and the [Page 17] Judges, and others of the Kings learned Council.

And then (what the Lords and what the Judges) and others were commanded to do by their Writs or Summons.

The Mandamus to the Bishops.

VObis Mandamus in fide & di­lectione quibus nobis tenemini, quod, &c. Anno 49 H. 3. Vos ef­fectuose requirimus, et Rogamus quod, &c. Anno 27 E. 1.

Vobis Mandamus quod, &c. Anno 32 E. 1. & 5 E. 3.

Vobis Mandamus firmiter Injun­gentes quod, &c. Anno 2. E. 2. Anno 1 E. 3. And in all other Parliaments thus:

Vobis Mandamus in fide et dilecti­one quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter Injungentes quod, &c.

And so it continues unto this day, and the like to the Abbots and Pri­ors.

The Mandamus to the Temporal Lords, Anno 49 E. 2.

AFter the Writ to the Bishops which is entred at large, it followeth in the Roll.

Item in forma praedicta Mandatum est Comitibus, &c.

And I find the Mandamus to the Lords Temporal, Anno 23 E. 1. bis, et Anno 24 E. 1. & Anno 2 E. 2. to be In fide et dilectione as to the Bishops, Anno 6 Ric. 2. Consimile to the Duke of Lancaster.

But in all other Summons. In fide et homagio until 22 Ed. 3. and 25 Ed. 3. And then the summons to the King of Scots, and Prince of Wales, In fide et Legiantia: And Anno 45 E. 3. Consimile to them all, and so it continues to this day.

Vobis Mandamus in fide et legian­tia quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter In­jungentes quod, &c.

The next observation in the Writ of Summons, is what they are commanded to do:

THe Lords Spiritual and Tempo­ral, are Tractatur cum Rege, et Ca­teris Praelatis, Magnatibus, et proceri­bus et Consilium suum impensur. But the forms hereof in the ancient Writs of E. 1. are divers, prout.

To the Bishops.

ANno 23 E. 1. Super q [...]ibusdam Arduis negotiis nos et regnum nostrum et vos caeteros{que} Prelatos de eodem Regno tangentibus, quae sine vestra et eorum praesentia nolumus ex­pediri vobis, &c. quod, &c. Sitis, &c. super dictis Negotijs tractaturi, et vestrum Consilium impensuri, 23 Junij.

To the Temporall Lords.

EOdem Anno 23 Junij, supra qui­busdam, &c. Nos, & Regnum Nostrum & vos caeteros{que} proceres & [Page 20] magnates de eodem Regno tangenti­bus quae sine, &c. Ʋt supra.

To the Judges, eodem An.

SƲper quibusdam arduis negotiis nos & Regnum nostrum ac vos cae­teros{que} de consilio nostro tangentibus quae sine, &c. Ʋt supra in Mandat. Episc.

The Writ to the Bishops recites the wrong done by the French King in Gascony, and his Army, prepared to invade England it self: And then thus, 23. Ed. 1. 30 September.

Quia provisa Jacula minus ledant & res nostra maxima ficut caeterorum Regni consilium agitur, in hac parte vobis Mandamus in fide & dilectione quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter injun­gentes quod die dominica proxima post festū Sanct. Martini in hieme proxim. futurum apud Westminster, personali­ter intersitis premonuentes Priorem et Capitulum, &c. Ad tractandum, ordinand. & faciendum nobiscum & cum Caeteris Praelatis & proceribus & aliis Incolis Regni nostri qualiter sit hujusmodi periculis, & excogitatis malitiis obviandum, T. R. &c

Consimile to the Earls & Barons, &c. omitting onely the Clause Pre­munientes.

By these words, alijs Incolis Regni are understood the Commons, who have no such command in any other Writ (this onely excepted;) Neither had the Clergy any such command in any other Writ then this:

Memorand. that this time the King obtained a great subsidy of the Clergy and Laity.

To conclude this point, the Lords were summoned to treat with the K. and the other Lords, and to give their Counsel.

Onely in this last recited Writ is omitted, to give Counsel.

The Judges and others of the Kings Councill.

THey are Tractare cum Rege & cum Caeteris de consilio Regis & consilium suum impendere, &c. Prout nobiscum, & cum caeteris de consilio nostro superdictis Negotijs tractaturi vestrum{que} consilium impensuri, &c.

Consimile in most years of Ed. I [Page 22] yet their Writs were oftentimes all one with those to the Lords, prout Anno 23 E. 1. and 27 E. 1. and in most years of E. 2.

The first Parliament of E. 3. a­greed with that of 28 of E. 1. viz. Tractatur vobiscum & cum Cae­teris de Consilio nostro vestrumque consilium impendere, prout Anno 4 E. 3. & 5, 6. & 7. &c. Ʋs{que} 20 E. 3.

From the 20 year of E. 3. until the 46. their Writs agree with the Lords in this Clause (viz.) Vobis­cum & cum dictis Praelatis, Mag­natibus, & proceribus dicti Regni no­stri tractaturi, vestrum{que} Concilium impensuri.

And in two Parliaments of E. 3. (viz.) Anno 1 E. 3. 11 Decemb. & 2. E. 3. it is Nobiscum tractatur, &c. omitting & cum Caeteris de Con­silio.

Anno 27 E. 1. it is Nobiscum & cum Praelatis, Magnatibus, & proceribus & alijs de consilio no­stro, &c.

But from 46 of E. 3. to this day, it agrees with that of 28 E. 1. (viz.) [Page 23] Nobiscum & cum caeteris de consilio nostro, &c.

Per Clerum.

THe Bishops were summoned to appear themselves in person and to warn the Clergy of their Diocess to appear in this manner (viz.)

The Dean and Pryor of their Church, and the Arch-Deacons of every Deanery of the Diocess to appear in person.

The Chapter of the Church were to send one Proctor, and the Clergy of the Diocess two, Plenam et sufficientem potestatem ab ipsis Capi­tulo & Clero habentes, ad faciendum, & consentiendum is quae tunc ibidem de communi consilio (divina favente Clementia) ordinari contigerint, &c. Anno E. 3.

In the first summons Anno 23 E. 1. where this Clause is recorded in the Bishops Writs, it is,

Ad tractandum, ordinandum, et faciendum nobisc. & cum Caeteris Praelatis, & Proceribus, et aliis In­colis Regni nostri, &c.

But this cannot be alledged for a praecedent, for it is not to be found in any of the former, or subsequent Writs, they all agreeing with this of 4 E. 3.

Here may be a question, whether the Clergy did anciently come to the Parliament (without the Kings WRIT they cannot come;) And they are omitted in the first Sum­mons which we have recorded (viz). An ^o 49 H. 3. And in the first Parli­ament of 23 E. 1. and in divers o­ther following Parliaments, prout An ^o 27 E. 1. Febr. 6. An ^o 28 E. 1. Septemb. 26. An ^o 3 E. 2. Octob. 26. An ^o 16 E. 2. Septemb. 18. & An ^o 6 E. 3. 26 July, but never after the 6 year of E. 3. quaere rationem.

Per Communicatem.

THe Commons were not summo­ned, but elected upon the Kings Writs to the Sheriff, &c. as shall be declared in the end of this Chapter, and were commanded to come to the Parliament, Plenam, & suffici­entem potestatem habentes ad faciend. [Page 25] & consentiend. de hiis quae de com­muni consilio (faventi Dom.) ordinari contigerint, &c. An. 4. E. 3.

With this Writ agree all the for­mer and subsequent Writs; divers additions have been by statute touching the Election, but this Clause never altered

The Lords Spiritual and Tempo­ral are to treat with the King, and the other Lords present, and to give their counsel.

The Judges are to treat with the King and the rest of his learned Council.

The Clergy are to come with power to do and consent unto that which shall be ordained by the Common Councel of the Land, the Parliaments.

And this is the cause that all Judgements in Parliament were given by the Lords, and not by the Commons, yet they were parties to the Refusall of Judgements given in Parliaments.

All Petitions directed to the King and his Councel were handled by the Judges (and by the Kings Coun­cel) [Page 26] and by them prepared for the Lords (if need were) but never by the Commons,

All Ordinances made in Parlia­ment (in Pleno Parliamento) were made by the Lords and Commons) all Ordinances made per Commune Concilium, were made by the Lords and Commons. But of this more in the second Book.

I will onely add this; whatsover began by the Commons was an­ciently termed (Petition) for they had no power to ordain: And what­soever began with the Lords, (An Ordinance.)

Petitions were exhibited by pri­vate persons to the King and his Councel, or to the Commons.

Ordinances were either by the Lords alone about some particular business, or an Act of the Lords and Commons, and consented unto by the King, but not to have continu­ance for ever.

Actus Parliamenti, was an Act made by the Lords and Commons, (statutum) when the King had con­sented to the Act.

By what warrant the Writs of Sum­mons were made.

IT doth not appear by the first Record of Summons now ex­tant, Ann [...] 49 H. 3. by what War­rant the Lord Chancellor caused the Writ of Summons to be made, the King was then prisoner unto Mountford, his sometime Minion.

But Surely, none but the King can summon the Parliament; and this is the Reason that H. 4. ha­ving taken his Liege Lord, King Rich. 2. prisoner, on the 20th. day of August, Anno 23. did cause the Writs of Summons for the Par­liament, wherein he obtained the Crown, to bear date the 19 day of the same moneth, and the warrant to be per ipsum Regem & consilium, and himself to be summoned by the name of Henry Duke of Lancaster.

The Warrant hath been divers, sometimes per breve de privato sigil­lo, but commonly per ipsum Regem, or per ipsum Regem & Consilium.

If the King hath been absent, and [Page 28] a Custos appointed (as the manner is,) the Writ bears the Teste by the Custos, and the Warrant is per ipsum Regem, & dominum Custodem, & Consilium, prout, Anno 3 E. 3. Teste Edwardo Duce Cornubiae, &c. Custo­de Angliae.

Per ipsum Regem, et Dominum Custodem, & Consilium, Anno 20 E. 3. Consimile, Anno 9 H. 5. Teste Johanne Duce Bedford, Custode Angliae.

Per ipsum Regem & Consilium.

Anno 9 H. 6. The King being in Paris, Teste Humphreido Duce Glo­cester, Custode Angl. per breve de privato Consilio.

But if the King be within the Land, though (within Age) and a Protector appointed him, he alone is Testis to the Writ, and Warrant, per ipsum Regem, prout Anno 1 H. 6. and sometimes per ipsum Regem & Consilium, &c.

But for many Summons, the War­rant is not recorded.

The form of the War­rant.

JAMES by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To our Right Trusty, and wel-beloved Chancellour, Tho­mas Egerton, Chancellour of Eng­land, greeting. Whereas we by our Councell for certain great and ur­gent causes concerning us, the good Estate and Common wealth of this our Realm, and of the Church of England, and for the good order and continuance of the same; have appointed and ordained a Parlia­ment to be holden at our City of Westminster, the first day of April next coming; In which case divers and sundry Writs are to be di­rected forth under our great Seal of England, as well for the Prelates, Bishops, and Nobility of this our Realm, as also for the Election of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses [Page 30] of the several Counties, Cities, and Borough-Towns of the same to be present at the said Parliament, at the day and place aforesaid.

Wherefore we will and command you forthwith upon the Receipt hereof, and by Warrant of the same, to cause such and so many Writs to be made and sealed under Our great Seal for the accomplishment of the same, as in like Cases hath been heretofore used and accusto­med: And this Bill signed with our hand, shall be as well unto you, as to every such Clark and Clarks, as shall make, or passe the same, a sufficient Warrant in that behalf. Given, &c.

The Warrant is generall, and directs not the Lord Chancellor un­to whom he shall direct the Writs of Summons, nor to omit any that were summoned the Parliament be­fore. And yet it is apparent that many Lords (though living) have been omitted, and that the Father who hath been often summoned in his life time, being dead, his son [Page 31] nor none of his posterity have ever been after summoned.

This gives more occasion to shew what right the Nobility have had to be summoned, and upon what oc­casions they have been omitted.

First for their Right, the King at this day inserts into the patent of crea­tion of a Baron, that he should be summoned to Parliament, so that the question doth rest only upon those Barons who had no patent of Crea­tion; for the Earles had Charters, and no doubt was ever made of them. The doubt ariseth out of this, that divers Lords have been called by Writs, the onely thing left us recorded to know them; for anciently they had no Patents, and yet their sons and posterity wholly omitted, for it may seem it rests meerly in the Kings will to call them again, or wholly omit them, and that they had no right to be called by their Creation.

To satisfie this, let us consider of the creation of Earls (of whom there was no doubt) and of the crea­tion of Bar [...]s.

It cannot be denyed, but that Earls were ever created by an actual Ceremony, and that ancient­ly they had no Charter.

Mandevile Earl of Essex being the first that had any (as the com­mon opinion is) there being none extant before his time; now the question is, whither the honour passe by creation without the Char­ter, or no, as I suppose it did, and that the Charter was to convey the Jurisdiction anciently, and of lat­ter times, the third penny of the County, rather then for the honour; and for this cause happily divers Earls used to renew their Charters at the change of the Prince, not to renew their honour, but to confirm the grant of the Jurisdiction, or third penny of the County from the Crown; wherefore I may affirm that the ceremony of Investiture, &c. created the Earl, and the Charter of the Earldom.

Earls that renewed their Charters.

MAndevile Earl of Essex crea­ted by K. Stephen; his Char­ter was granted him again by Mawd the Empress, and a Char­ter was granted him again by her sonne Hen. 2.

Milo Earl of Hereford created by Mawd the Empresse, and his Char­ter was granted to him again by her son King H. 2.

These are extant with Sir Ro­bert Cotten, Anno 1626. And if Charters had been usually enrolled in those times, when the Jurisdiction of the Coun­ty was granted unto the Earl, We should have had many more presidents.

Of the creation of Barons, I know there are divers opini­ons, viz.

• 1. That they are Barons by Crea­tion.
• 2. Barons by Writ.
• [Page 34]3. Barons by Tenure.

The two latter are erroneous.

TOuching Barons by creation, I do here intend those onely who have had no patent (as now they have) but were anciently crea­ted by an actual Ceremony, even as Earls anciently were.

No ancient Record can be produ­ced that any degree of honour did passe (no not among the barbarous Nations) without actual ceremony. Knighthood did ever require it, which is the lowest. And therefore I cannot conceive, but that the an­cient Barons were created first be­fore they had their Writs, and then having once been called by Writ, they had as good right for them and their posterity to be summoned ever after as the Earls had, so they kept their land.

To prove that Barons were crea­ted by ceremony, examine the Pa­tents of 11 R. 2. to the Lord John Beauchamp of Holt, which some Anti­quaries affirme to be the first Patent of the creation of a Baron: the words [Page 35] are (Ipsum Johannem in unum Pari­um & Baronum Regni nostri Angliae prefecimus) volentes quod idem Jo­hannes, & haered. masculi de corpore suo exeuntes statum Baronis obtineant, ac domini de Beauchamp & Barones de Kidermaster nuncupentur: In cu­jus rei testimonium, &c.

Teste Rege apud Westminst. 10 die Octob. It is strange to me that any should think that this Patent should create the Lord Beauchamp a Baron.

It wants the very words of Crea­tion, it saith (Praefecimus) we have created, and not per praesentes praefe­cimus, we do now create him: so that out of all doubt he was created before, and the King by this Patent onely limitted the honour to his heirs Males as H. 6 did in the first Writ of Summons to Bromflet, Ba­ron of Vessey, Anno 27 H. 6. Clause.

But if Beauchamp were created before this Patent, the question is how he was created. I answer, nei­ther by Patent nor by Writ: For the Patent is dated the 10^th of Octo­ber, and created him not: And his [Page 36] first Writ was in December follow­ing, which is a good conclusion in my opinion, that he was created a Baron by Investiture of Robes be­fore he had either patent or Writ.

Barons by Writ.

HOw can it be imagined that a Writ can create a Baron. The ground alledged for it is the great slaughter of the Rebellious Barons at the battle of Evesham, Anno. 49 H. 3. And that therefore others were suddenly created by Writ to convict the remainder of those Rebels the foundation of this errour is built upon a false ground. For that Parlia­ment of 49 H. 3. was summoned before the battle of Evesham;

To consider the deliverance of the Kings eldest son who was then a prisoner: and Mountford Earl of Leicester (chief Rebel) had his sum­mons also, and divers others who were slain at that Battail on his part.

If the Writ without Investiture of Robes did enoble the party, then [Page 37] were all the Judges, the Kings Ser­geants at Law, divers Deans, and Arch-Deacons (being Treasurers or Keepers of the Privy Seal) or o­therwise of the Kings Council, eno­bled in divers Parliaments of Edw. 1. almost in all Parliaments of Edw. 2. and many of Edw. 3. For they had then one and the self-same Writ as the Earls and Barons had. The Kings two Escheators have had the same Writ, Annis 12. & 14 Edw. 2. I grant that divers have been called by Writ, and had the same VVrit the Barons had, yea, and were ranked in the Close Rolls (by the Chancery Clerk) above di­vers ancient Barons, and afterwards omitted: But I deny that such were Barons, they were but Peers: For such men anciently also summoned to Parliament, amongst the rest, I will cite one, (viz.) Monuthermer, who having married the VVidow of the Earl of Gloucester, and ha­ving a great part of the Earldom as her joynture, was summoned as an Earl during the minority of her son by Ed. 1. And when the son came to [Page 38] Age, Monuthermer was summoned as a Baron, but his son and posteri­ty omitted.

It may be objected, how these Peers could be discerned from the Barons, their Writs being all one?

I answer, by their manner of ap­pearance; for the Barons appeared in their Robes, such as they had at their creation; the Peers did not, for they had none (or such as were far different from the Barons a Robes,) Surely no, for it had been disgrace to him afterwards to ap­pear in Barons Robes, when he came but as Baron. It plainly appears that he was summoned Ratione te­nurae tantum & non nobilitatis Ergo, and so had no Robes.

Of Peers.

AS touching the opinion that the Father being summoned, his person was enobled; and if his Son be also summoned, his blood is enobled: I have observed, that 3. discents have been summoned, and yet were no Barons (viz.) Anno 49 H. 3.

Rados de Camois was summoned, and ranked in the Roll above all Barons, and Ralph Camois his son was summoned, An. 7 E. 2. And yet 7 R. 2. Claus. membr. 32 dorso. Tho. Camois the Grand child being chosen one of the Knights for Surrey, was discharged by the Kings VVrit, Quia ipse, & quam plures Anteces­sores sui Banneretti fuerint. And K. Richard the second summoned him to that very Parliament of Anno 7. and he was summoned e­ver after during his life.

I doubt not but the Heralds will affirme that Ralph Camois the Fa­ther and Son, yea, and this Thomas Camois were Barons: But how will they then answer the Record of 7 R. 2. who saith they were Bannerets, a Title given to the Peers of that age, as that of Milites was in the time of E. 1. And Tenants in Ca­pite in the time of King John (as shall be shewed hereafter) if they can prove that Thomas Camoys en­joyed the precedency of place which his Grandfather had; Anno 49 H. 3. I am satisfied; till then I [Page 40] conceive, leaving others to their own better judgements, that Ca­moys was called to Parliament 3. discents, yet not being created a Baron by Investiture of Robes, but onely called by VVrit; he was but called a Barons Peer, and no Ba­ron. And it seems to me that those Claims of priviledge not to be im­pannelled of a Jury which occurre in our Year-books, were made by Peers, and not by Barons; For the tryal was by Record, whether sum­moned or not, and not by the He­ralds for their Creation: For it is impossible but a Sheriffe of a Coun­ty should know a Baron of the same Shire by creation (if he were the first;) his appearance in the Parlia­ment in Robes, and the Hatchments at his Fathers Funeral, if it descen­ded unto him, would be so notori­ous, as the Sheriff of the same Shire could not so mistake, as to impan­nell him of a Jury, and the Bailiff dwelling in the same, hindered to warn him to appear.

I know that the word Peers in two Parliaments of 15 E. 2. did [Page 41] signifie the Lords Spirituall, and Temporall, and all that had voyce in Parliament according to the signi­fication of the word. And in the 4 E. 3. all that were to be tryed by Peers 9. the Temporall Lords one­ly: but in all the ancient Statutes (penned by the Judges, and the Kings Serjeants) the Earls and Ba­rons are so named, or else Magnates. And this word Peers is not found in any of them, save in those of 15 E 2. Touching the banishment of the Spencers, whether did any of those Lords who were impannelled of a Jury, challenge the name or title of a Baron, Vide Brooks Abridge­ment. Tit. Challenge, N. 18.

The Cause alledged is, for that he was Banneret & Lord of Parlia­ment, and had place there, and so ought not to be of a Jury.

And may it not be that he who was summoned to the Parliament as a Baron, during his life, also had voyce in Parliament, why not privi­ledg'd out of a Parliament, why may not so much be granted unto him as to a Banneret, not to be chosen [Page 42] Knight of the Shire? the Banneret might be summoned to the upper House, and therefore (in my o­pinion) ought not to serve in the lower House? why not the other priviledge upon the same reason? The very tryall upon such Challen­ges was whether summoned or not.

Not whether a Baron, or no Ba­ron, which satisfies me, that they were no Barons, but Peers, and be­ing summoned, had the priviledges of Barons, both for that, and to be tryed by Peers, but were not so ho­nourable.

Here may be a doubt, whether the Barons and Peers took place in the Parliament-House, as they were ranked in the Lists of Summons, then did Richardus de Camoys, being but a Peer, take place, Anno 49 H. 3. above all Barons: and so Thomas Camoys the Grandchild was ranked, Anno 17 R. 2. and after for divers Parliaments above all Ba­rons. If you peruse those ancient Summons, you shall not find any one of them ranked aright.

Vide Anno 12 E. 3. where Tho­mas Earl of Norfolke, Marshall of England, and the Kings Uncle, and the Earl of Gloucester, and Angus, are placed in the middle of the Ba­rons, and the Lord Stafford, an ancient Baron ranked lowest save one.

Vide Anno 12 Ed. 3. where Eusta­chius de Hatch, John de Havering, and Henry de Pinkney and others are ranked before Henry Earl of Lancasters son and the Kings Ne­phew. Vide [...] H. 6. where the Earl Marshal, the Earl of March, the Duke of Exon, and the Earl Warren, are ranked after divers Barons. Anno 3 H. 6. Humphrey Duke of Glouce­ster, the Kings Uncle, and the Earl Marshall, are ranked together low­est of the Barons, save one: Vide Consimil. Annis 13 E. 3. 20 H. 6.

Neither shall you find the Lords placed alike in any two Summons. And the said Thomas de Camoys in divers Parliaments before 17 R. 2: And in all Parliaments after 3 H. 4. was ranked sometimes the lowest, [Page 44] and somtimes neer the lowest of all the Lords.

To prove that Peers were summo­ned as well as Earls, and Barons, Vi­de the ancient Manuscript of Modus tenendi Parliamentum Cap. de Laicis summoneri debent omnes & junguli Comites, Barones & eorum pa­res.

Et vide Chartam Johannis R. in Matthew Paris, page. 247. Whereaf­ter the summons of the Archbishps, Bishops, Earls and Barons, Majores Item summoneri faciemus, &c. Om­nes alios qui in Capite tenent de no­bis, &c. It sets not down the quan­tity of their tenure, but it is expres­sed in that other ancient Manuscript to be 13. Knights fees for a Ba­rons Peer, and 20 Knights fees for an Earls Peer.

Et vide Rotul. Claus. Anno 27 E. 3. after the Writs of the Earls; Consimilae litterae diriguntur Baroni­bus & Militibus subscriptis, &c. Vide, a List of the names of such as were beheaded with the Earl of Lancaster at Boroughbride, Anno 15 E. 2. where many who were [Page 45] formerly summoned to Parliament as Lords are named Bannerets, prout Sir Henry Tyes, Sir John Gifford, Sir Bartholomew de Badlesmere, Sir John Mowbray, &c.

Vide Etiam, Summons to Thomas de Bradeston, An. Ed. 3. who was a Banneret, as appears by the Pa­tent, An. E. 3. & Ralphes Camoys the Father and son were summoned, Annis H. 3. E 2. and E. 3 And yet An. 7 R. 2. Clause 32. the Record saith, that Thomas Camoys, & very many of his Ancestors were Bannerets, & therefore he was exempted from being Knight of the Shire, happily for that the King might summon him to Parliament, as he did his Ancestor Ralph Camoys.

Vide Etiam, the Parliament Roll, Anno 18 Ed. 3. n. 35. The Cause of Summons was declared in the presence of the King, and divers Lords there named (& autres Baro­nes & Banerettes Chivalers de Co­mites) Citiens & Burgeiis sommons audit Parliament.

E. Anno 46 E. 3. n. 7. The Parlia­ment Roll, the Dukes, Earls, Barons, and Bannerets, and in divers Par­liament [Page 46] Rolls of E. 3. often occurs by the Prelats, Earls, Barons, and other Grandees.

Anno 30 E. 3. n ^o. 8. the Earls and Barons being in Parliament, have granted for themselves, and for the Peers of the Land which hold by Barony the tenth Fleece, &c. In this Parliament the Commons granted a Subsidie by themselves, and the Lords granted another by themselves, amongst whom were reckoned their Peers. Anno 17 E. 3. n ^o. 6. Per les Comites Barones, & autres Nobles, these autres Gran­des, and autres Nobles, could be none other then the Peers, all other degrees of honour being na­med.

These reasons give me satisfacti­on that Peers were summoned in the times of H. 3. E. 1. E. 2. E. 3. and R. 2. &c. as well as Barons, and they and their posterity omitted ad Libitum Regis; and divers pain­full Antiquaries observing this O­mission, and not knowing that they were but Peers, have been firm of opinion, that the Writ did create [Page 47] a Baron, but it was (ad libitum Regis) to call his sonne, or to omit his whole posterity.

Of Barons by Tenure.

TOuching the third kind of Ba­rons by Tenure, it is errone­ous as that by VVrit.

I have perused all the Precedents that are alleadged for it, and they are of the Lands conveyed by the Kings License to the Heir-Male, or the second sonne of the Ancestor that was created by VVrit, (the same may be said of an Earldome also:) For the Lord Matrevers be­ing Heir Male, and having the Castle of Arundel by Intayle, was adjudged in Parliament, Anno 11 H. 6. to be Earl of Arundel by force of the Entayl.

Amongst the other Presidents may be added one of our time, of Edward Nevill Heir-Male to the Lord Abergavenny, having the Land entailed on him, and the King summoning him by VVrit, his Lord­ship took his ancient place: For the Ancestors being created by the Ce­remony of Investiture, the same [Page 48] needs not to be renewed in any of his posterity, there the VVrit alone is sufficient; for such honour is in­heritable, and hath been disposed of with the Land, which is a good proof of the Barons right to come to Parl. (whereof more hereafter) but not that Land made honour, or carryed the honour; For they can alledg no president of a meer stran­ger in blood, and purchaser of the Lands of a Barony, though with the Kings licence, otherwise the sale of no Land held in Capitè, as all Ba­ronies are, can be good against the King) have by vertue of the Land been called to Parliament, onely one comes near it.

That is of the Barony of Lati­mer of Danby, whose Daughter and Heir being married unto John Lord Nevill, and he called by VVrit in her Right, and had issue by her, John, and Elizabeth; Jo [...]n the son dyed without issue, having first sold the Lordship of Danby, unto George Nevill the son of Ralph, the son of the said John the Father, by his first wife; And afterwards the [Page 49] Heir generall making no claim unto the honor, the said George Ne­vill was summoned by H. 6. to the Parliament.

But Brook Lord Willoughbye the Heir general petitioned H. 7. for the said Honor, and in my opini­on, (had it not been for his Ances­tors non claim, together with Ne­vills possession, iij. descents) he shew­ed the best right for it.

But if you please to peruse the In­quisitions post mortem, remaining in the Tower, you shall find very much Land held per Baroniam, even in an­cient times in the hands of private Men, who were not then reputed Barons.

So that I am satisfied that no Ba­rons have been summoned to Par­liament, Ratione tenurae) onely Peers have.

It resteth to speak of the Omis­sions in the Summoners (viz.) of the temporal Lords of Parliament, not of the Clergy (who never lost their Right) nor of the Peers who had none but for life, save ad Li­bitum Regis.

If the Bishop were dead, and the See void, yet summons were di­rected, Custodi spiritualitatis Ar­chiepatus Cantuariensis, sede vacante, &c. An. 7. E. 3. & alibi.

If the Bishop were beyond the Seas, yet Summons were directed to him, prout Anno xiii. E. 3. R. Dunelm. Episcopo vel ejus vicario ge­nerali, ipso Episcopo in Remotis a­gente, & alibi.

The Reason is, they are Pre­munire Clericum, &c.

So that Bishops dead or alive, are ever summoned, Ratione Episcopa­lis dignitatis & tenurae, And can the same writ be denyed unto Earls and Barons? surely no, the Parliament is (Commune Consilium) the whole Land hath interest there­in, the Commons appear there by their generall Procurators, (the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses,) and the Lords in person, or by their particular Procurators, and the presence of the Lords and Com­mons is so necessary, that no Law can be made or revoked without them.

If a Peer was summoned, he was not omitted during his life, As ap­pears by all summons, for the King would not dishonor him whom he had honoured.

The same Right which a Peer had for life, a Baron had of Inheritance; the very Creation by Investiture of Roabs made it Inheritable, even to the Heirs general; otherwise what needeth Richard. 2. An. 11. to li­mit by his Letters Patents before the first writ of summons the baron­age of Kiderminster to the Heirs Males of the Lord Beuchamp of Holt, who was created by Investi­ture of Roabs (as I have shewed before) or H. 6. An. 27. to limit by the first writ of summons the ba­ronage of Vessey, unto the Heirs Males of the Lord Bromslet.

I do not affirm that the Husband or son of an Heir Female ought to be called to Parliament, but they have usually been called to Parlia­liament; And if such Husband af­ter that he hath issue Male, or such son after the barony is descended on him be called, before they have [Page 52] no right, they took place accor­ding to the antiquity of their an­cestors, and were not new created, which shews is the honor is Inherita­ble.

Nay, if the chief Seat had been conveyed to the Heire Male, and he summoned to Parliament, he took place according to the antiqui­ty of the barony.

And as the barons honor is Inhe­ritable, so their comming to Parli­ament hath ever been reckoned an essential point of Inheritable honor, as given them by the King at their first Creation (though not men­tioned as now in their late Char­ters) And to deny that unto any one, that is due unto them all is to dishonour him whom the Majesty of a King hath formerly honoured, whereof our Kings have ever been very Religious; witness the pre­sident of Roger de Quincye, second Son to Sayer Earl of Winch [...]ster, whom H. 3. summoned to the Par­liament, supposing that Robert his Elder brother (then in the holy Land) had been dead, and would [Page 53] not afterwards displace him, when his eldest brother returned, and petitioned for his right, because he had been lawfully summoned to parliament, and there, and in other places had been void, whereby (saith the precedent) the title of honour was setled, as inheritance in him; it was unjust, but yet to preserve the honour which the King had given.

There is another pleasing prece­dent of Mounthermer, whom E. 1. called to parliament, as Earl of Gloucester, for that he had married the widow, and had a great part of the Land, & when Gilbert the Heir came to Age, and petitioned for his Right, Ed. 2. granted it, yet sum­moned Mounthermer ever after as a baron; so unwilling the King was to dishonour him. Out of these precedents and my observation of all the summons in general which I have carefully perused, it appears plainly to me, that the Lords have a double Right to be summoned to the parliament; one gotten by long continuance and use, and another [Page 54] given by the King with their ho­nour at their creation; (neither can I find) having made diligent search that any Baron hath been omitted, if he were of full age, stood (Rec­tus in Curia) and were within the Land, unlesse he had so diminished his Revenews, as that he could not maintain the state of his honour, wh [...]reof there are some few unplea­sing precedents, but such cannot be produced of any Earl, for at his creation the King gave him for his Maintenance, the third penny of the County, which could not be alien­ed.

To proceed in the Commissions.

EArls and Barons have been usu­ally omitted, if they have been out of the Land, prout.

• Robert de Ʋfford, Com. Suff.
• Gilberto de Ʋmfrevil
• Com. de Angus.
• Ranulpho de Dacre.
• [Page 55]Bartho. de Burghersh.
• Joh. de Seagrave.
• Egideo de Badlesmero.
• Rado de Nevil.
• Joh. de Tiptoft.
• Rico. Talbott.
• Henrico de Percye.
• Rado de Stafford.
• Thomae de Berkeley.
• Anthonio de Lucey.

Et Memorandum quod brevia istis Magnatibus immeditate praescriptis directa essend. ad Parliamentum prae­dictum remissa fuerunt Cancellar. Regis, pro eo quod quidam ex iis in partibus Scotiae, & quidam ex eis in partibus transmarinis in obsequio Re­gis existant ad nullanda; Anno 46. E. 3. and in divers years of H. 5. Few Earls and Barons were sum­moned, the King then being in his French Warres, And such omission was thought to be no disparage­ment to their honour.

But now since the opinion, that Omission to be summoned did lose their Right hath been broached by the not discerning of Peers from [Page 56] Barons; every Lord is carefull to be summoned, though he know he cannot appear, being beyond the Seas. As when the Lord Mountjoye was Deputy in Ireland, Anno 43. Eliz. he had his VVrit, and sent his Proxie.

Others have been omitted be­cause they did not stand Rectus in Curia, either their title was Liti­gious, as was the Earl of Arundels, Anno 11. H. 6. And the late Lord of Abergavenneyes; or they were restrained of their liberty, being in the Kings displeasure, as was the Earl of Northumberland, Anno. xviij. Jacobi, For then the VVrit of sum­mons is an Enlargement by Law as was resolved by the Judges.

But I do not find any ancient pre­cedent that any had their Writs de­nyed them, for that they were in the Kings displeasure onely.

For Anno 15. E. 3. the King was highly displeased with the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, yet he had his Writ, and came to Parliament, and humbled himself unto the King, desiring to be tryed by his Peers.

It is true, this Arch Bishop was at the first denyed his Entrance into the Parliament House, yet at the Intercession of the Lords, he was ad­mitted; Vide plus de Antiquitate Ecclesiae Brittanniae, & Goodwin in vita sanct. Archiepiscop.

Anno 5. H. 4. the Earl of Nor­thumberland was summoned to the Parliament, to be held at Coventry 28. December, Notwithstanding he was suspected to be privy to the treason of Hottspur his son.

This Parliament was prorogued Cra. Hill. at Westminster, & the pro­rogations being then by new Writs, the Earl of Northumberland had none, yet he came to Parliament, exhibited his petition, wherein he acknowledged that he had done a­gainst his Allegiance, and namely for gathering of men, and giving of Liveries against the statute, was tryed by his Peers, who adjudged his action to be neither Felony nor Treason, but onely a trespasse fina­ble to the King, which the King pardoned. Now of late they which are in the Kings displeasure, have [Page 58] had their summons, but with a Letter from the Lord Chancellour, or Lord Keeper (not to come out, but) to send a Proxie.

But in the Parliament of the 6. of February, Anno Caroli Rs. the Earl of Bristol being denyed his Writ, petitioned the Parliament for it, then he had his Writ without any intercession of the Parliament Lords: But withall, a Letter from the Lord Keeper signifying his Ma­jesties pleasure, that he forbear to come, and send his Proxy; where­upon the Earl petitions the Parlia­ment again, shewing that that let­ter could not discharged him from coming, the Writ commanding him to come upon his Allegiance: but this point was not then decided, for the Earl was presently sent for as a Delinquent, and charged with Trea­son; Omission. ratione Minoritatis, there be many presidents for it, as of young Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, in the last year of E. 1. But the King hath sent his Writ of Summons unto such, before they were fully xxi. being of years of dis­cretion, [Page 59] as the Lord de la Ware, Anno 20. Jacobi.

Anno 3. H. 6. John Lord Roos, be­ing then under age, is named to be present in Parliament amongst o­ther Lords, n ^o 10. but his summons are not entred.

Anno 11. H. 6. All the Lords are sworn to the statute of Retainers, made Anno 8 H. 6. and there it ap­pears that the Duke of Norfolke, and the Earl of Devonshire (though under age) were in Parliament in their places, and did take the said Oath, n ^o 15. yet neither of their summons, were entered.

As the King hath not used to omit any Lord that hath been within the Land (Rectus in Curia) & of full age, so none have used to come to Parlia­ment, until he had received his VVrit of summons: But in such case he may send to the Lord Chan­cellor for his VVrit, as the Earl Marshall delivered his opinion in the case between Nevill, and Fane, Anno Eliz. The reason may be for that the Lord Chancellors war­rants are general, Vide the Journall [Page 60] book, Anno xxixth of Elizabeth, the Parliament began the 24th. of October, and the Earl of Essex came not, for that he received not his Writ (through the negligence of the Messenger) saith the Journal, until the xviij. of November, His Lordship was then sick, and appeared not until the 11th. of January follow­ing.

And in the Parliament of the xviij. Jacobi, the old Earl of Hert­ford dyed, and his Grandchild and Heir came not to the Parliament, because he had not received his Writ.

To the great Councell.

ALthough the Kings of England have not omitted the Earls and Barons in the Summons of Par­liament, unlesse for the causes a­foresaid, yet they have usually o­mitted divers of them in the Sum­mons to the great Councel, prout in the Summons, Anno 9. E. 3. xxiij. February, the King sum­moned but five Earls, and Eleven Barons.

Anno 15. E. 3. 12. January, there were summoned but xxvi. of all sorts.

Anno 16. E. 3. 12. September, & eodem Anno, 20. November, were summoned but a very few. And 21. E. 3. there were summoned xxij. of all sorts.

Anno. 45. E. 3. there were sum­moned but xiij. Earls and Barons, and so in divers years of E. 3.

Neither did E. 2. summon them all.

After E. 3. the summons to the great councel were under the privy seal, the reason may be of this o­mission (for that the same not being (Commune Consilium) as the Parlia­ment is, The Chancellour was ap­pointed whom he should summon, and had not a general warrant, prout An. 15 E. 3. the 12 Junij, the Writs being sealed of that date, o­thers were made, and this Note under-written, viz. Mandamus quod ipsa brevia consignata fuerunt, 3. die Julij.

Vide with Sir Robert Cottons Warrants for Summons to the great Councel, An. 26. and 28 [Page 62] H. 6. on this manner. First, the form of the Writ, then the names of such Lords who were to be sum­moned, and underneath thus:

THere rests yet one doubt to be satisfied (viz.) the Kings War­rant to the Chancellor being gene­rall, how came it to passe that the Summons of Peers were omitted?

I answer, the words of the War­rant are to make such Writs as are usuall, and the use was to omit the summons of Peers without special direction from the King.

Of Omission of summoning of the Hus­band of an Heire Female.

WHere the Barony discends unto an Heir Female, the husband of such an Heir hath been omitted untill he hath had Issue Male by her, and be admit­ed upon his Petition of Grace un­to the King, quia, the use hath been so; yet being admitted & sum­moned, he taketh place according to the antiquity of that Barony. I speak of Barons by Creation of In­vestiture and Writ onely, without any Patent. And this shews plainly that a Baron so created and summo­ned, his honour is inheritable.

It may be objected, That some Baronies discended unto an Heir Female, and her Husband and posterity ever after omitted. And some Baronies have discended unto two Sisters or more, and the hus­band of the elder sister wholly omit­ted, and the younger husband sum­moned; [...] ^o such honour is not inheri­table but during the life of the Issue male.

I answ. This may happen upon divers occasions: for 1^o besides the discent of honour, a certain num­ber of Knights Fees ought to dis­cend also for the maintenance there­of.

Secondly, the Husband cannot be summoned de jure, untill he hath Issue Male, and petitioned for it.

Thirdly, If the Husband neglect his Petition, the Issue Male is to make his Claim by Petition to the King.

If any of these fail, the Omis­sion is just; and yet the honour is inheritable to the heir female, o­therwise how could Sir Humphrey Bowcher, who marryed the youn­ger daughter of the Lord Cromwell be admitted unto the ancient place of that Barony.

The forme of the severall Writs of Summons at this day. Anno 18 Jacobi.

The Form of the ancient VVrit for the Election of the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses.

I have recited this Writ at large, as it may appear, that the Writ for the Commons was sometimes speciall, declaring the cause of Sum­mons, as well as the summons to the Lords, therein the Writs did a­gree; but the Commons had not any power of themselves, but from the County, City, or Borough that sent them.

The like Writ was sent, Consta­bulario Dover et custodi quin{que} Portu­um for the election of two Barons out of every port, &c.

Anno 49 H. 3. A Writ went to every Sheriff to cause two Knights to be chosen out of every County.

And other Writs went to each City and Borough Town, not to the Mayor, or Bayliff, but Civibus et Bur­giensibus, to send two citizens, &c.

Another Writ went Baronibus et probis hominibus quin{que} portuum

It is worth the labour to search when, and upon what occasions the Writs altered.

Additions to the ancient Writ of Summons.

ANno 14 E. 3. 25. Augusti. The Writ of Election agreed with that of 5 Ed. 3.

But when the Commons gave their answer touching the Subsidie demanded for the Wars, they de­sired leave to return into the Coun­trey to confer with their Neigh­bours, promising their endeavours for the same at the next Parliament: And withall, desired that the Writ to the Sheriffs for Election of the Knights might have this Clause, viz. Quae deux miltz valuez Chivalers de Countez soient Esleuz et Envoiez ad [Page 71] prochein Parliament pur la commune, si quae nul de eux ne soit Viscount ne autre Minister, n. 8.

Which was thus far agreed on, viz. Summons du dit Parliament diretz au Viscounts y deux Chiva­lers Ceynct des Espees de Chescun, Countie soient esleuz pur estre en Mes­me le Parl. n. 22.

And thereupon the next Writ had this Clause (viz.) Tibi praecipi­mus quod de dicto Comitatu duos Mi­lites gladiis cinctos, &c. which con­tinues to this day.

Anno 46 E. 3. An Ordinance was made, that neither Lawyers nor Sheriffs should be returned Knights of the Shire, but Knights of the best worth in the County be return­ed, and chosen in full County, yet the Writ received an addition touching the Sheriffs only, which continues unto this day, viz.

Nolumus autem quod tu, nec aliquis alius Vicecomes, &c. Anno 1 H. 4. 25. Aug. the Writ had this Clause, (viz.)

Nolumus autem quod sou aliquis alius Vice-comes Regni nostri praedicti, aut apprentitius, seu aliquis alius ho­mo [Page 72] ad legem aliqualiter sit electus, &c.

Whence it was called (meerly) the Lay-mans Parliament: Anno 7. & 8 H. 4. no. 139. It was enacted by the Petition of the Commons, that Proclamation be first made in the next County-Court after the Sheriffe hath received the Election to be made, &c. That the Election be in full County wherein they shall proceed freely, and indifferently, notwithstanding any prayer or commandment to the contrary.

The names of the Knights chosen whether present or absent, be set down in an Indenture under the seals of all men that did elect them.

And this Clause was added to the Writ, viz. Et Electionem tuam in pleno Comitatu tuo scām distincte & aperte sub sigillo tuo & sigillis eorum qui electioni illi interfuerint, nobis in Cancellaria nostra ad diem & locum in brevi Contentum certifices indilate, No. 14.

Anno 11 H. 4. n. 39. At the Pe­tition of the Commons it was en­acted; That all Sheriffs that shall [Page 73] make return contrary to the Stat. of 7 H. 4. the Knight so chosen shall lose his wages, N 59. Chap. 1.

Note, the Statute doth not say that the Return shall be void, and the Sheriffe upon a new Writ proceed to a new Election as the practice is now with the Commons.

Anno 1. H. 5. At the Petition of the Commons it was enacted; That none shall be chosen Knight, Citi­zen, or Burgess, but shall be resiant, and shall be chosen by such as are Resiant also, N 2. Cap. 1.

An. 8 H. 6. It is likewise enac­ted; That none but Resiants shall be chosen by Resiants that can dispend 40. s. per annum Free-hold.

That the Sheriffe may examine the Free-holders upon Oath, how much he may dispend by the year.

The Justices of Peace shall have power to enquire hereof.

If the Sheriffe be attainted for do­ing otherwise, he shall forfeit 100 l. and be imprisoned.

And the Knights returned other­wise shall lose their wages. (Nota) It doth not say the Election shall be void.

And mention shall be made of this Ordinance in every Writ here­after, N. 39. Cap. 7. An. 10 H. 6. N ^o 33. the Statute of 8 H. 6. cap. 7. is confirmed, and explain­ed, that the Election shall be by Resiants of 40 s. per ann. Free-hold at the least, Cap. 2.

But mention is not made of the Ordinance An. 8 H. 6.

An. 23 H. 6. ca. 15. The Satute of the 1 H. 5. & 8 of H. 6. are con­firmed and enacted. That the She­riffe when he hath received the Writ shall direct a Precept under his Seal to the Mayor and Bayliffs of Cities and Boroughs.

That the Mayor and Baliffs re­turn the said Precepts executed to the Sheriffs by the Indenture be­tween them and the said Sheriff to be made.

And the Sheriff shall make return [Page 75] of the Writ, and of the said Re­turn of the Mayor, and Bayliffs up­on pain contained in the Statute of the 8. of H. 6. Cap. 7. And more­over to pay to every Knight, Citi­zen, and Burgess so chosen, and not returned by the Sheriff, 100 l.

And if the Mayor and Bayliffs shall return others then are so cho­sen, they shall forfeit to the King 40 l. and to the party chosen and not returned 40 l.

Nota, It doth not say the Return shall be void.

And every Sheriff shall make due Elections of the Knights in full County between eight and nine in the forenoon without Collusion, and make true Returns upon pain to forfeit 100 l. to the party that will sue for the same. Provided that if the Knights, Citizens, and Bur­gesses duely returned by the She­riffe be afterwards put out, and a­nother put in his place, take it up­on him, he shall forfeit to the King 100 l. and to the party so put out [Page 76] another 100 l. provided it be sued for within 3. Moneths.

(Nota) It doth not say there shall be a new Election.

The Knights shall be notable Knights of the same County, or such Esquires or Gentlemen of the same County as are able to be Knights.

No man to be a Knight of the Shire which standeth in the degree of a Yeoman.

This is the best statute for the election of the Commons.

Who are not to be chosen.

ANno 46. Ed. 3. no. 16. It was ordained by Parliament, that no Sheriff shall be returned nor ac­cepted for Knights of the Shire, which Ordinance hath been con­stantly observed ever since; And by the same statute it was ordained also, that no Lawyers who sollicited suites for other men, should be re­turned, or accepted for Knights of [Page 77] the Shires, but the King willeth that Knights, and Serjeants of the best esteem of the County be hereafter returned Knights in the Parlia­ment.

Anno 23. H. 6. cap. 15. It is en­acted that none shall be chosen Knight of the Shire, which standeth in the degree of a Yeoman.

Who are to be exempted (if they please) from serving in the house of Commons.

KNights Bannerets (which name is somtimes given to the Peers) used not anciently to serve in the house Commons, for that the King might and did often sum­mon such to the Parliament, as a Lord, Peer: and so his service was in the upper house.

That they were usually summon­ed, (it is declared before that they were exempted to serve in the house of Commons) appears by the Kings Writ, directed to the She­riff of Surrey, for a new Election (in loco Thomae Camoys, Chr. Ban­neret) [Page 78] the reason is there set down, Nos animadvertentes quod hujusmodi Banneretti ante haec Tempora in Mi­lities Comitat. Ratione alicujus Par­liamenti minime consueverunt. 8. Oc­tober, Anno 7. R. 2 Claus. Membrum 32. dorso.

And R. 2. did afterwards sum­mon the said Tho. Camoys to Parl.

The Kings servants have had the same priviledge of Exemption.

This appears by the like Writ for a new Election, in the place of James Barners, whom the King commanded to be discharged, quia est de retinentia Regis, & familiaris & unus Militum camerae Regis, ib. Anno 7. R. 2. 28 October.

The Princes his servants, and the Queens servants, might claim the like priviledges.

And no doubt but they have had the like priviledges, as may be ga­thered out of another Writ of the same, the 7th year of R. 2. dated the 16. of Octob. for the discharge of Thomas Morwell: Quia est de Retinentia, Charissima Dominae & Matris nostr. Johannae Principissae [Page 79] Walliae, but this was in those ancient times, when men thought it a bur­then to come and serve in Parlia­ment: Even divers of the Lords themselves obtained licence to be absent, and not to serve during their lives. Prout An. 1 E. 4. part 1^o Membrum 15 Rex concessit H. Bromfflet, Domino de Vessey quod ip­se durante vita sit exoneratus de ve­niendo ad Parliament. & Consilia Regis, &c. Consimil. pro Domino Beauchamp, Anno 2 Ed. 4. pat. 2. Membr. 10.

And the Kings Tenants in ancient demesn ever enjoyed this privi­ledge, prout Fitzherbert, Tit. Par­liamentum no. 99. & 101.

But now they claim no such Ex­emption, neither do the Kings ser­vants enjoy their ancient privi­ledges therein, being now usually chosen for Knights, and Burgesses, ever since Cardinal Woolsey had the the great Seal; since which time the Commons enjoyed more pri­viledges then they claimed before.

Yet there are precedents, that if any being first chosen into the [Page 80] House of Commons, become af­terwards the Kings servants, du­ring the said Parliament, and sum­moned by writ to serve in the Up­per House: that he ought to be re­manded back again to the Com­mons House, prout.

Mr. Ri. Ouslow being of the lo­wer House, Anno 5 Eliz. he was in the interim, made the Queens Sollici­tor, and by Writ called to serve in the Upper House: The Speaker also dyed in the interim the Com­mons petitioned for leave, to chuse a new Speaker, Mr. Ouslow being sent to them by two of the Upper House, I suppose by two of the At­tendants, was chosen their Speaker, but the Hous was divided in opinion

Anno xviij. Eliz. Mr. Serjeant Jeffery, (being chosen Knight for Sussex) was in the interim of a pro­rogation, made the Queenes Ser­jeant, and called into the Upper House by Writ: resolved the 27. of Febru. that according to former precedents he ought to serve in the House of Commons.

Anno xxiij. Eliz. the House of [Page 81] Commons being met the xvj. of January, (unto which day the Par­liament was prorogued) Sir Ro­bert Bell, their late Speaker being dead, the Commons petitioned for leave to chuse a new Speaker, and receiving answer for the same in the Upper House: at their return Mr. Treasurer reported that he had seen a Member of their house with the Lords (viz.) Mr. Popham, who had served in the beginning of that Par­liament as Burgesse of Bristow, and in the interim of the Prorogation was chosen the Queens sollicitor, and called by writ to the upper house, and moved that he might be remanded, which some thought not needful before he be chosen: (it should seem they knew he was to be chosen their Speaker) yet upon reading of the precedent of Mr. Ouslow, Ann 8. Eliz. the said Mr. Treasurer and others were sent up to the Lords to demand Mr. Pop­ham; answered, that the Lords had resolved he should be sent down, the rather because he was a Mem­ber of the house of Commons, and [Page 82] they possest of him before he was sollicitor, or had any place of atten­dance in the higher house.

And Mr. Anderson the Queens serjeant at Law, and Sir Gilbert Gerrard the Queens Attorny gene­ral brought him to the house of Commons.

Here I have cited 3 precedents, you may easily see the reason why these were remanded, viz. The Queen had resolved to have them chosen Speakers, and not for that the Commons had any right other­wise to demand them. If Bell their Speaker had lived being made Lord chief Baron in the Interim of the prorogation, I doubt whether they would have remanded him or no; If it should hold for a rule that the King cannot summon a Member of the house of Commons unto the up­per house, then those Lords who were Burgesses Ann. 18. Jacobi, &c. and created Barons in the Interim of the prorogation, viz. the Lord Brook and Cranfield might have been demanded also; compare those 3 presidents of 7 R. 2. and note vo­lenti non fit injuria.

The appearance of the first day of Parliament.

FIrst, Let us consider which is the first day of the Parliament: Then their manner of Appea­rance.

The Writ shews the day where­on the Parliament is to begin: And anciently, though the King, and but a few of the Lords appeared then, but the Parliament was ad­journed in expectance of the rest, [Page] yet that was reckoned the first day of the Parliament, If his Majesty were present, prout 6 Edw. 3. Octa­bis sanct. Hillarii. & 14 Edw. 3. in Lent.

Anno 15 E. 3. xv Pasch. and di­vers other Parliaments in his time, and in his Successors R. 2.

If the Parliament be prorogued, for that the King cannot intend it the same day, new Writs of Sum­mons were sent out anciently, and another day appointed, prout Anno 23 E. 1. 2 Novemb.

Anno 23 E. 1. 13 Julij, Anno 11 E. 2. 3 Martij, et An. 6 E. 1. 11 Decemb. &c.

At this day if the Parliament be summoned, the day is appointed in the Writs, but if the same be pro­rogued by Writ patent (as the manner is now) and another day appointed; that is reckoned the first day when the King is present, and the cause of Summons de­clared.

Of this the precedents happen so daily I need not recite any.

This may be the Rule; that is [Page 85] the first day of the Parliament, when the King himself is first present, and this agrees both with the ancient and modern times.

The first dayes Appearance.

NO Records speak of such so­lemnity as is used at this day, neither could it be with that State, the King lying in the same house, and his Lodgings neer the same rooms where the Parl. was kept.

And it plainly appears by many Records of E. 3. That on the first day of the Parliament, a Proclama­tion was made in Westminster Hall, the Record sayes (Feast Crie fait) by the Kings Commandment; That all that were summoned to Parlia­ment should repair to the painted Chamber, and so the Parliament began, that being reckoned the first day, though so few appeared: And it was adjourned to another day in expectation of the rest, prout An. 37, 38. 40. 43. 45. 47. 50 E. 3. Here could be no solemn procession to the Parliament in such state as is now used.

But here may rise a question how it should be known who were sum­moned, by which word was anci­ently understood the Commons as well as the Lords and Peers.

I answer, the Commons were called by the Returns of the Sheriffs, the Lords were admitted in appear­ing in their Robes, not being crea­ted by Investiture as the Earls and Barons were (prout in the former Chapter) and they were all called in the House by the Clerks Roll be­fore the King came. That the Lords were called, may be inferred by this, that the Parliaments have been often adjourn'd the first day, because they were not all come, which could not otherwise be known but by the Call, so that they were called be­fore it was adjourned: And it ap­pears they were called the first day before the King came to Parlia­ment of 18 E. 3. n ^o 5. which Parl. was adjourned also the first day for lack of appearance; and after the adjournment, and after the names of the Receivers and Tryers of Pe­titions, there is entered this Memo­rand. viz.

Item, Let the names of the Lords who are summoned to Par­liament be viewed, read, and exa­mined before the King in Parlia­ment, this day; and of them that are not come, let their names be delivered to the King in writing to ordain such punishment as he shall please; which shews plainly that the King was not present before when the Lords were called, for then this had been needless.

The next doubt is, In what place the Commons were called; The Record of R. 2. saith, that the Knights and Burgesses were called by name in presence of the King, which shews they stayed without till then.

And 2 H. 4. Consimile.

Anno 13 H. 4. The Knights and Burgesses were called at the door of the painted Chamber in the pre­sence of the Steward of the Kings house as the manner is.

And at this day they are called by their names by the Clark of the Crown in the presence of the Lord Steward in the Court of Requests, [Page 88] whereof there are many precedents in Qu. Eliz. time.

Onely one precedent differs from all the latter (viz.) that of the 33 of H. 8. Primo die Parliamenti, where the Duke of Suffolk then Lord Ste­ward, commanded the Clerk of the Parl. to read the names of the Com­mons, unto which every one answer­ed, they being all in the Upper House below the Bar, and then the King came.

Now since the fifth year of Qu. Eliz. the Commons take the Oath of Supremacy; and since the third year of King James, they take the Oath of Allegiance also, which the Lord Steward administers unto some, and appoints certain of them his deputies, to give the same unto the rest.

The Lords are not called the first day, but have used to deliver their Writs onely to the Clerk of the Parliament: And the third day of the Parliam. the Summons being declared, and the Speaker being presented by the Commons; the second day the Lords are called by [Page 89] the Clerk of the Parliament, begin­ning with the lowest Baron, and so ascending to the highest, and the Proxies and other excuses (if any of the absent Lords) registred. Here I must confess one of my own Erra­ta's: For being suddenly comman­ded to call the House, Anno 21 Jae. and unprovided of a Catalogue of their names, I made use of one then delivered me by the Earl Marshall, and began at the upper end with the Prince, and so discended: I quickly found mine own Errour, but none else perceived it. I pro­ceeded, which I observed here lest my Successors mistake also by that precedent

When the LORDS are to appear in their Robes.

THe Heraulds can give the best satisfaction when the King and the Lords did first go to the Parliament in such solemn manner as now, I have a precedent thereof in my Uncle Boyers Collections of Honour and Armes: I doubt not but the Lords did ever appear in [Page 90] their Robes the first day, whereof we have no Parliament Records be­fore the Journal books of H. 8. all the former being lost.

The Lords appear in their Robes also, whensoever the King is present (if their Lordships have notice thereof.)

And when their Lordships give judgment, and when the King gives the Royal assent to any one Bill or more by his Letters Patents, or sends a Commission to adjorn, pro­rogue, or dissolve the Parliament.

And in those cases the Lords sit all in their due places untill the Com­mission be read, and then the Lords Commissioners are to sit on formes overthwart the upper end of the House to execute their Commission.

Note this to be understood of such adjornment, &c. by the Com­mission, as the King himself hath used to be present at in person (viz) of Adjornments, Prorogations, or Dissolutions of Parliament (sedente Curia) But if the Parliament be adjourned, or Prorogued (Sedente Curia) and afterwards the King by [Page 91] Proclamation prorogue the same to a further day (which happens oft­en) in those cases the Lords Com­missioners appear not in their Robes, for that the King himself never used to be present at any such adjournment in person.

If a Lord of Parliament either by the misprision of the Clerk or o­therwise, be not ranked in his due place, and complains thereof, the House appoints a Committee to search the Records for his due place, whereunto he is admitted without any other Ceremony, for that he is in the House already; prout the Earl of Surrey, Anno 6 H. 8. 15 Febr.

The Lord Morley, Anno 25 H. 8. 24 Martij.

The Lord Clinton and Stafford, An. 4. & 5 Ph. & M. 12 Feb.

But if the Lord that is summoned doth forbear to come, because he is not ranked in his right place;

His claim is first to be derived by the house upon his Petition to the King, and then his Lordship is to be brought in his Robes between two Lords in their Robes. Also the [Page 92] King of Armes going before, Prout the Lord de-la-Wear, An: 39 Eliz 24 Octob. 15 & 24 Novemb. If a Lord of Parliament dies in the in­terim of a Prorogation, and his son receives his Writ to appear at the next Session; his Lordship appear­eth not in his Robes, for that Cere­mony was performed by his Father the first day of Parliament; Onely he delivers his Writ to the Clerk who enters it the same day; prout An­no 7 Jacob. Richardus Com. Dorset, and there be very many precedents of this nature (viz.) That the Writ is onely recorded in such cases, and not a word of their appearance in Robes.

And it were very fit the Lords did continue this order to deliver their first Writs to the Clerk to be entred: For it records their pedi­gree as well as the time of their first coming to Parl.

If a Lord of Parliament dyes (sedente Curia) and his Heir be summoned, he appears also with­out any ceremony; onely his first Writ is entred, and the day of his [Page 93] appearance, prout An: 27 Eliz. 9 Feb. Tho: Dom. Darcy de Chiche, and there be many precedents of this nature also.

And I remember well that the Lord Stanhop of Harrington dying (sedente Curia) in Parliament of 18. Jacob. his son Charls Lord Stanhop came and took his due place with­out any other Ceremony.

So did Edward Earl of Dorset af­ter the death of his brother Rich: who dyed without issue Male in the Parl. 21 Jac.

And I have observed that divers Bishops have been summoned after the parliament is begun, in place of another Bishop who was dead, and onely delivered his writ to the Clerk to be entred without any o­ther Ceremony, which was obser­ved also in former time, prout An. 27 Eliz. 23. and 27 March, Episc. Petriburgi.

If the eldest son of any Earl be­summoned as a Baron after the Parliament is begun, he is to be brought in his Robes between those two Lords, between whom he is to [Page 94] sit, Garter King of Arms going with his coat half way upon his left Arm, and his Lordship is to present his writ to the Lord Chancellor, and to stay by his VVoolsack untill the Clerk hath read the same, and then to be placed by those two Lords in his due place.

Vide a President of this, Ann. 7. Jacobi for the Lord Clinton, the eldest son of the Earl Lincoln, who delivered his VVrit kneeling to the Lord Chancellor, and stood by him untill it was read.

Vide Anno. 7. Jacobi Consimile, the Lord Walden.

And I remember well that the old Earl of Lincoln was very care­full both for the right place of his son, and the ancient ceremonies to be used at his sons first appear­ance.

The reason why Garter King at Arms is to wait, and wear his Coat but half way on, is for that his Lordship is in expectance of an Earldom, when Garter is to do him further service, and to wear his Coat wholly on.

If a Lord be newly created du­ring the Parliament, he is brought into the House by any two Lords of the same Form in their Robes, Garter king of Arms going before with his Coat wholly on, and his Lordship is to present his VVrit to the Lord Chancellor, which being read, he is conducted to his place by those two Lords who brought him, Garter going before, prout the Lord Denny Ann. 2 Jacobi 7. Febr.

And the Lord Knyvet, Anno 4. Jacobi 4. Julii, yet in the Parlia­ment Anno 18. Jacobi 20. Decem­ber, the Viscount Colchester being newly created in the interim of the adjournment of that Parliament, And brought in at the next access; Garter King at Arms carryed the Letters Pattents of his said creation and presented the same to the then Lord Keeper, and his Lordship delivered them to the Viscount, and so imediately he was placed.

So was the Lord Viscount Rochford brought in the same day, and so also were the Lords, Brook, Mountague [Page 96] and Cranfield, being all new created Barons.

Quaere Ration. why they presen­ted not the Writs according to the ancient manner.

Anno 21 Jacobi 25 Februarii di­vers Lords who were newly created, and others who were in by discent, and were then first summoned, they all having appeared the first day of the Parliament in their Robes, were notwithstanding brought in the first day of the Parliament with the same ceremonies as belong to a Lord newly created, after the Par­liament is begun when the first ap­pears:

The Earl Marshall being pre­sent and directing the same.

• George Duke of Buckingham crea­ted a Duke before the Parliament began.
• Henry Earl of Kent came in by discent.
• James Earl of Carlile by new Creation.
• [Page 97]Lyonell, Earl of Middlesex by new Creation.
• Christopher Earl of Anglesey by new Creation.
• William Earl of Denbigh by new Creation.
• Thomas Viscount Andover by new Creation.
• Henry Lord de la Ware by descent.
  • Lord Barkley by descent.
• Robert Lord Cary of Lepington by new Creation.
• And William Lord Grey of Warke by new Creation.

Whether the Lords and Commons did Anciently sit in one Room to­gether.

VIde the ancient Manuscript Modus sedendi Parliamenti Cap de Cas. & Ind. difficilibus.

Cum dubitatio & Casus difficilis Pacis vel guerrae emergat, &c. Injun­gatur per Regem seu ex parte Regis, si Rex non inter sit cuilibet graduum Parium quod quilibet graduum sedeat per se & liberetur Casus ille Clerico suo inscriptis, & incerto loco recitari faciant, ita quod ipsi Considerent inter se qualiter Melius procedi poterit in Casuillo, &c.

With this agrees that with the 6 of E 3 at the Parliament held at Yorke. viz.

The cause of Summons being touching Scotland the (prelates with the Clergy thereof by them­selves) the Dukes and Barons by themselves) and afterwards they delivered their Joint-answer to the King.

In the former Parliament of that [Page 99] year at Westminster Crastino Mariae, the cause was touching Ireland: the Prelates consulted by them­selves, and after they gave a Joint-Answer, and they all joyned in one grant of a subsidie to the King.

Anno 6. E. 3. Octabis Hillarii the Prelats treated by themselves, so did the Lords, and so did the Com­mons, and afterwards their Joint-Answer was reported to the King by the Bishop of Winchester.

By these precedents it appears plainly that the Lords and Com­mons did first meet together in one Room, and yet had divers Rooms to consult in, severally and apart.

But this doth not directly and plainly prove that the Lords and Commons did sit together in one Room.

The cause of Summons was de­clared to them altogether touching an aid for the King, they conside­red thereof and joined in grant of the subsidie upon condition to have their petitions granted, a joint Committee of the Lords and Com­mons are appointed to sit upon the [Page 101] said petitions from day to day un­til they be dispatched and reduced into the form of a statute, the Com­mitees are named as well the Lords as the Commons.

Yet the two Houses sat apart: also that Parliament, for many things are recorded to be done by the Lords, whereunto the Commons were not joyned.

It is more of curiosity then of necessity to search for the truth of this matter.

Anno 50. E. 3. the cause of Sum­mons ended, the Commons were willed to withdraw themselves to their ancient place in the Chapter House of the Abbot of Westminster, and there to treat and consult a­mongst themselves.

This shewes plainly that they had a place assigned them of old to sit in apart.

And when the King pleaseth, he may have the Lords and Commons sit together in one place, as they did Anno 7 Jacobi in the Court of Re­quests, the Lords sitting on the right hand by themselves, and the Com­mons [Page 101] on the left hand, that day when the noble Prince Henry was created Prince of Wales.

Whether the Commons did ancien­ly sit at conference with the Lords,

I Have heard it often mentioned whether the Commons did sit anciently with the Lords or no.

I will not resolve this doubt, for no Record can be produced on the one side or on the other, so that the usage must direct us how it was in former times: And since the Com­mons do in other Matters enjoy more ample priviledges at this day then the ancient Records mention­ed, divers privy Councellors, and others of the Kings servants being now of that house, from whence they were formerly exempted, (prout in the 1 Chapter) it is not likely that such honourable person­ages would have waved this one priviledge, and stand in a crowd if they might have claimed a seat for their ease, which they never did Claim temporibus H. 8. E. 6. P. et M nor of Q. Eliz.

It will be said that heretofore a Cōmittee of the Lords have come into the house of Commons to con­fer with them, which was used even in Anno 3. H. 8. and there no doubt the Commons did sit and the Lords with them.

It is true, that this happened som­times but was not constantly obser­ved, and the Lords did (discedere de fac.) to go thither, as it is resolved Anno. 2. R. 2. pl. Fui see. luce, now this is out of use.

Their manner of sitting in Par­liament at this day. The Kings Seat.

HIS Majestie sits in the Chair of Estate whensoever he is pre­sent; if represented by Commis­sioners either to begin or to hold the Parliament, the Cōmissioners (after the Commission is read) do now sit on the right side of the Chair of State beneath the steps.

Anno 51. E. 3. The Prince re­presented the King by Commission, [Page 103] and his Highness did sit in the Chair of Estate.

No other Ancient precedent of Parliament-Record shews where such Commissioners did sit, neither Anno 3. E. 3. when Lyonel the Kings Son held the Parliament. Nor An­no Edward 3 when Edward Prince of Wales, held the same, nor those of H. 5. and H. 6. when the Kings were in France: vide the Journal of 28. of Eliz. where the Lord Treasurer Arch-Bishop of Canter­burie Burleigh Lord Treasurer, and Darby Lord Steward represented the Queens person by Commission, and the manner thereof described at large.

The Princes place.

HIS Highness seat is on the left hand of the chair of Estate, that in the right hand was ancient­ly for the King of Scotts, when he used to come to our Parliaments.

The Kings childrens place.

IT is enacted Anno 31. H. 8. Cap. 10. that none but the Kings children do presume to sit at any side of the Cloath of State.

The Kings Vicegerent in Eccle­siastical Jurisdiction his place.

HIS seat is by the said Statute of 31. H. 8. on the right side of the Parliament Chamber, above the Arch-Bishop of Canterburie up­on the same form.

The other officers are thus placed by the said statute (viz.)

THE Lord Chancellor.

The Lord Treasurer.

The Lord President of the Kings Councel.

The Lord Privie Seale.

Being of the degrees of Barons of Parliament, on the left side of the Parliament Chamber, on the higher part of the Form, of the same side, [Page 105] above all Dukes except only such as shall happen to be the Kings son, the Kings Brother, the Kings Uncle, the Kings Nephew, or the Kings Brothers or Sisters Son.

The great Chamberlain.

The Constable.

The Marshal.

The Lord Admiral.

The Lord Steward.

The Kings Chamberlain above all others of the same Estates and de­grees.

Vide An. 21 Jacobi, the Duke of Buckingham was admiral & placed next to the privy Seal, and above the Lord great Chamberlain; the Kings chief Secretary being of the degree of a Baron, above all Barons not having any of the offices above mentioned: and if a Bishop, then above all other Bishops not having any of the offices above remembr'd.

It is also enacted by the said sta­tute, that if either the Lord Chan­cellor, Lord Treasurer, and Presi­dent of the Kings Councel, Lord privie Seal, or chief Secretary, shall be under the degree of a Baron of [Page 106] Parliament, and then such of them as shall be under the said degree shall be placed at the uppermost part of the sack, the one of them above the other in order as above rehearsed.

On the right side of the Chair of State the Bishops are thus rancked by the Statute of 31. H. 8. (viz) upon one form.

The Lord Arch-Bishop of Canter­burie.

The Lord Arch-Bishop of York.

The Bishop of London.

The Bishop of Durham.

The Bishop of Winchester.

Then all other Bishops on the same side after their ancients as it hath been accustomed: But at this day two Arch-Bishops set upon one forme, and then the other Bishops in order upon two forms on the right hand of the State.

The Earls sit on the first forme of the left hand of the State; and on the first form of the Clerks Wool­sacks, sit the Viscounts.

The Barons sit on the second forme on the left hand of the State, and upon divers other formes a cross the lower end of the house.

The Lord Chancellor, or the Lord Keeper (when the King is present, stands behind the cloath of State on the right hand) but when the King is not present, then his Lordship sits on the Woolsack thwart the House, the Seal and Mace by him.

The Judges sit on the inner-side of the Woolsacks.

The Kings learned Council sit on the out-side of the Woolsack next the Earls.

The Masters of the Chancery sit two on the same side, and two on the other sides next the Bishops.

The Clerk of the Crown, and the Clerk of the Parliament sit on the lower Woolsack and have a Table before them.

And the Clerk of the Parl. hath two Clerks under him, who kneel behind the said Woolsack, and write thereon.

When the King is present, none [Page 108] of the Lords are covered.

And the Judges and Attendants do stand up untill his Majestie wills them to sit down.

When the King is absent, the Lords do Reverence to the State, and salute the rest at their entrance into the House, and then take their place.

The Judges sit also, but are not covered untill the Lo d Chancellor signifies the Lords pleasures.

The Kings Council, and the Masters of the Chancery sit, but are never [...]overed.

On what dayes the Parliament may not sit.

IN the ancient Manuscript, De modo tenendi Parliamentum Chap de diebus, & Horis, quod Parliament. non debet te­neri Diebus Dominicis sed cunctis alijs illo die excepto, & alijs tribus diebus scilicet omnium sanctorum & [Page 109] Animarum, & Nat. sanct. Johannis Bapt. potest teneri.

Yet Parl. have been summoned to be held on the Sunday (viz)

Anno 23 E. 1. 30 Septemb. Die dominico prox. post Festum sancti Martini in Hiem. And the same was prorogued by a new summons of Novemb. following to be held Die dominico prox. post Festum beati Andreae Apost.

Anno 27 E. 1. 6. Feb. Die do­minico. An: 28 E. 1. 24 Decemb. Consimile.

Et An: 33 E. 1. 22 Januar. & 35 Ed. 1. 27. Febr. An. 1 E. 2. 19. Janura. & eodem An: 10 Martij, An: 2 E. 3. & 3, 4, 5, 6. & 7 & 16 E. 2.

An. 1, 2 & 4 E. 3. But none after 4 E. 3. There are not any Parl. Rolls extant to shew what the Parl. did on Sunday.

Yet I find that subsequent Par­liam. have sate on Sunday, prout.

Anno 6 E. 3. n. 7. Saturday the house of Commons had leave to depart, and the Commons com­manded to attend unto the next day, on which the Parliament was dissolved.

Anno 20 E. 3. N ^o 11. in fine. On Friday the Commons delivered in their Petitions, which were con­sidered by the Lords, upon Saturday, Sunday, & Monday next following, and on that Monday they were ans­wered.

Vide Contrarium, An: 5. R. 2. The parl. was summoned to be held Crast. omn. Anim. which fell out to be on Sunday, and therefore it was adjourned unto Monday no. 1.

I find no Parliament summoned to be held on All Saints day, All Souls, or St. John Baptists.

Christmas da

ANno 3 E. 6. The Parl. did sit on Christmas day, and read two Bills; and on St. Stephens day, and read one Bill: And on St. Johns day, but this is singular, and occa­sioned through the troublesome bu­sinesse of the Duke of Somerset.

Convocation dayes.

ANno 1 H. 8. The Temporall Lords met in Convocation day, though they did no other busi­ness then receive Bills from the Commons, and sometimes not so much. And on those dayes some one of the Lords (though none of the great Officers) Ex mandato domini Regis, qui domini spiritu­ales absentes, & in convocatione occupati sunt (Continuavit Parlia­mentum us{que} in diem Crastinum) The Lord Chancellor was then a Bishop, and absent also.

This continued untill the 7 of H. 8. which year the Lord Chancellor did the day before continue also the Parl. untill the day after, prout.

Anno 7. H. 8. 30 Novem. Domi­nus Cancellarius propterea quod Dom. spirituales in Convocatione Crastiono die, occupandi, continuavit praesens Parliament. usque in diem Lu­nae.

The next precedent for Convoca­tion days is An: 25 H. 8. For from the 17th until then we have no Journals.

Memorand. quod die Sabbati 22 Januarij (3^o die Parliam.) decretum est quod Domini spirituales in Convo­catione diebus Martij, & Veneris proxim. sequent. & ex tunc die Vener. (donec secus melius videtur) versari possent. & proceres sequenti­bus diebus sine Impedimento quotidie circa dimidietat. horae octav. ante meridiem in locis consuetis simul con­venirent, ad tractandum & Con­sulendum circa Reipublicae nego­tia.

Afterwards in this Parl. after the end of Hillary Term, this Fry­day was changed into Wednesday every week, but no order is entered for it in the Journal book: An: 3 E. 6. 4 Novem. Hodie assignat. est Die Veneris per Convent. Episc. & a­lior. ejusd. ordinis Eclesiar. in Ec­clesia Pauli.

Star-Chamber dayes.

ANno 25 H. 8. Mercurij. 4. Februarij Hodie Domin. Cancellor. de quo die Crastino do­mini circa studia Negotia in Camera Stellata consultari, & Dom. spiritu­ales, Die Veneris in Convocatione conversati fuerint; ex consensu toti­us domus continuavit hoc praesens Par­liamentum in diem Sabbathi hora con­sueta.

I find no other precedent directly for this and the Star-chamber days, being sometimes one day in the week, sometimes another; it ap­pears not by ordinary continuances of the parl. that many days was permitted, Quia a Star-chamber day. But when in Qu. Eliz. time the Star-chamber day was setled to be on Wednesdays, you shall not find that the Parliam. did sit on those dayes in the Term-time.

Which was constantly observed also in the time of our late King James, untill the Parliam. 18. Jac. 24 April die Martis, upon motion [Page 114] made this day unto the House, that there is a great cause in the middest of hearing to be heard in the Star-chamber to morrow. The Lords were contented not to sit to mor­row in the morning;

Provided that it be not drawn into a precedent; but that this House being the supream Court, may sit upon a Star-chamber day, notwithstanding the absence of such Lords as do use to attend that Court.

And accordingly the House was ajourned unto the next day, being Wednesday in the afternoon.

And the next Star-chamber day being Fryday the 26. of April, the House did sit both in the forenoon, and afternoon.

The making of Proxies prove the Lords Right to be summoned.

THose Lords that could not appear according to their summons, made their prox­ies, and even this shews their Right to be summoned, else what needed their proxies.

But if they neither came, not made proxies, then for their diso­bedience unto the Ks. Writ, they were amerced (viz.) Anciently an Earl at 100l. and a Baron at 100 marks. Vide, the ancient Manu­script, Modus tenendi parliament. cap. de Inchoatione parliam.

Which since was qualified many times (viz.) An. 31 H. 6. N ^o 46. A Duke was taxed at 100l. an Earl at 100 Marks, and a Baron at 40l. if he came not to parl.

The ancient form of Proxies.

EXcellentissimo Principi ac Domino suo illustrissimo Domino Ed­wardo, Dei Gratia, Regi Angliae, & Franciae, & Dom. Hiberniae suus humilis Capellanus Johannes Abbas de Selbye Reverentia & honere cum jugi precum instantia apud deum quia impediment: variis, & Arduis Ne­gotiis concernentib. reformationem status domus nostrae sumus multipliciter impediti quod instanti parliamento vestro apud Westminst. in quinden. sanct. Mich. prox. futur. tenendo sine genum dispendio dom. nostrae praedict. personaliter esse non vale­mus.

Dilectos nobis in Christo & dis­cretos viros dominos Henry de Bar­ton, & Will de Merefield, Cle­ric. Lincoln Ecclesiae Canonicos, & eorum quemlib. per se ad comparend. & audiend. pro nobis in hoc parlia­mento tract. & consentiend. Ʋna cum praelatis & Regni procerib. super iis quae ad Ecclesiae dei, & ipsius Regni utilitatem expedientia videbuntur, [Page 117] nec non ad allagand. proponned. & pro­band. causas absentiae, & non Compa­rit. nostrae personali. procurat. no­stros conjunctim, & divisim, & eo­rum utrum{que} per se & in solidum or­dinamus, facimus, & constituimus per praesentes: Ratum & gratem Ha­bitur. quicquid per duos procurator nostros vel eorum alterum, Actum seu gestum extiterit in promissis. in cu­jus Rei Testimonium, &c.

Regist. de Selbye fol.

In what Causes Proxies were made without the Kings License.

IN divers Writs of [...]ummons the King denied to accept of prox­ies, ea vice.

Anno 6 E. 3. 27. Januar. proxies are absolutely denyed, ea vice.

Anno 11 R. 2. 20. Martii, proxies are also lately denyed, ista vice.

Anno 6 R. 2. 7 Januarii. prox­ies are absolutely denyed, ista vice.

Anno 27 E. 3. 20 Novemb. proxies are absolutely denyed, ista vice.

Anno 39 E. 3. 20 Januar. Prox­ies are denyed, ista vice. And the Lords demanded to appear the day before.

Anno 45 E. 3. 8 Januar. Ista vice is left out, and is thus (Scientos quod propter arduitatem, &c. Procurato­res seu excusationem aliquam legitimo Cessante impedimento pro vobis admit­tere nolumus (which clause) Legiti­mo Cessante impedimento) all the for­mer precedents have.

Hereupon the Lords that could not come, obtained the King Li­cense, and made Proxies, as did the Abbot of Selbye, An. 22. E. 3. whereas to the Parliament, Anno. 26 E. 3. (which had not that clause) he sent his Proxy without license, nor expressed any cause for his ab­sence, save that he was hindred (Impedimentis varijs, et arduis Ne­gotiis, for the Reformation of his Abbey.) Vide Registr. de Selbye in the hands of Sir Robert Cotton.

But this and the cause of denying their absence, Ista vice (Legitimo Cassante Impedimento) inserted in some special Writs, onely it seems [Page 119] that all other times they might make their Proxies, notwithstand­ing they had not first obtained the Kings License.

I have not seen any other prece­dents for it of the ancient times, then that of the Abbot of Selbye; but under H. 8. it was usuall in cases of sickness, prout.

An. 3 H. 8. 20 Die Parliamenti Relat. est quod Abbas Salop. gravi infirmitate detinetur quod hic interes­se nequeat, & ideo constituit procura­tores suos Episc. Covent. & Lich­field, & Comitem Salop. Conjunctim & divisim.

Anno 6 H. 8. 12^o Febr. Domin. Scroop de Ʋpsall aegritud. detentus abest assidante ejus Famulo Jacobo Marshall, suos{que} constituit Procura­tores Alein de B: & Dom. Darcy.

An. 28 H. 8. 10 Junij, Consi­mile pro Abb. Monast. Salop.

Anno 26 H. 8. (Consimile) pro Do­mino Zouche. By which it appears plainly they had not the Kings Li­cense; yet in such cases an Affida­vit was made of their sickness.

The Kings License to be absent, and to make Proxies.

I Have seen two Precedents there­of, Anno 22 E. 3. to the Abbot of Selbye, when the King had deny­ed in his Writ to allow of Proxies ea vice.

The other unto the said Abbot 2 H. 4. The first was under the privy Seal: Nay, the Abbots servant was so carefull, that he procured a War­rant under the Privy Seal of the Kings allowance of his Procura­tor.

The other 2 H. 4. was under the Signet onely, and they both testi­fied the Lords name who procured the License from the King.

The ancient forme of the Kings Li­cense to be absent.

Coment q' per grosses et urge antz besoigns touchants vous et reste de nostre Par­liament [Page 121] a Westminst. & sur ce nous vous mandez pur Brieffe souz nostre graund Seale de cy estre in propr. per­sone sanz Faire Procurat en telle par­tie; mentinent a la Request. nostre Chare & foiall Johann Darcye nous vouz tenons pur excuse de vostre venue in propre persone a mesme nostr. par­lement, cest foitz issiu, q' faces un suffisaunt Procurator de y Venir en Vostre nom en maner appent nient Veillantz q' vous ne soiz endamage ne'm pesche en temps a venir pur Rea­son de nostre mandement, sinen soit q'uen Chose vous signifions per cestes nos litteres.

Don souz nostre Privie Seal a Westminst. le 13 jour de De­cemb. An. de nostre Regne de An­gleterre 22. & de France ix.

The Kings License of latter times.

ANno 1 H. 8.22 Die Parlia­menti Licentiatus est Abbas de Crowland per Cancell. & Thesaur. per procuratores suos Alb. de Ramsey, & dictum Thesaur. id est. The Chan­cellor and Treasurer signified, that the King gave the Abbot License to [Page 122] depart, &c. And not that the Chan­cellor & Treasurer gave him le [...]ve; prout An ^o. 6 H. 8. (in the beginning of the Book) Abbas sancti Augusti­ni de Cont. absence ex licentia Regis Dom. Bergavenny Nuncio, & con­stit. procuratores, &c. And the Li­cense of divers others to be absent is recorded in like manner.

Yet in these years some have their licenses expressed to be per literas dom. Regis prout eodem An. Dom. Hastings absens ex licentia Dom. Re­gis, & patet per literas ibid. 9 Feb. Consimile pro Abb. sancti Benedicti de Hulmo.

An. 7. H. 8. 1^o P. die hodie recep­ta est billa Regis Manu signata per quam dominus Rex licentiavit E­drum. Sutton M [...]litem Dom. de Dud­ley, &c.

Consimil. pro Abbat de Thorney & pro Ab. de Ramsey, & pro Ab. Salop. Yet the License it selfe was not al­ways shewen; prout ibidem Dom. Rex licentiavit Abb. de Malmsbury. ut patet ex dictis Abb. de Wynch­comb, Will: Cumpton Milite Nuntio existente, &c.

An: 25 H. 8. 28. 31. & 35 H. 8. the Proxies are endited thus; Li­terae procurat. of such a Lord, Ab­sentis ex licentia Dom. Regis, At­testante such a one; But whether the License were by word of Mouth, or otherwise by Bill signed with the Kings Hand, non Constat.

The Kings verbal License is suf­ficient; Yet I suppose they then had for the most part a formal Li­cense signed by the King; and it be­ing not produced, a Testimonial thereof was required, which was sometimes testified by a Lord, and sometimes by a stranger; prout An. 25 H. 8. 7. Jan.

Literae Procurat. in quibus Abbas de Evesham sub Reg. grat. absens, attestante Thoma Cromwel Arm. con­stituit procur. &c.

Lettres procurator. in quib. Dom. la Ware, &c. Attestante Thoma Crom­wel, &c.

Litera, &c. Abbas de Crowland, &c. Attestante Magistro Cecill, &c. Litera, &c. Com. Essex, &c. attes­tante Com. Oxon.

Consim. An: 28. 31. &c. H. 8. [Page 124] and downward: neither the License, nor any such testimonial was requi­red, onely it satisfied that the Let­ters of Proxie mentioned the Kings License, which none will presume on unless he had it.

Ʋnto whom Proxies may be made.

A Proxy cannot be made to a Lord that is absent himself. Vide An. 38 H. 8. In fine Libri Journal this entrance (viz.)

The Lord Latimer sent his Proxy, which the Clerk received; but it was repealed by the Lord Chancellor, for that the Lord Latimers Depu­ties were not present.

So if the Lord, unto whom the Proxy is made, be afterwards ab­sent, the Proxy is void; Yea, al­though the Procurator be absent ex licentia Regis, and hath made a pro­curator also for himself, for the proxy is but an authority to give another mans assent, which cannot be transferred to a 3d. person. And therefore in such case the Lord Vaux made a 2d. proxy Anno. 18 Ja­cobi [Page 125] Regis, which I think was ra­ther to detain his particular Vote (a dignity particular to the Lords of Parl.) then to avoid the Kings displeasure: The first proxy being a sufficient excuse for his absence.

Neither is it the use now to make proxies unto strangers who are no Members of the House, nor to any of the Attendants, as to the Judges, Barons of the Exchequer, or the like.

Yet there are divers precedents that the Spiritual Lords have made proxies unto strangers; prout the Abbot of Selbye made John Goul­dale a Monck of that house, and M Will: R. Clerk his Procurator.

Anno E. 3. the year is not recor­ded.

And divers other precedents there are of this nature. The Lords Tem­poral had then the like right, and we may guess that they did make the like Proxies unto Strangers by this, that Anno 14 Edw. 3. in Mid­dle Lent, Mouns. William Scot, and Mouns. Will: de la Pool were not summoned; and yet were appointed [Page 126] Tryers of Petitions, a matter be­longing to the Lords of the upper House:

So we may guess they came with Proxies not of any Spiritual Lords (for they sent Clergymen) but of the Temporal Lords, for they have the title of M [...]nsieur, which shew­eth they were Laymen.

So we may guess also that Mon­sieur de sanct: Paul, Monsieur John de Pultenye, Mons. Thomas Rookbie, came with Proxies to that Parl. for they were not summoned; and yet of divers Committees promiscue with other Lords in matters touch­ing Flanders, Bruxels, and the Mar­ches of Scotland.

An. 14 Edw. 3. n ^o. 13, 14. & 17. So that strangers had Proxies, place, and voice in Parl.

But the question is, where they did sit? surely not in that Lords seat whose procurator he was; yet they do so at a general Councel or Dyet beyond the Seas.

The form of the Kings License to be absent at this day The first extant is in the Journal of 8 Eliz. in haec ver.

RIght Trusty, and wel-beloved, We greet you well Where­as as we are informed that by reason of sickness you are not able to make your repair hither, to this our Ses­sion of Parl. to be holden at West­minst. We have thought good by these our Letters to dispense you for your absence, and to license you to remain still at home for this time, so nevertheless that you do send up your proxy to some such personage as may be for you, and in your name give his Voyce, and assent, or deny to such matters as shall be treated and concluded up­on in our said Parl. and this our Letters shall be your Warrant. Given under our Signet at our Pa­lace at Westminst. the 20 of Septemb. in the 8. year of our Reign.

The form of the Proxy at this day.

OMnibus Christi fidelibus, ad ques hoc praesens scriptum pervenerit, Edwardus Dominus Zouche salutem. noveritis me praefatum Domini Zouche per licentiam. Serenissimi Domini no­stri regis a praesenti hoc suo Parliamen­to tent. & inchoato apud Westmin­ster, duodecimo die mensis Februarii ult. praeterit. sufficienter excusat. abesse, nominare, ordinare, constituere di­lect. mihi in Christo praenobilem. & honorand. virum Henricum Comit. Southamton praeclarissimi Ordinis Garterii Militem, meum verum, Cer­tum & in dubitatum factorem, Attor­natum, & procuratorem per praesentes; eidemque procuratori meo dare & con­cedere plenam authoritatem, & potes­tatem pro me & nomine meo & de su­per quibuscunque causis exponend. seu declarand. tractand. tractatibus{que} hu­jusmodi mihi factis seu faciendis consi­lium nomine meo impendend. statutis{que} etiam et ordinationibus, quae ex matu­ro, deliberato Judicio Dominorum [Page 129] tam spiritualium quam temporalium in eodem Parliamento congregator. in­actitari, seu ordinari contigerint, no­mine meo consentiendum, eisdemque si opus fuerit subscribend. caeteraque om­nia & singula quae in praemissis necessa­ria fuerint seu quomodolibet requisita faciend. & exercend. in tam amplis modo & forma prout ego ipse facere possem aut deberem si praesens persona­liter interessem. ratum & gratum ha­bens & habiturus totū & quicquid dictus procurator meus statuerit aut fecerit in praemissis; in cujus rei testi­monium prasaentibus subscripsi, sigillum­que meum apposui, datum decimo die Decemb. Anno Regni dicti Domini nostri Jacobi Dei gratia Angliae, Franciae, & Hiberniae Regis, fidei defensor. &c. vicesimo, & Scotiae quinquagesimo Septimo.

Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos hoc praesens scriptum pervenerit. I. domin. G. salutem. noveritis prefatum Domin. G. per licentiam serenissimi Domini nostri Regis a praesenti hoc suo Parliamento tento & inchoat. a­pud Westminster duodecimo Die men­sis Februarii 1623 Et continuat. per [Page 130] diversas prorogationes us{que} ad & in vicesimum Diem April. ult. praeterit: sufficienter excusatum abesse, &c. ut supra.

Upon what occasions the cause of summons have been de­clared by the Lord chief Ju­stice tempore E. 3. though the Chancellor were present.

OBserve the occasions to have bin offered when a Bishop was Chancellor, and the cause of summons was either touching Male­factors, or breach of the peace or the like, for then none of the Bi­shops or the Clergy could (by Ca­non of the Church) be present. Or when it concerned the usurpations of the Pope, for Ceaux paroles ne gi­sont nye enbouch de Prelate saies the Record An. 51. E. 3.

Therefore in divers years of E. 3. the same hath been declared by the Lord chief Justice prout An. 6. E. 3. die lunae post finem sancti Georgii [Page 133] departed out of the house when these matters which concerned the breach of peace were handled An. 6. E. 3. veneris devant le Feste sanct Nicholai by the Lord chief Justice Jeffery le Scroop concerning [...]land and the malice of the Rebels there, &c.

An. 6. E. 3. Octabis sancti Hilarii by Jefferie le Scroop Lord chief Justice touching Scotland and the Marches.

An. 13. E. 3. Qninden. Mich. it is not recorded by whom the cause of summons was declared: nor Eo­dem An. Octabis sancti Hilar [...]i, nor 14. Ed 3 in Lent, nor in the second Parliament in that year, nor 15 E. 3. nor 20 E. 3. nor 25. E. 3 Octabis purificationis Mariae.

An. 17. E. 3. the cause of sum­mons touching France was begun by the Chancellor in general, but pur­sued in particular by Mons. Barthol. Burghersh no. 7. yet the Chancellor was speaker afterwards n. 10. Touching the better observation of the Laws of the Land, and against maintenance.

But the usurpations of the Pope were treated per Comites, Barones, & autres nobles, & toute Le Com­mo. vide the petition for the statute against provisions, &c. n. 6. The prelats are not named.

Anno 21. E. 3. Cro Hillarii per Mons. William de Thorpe touching the French wars, and how the peace may be kept at home.

An 22. E 3 by Mons. VVilliam de Thorpe Chief Justice touching the Wars of France.

An. 25. E. 3. in Festo Hilarii per Mons. de Shareshall chief Justice touching the disturbers of the peace and maintainers of quarrels, &c. And also touching the Realm of France, the Kings Inheritance.

Ann. 27. E. 3. At a great Cou­cel per VVilliam Shareshall touching the staple.

An. 29. E. 3. Cro. sanct. Martini Mons. VVilliam de Shareshall Chr. Chief Justice dit que il pleist a Roy que la Cause de summons soit Monstre per Mons. VValter de Mannye touch­ing France.

An 26 E. 3. per Mons. Henry de [Page 135] Green chief Justice, touching the li­berty of the Church, and the peace of the Land, &c. And touching Scotland, and to advance the small price of Wool, &c.

Anno 37 E. 3. Octab. Hillar. Proclamation was made by the Kings commandment in Westminst­ter Hall, that all the Prelates, Lords and Commons who were come to the Parliament, should draw them­selves to the painted Chamber; and afterwards on the same day there being in the said Chamber the Chancellour, Treasurer, and some of the Prelates, Lords and Commons, who were come to the Parliament, Sir Henry Green the Kings Chief Justice told them in English, that the King is ready to begin his Parliament, but that ma­ny of the Prelates, Lords, and Commons who are summoned are not yet come, wherefore the King willeth that they should depart and take their ease untill Munday. On which day the cause of Summons was declared by the Bishop of Ely then Chancellour, touching the li­berties [Page 136] of the Church, and the grie­vances of the people.

These are the Parliaments of Ed 3. that mentioned the Chief Justice.

In all the subsequent Parliaments in his time, the cause of Summons was declared by the Chancel­lor, and he hath been Speaker.

Except that of 47 Ed. 3. The summons was declared by Sir John Knevet Chancellor, and the next day Sir Guy Brian more particular­ly; and that 15 E. 3. where the cause touching Modern Affairs was declared by the Bishop of St. Da­vid the Chancellor, and the usur­pation of the Pope by Monsieur Robert de Ashton the Kings Cham­berlain.

Since E. 3 the Cause of Summons was ever declared by the Chancel­lor, if he were present, though the day after some others Matters have been opened unto the Lords and Commons, prout by the Steward of the Kings house.

Anno 2 R. 2. at Gloucester, & An­no 5 R. 2. by Sir Hugh Segrave the [Page 137] Kings Treasurer, and Anno 6 R: by the Bishop of Hereford, &c.

The like hath been in latter times, Anno 21 Jacobi, by the Duke of Buckingham touching the Match with Spain, and the recovery of the Palatinate, &c.

An: 2 H: [...]: The cause of sum­mons was declared by Sir William Thirving Chief Justice of the Com­mon Pleas.

Yet the Parliament-businesse was afterwards managed by the Chan­cellor not present the first day.

Whether he that anciently de­clared the Cause of summons not being the Chancellour were Speaker also all the Parlia­ment, though the Chancellour was present?

These ordinary matters are not entred usually in the Rolls of E. 3. yet by some we may guess at the rest.

Vide Anno 25 E. 3. the summons were declared by William de Share­shall Chief Justice; and Receivers [Page 138] and Tryers of Petitions being read, he willed the Commons to put their advice in Writing, and deliver it to the King on Thursday following: so that he was Speaker, and yet the Bishop of Winchester was Chancel­lor, and present; for the Record sayes, that he delivered the Lord of Arundels Petition unto the Clerk to be entred, N ^o 8. &. 9.

Anno 25 E. 3. in festo sancti Hil­larii, Sir William Shareshall Chief Justice delivered the cause of Sum­mons, N 1. 6 and on Friday fol­lowing willed them to deliver in their petitions N 8. so he managed the Parliament businesse, and yet the Chancellor was present, for he is appointed to assist in the trying of Petitions, the cause of importance, N 3. & 4.

And in all other Parliaments of Edw. 3. when the Kings cause of Summons was declared by the Chief Justice, the Chancellor was then present as may appear by the Tryers of Petitions.

So that in those Parliaments it cannot be said that the Chief Ju­stice [Page 139] did supply the Lord Chancel­lors place (for that is properly when he is absent) but was appoin­ted by the King to be Speaker that Parl.

Anno 29 Ed. 3. The Chief Ju­stice declared that the Kings plea­sure was that the cause of Summons should be declared by Monsieur Walter de Mannye, and so it was; Yet the Chief Justice managed the Parliament businesse as Speaker. For presently after Monsieur Man­nye his discourse, he called the Com­mons to advise thereof, &c. and make ready their Petitions, N 10.

And the petition of the Earl of March being read, it was said by Monsieur Will: Shareshall, and the Lords then present, with one minde, and one accord, that it seemed to them, That the Petition was good and reasonable to them, &c. Ibid after the Petitions of the Com­mons, here you see the Chief Ju­stice, ranked first above the Lords in delivering of their Votes.

So that it is plain, the Chief [Page 140] Justice managed the Parliament-businesse as Speaker of the Parlia­ment appointed by the King, and that he did execute, (not supply) the place of the Chancellor there­in.

For in such cases where the Chancellors place is supplyed, there when the Chancellour comes, he executes his office himself.

Prout An: 31 H. 6. The Chan­cellor being absent (saith the Re­cord) the K. commanded the Bi­shop of Lincoln to pronounce the cause of Summons, N 1. March. 6.

But when the Chancellor was come, he prorogued the Parl. by the Kings commandment, No: 12. the 18. of March.

Whether he that anciently de­clared the Cause of Summons (not being Chancellor) had any Commission (as now) under the seale or no?

Here by the ancient Parliaments, I mean those whose Records be kept in the Tower.

Anno 6 E. 3. Lunae post fest. sanct. Gregorii, the Chief Justice by the Kings commandment declared the cause of Summons, &c.

No: An: 21 E. 3. Consimile by the Kings commandment declared the cause of Summons, &c. No.

Anno 21 E. 3. Lunae post fest sancti Gregorii, &c. Consimile by the Kings commandment, which in my opinion is to be understood by a Verball commandment onely, and not by any commission: For none is recorded in any of the Rolls in his time, which would have been in one Parliam. or other, whereas Commissions of far lesse moment are entred.

In two Parliaments of H. 6. The Chancellors place was supplyed by a verball authority prout.

Anno 9 H. 6. the Chancellor being sick, unto whom it apper­tains (Ratione officii sui) to pro­nounce the cause of Summons, the Duke of Gloucester (the Kings pro­tector) appointed Doctor Lynd­wood to pronounce the same.

The 31 H. 6. the Chancellor be­ing [Page 142] absent, the King commanded the Bishop of Lincoln to declare the cause of Summons. There was then no Commission granted to supply the Chancellors place as now of la­ter times.

In the end of this Chapter shall be shewed when the first Com­mission was granted, and prece­dents of the severall forms there­of.

The manner how the Cause of Summons is declared, when the King is present in person, and how when his Majesty is represented by Commission.

THe King is ever present when the cause of Summons is de­clared, either in person, or by Com­mission: If in person, the Lord Chan [...]ellor doth first remove from his place, which is on the Kings right hand behind the Chair of State, and confers privately with his Majestie.

The cause of which Ceremony [Page 143] may seem to be this; that as none but the King can call the Parliam. so it may appear that none but his Majestie can propound and direct wherefore it is called.

And this Ceremony is ever ob­served by the Lord Chancellor, before he speak any thing in Parlia­ment when his Majesty is present. As for the continuance, proroga­tion, or dissolution of the Parlia­ment, as they are not entred to be done (ex Mandato Domini Regis) so they are not entred to be done perle Roy, whereby it seems this ceremony was observed also when the K. was present.

If the King be represented by Commission, then the Lord Chancellor sits on the Woolsack. The Commission being read, the Commissioners repair to the seat prepared for them, on the right side of the Chair of State beneath the steps, then the Lord Chancellor a­riseth and conferreth with the Com­missioners, and returns to his place on the Woolsack, & there declares the cause of summons, prout Anno 28 Eliz. 29 Oct.

Vide An: 51 Ed. 3. The Prince of Wales represented the King in Parliament, and sate in the Chair of State.

Here may be a question, whether the Lord Chief Justice sate tempore E. 3. when he declared the cause of summons: And where he that should now supply the Lord Chan­cellors place, ought to sit when he declares the same in the Kings pre­sence.

In my opinion he ought to sit in his own proper place, untill he doth ariseth to confer with the King, and then to declare the same in the Lord Chancellors place, as he may be neer the King. It is not fit that he should sit or stand at the Woolsack, and speak with his back to the King, but I have no prece­dent for it.

The Commission to supply the Lord Chancellors place.

ELizabeth by the grace of God, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, [Page 145] &c. To our trusty and wel-be­loved Sir Robert Catelyne, Knight, Chief Justice of the Pleas to be holden before Us greeting. Where­as our trusty and wel-beloved Councellor Sir Nicholas Bacon Knight, Lord Keeper of our great Seal of England is at this present so visited with sicknesse, that he is not able to come to the upper house of this Our Parliament holden at VVestminster, nor there to supply the room and place in the said Up­per House, among the Lords Spi­rituall and Temporal there assem­bled, as to the Office of the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper of the great Seal of England hath been ac­customed, We minding the same place & room to be supplyed in all things as appertaineth, have named and appointed you: And by these presents do name, constitute, and appoint, and authorize you from day to day, and time to time here­after during our pleasure, to use and occupy the place and Room of the said Lord Keeper in our said Upper House of Parliament [Page 146] amongst the said Lords Spirituall and Temporal, there assembled, and there to do and execute in all things from day to day, and time to time, as the said Lord Keep­er of the great Seal of England should, or might do, if he were there present, using, and supplying the same place; where We will and command you the said Sir Ro­bert Catelyne, to attend into, and about the Execution of the Premi­ses with effect: And these our Letters Patents shall be your suffi­cient Warrant and Discharge for the same in every behalf. In witnesse whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made Patents. Wit­nesse our selfe at VVestminster the 25. of October, in the 8. year of our Reign.

The Commons ever had a Speaker.

THat the Commons have ever had a Speaker, I think none will doubt; they needed none in the ancient times when both Houses sate together: But I shewed in the third Chapter that the Commons ever had a Speaker for their consul­tation apart from the Lords, though they did often meet and sit toge­ther in one room, and then a Speak­er was necessary, to avoyd confu­sion of speech and Arguments.

To resolve this more clear, Vide lib. sanct. Albini, fol. 207. in Sir Robert Cotton's Library. The ans­wer of the Parliament, An. 44. H. 3. to Pope Alexander touching the recall of Adomar the Elect Bishop of VVinchester from banishment, viz. Si Dom. Rex & Regni Ma­jores [Page 148] hoc Volent, Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam jam nul­tenus sustineret, which is signed and sealed by all the Lords, and by Pe­trus de Mounteforte Vice totius Comi­tatus; which shewes plainly that he was then Speaker: For the same words did Sir John Tiptoff their Speaker signe and Seal to the En­tayl of the Crown Parl. An: 7. et 8 H. 5.

There are some other Records, out of which one may guesse they had a Speaker; prout Parl. An: 13 E. 3. N ^o 9. Les Chivalers des Countes & les Commons responderent per Monsieur William Trussell, who may be supposed to be their Spea­ker.

But the first that doth directly name him is the parliament. 51 E. 3. N ^o 87.

The last day of the Parliament (saith the Record) Sir Thomas Hun­gerford, Knight, Speaker, declared to the Lords that he had moved the King to pardon all such as were un­justly convicted in the last Parlia­ment, and that the King willed him [Page 149] to make speciall Bills for them, which he had done for seven, &c.

It can be no Argument that the Commons had no Speaker before the 51 E. 3. because no former Re­cords mention him; for this is to be noted, that the ancient Rolls did record onely what Acts passed between both Houses, and what Laws were made, and omitted the Formes and Ceremonies then used.

There are divers Parliament Rolls of R. 2. that mention the Spea­ker in the beginning at this present­ment or protestation, or the like, and ever after he is omitted in the same Rolls, and all is entred to be spoken by the Commons not naming him at all prout Anno 1 R. 2.

An. 2 R. 2. apud Gloucester no. 18. 20. 22, 23. 24. 26.

An. 4. R. 2. No. 10. 12, 13,

An. 5. R. 2. no. 10. 16.

An. 21. R. 2. no 8. 9. 14. 16.

And the Parliament Rolls Annis 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. & 11. H. 4. do mention the Speakers protestation.

But whatsoever is spoken, or done as on the behalf of the Com­mons is recorded to be done by the Commons, and the Speaker not once mentioned.

The like may be observed out of the Parliaments An. 2. H. 6. no. 6.

An. 4. h. 6. no. 10. An. 6. h. 6 no. 16. Anno 29. h. 6. no. 16. And Anno 12 E. 4. no 10. And An. 22 E. 4. no 10. An. 29. h. 6. no 16. An. 31. h. 6. no 3. Which say that that was spoken by the Commons, without doubt was spoken by the Speaker on their behalf.

Whereas in divers other Parlia­ments of R. 2. and h. 4 and downe­wards to this day the partie that speaks for the Commons is al­waies recorded (viz.) the Speaker anciently, and the Messenger of la­ter times.

And although the Parliament Rolls of 1. 2. 4. 5, 6. 17. 20. 21. years of R. 2. do mention the Spea­ker, and his solemn protestation is there made, and recorded; yet there be divers other Parliament Rolls: R, 2. wherein the Speaker is not [Page 151] once named at all (viz.) An. 5. R. 2. the 7 Maii An. 6 R. 2. the [...] of—Octabis Mich. and Annis 9. 10. 11. 13, 14, 16, and 18. R. 2. So that I do not marvel that the Re­cords of E. 3 (which are the first Parliament Rolls now extant) do not mention the Speaker, and there­fore, I may boldly affirm, that the Commons had their Speaker as well in the time of R. 2. when it is ap­parent they had a Speaker though not mentioned in the Rolls (viz.) in all the parliaments between the 16. and the 17. R. 2.

The Election of the Speaker.

AT this day the cause of sum­mons being declared, if by the K. (who in this learned age, hath ever delivered the same to the great admiration of hearers) The Lord Chancellor confers first with his Majestie and then in his name commands the Commons to assem­ble in their house, and to choose one of their Members to be their Spea­ker, [Page 152] and to present him to his Majestie on a day certain.

If the cause of summons be deli­vered by the Lord Chancellor or by any other whom the King ap­pointed, he concludes his speech with the Kings commandement to the Commons to chuse their Spea­ker, without removing from his place to confer first with his Maje­stie, or with the Commissioners if the King be absent.

The Commons being thereupon assembled in their house, one of the Commons putteth the rest in mind of their charge given in the upper house, touching the chusing of a Speaker: And then doth of himself commend one unto them, and de­sireth their opinions to be signified by their affirmative or negative voices: And if any man stand up and speak against him so named al­ledging some reason, he ought to name another.

When it appeareth who is cho­sen, after a good pause he standeth up and sheweth what abilities are required in the speaker, and that [Page 153] there are divers amongst them well furnished with such qualities, &c. disableth himself, and prayeth a new choice to be made, which is commonly answered with a full consent of voices upon his name.

After which two go unto him in the place where he sits, take him by the Arms, and lead him to the Chair, after a while he riseth, and uncovered, with humble thanks for their good opinion of him, promis­eth his willing endeavour to do them service, &c.

Then some and commonly (he that first spake) puts them in mind of the day to present him, &c.

The mace is not carryed before him, untill his return, being pre­sented to the King and allowed of.

Here may be 2 questions mo­ved.

1. Whether the Commons might chuse their Speaker if the King commands them not?

2. Whether the election be in their own absolute choice?

For to clear these two we might [Page 154] view the ancient Records, those of R. 2 are the first that mention their Speaker.

It doth not appear by any of them, that the Commons had ever had any such commandement to chuse their Speaker, neither is a Word of it in any Record of E. 3 which have the speeches at large touching the cause of summons most of them concluding with a charge of the Commons to consider and ad­vise thereof amongst themselves but nothing touching the Election of their Speaker.

Yet out of doubt they did first choose their Speaker, before they entred into any debate of charge.

The first charge to choose their Speaker, is in Anno 2. Henry 4. but that onely excepted, it is con­tinued from 2 Henry 4. untill this day, and the long use hath made it so material, that without the Kings Commandement or leave, they can­not choose their Speaker, which appears plainly by this, that in An­no 31. H. 6. the Parliament being prorogued, and the Speaker ar­rested [Page 155] in execution in the interim before the access, The Commons prayed his inlargement, which after long debatement of the priviledges of Parliament was denyed, and then certain of the Lords were sent to the Commons, & commanded them in the Kings Name to choose a new Speaker, and thereupon they did so.

And of late years, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, the Parliament being prorogued, and the Speaker dead in the interim, before the ac­cesse, the Commons before they proceeded to any businesse, acquain­ted the Lords therewith, and de­sired the Lords to intimate to the Queen, (as shall be more largely declared hereafter in this Chapter) and so were commanded by her Majesty to choose a new Speaker.

(2) But as touching the second Question, surely the Elections of the Speaker was anciently free to the Commons, to choose whom they would of their own House, which appears in this, that the King never rejected any whom they made choice of.

Vide 5. R. 2. the Parliament be­gan the 4th. of November, and the xxviijth. of November the Commons came and presented Sir Richard Walgrave, whom they had chosen for their Speaker, who excuseth himself, desiring to be discharged. But the King (luy Chargeast del' faire per sa legiantie) in as much as his companions had chosen him, N ^o. 9.

Whereby it appears plainly that the choice was absolutely in their own power.

The Presentment of the SPEAKER.

AT the Day appointed, his Majesty sitting in his Royal Throne, and the Lords all in their Robes.

The Commons are called in, who being come, the Speaker is brought between two of them, with low obeisances to the Barr, and so pre­sented at the Barr unto his Majesty: [Page 157] The presentment of the Speaker is not recorded in any of the Rolles of E. 3.

And none of R. 2. speaks of the Kings Commandement to choose their Speaker, so that there could not be any day appointed to present him: yet I suppose the Commons did ever first present their Speaker, before they declared any thing to the King, otherwise what needed the Speakers excuse unto the King, before he was admitted to speak in the first year of R. 2. which no Re­cord saies was a new Institution, and therefore no doubt was in use also under Edward the third, and before.

From the second year of Hen. 4th. and downwards, the Com­mons are willed to choose their Speaker, and to present him.

The Speakers Excuse.

THis is now formal and out of modesty, for he first excuseth himself unto the Commons when they elect him, and afterwards to the King when he is present.

The first excuse that I find is that of Sir Richard Walgrave Knight, Speaker, Anno 5. R. 2.

Whom the King charged upon his Allegiance to take it upon him­self, he was chosen by the Com­mons.

The next is Anno 1. Henry 4. of Sir John Chenye, who made no ex­cuse at his presentment: But the next day after he and they came be­fore the King, and declared his disability to serve by reason of a sudden disease: And that the Com­mons had chosen Sir John Dorewood in his place, beseeching his Majesty to allow thereof, which the King did, and commanded Sir John Dore­wood to be their Speaker, and he made the common protestation for himself, and the Commons, but no excuse no 63.

The next excuse is Anno 5. H. 4. N: 8. of Sir Arnold Savage, which the King would not allow of.

Anno 6. H. 4. N. 8. Sir William Sturmy made no excuse.

An. 7. and 8. H. 4. N ^o. 9. Sir John Tiptoft desired to be excused [Page 159] in respect of his youth, But the King affirmed the Election.

And all other Speakers in Hen. 4. his time, desired to be excused, and some under H. 5. and some others did not; it was not constantly ob­served, but from the 6th: year of Henry 6. since which time they have all (except two) desired to be excu­sed: yet none were excused save onely Sir John Popham Knight, Anno xxviij. H. 6. whom the King discharged, and thereupon the Com­mons chose, and presented William Thresham Esq who made no ex­cuse, neither did Sir William Oldhall, Anno xxix. H. 6. desire to be ex­cused.

At this day, the Speaker having made his excuse, the Lord Chan­cellor confers with the King, and then telleth him that his Majesty doth approve the Commons choice, and will not allow of his excuse.

Then the Speaker proceeded to his speech, but anciently he made first a protestation as followeth.

The SPEAKERS Pro­testation.

THe first Protestation is that of 1 R. 2. No. 15. yet no doubt the like was made in former times, though not entred; For I find no new Institution, or Order for this, neither could it be new, being in the beginning of the first Parliament of this young King.

The words of the Protestation are these, (viz.) That what he was to say was from the whole House, and therefore required that if he should happily speak any thing without their consents, that the same might be amended before his departure from the same place, N ^o. 15.

Anno. 7. H. 4. N ^o. 9. Sir John Tiptoft was presented and affirmed by the King, his excuse by reason of his youth being first recited, this was the second of March; on the xxviijth. day of March, he made the common Protestation, it should seem he was in good hope to be ex­cused: And therefore he was un­provided [Page 161] of a Protestation, which he made not until he had somewhat else to speak on the behalf of the Commons, and desired a confirma­tion of their priviledges: on the se­cond of April, he desired his Pro­testation to be entred, and desired also in the name of the Commons, that if they shall deliver any thing in writing, the same writing may be delivered to them again, at any time during the Parliament, to be amen­ded if need be at their pleasure, unto which the King assented.

At this day the Speaker wholly omits the Protestation, neither is it now needfull, for he never comes to speak on the behalf of the Com­mons, unlesse to demand Judge­ment against any whom they have accused to the Lords.

His Spake ancient at this day.

ANciently the Speaker came not before the King, untill he had somewhat to say unto his Majesty, on the behalf of the Commons, and then having first made his Protesta­tion [Page 162] for amendment of any thing he should speak otherwise then he was directed: He proceeded to speake in the name of the Commons, and if he speak any thing of his own mind, as sometimes it hapned, he declared it so, but never made any Oration, as now of latter times.

To prove all this, Vide all the Parliaments of R. 2. where the Speakers Protestation is first made.

Anno 1. R. 2. His speech followes his Protestation, but it concerns not the cause of Summons, but mat­ters dehors, so that it seems he was directed therein by the Commons.

Anno 2. R. 2. he rehearseth the Chancellors speech, and answers in the Name of the Commons, which shewes plainly the Commons di­rection for his speech.

Anno 3. R. 2. he delivers the answer of the Commons touching the aid required.

Anno 6. R. 2. The Commons de­bated two days amongst themselves, of their charge touching the Kings passage into Flanders, then they de­sired conference with the Lords, [Page 163] after consultation had, the Speaker came; and made his Protestation, and then delivered the Answer of the Commons, so that the Speaker came not untill the Commons had agreed what he should say. And no Record Ed. 3. mentioned either the speakers presentment or pro­testation, But the answer of the Commons when they were agreed thereon; though out of doubt the same was delivered by the Speaker onely.

Afterwards, Anno xvij. R. 2. For between the 6th. and the 17. no Speaker is Recorded.

The Speakers presentment and protestation are onely entred, and no speech the first day, Anno xx. & xxi. Consimile.

And so in very many Parliaments of H. 4. 5 and H. 6. and E. 4. and downwards to the 6. H. 8.

Which Protestation the Com­mons also directed, as may appear Anno xiij. H. 4. where the Spea­ker required on the behalf of the Commons, that it would please the King, that they might be advised [Page 164] of their Protestations untill the next day; which plainly shewes, That the Speaker spake nothing (his excuse excepted) but what the Commons advised him.

Vide etiam Anno 2. H. 4. the Speakers Protestation being allow­ed, he then of his own authority (saith the Record) rehearsed the cause of Summons.

So that if he made any speech of his own he declared it so.

Of latter times, the Speakers speech is what it pleaseth himself, having no direction at all from the Commons touching the same; Nei­ther do now omit their ancient Pro­testation, and in lieu thereof, make Petition to the King on the behalf of the Commons, some in generall words, for all their ancient words, and some in particular.

1. For access unto his Majesty.

2. For freedom of speech.

3. And for freedom from A [...] ­rests.

And they did ever enjoy these priviledges in as ample manner as now, though not formerly prayed by the Speaker.

I have entred this last Speakers speech, Sir Thomas Crewe at large, in the Journal xxi. Jacobi Rs. which in his opinion is the best that is Re­corded since the 6. of H. 8. it con­sists not in verball praises, but in real, fit for the time, and well be­seeming the dignity of a Parlia­ment.

The Speaker having ended his Oration, wherein he always makes some requests on the behalf of the Commons: The Lord Chancellor confers again with the King, and makes answer thereunto in his Ma­jesties name, granting his requests for access to his Majesty, and for their Liberty and Priviledges in as ample manner, as they have en­joyed them in any time of his Ma­jesties Progenitors.

That the Commons ever enjoy­ed those priviledges, which the Speaker now petitions for, though never desired by any of the Ancient Speakers, untill after the 7th. year of King H. 8.

The Petitions are now three, touching their Priviledges, (viz.)

1. First, For access unto his Ma­jesty.

Secondly, For freedom of speech.

Thirdly, For freedom from Arrests.

As touching access unto his Ma­jesty, it appeareth plainly they e­ver enjoyed this, ever when the Kings were absent from Parliament, prout Anno 51. E. 3. The King be­ing then sick at Eltham: The Spea­ker, Sir Thomas Hungerford decla­red to the Lords, that he had mo­ved the King to pardon all such as were unjustly committed in the last Parliament, &c. N ^o. 87.

That the King was then sick at Eltham, Vide N ^o. xxij.

At all other times of R. 2. Hen. 4. and downwards, the Commons with the Speaker were admitted in­to the Kings presence in Parliament, to deliver their answers: And of­tentimes under R. 2. H. 4. and H. 6. they did propound matters to the King, which were not given them in charge to treat of.

This request for access unto his [Page 167] Majesty is first Recorded, Anno xxviij. H. 8. to be made by Richard Riche then Speaker.

Then by Thomas Moyle Speaker, Anno xxxi. H. 8. And afterwards by all others whose speeches are in the Journalls.

The Speakers Petition for free­dom of speech is not recorded, be­fore the 33. H. 8. made by Thomas Moyle Speaker.

Neither was it ever denyed them, for the Commons would never suf­fer any uncomely speeches to pass of private men in their House, much lesse of the King, or of any of the Lords.

They did oftentimes under E. 3. discuss and debate amongst them­selves many things concerning the Kings Prerogative.

And agreed upon Petitions for Laws to be made directly against his Prerogative, as may appear by divers of the said Petitions; yet they were never interrupted in their consultations, nor received Check for the same, as may ap­pear also by the answers of the said Petition.

These Precedents of E. 3. (are the best) he being the right Heir to the Crown, absolute in his go­vernment, and welbeloved of his people, and may be freely ci­ted.

R. 2. suceeded, being very young, having froward Unkles, who were so popular that they made him very jealous of his Prerogative.

I will not alledge such prece­dents of his time, as prove that the Commons argued and propounded matters contrary to his Prerogative; (for they are many) But onely ob­serve how that King did in the lat­ter end of his reign, take notice of the Commons consultations in matters concerning the same.

The first happened in the Parlia­ment, An xx. R. 2. when the King had mastered his Unckles, and be­came absolute.

In this Parliament Sir John Bus­sie, one of the Kings Minions being Speaker, a Bill was exhibited to the Commons, that the great and excessive charge of the Kings House be amended & taken away, [Page 169] and taken away, and against the multitude of Bishops, and Ladies in the Kings House.

No man will doubt but that Bus­sie did presently acquaint the King with this, and it was bruited also at that very time, that the King was displeased with the Commons, for that they intended to disswade his Majesty from sending certain into Lumbardy, whereupon the Commons came before the King, and denyed there was any such speech amongst them: And yet (though this occasion was offered by themselves) the K. took no no­tice of the Bill touching his House, but willed the Lord Chancellor to tell them, that his Officers should come and confer with them about weighty affairs.

At the Lords return from this conference, the King came into the Parliament House, and told the Lords that he understood that the Commons had (in this conference) handled some matters against his Royal Estate and Liberty, and com­manded the Lord Chancellor to de­clare the same.

Whereupon the Lord Chancellor declared Four Bills, propounded by the Commons, whereof the fourth and last was the Bills touch­ing the excessive charge of the Kings House, &c. which onely displeased his Majesty, and he was highly offended that the Commons who are his subjects durst presume of any Ordinance, or government of the Kings House and Person, which he commanded the Lords to tell the Commons, and to charge the Speaker to declare his name, that exhibited the Bill: And Haxey was condemned for a Traytor for that Bill.

By this you may see how the K. did cast about, to have this mat­ter related unto him in the upper house; neither can it appear by any ancient Record, that the King did take notice of any of the Commons speeches, or consultations, until they were reported unto his Ma­jesty in open Parliament.

The next precedents are of 1 H. 4. which are not much to be stood upon, because he was an Usurper: [Page 171] And therefore it behoved him to affect the love of his Commons in his time: Annis 7. & 8. The Spea­ker told him plainly in open Par­liament, that his House was far more chargeable, but less honoura­ble then any of his Progenitors, and it was well taken by the King, whereas Haxey was condemned for a Traytor, for a lesse matter then under R. 2. yet some prece­dents of his time do plainly prove the ancient priviledges of the Com­mons: And therefore I will recite those Laws onely.

Anno 2. H. 4. No. 11. The Com­mons petitioned the King, that he would not suffer any Report to be made unto him of any matter ei­ther moved or debated amongst them untill they be concluded, nor give them any credit; whereunto the King assented.

Anno 9. H. 4. No: 12. It is plain that the King is not to be told of any thing in communication with the Commons, until it be declared by themselves, which was declared to be so upon this occasion: The [Page 172] Lords sent for certain of the Com­mons, and told them what Sub­sidy they thought fit to give the King, and wished them to tell it their Companions, and to advise them to yield thereunto; unto which the Commons did justly take exceptions, and made complaint thereof unto his Majesty, and there­upon it was declared and agreed, that it is lawfull for the Lords to commune of the Subsidies by them­selves: But neither the Lords nor the Commons are to make report thereof unto the King before they agreed: And then the same is to be declared by the Speaker in the manner accustomed. Vide Chartam de immeditat. in Schedula ibidem, If the King might not take notice of the Subsidy (about which the Lords and Commons did often confer) and being agreed, made an Inden­ture thereof; much less might any thing else moved amongst the Com­mons be reported unto his Majesty, before the Commons were fully a­greed thereon, and declared the same by their Speaker, or other­wise, [Page 173] either unto the King or Lords.

The third Petition is for free­dom from Arrests.

This Petition was never made untill of late dayes, yet this privi­ledge did ever belong to the Lords and Commons, and to their servants also coming to the Parliament, stay­ing there, and returning home.

Anno xviij: Ed. 1: Bogo de Cla­re, and the Prior of Holy Trinity in London were complained of, for that the said Prior (by procurement of the said Bogo) had cited the Earl of Cornwall in Westminster Hall, in Parliament time to apppear be­fore the Lord Arch-bishop of Can­terbury, &c. whereupon they were sent for (ad respondendum Domino Regi, & Petro de Chamen Senes­challo Regis, Walter. de Fa e Court Marcschallo Regis, Domino Edward. Comiti Cornubiae & Abb. de West­minst: (eo quod dicta Aula est in­fra libertates Domini Abbat: They appeared and submitted themselves to the King, whereupon they were sent to the Tower of London, (Postea [Page 174] venit predictus Bogo & fin. fecit, Domino Regi pro predict. transgres­sione per duas Mille Marcas libras pro transgressione sibi facta, &c. Vi­de Placita Parliamenti Anno xviij. E. 1. in an old Manuscript in the Tower, and in the Plea Rolles in that year also, there is a Petition of the Master of the Temple, to have leave to distrain for the Rent of a House in London, (held of him by the Bishop of St. Davye) for that he could not distrain Tempore Par­liamenti. The answer is, Non vide­tur honestum quod Rex concedat, &c. Tempore Parliamenti, sed alio tem­pore distringat, &c. And E. 2. sent his Proclamation to the Justices of Assize, quod supersedeant ubi Barones & alii Summoniti Ad Parliamentum Regis sunt praesentes, Vide Clause Anno 7. E. 2. Membr. 28. & Annis 8. E. 2. Membr. xxviij. & Annis viij. & E. 2. Membr. xxij. & xxiij.

But these Precedents prove the priviledges of the Lords onely, the next shall of the Commons also, and their servants.

Anno 5. H. 4. No. 7. inter Petitiones Communium (viz.) Item, pray the Commons, that whereas accor­ding to the Custom of the Realm, the Lords, Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, coming to your Par­liament at your command, staying there, and returning to their Coun­tries, and their men, and their ser­vants with them in the said Parlia­ment, under your special protecti­on and defence, and ought not for any debate, trespass, or other con­tract whatsoever, to be arrested, or any way imprisoned in the mean time; and now so it is, that many such men coming to your Parlia­ment, and others their men, and servants during the said Parliament have been arrested by them, who had full knowledge that they so ar­rested were of the Parliament as a­foresaid, In contempt of your Ma­jestie, great damage of the party, and delay of the business of the Par­liament: May it please you to e­stablish, That if any hereafter do ar­rest any such man coming to your Parliament, as aforesaid, or any of [Page 176] their men, or servants remaining with them in the said Parliament, or any thing attempt contrary to the Custom.

He shall make fine and ransome unto you, & render treble damages to the party grieved, R. Y. as sufficient remedy in the like Case. I have translated this Petition, or Bill exhibited by the Commons, Ad verbum, out of the Original: By this you see who are priviledged (viz.) The Lords, Knights, Citi­zens, and Burgesses, and their ser­vants coming to Parliament, staying and returning.

The Petition is to have the con­temners of this Priviledge punish­ed by Fine and Ransome to the King, & treble damages to the par­ty grieved, had sufficient Remedie.

What Remedy this was doth ap­pear by the Earl of Cornewalls case, Anno xviij. Ed. iij. (viz.) that the party contemning the privi­ledge of Parliament is to be com­mitted to prison, to make Fine and Ransome to the King, to render to the party grieved damages, as the [Page 177] Lords of the Parliament shall award; And to answer the Kings Steward and Marshall, if the con­tempt be committed within the Verge, for the wrong done to them, which is a greater punishment then the Commons required; And hap­pily they know it not.

But this being the ancient Cus­tom, and done by Prescription, The Lords thought it more honour­able to retain it, then to Enact a new Law to punish the contemp­ters of their priviledges, as if they had not been otherwise able to do it of themselves, or had no Reme­dy before, but were subject to scorn and contempt.

As the offender was punished, so the party arrested was set at liberty: And this was so notorious, that the Commons (at that time) desired no redresse therein by their Petition.

It rests to shew how the party so arrested, was set at Liberty, which shall follow: but here first occurs another Petition of the Commons, touching assaults during the Parlia­ment, (viz.)

Eodem Anno 5. H. 4. N ^o 78. I­tem, pray the Commons, that where­as all Lords, Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, and their servants comming to Parliament by the Kings Writ, in coming, staying, and returning, are under your pro­tection-Royall, and many mis­chiefs and Impeachments do often happen unto the said Lords, Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, and their menial servan [...]s at those times, As by Murther, Maimes, and Batteries, by people lying in waite, or otherwise, for which, due remedy is not yet provided: And namely and particularly in this pre­sent Parliament, An horrible Bat­tery, and mischief is committed up­on Richard Chedder Esquire, who is come to this Parliament with Sir Thomas Brooke Knight one of the Knights for the Countie of Somer­set, and meniall with him, by John Sallage, otherwise called John Sa­vage, whereby the said Richard Chedder is Emblemished and mai­med even to the peril of death. That it would please you to ordain upon [Page 179] this matter, sufficient remedy, and for other such causes femblable, so as the punishment of him may give Example, & terror unto others not to commit the like mischief in time to come; (that is to say) if any man shall kill, or murther any that is come under your protection to Par­liament, that it be adjudged Treason, and if any do maim, or disfigure any such coming under your protection, that he lose his hand; and that if any do assault or beat any such so come, that he be imprisoned for a year, and make fine and ransome, to the King: And that it would please you of your special grace hereafter to abstain from charters of pardon in such cases, unless that the parties be fully agreed.

R ^o. for that the deed was done within the time of this parliament, let a proclamation be made where the deed was done, that the said John Sallage appear, and render himself into the Kings Bench with­in a quarter of a yeare after the proclamation made: And if he doth not, let the said John Sallage be at­tainted [Page 180] of the said deed, and pay unto the partie endamaged his double damages, to be taxed by the discretion of the Judges of the said Bench for the time being, or by inquest if need be, and make fine and Ransome at the Kings Will; & so likewise let it be done in time to come in like cases.

Thus far the petition of the Com­mons with the answer, vide the prin­t [...]d book how the statute is drawn up, upon this petition and answer, & vide Rot. Claus. (An. eodem constat) that the said John Sallage did yield himself according to the Proclamation.

This petition and answer may be compared to the former (viz.) that the Lords would not discedere from the remedy due anciently by prescription, which they had for ss [...]ults as well as for arrests, only they agreed to the Commons herein to provide for him, that could not be apprehended after the fact done.

An. 23. H. 6. No. 41. inter petiti­ones communium, the Commons [Page 181] pray that every person being of the Lords house, or of the house of Commons, having any assault or af­fray made upon them at the Par­liament, or coming or going from thence, may have the like [...]emedy therefore as Sir Thomas Parrhad.

R ^o. The statutes therefore made shall be observed: it should seem the Commons had forgotten the statute made 5 h. 4.

Concerning a Commit­ment of a Peer of this Realm in the time of Parli­ament.

THE Earl of Arundels case in a Parliament of the 6th of Fe­bruary An. 1. Caroli Regis, will fully satisfie this point; and therefore I will add it here at large.

The 14. of March An. 15. 25. The Earl of Arundel being com­mitted by the King to the Tower of London, sitting, the Parliament House was moved to take the same into their consideration, and so to proceed therein as they might give [Page 182] no just offence unto his Majestie, and yet preserve the priviledges of Par­liament.

The Lord Keeper of the great seal thereupon signified to the house that he was commanded to deliver this message from his Majestie unto their Lordships (viz.) that the Earl of Arundel was restrained for a misdemeanor, which was personal to his Majestie, and lay in the pro­per knowledge of his Majestie, and had no relation to matters of Parli­ament.

Whereupon the house was put to a Committee, and being resu­med, the Lords Committees for priviledges, &c. were appointed to search for precedents concerning the Commitment. And the Lord chief Justice, Mr. Justice Dodde­ridge, and Mr. Justice Yelverton were appointed to attend their Lordships:

To meet when they please, and to report when they were ready for it, and their Lordships think fit, for the consideration of the house.

The 25 of March 1625 the Lord [Page 183] Treasurer delivered a message from the King in haec verba (viz.)

Whereas by a motion made by one of your Lordships,Priviledges. the Lord Keeper did yesterday deliver a message from his Majestie, that the Earl of A­rundel was restrayned for a misde­meanor which was personal to his Majestie, & lay in the proper know­ledge of his Majestie, and had no relation to matters of Parliament: his Majestie hath now commanded me to signifie to your Lordships, that he doth avow the message in sort as it was delivered to have been done punctually according to his Majesties own direction: And he knoweth that he hath therein done justly and not diminished the priviledge of that house.

And because the Committee ap­pointed yesterday to search for precedents, &c. had not yet made any report to the house, therefore direction of this business was sus­pended for this time.

The 5. of April the Earl of Hart­ford made this report to the house [Page 184] (viz.) the Lords Committees for priviledges met on Munday last.Earl of hart so ds Report.

The first question that did arise a­mongst them was, whether that proxies are of any validity which are deputed to any Peere who sit­teth not in Parliament himself, and it was conceived that those votes were lost; whereupon the Com­mittee found this trust to be de­prived of five suffrages, by the ab­sence of the Earl of Arundel unto whom they were entrusted; and the Commitee finding by the Journal book that the Sub-commitee (which was appointed to search for Prece­dents for priviledges concerning the Commitment of a Peer in time of Parliament) had not yet made re­port to this house; they therefore conferring their notes of prece­dents together whereof they had made search, they have found no one Peer to have been committed (the Parliament sitting) without tryal, or judgment of Peers of Parliament, and that one only pre­cedent of the Bishop of Winchester, [Page 185] in the book Case of King E. 3. which was here urged, cannot be proved to be in Parliament time: and this the Lords of the grand Committee thought fit to offer to the consideration of the House.

Hereupon the House was mo­ved to give power to the Lords sub-Committees for priviledges, &c. to proceed in the search of pre­cedents of the Committment of a Peer of this Realm during the time of Parliament: and that the Kings Councel might shew them such precedents as they have of the committment of a Peere during the time of Parliament. And that the said sub-Committee may make their report unto the House at the next access.

All which was granted and a­greed unto, and these Lords were added unto the said Committee (viz.)

• The Lord Treasurer.
• The Lord President.
• The Duke of Buckingham.
• The Earl of Dorset.
• The Earl of Devon.
• [Page 186]The Earl of Clare.
• The viscount Walling ford.
• The Lord North.
• The Viscount Mansfield.

The Kings Councel are appoin­ted to attend the Lords, they or any five of the said sub-Committee to meet on thursday in the Easter weeke, at two of the clock in the painted Chamber, and afterwards when they please.

The 18 of Apr. 1626 The Lord president reported the proceedings of the Lords Sub-Committees for priviledges,Reports of the sub­commit­tees for priviled­ges. &c. upon the Com­mittment of the Earl of Arundel (viz.) that the Kings Councel had searched, and acquainted the said Lords Sub-Committees withal that they had found in Records, Chro­nicles, and Stories concerning this matter, unto which the said Lords Sub-Committees had given full an­swer, and also shewed such Prece­dents as did maintain their own rights: all which followeth in haec verba, &c. (viz.)

Touching Imprisonment or re­straint of Lords in time of Parliament.

UNder E. 1. the priviledges of the Lords of Parliament was such, that although the power of the Church was so great, that it pre­tended to be scarce less then the highest temporal power; yet when Edward Duke of Cornwall in Par­liament time was by it cited by a process from the Arch-Bishop of Canterburie, which was far less then any imprisonment, he recovered 1000 marks Damages against Bogo de Clare, that procured the citation, and both this Bogo and the Pryor of Sanct. Trinity that served it, were fined in great sums to the King for the contempt also against him in the citation.

The Case of the Arch-bishop Stafford, in the 15 E. 3. is obser­vable here, it appears that though he were commanded to stay from the Parliament untill he had ans­wered certain Articles in the [Page 188] Exchequer touching accompt, yet by a dutifull standing on his right, he did get his place in the House, and so sensible were the Lords of that breach of their priviledge in that restraint of this Arch-Bishop, that they declared that none of them ought to be questioned but in Parliament, and to that purpose also an Act passed that year, though with the rest of that year it now stands repealed.

Between the Parliaments of 50 and 51 E. 3. William Wickham Bishop of Winton was called to an account for divers monys that he had received of the King, and some other matter, and his tem­porallities were seised, and by com­mand of John Duke of Lancaster in the Kings name, he was not to come neer the King by twenty Miles: This was in Michaelmas Term 50 E. 3. in Hillarii 51 a Parli­ament was held where the Bishops and the Clergy that then were a third state of the Parliament (as they are called frequently in the ancient time) being present, to give [Page 189] the King a supply, made their complaint to the Arch Bishop of Canterburie as the chief of them (de injuria illata eorum confratri & Corpor. Domino Episc Winton, & quomodo non solum sibi met sed omni­bus illis est & toti libertati Ecclesiae derogatum, unde constanter asserue­runt se de instantibus Negotiis nulla­tenus effectualiter tractaturos donec quoad uniantur singula Cleric. mem­bra; affirmant revereri instans negoti­umdum cum illis communicetur tange­re, & quod omnes tangeret debere ab omnibus approbati.) And although the Arch-Bishop willing to have declined the medling with their suite, (being on the Dukes partie) yet he was so far urged by them, that at length he sent for him to come and take his place amongst them, as he did also; notwith­standing no writ of Summons ap­pear to have bin sent to him by that Parliament, the presence of all the Lords was thought by the house of Commons to be so necessary, and a matter wherein they had such interest, that they desired that all [Page 190] the Lords that were absent might be sent for: But it was answered, that it would be too long a delay of the Parliament, but such as were neer should be sent for: The Lord Grey of Ruthin being impriso­ned by Owen Glendor of Wales, the Commons conceived they had so much interest in the presence of e­very Lord there, that they petiti­oned the King to give the Lords of Roose, and Willoghby, leave to provide his ransome, which was 10000 Marks, which was granted.

A bill passed both the houses in the 5. h. 4. wherein it is affirmed that according to the Custom of the Realm, the Lords, Knights, Ci­tizens, and Burgesses and their ser­vants coming to the Parliament, and there staying and returning home a­gain, ought not to be arrested or in any manner imprisoned in the mean time for any debt, accounts, tres­pass, or other contract whatsoever. It was desired, that if any did offend against the priviledge, he should suffer fine and ransom, and pay treble damages: But the Kings An­swer [Page 191] is, that they had sufficient re­medy in le cas, for there was no doubt made of the Priviledge, though a desire were, of a greater Remedy then the law had yet pro­vided:

The Commons the 8 h. 6. in their bill for Lark a servant of Mr. Mil­red a Burgesse of Parliament (which passed both houses of Parliament) affirm, that the priviledges of Par­liament were clear that no Mem­ber was to be arrested in Parlia­ment-time, But for Treason, Felo­ny, or surety of the peace.

It was resolved, upon great ad­vice, 31. H. 6. that no member was to be arrested, saving in cases of Treason, Felony, breach of the Peace, or upon a condemnation had before the Parliament, which (as the Law is to this day) must be understood of an arrest of a Com­moner, upon an execution before his time of priviledge in Parliament: in the xxxiij. H. 8. The King him­self in his speech touching Ferrers Case (that being a Burgess was ta­ken in Execution) but discharged [Page 192] by Order of the Commons House) saies that his learned Council had enformed him, that all Acts and Processe, coming out of any other inferiour Courts, must for the time cease, and give place to the Parlia­ment, as the highest; and that what­soever offence or injury is in Parli­ament-time offered to the meanest Member of the House, is to be ad­judged as done both against the King, and the whole Court of Par­liament.

And the chief Justice Sir Edward Mountague, and the rest of the Judges, confirmed with divers rea­sons all that the King said to that purpose.

Touching a Lord at the suite in the Star-Chamber, for a contempt or ryot, &c. yet the suite is to be stayed, &c. by priviledge Parlia­ment-time.

Precedents alledged by Mr. At­torny Generall, to prove, that a Lord of Parliament may be committed in Parliament time, for a personal Offence done to the KING, though it be neither Treason, Felony, or breach of the Peace.

Presid. 1 PHilip Earl of Arundell, was committed, and not for Trea­son, sitting the Parliament, Anno 28. Eliz. For which Mr. Attorny cites Cambden in the first part of his History of Queen Elizabeth.

This Parliament began the 39. of Octob. on which day the Earl was not present; ultimo die Octo­bris he was present, when the Speak­er was presented, and then the Par­liament continued unto the 4th. of November following, and then the said Earl was not present, nor the 5. 7. 8. 9. nor 10^th of that November, though his name is inserted in the list of the Lords.

All the other days of that Session, which continued to the 2d. of De­cember, [Page 192] [...] [Page 193] [...] [Page 194] the said Earls name is o­mitted; and then the Parliament is continued till the 15th. of February following, on which day the Parli­ament began again, and in all that Journall the said Earls name is o­mitted.

Answers to the Precedent alledged by Mr. Attorny in the Earl of Arundels Case, 28 Eliz.

Answ. 1. CAmbden, out of whose Annals the Case is cited, saith expresly, that after the Parliament was ended, the Earl proposing to go beyond the Seas, wrote a long Letter to the Queen, complaining of the malice of his Enemies, and of the mis-fortune of some of his Ancestors that had suffered in this state, and touching also the liber­ty and exercise of his conscience which he meant to gain himself in other Countreys where the Roman Catholique Religion was exerci­sed; which Letter he meant should have been delivered after his pas­sage [Page 195] over: But his purpose being discovered, he was taken in Sus­sex while he was entring on his Journey, and thence brought back, and thence committed to the Tow­er: And for the omitting of his name in the Journall book, on many dayes of the Parliament of 28 Eliz. that is no proof at all of his being committed in the time of Parlia­ment, for there are omissions of Lords names in divers days of the Journal very frequently, when yet without question they were com­mitted.

Presid. 2 The Earl of Hertford was committed to the Tower by Qu: Eliz. Anno. 5.

That the commitment was in Parliament time, he alledged, that the Parliam. began the 22. of Ja­nuary, Anno 5 Eliz. and continued untill the 10th. of Aprill, thence prorogued to the 2d. of October, thence by many prorogations unto the 30 of Septemb. Anno 8. Eliz. and averred that the said Earl was [Page 196] committed (not for Treason, &c.) during the prorogation. To prove this, he cited Cambdens Annals in English.

The Earl of Hartfords Case, Anno 5. Eliz.

Answ. 2. THe Earl of Hertford was committed long before the 5. of Eliz. as appear­eth by Cambdens Annals, where he placeth both his commitment, & his censure in the Star-chamber about the beginning of 1562. that is in the 4th. of Eliz. beginning not till the 22th. of January, it is plain that he was both committed, and censu­red.

Presid. 3 Fisher Bishop of Rochest. committed in Parlia­ment time, Anno 25 of H. 8. for his opinion to maintain the Popes su­premacy, which was not Treason by statute untill the year following: For this he cited Martins Chroni­cle, Vide Parl. Anno 25 of H. 8. that the said Bishop of Rochester was not present all that Parliam. as appeareth by the Journal.

The Case of Fisher Bishop of Rochester, Anno 25. H. 8.

THis Bishop, though all were granted to be true that Mar­tin saith of him, was not commit­ted in the time of Parliament.

But after the Parliament ended, and that both for misprision of Trea­son, and for Treason.

First, one of his offences is sup­posed to have been the denying to take an oath of Supremacy ordain­ed by the statute of 25 H. 8. Cap. 222. for the defence of that Act, the refusall whereof was misprision by the same Act.

But the first time this Oath was offered to any man, was the very first day of the Parliament, that is the 30th of March when the Form of it was made, and remains yet in the Journall of that year, so that his refusall of that Oath must be ei­ther on the very last day, on which it seems it was not: Because he is not mentioned in the Journal to have been there present, or after [Page 198] the end of the Parliament; for be­fore that time never was any man put to swear that Oath.

Secondly, to this offence is added in Martin, that he contested, and protested against the Act of Parlia­ment touching the dissolution of the Marriage of the Queen Katherin, and the confirmation of that with Queen Anne, for which he was com­mitted, and suffered as a Traytor: But untill a moneth after the Parlia­ment, it was not treason to do any Act against the second Marriage, as appeareth in the body of that statute: And after the moneth en­ded, that is from May following, it was by that statute made Treason to do any Act in derogation of it: so that neither his misprision of Trea­son, nor his Treason for which Martin saith he was committed, nor his commitment could fall in the time of the Parliament; nor doth Martin, nor any other say so, nor doth the Journall that hath not his name in that parliament prove any such matter, for in that very Journall divers Lords names are of­ten [Page 199] omitted, that no man can con­ceive stood there at that same time committed, yet perhaps there was reason enough to have committed him in the Parliament time also, for he stood then very much suspect­ed of Treason, as we may see by the Act of the said Parliament, wherein he was attainted of mispri­sion of Treason.

But the truth of the Case is, that the Relation of it in Martin is false here as it is delivered,25 H. 8. c. 4. & divers mistake it, that wrote before him, this Bishop was not condem­ned that year at all, for ought ap­pears not committed, but in 26 H. 8. he was attained by Act of Parlia­ment of misprision for refusing the oath, and thereupon committed; and in the 27th. year of H. 8. he was attainted for speaking trayte­rous words against the Stat. of 26 H. 8. Cap. 13.

Presid. 4 An. 28 H. 6. the Duke of Suf­folk being accused by the Commons of Treason, put himself upon the Kings grace, and not upon the [Page 200] Peers, and the King alone judged him, but required that a protesta­tion might be entred to save the priviledge of their peerage.

The Duke of Suffolks Case, in Anno xxviij. Hen. 6.

IN that Case, for so much as con­cernes Commitment, (which is the onely question now agitated) it appears expresly, that when it was in question, (before the particular acccusations that the Commons put up against him) whether he should be commited by reason of a general fame raised against him, the Lords onely determined, that he ought not yet to be committed.

Rot. Par­liament, 18 H. 6. Act. 26.Afterwards the Commons accu­sed him in particular, that by his Invitation, the French King was ready to invade the Realm. At the request of the Commons, it is said he was committed to the Tower; but the Roll mentions not by whom: But howsoever, there is nothing in that Proceeding concern­ing Commitment, that shews he was [Page 201] at all committed for any less offence then Treason. And before the charge of Treason laid against him, the Lords alone determined, whether he should be committed or no. Af­terwards, the Commons put in two bills of Accusation against him, one of divers Treasons, the other of offences of like nature. And he is by Writ brought from the Tower to answer, and then desires copies of the accusations, which are gran­ted him: And the King, by advice of all the Lords, then committed him to the Award of three Esquires,Ibid. 48. to be kept in a Tower at Westmin­ster.

Now for the Kings judging of him in time of Parliament, which is the point objected, the Case goes on thus:

The 13 of March, which was four days after, he made his answer to divers particulars, the King and the Lords sitting in Parliament.

The 14 being Saturday, Ibid. Act. 50.52. the Chief Justice, by the Kings command­ment, remembred all the Lords of what was done the day before in [Page 202] this matter, and asked, what ad­vice they would therein give to the King. At which time they defer­red their advice until the Munday following: But on Munday follow­ing nothing was done; and on Tues­day, the King sent for the Lord Chancellour, and all the Lords that were in Town, to his Palace at Westminster; and when they were all assembled, he sent for the Duke also, who came and denied divers of the offences, and submitted him­self wholly to the Kings Rule and Government, to do with him as he list.

Thereupon the Lord Chancellour, by the Kings Commandment, told him,Ibed. Act. 50, & 52. That he conceived that the Duke not putting him on his Pa­rage, had submitted himself wholly to the Kings Rules and Gover­nance; wherefore touching the Treason, the King held him nei­ther clear nor guilty. And touching the other offences, the King by force of his submission (as the words of the Roll are) by his own advise, and not reporting him to the advice [Page 203] of his Lords, nor by way of Judge­ment (for he is not in place of Judgement) putteth you to his Rule and Governance (that is to say) that you before the first of May next coming, shall absent your self out of this Realm of England for five years, &c.

And instantly upon this so sayed by the Chancellour, the Viscount Beaumount on the behalf of all the Lords, and by their advice, assent and desire, declared, That this that was so decreed and done by him, concerning the person of the said Duke, proceeded not by their ad­vice and counsel, but was done by the Kings own Demeanance and Rule, and desires that this may be entred in the Parliament Roll, with this Protestation, That it should not be, nor turn in prejudice nor derogation of them, or their poste­rity; but they may have, and en­joy their liberty and freedom in case of their Parage hereafter, as freely and largely as ever they, or any of their Ancestors or Predeces­sors had and enjoyed before his time.

Upon this it is now objected, that the King here judged him, and the Lords demanded him not. But it is first plain, that it is no judgement at all: The Chancellour says ex­presly, it was neither by way of judgement, nor in place of judge­ment.

Secondly, A judgement could not be so given against him, neither was it any legal banishment; for by the ordinary course of the Common Law, there is no punishment by banishment; and that which hath been in examples, hath been by judgement given in Parliament; as appears in that famous case of the Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk under R. 2.Ro [...]. Ju­dic. 21. R 1 part. 5 Act. 18. Rot. Ju­dic. 11. R. [...]. &c. and others at that time. And for the Lords demanding him, there was no need at all or colour why they should have demanded his person, for he was not restrai­ned from them. He was extraju­dicially bid absent himself, onely out of the Kingdom, and of his own will to obey the King; which while he was about to do, he was taken upon the Sea, and there slain; and [Page 205] for the matter of judgement & pro­ceeding against him, which should otherwise have been before the Lords against him, they sufficiently saved their right, by protesting first, that all that was done to the Duke by the King, was onely by the Kings own Demeanance and Rule, and that this should not prejudice their right of Parage, or their (Jus Pari­tatis) which is their right of judge­ment as Peers, as it is called in the Protestation of the Clergy, when they left the house, because they would not be party to the judge­ment of blood, in the 11 R. 2.

Presid. 6 Anno 8. H. 6. the Commons pe­titioning for the discharge of Wil­liam Lark, arrested in Execution during the Parliament, and that the King would be pleased also to or­dain, That no Lord, Knights, Citi­zens and Burgesses, nor their ser­vants, coming to the Parliament, may be arrested during the Parlia­ment, unless it be for Treason, Fe­lony, or breach of the peace. The King granted the first part of their petition, but (quant ad Remnant le Roy's advisera.

The Case of Lark. Rot. Parlia­ment, Anno 7. H. 6. n. 59.

Answ. TO this the Answer is full, that the latter part of the Bill doth comprehend more then it was fit the Royal assent should have been given unto, and more then was, or at this day is the Law of Parliament.

For it is, that no Member of ei­ther House, be arrested or detain­ed in prison during the Parliament, saving in these three cases. To be arrested, is to be taken with Offi­cers by Process, or otherwise.

To be detained in prison, is to be detained after an Arrest, though in truth it be none: So that the Bill is desired, not onely that none should be arrested or detained upon Arrest during the Parliament, which is the onely priviledge supposed in the body of the Bill; but also, that none should be detained in prison during the Parliament; whereas there is no doubt, but that any of the House of Commons, or their servants, or the [Page 207] servants of Lords being detained in prison, upon an Execution served upon them, before the time of privi­ledge of Parliament; or being in Execution by any other ordinary course of Justice before that time, ought to be detained still, as it is practised still at this day. And ac­cordingly also a fourth Limitation is added to those three in the 13 H. 6. in Thorps Case, where Trea­son, Felony, Surety of the peace, and condemnation before the Par­liament, are the causes excepted; so that there being more asked by the Bill, then the priviledge of Parliament allowed, there was reason enough why the King assen­ted not unto it.

Presid. 4 And 1 H. 4 the Bishop of Car­lile was arrested by the Lord Mar­shal in Parliament time, and not for Treason &c. for he was com­mitted to the Abbey of S. Albans, which was no prison for Traytors.

The Commitment of the Bishop of Carlile in Parliament An. 1 h. 4.

Answer. THIS Bishop was com­mitted for as high treason as could be uttered, for he expresly denyed H. 4. to be a King in open Parliament. And for this being committed to the Abby of Saint Albans: that or any place with­out question at the pleasure of the King was a prison for Traytors as well as others.

Presid. 7 An. 5. h. 4. the Lords of Parlia­ment claimed their priviledge to judge the Earl of Northumberland in respect of the statute of 25 Ed. 3. and not in respect of Priviledge of Parliament.

The Earl of Northumberlands Case Anno 5 H 4.

7 Answer THE Lords in that Case expresly claim and exercise their right of judgment both in matter of treason, and then the statute against liveries; there­upon [Page 209] they judge the Earls offence not to be Treason nor Felony, but they judge also that it was trespass only, and for that they judge also that he ought to make Fine and Ransom at the Kings will; so that upon the one statute as Judges in Parliament, they judge the fact to be no treason, and the iteration of their being Judges of Parliament, in this Case in the Roll is an expresse mention and claim of their privi­ledge also.

Presid. 8 An. 15. E. 3. the King denyed the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to come into the Parliament house un­til he had answered certain Answers objected against him in the Exche­quor, and then also the King deni­ed his entrance, yet at last at the intercession of the Lords he was ad­mitted.

For this Mr. Attorny cited Ma­thew Parker de Antiquitate Eccle­siae Brittanniae.

The Case of the Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury Stratford An. 15 E. 3.

8 Answer. IT is true that the King denyed him sometimes to come into the house untill he had answered those Articles,Antiqui. Ecclesiae Brit. & Godwin in vita ejus. but he did as upon challenging of his right as a Peer, and a Baron of the Kingdome, come in before he had answered them, and so well he understood the right of Pairalety, that though the Parliament-House doore was shut against him, where he was kept out by violence, he yet stood there, and professed he would not thence until he was either suffered to come in, or else some cause were shewed why he should not; and what the Lords thought of his being kept out of the house, or questioned in any other Court sitting the Parliament may appear in the Roll of that year, where while he was kept out, they desired the Law to be declared touching questioning of Peers in any other Court but in Parliament, and thereupon a Committee of 12 [Page 211] Lords was made to examine in what Case Peers should be found to answer in Parliament & not els­where. And the Committees report is general (que lez Paires de later­re ne devient estre arestez, mesnez in Judgment si non en Parliament et per leur pairres: And the same day that this was reported, the Arch-Bishop came into the House, where he de­sired of the King that he might be tryed, which the King granted.

Presid. 9 An. 3. E. 3. Termino pasc. the Bishop of Winchester was indicted in the Kings bench for departing from the Parliament at Salisburie.

The Case of the Bishop of Winchester Anno. 3. E. 3.

Answer. THis was the same Stratford that was Arch Bishop of Canterburie, and in that Case of 15. E. 3. but it is plain that the whole proceedings against him was after the Parliament from whence he departed: The Parlia­ment was kept at Salisburie (not [Page 212] Salop) as it is false printed in the year books, and beginning in quin­den. Dors claus An. 2 E. 3 Memb. 15 Michaelis it ended 31 Octobris following as appears by the Writs for levying the expences of the Knights and Burgesses.

And the next Parliament is sum­moned by Writ dated the 14 of June 5. E. 3. now E. 3 began his Raign the 25 of January, so that from the 31 October in the 2 E. 3. to the 14 Junii in 3. E. 3. there was neither Parliament held nor any summons sent forth;Dors claus An. 2. E. 3 Memb. 19 Pasch. 3 E 3. fol. 9. & Psach. 3 E 3. Coram Rege & Rex Mem in that time falls Easter Term wherein the Bi­shop of Winton was questioned in the Kings bench, as appears both in the year book, and the Roll of the Case; so that it proves nothing at all to the point in question, being done out of Parliament.

Question This being read, it was agreed upon by the whole house (nemine dissentiente) that the priviledge of this house is, that no Lord of Par­liament, sitting the Parliament or within the usual times of priviledge of Parliament, is to be imprisoned, or restrained without sentence or [Page 213] order of the house, unless it be for Treason or Felony, or for refusing to give surety of the peace.

And it was hereupon ordered that the said Lords sub-Commit­tees for priviledges &c. or any five of them shall meet this afternoon to consider of a remonstrance of the priviledges of the Peers of Parlia­ment,Order. and of an humble petition to be made unto his Majesty to en­joy the same.

The Lord President reported the remonstrance and petition of the Peers concerning the claim of their priviledges from Arrests and Im­prisonments during the Parlia­ment,Privi­ledges of Peers. which was conceived by the Lords Sub-Committees of privi­ledges according to the order of the house 18 of April, the which was read 1. & 2. vice in haec verba (viz.)

The Remonstrance and Petition of the PEERS.

MAy it please your Majesty, we the Peers of this your Realm now assembled in Parliament, find­ing [Page] the Earl of Arundel absent from his place, that sometimes in this Parliament sat amongst us, his presence was therefore called for; but hereupon a message was deli­vered unto us from your Majesty by the Lord Keeper, that the Earl of Arundel was restrained for a misdemeanor which was personal­ly to your Majesty, and lay in the proper knowledg of your Maiesty, and had no relation to matter of Parliament: this message occasio­ned us to enquire into the acts of our Ancestors, and what in like ca­ses they had done, that so we might not err in any dutiful respect to your Majesty, and yet preserve our right, and priviledge of Par­liament: and after diligent search both of all stories, statutes and Re­cords that might inform us in this case, we find it to be an undoub­ted right and constant priviledge, That no Lord of Parliament, sit­ting the Parliam. or within the u­sual times of priviledge of Parlia­ment, is to be imprisoned or re­strained (without sentence, or or­der [Page 215] of the house) unless it be for Treason or Felony, or for refusing to give security for the peace; and to satisfy our selves the better, We have heard all that could be alleadged by your Majesties lear­ned Councel at law, that might a­ny way infring or weaken this Claim of the Peers and to all that claim be shewed and alleaged, so full satisfaction hath been given as that all the Peers in Parliament upon the question made of this priviledge, have una voce consen­ted that this is the undoubted right of the Peers, and inviolably have been enjoyed by them: wherefore we your Majesties loyal Subjects and Servants the whole body of the Peers in Parliament assembled, most humbly beseech your Maje­sty, that the Earl of Arundel a Member of this body, may pre­sently be admitted with your gra­ [...]ous favor to come, sit and serve [...]our Majesty, and the Common­ [...]ealth, in the great affairs of this [...]arliament, and we shall pray, &c.

This remonstrance and petition being read, it was generally ap­proved of by the whole house, and agreed to be presented unto his Majesty by the whole house:

And further agreed, that the Lord President, Lord Steward, the Earl of Cambridge, and the Lord great Chamberlain should presently go to the King, to understand his pleasure, when they shall attend him.

And the said Lords being retur­ned, The Lord President reported, that his Majesty had appointed this day between two and three, for the whole House to attend his Majesty, with the said Remon­strance and petition in the Cham­ber of presence at Whitehal.

And it was agreed that the Lord Keeper should then read the same unto the King, and present it unto his Majesty.

The 20. of April, 1626. the Lord President thus reported the Kings Answer unto the Remonstrance, and petition of the Lords, delive­red unto his Majesty.

The xx. of April, 1626.Privi­ledges This day the House was called, and the Earl of Arundel being called, the Lord Keeper signified to the House that his Majesty hath taken into his consideration, the Petition exhi­bited by their Lordships the xix. of April, concerning the Earl of Arundel, and will return answer thereunto with all expedition.

The 2. Maij. 1626. it was this day ordered the Lord Keeper do move his Majesty from the House for a speedy and gracious Answer unto the petition,Order. on the behalf of the Earl of Arundel.

The fourth of May, the Lord Keeper signified unto their Lord­ships, that according to the order [Page 218] the second of May, The Kings second Answer, upon my Lord Keepers Motion. he had moved his Majesty from the House, on the behalf of the Earl of Arundel; who answered, That it is a cause that he hath had a great deal of care of, and is willing to give your Lordships satisfaction, and hath it in his consideration how to do it, but hath been interrupted by other businesses, wherein Mr. At­torney hath had much occasions of conference with him (as your Lordships are acquainted) but will with all conveniency give your Lordships satisfaction, and return you an answer.

The nineteenth of May, 1626. the House being moved to petiti­on the King touching the Earl of Arundel, Privi­ledges these Lords were appoin­ted to set down the form of the said Petition; viz.

• The Lord President.
• The Earl of Essex.
• The Bishop of Norwich.
• The Bishop of Coven. & Lichfield.
• The Lord North.
• The Lord Russel.
• [Page 219]The Lord Denny.
• The Lord Montague.

Who reported the same in writing as followeth.

Which being read, was appro­ved by the House, and the said Committee appointed to present [Page 220] the same unto his Majesty, from the House, at such time as the Lord Chamberlain shall signifie un­to them that his Majesty is pleased to admit them to his presence.

The 21. of May 1626. the Pre­sident reported the Kings Answer unto the Petition, from the House touching the Earl of Arundel (viz.)

My Lords, I did little look for such a Message from the House, I have been of the House, and did never know such a Message from the one House to the other: There­fore when I receive a Message fit to come from you to your Sove­raign, you shall receive an An­swer.

The Lord President further re­ported, that the Lords Commit­tees, appointed to deliver the said Petition unto the King, did there­upon withdraw, and required him (the Lord President) hum­bly to desire his Majesty to be plea­sed to let them know, unto what poynt of the said Petition he takes this Exception.

And that his Majesty willed him the said Lord President to say this of himself, (viz.)

The exception the King taketh, is at the peremptoriness of the Termes, (to have a present An­swer) and the King wonders at their impatience, since he hath pro­mised them an answer in conveni­ent time.

Hereupon the House altered their former Petition, leaving out the word (present,) and appointed the former Committee, humbly to deliver the same to his Majesty, at such time as the Lord Chamberlain shall signify unto them, when his Majesty will be pleased to admit them to his presence.

The 14. of May 1626. The Lord President reported the Kings an­swer unto the petition of this house concerning the Earl of Arundel, (viz)

It is true, your word (present) was somewhat strang unto me, be­cause ye do not use it from one house to another:The Kings an­swer un­to the Petition, as it was altered. But now that I know your meaning, you shall [Page 222] know this from me, that you shall have my answer so soon as conve­niently I can: And this I will as­sure you, it shall be such an an­swer, as you shall see I will not trench upon the priviledges of your House.

The 17. of May, 1626. Their Lordships being moved to renew their humble Petition to the King from the whole House, on the be­half of the Earl of Arundel, these Lords where appinted to draw up the said Petition (ziz.)

• The Lord President.
• The Lord Chamberlain
• The Earl of Dorset.
• The Earl of Devon.
• The Earl of Mulgrave.
• The Viscount Saye, and Seale.
• The Lord North.

Who having penned and repor­ted the same to the House, it was read in haec verba, (viz.)

May it please your Majesty, the cause that moves us now humbly [Page 223] to attend your Majesty in one whole body (as at first we did) is because we observe that the house of Commons have speedily recei­ved a Member of theirs being com­mitted; we the Peers ambitious to deserve of your Majesty, and to appear in the eye of the World as much respected in our Rights and Priviledges as any Peers or Com­mons have ever been, acknow­ledging you a King of as much goodness as ever King was, do now again humbly beseech that the Earl of Arundel, a Member of of our house, may be restored to us, it so much concerning point of pri­viledge, as that we all suffer in what he suffers in this his restraint; which petition was generally ap­proved of, and ordered to be pre­sented at such time as the Lord Chamberlain shall signify his Ma­jesti [...]s pleasure to admit their Lordships to his presence.

The 19th. of May 1626 the Lord Chamberlain signified to their Lordships, that his Majesty is plea- that this house attend him at two [Page 220] [...] [Page 221] [...] [Page 222] [...] [Page 223] [...] [Page 224] of the clock this afternoon at White­hall the 19 of May 1626. his Maje­sties answer unto the Petition of the house concerning the Earl of A­rundel the 19 of May at Whitehall is reported (viz) his Majesty is pleased to admit them to his pre­sence.

The Kings Answer,My Lords, I see that in your peti­tion you acknowledge me a King of as much goodness as ever King was, for which I thank you, and I will endeavour by the grace of God never to deserve other: But in this I observe that you contra­dict your selves, for if you be­lieve me to be such as you say I am, you have no reason to mistrust the sincerity of my pro­mises; for whereas upon often petitions made by you to me con­cerning this business, I have promi­sed to give to you a full answer with all convenient speed; by this a­gain Importuning me, you seem to mistrust my former promises. It may be said, here is an emergent cause, for that I have delivered a Member of the lower house: in [Page 225] this my Lords, by your favour, you are mistaken, for the Causes do no waies agree; for that he that was commited of the house of Com­mons was committed for words spo­ken before both houses, which being such as I had just cause to commit him; yet because I found that they might be words only misplaced, and not ill meant, and were so conceived by many honest men, I was contented upon his interpre­tation to release him without any sute from the lower house; where­as my Lord of Arundels fault was directly against my self, having no relation to the Parliament: yet be­cause I see you are so impatient, I will make you a fuller answer then yet I have done, not doubting but that you will rest contented with that. It is true, I have Commit­ted him for a cause which most of you know, and though it hath been no more, I had reason to do it; yet my Lords, I assure you I have things of greater importance to lay to his charge, which you must excuse me not to tell you at this time, because [Page 226] it is not yet ripe, and it would much prejudice my service to do it, and this, by the word of a King, I do not speak to delay you, but as soon as it is possible you shall know the cause, which is such that I know you will not judge to be any breach of your priviledges; for my Lords, by this I do not mean to shew the power of a King in dimi­nishing of your priviledges.

This being read again, it was or­dered the Commitee to meet on Munday next at two of the Clock Post Meridiem, O [...]der. and consider how further to proceed with dutifull re­spect to his Majesty, and yet so as it may be for the preservation of the priviledges of the Peers of this Land, and the liberties of the house of Parliament.

Repo [...]t.The 24 of May 1626 the Lord president reported the petition a­greed on by the Lords Committees for priviledges, &c. to be presented unto the King, which was read in haec verba (viz).

4 Petiti­onMay it please your most excellent Majesty, what ever our care, or [Page 227] desire is to preserve our right of peerage, yet it is far from our thoughts either to distrust, or to presse any thing that stands not with the affection and duty of most loyal and dutifull subjects: and therefore in all humilitie we cast our selves before your Majesty, assuring our selves, in that sacred word of a King, that with all possible convenience, your Majesty will please either to restore the Peer to his place in Par­liament, or express such a cause as may not infringe our Priviledge.

Which was generally approved of,O [...]der. and ordered to be presented to his Majesty by the whole house, and the Earl of Carlile and the Lord Caleton to go presently, and know the Kings pleasure when they shall attent his Majesty.

Who being returned, repor­ted that his Majesty had appoin­ted this afternoon at two of the Clock for the same.

The 25 of May 1626. the Lord keeper delivered the Kings answer unto the petition of the house yesterday at Whitehall to be read, [Page 228] which followeth in haec verba (viz)

My Lords your often coming to me about this business, made me somewhat doubt ye did distrust me,The Kings Answer but now since I see you rely wholly on me, I assure you that it shall prevail more upon me than all importunities, and if ye had done this at the first, I should have given ye content; and now I as­sure ye, that I will use all possible speed to give you satisfaction, and at the farthest, before the end of this Session of Parliament.

This being read the second time, the house was moved that all bu­siness might be layed aside, and consideration might be had how their priviledges may be preser­ved unto posterity, and the house being put into a Committee for the freer debate thereof, and af­terwards resumed, it was ordered the house to be adjourned till to morrow, and all businesses to Cease.

3 Message from the King.The 26. of May 1626. the Lord Keeper delivered this message from the King, viz.

His Majesty hath willed me to signify unto your Lordships, that he doth marvail that his meaning in his last answer should be mistaken; and for the better clearing of his intention, hath comanded me to signify unto your Lordships his further answer, which is, that your Lordships last petition was so ac­ceptable to his Majesty, that his intent was then, and he is still resolved to satisfy your Lordships fully in what you then desired.

It is ordered, that all business be adjourned till this day seavennight.

And memorandum, that the Duke of Buckingham began to signify un­to their Lordships, that he would declare his desire to have the Kings Council allowed him to plead his cause: But the Lords would not hear him, because they would entertain no business, and so the house was adjourned to the second of June.

Veneris the second of June 1626. the Lord Keeper delivered a mes­sage from the King in haec verba, &c.

His Majesty hath commanded [Page 230] me to deliver to your Lordships a Message touching the Earl of Ar­undel, The Kings Message that his Majesty hath thought of that business, and hath advised of his great and pressing affairs, which are such as makes him unwilling to enter into dispute of things doubtful, and therefore to give you clear satisfaction touching that case, whereby you may the more cheerfully proceed in the busi­ness of the house, he hath endea­voured as much as may be to ripen it, but cannot yet affect it; yet is resolved, that by Wednesday (which was the 14 of June) sevennight at the furthest, he will either declare the cause, or admit him to the house; and addeth further, upon the word of a King, that if it shall be sooner ripe, which he hath good cause to expect, he will declare it with the soonest; and further, that if the occasion doth him enforce to stay to the time prefixed, yet he doth not purpose to set such a short end to the Parliament, but that there shall be an ample and good space between that and the end of the session, to dispatch affairs.

This message being delivered, the house was adjourned (ad libitum) and put into Commmittee,Order. and be­ing resumed, it was agreed, all other business to cease, but this of the E. of Arundels concerning the priviledges of the house, and the house to meet thereon to Morrow morning, and to be put into a Committee to con­sider thereof; and so the house was adjourned to the next Day.

Sabathi 3 die junij 1626. The Lord Keeper delivered a message from the King to this effect (viz)

That in the matter concerning the Earl of Arundel, A Mes­sage from the King. his Majesty hath been very careful and desirous to a­voidall jealousie of violating the pri­viledges of this house, that he con­tinueth still of the same mind, and doth much desire to find out some expedient way, which might sa­tisfie your Lordships in point of priviledge, and yet not hinder his Majesties service in that particu­lar; but because this will require some time, his Majesty (though his great affairs are instant and [Page 232] pressing) is unwilling to urge your Lordships to go on therewith, till his Majesty hath thought on the o­ther; and therefore hath comman­ded me to signifie his pleasure, that his Majesty is contented your Lordships adjourn the house until thursday next, and in the mean time his Majesty will take this par­ticular business into further con­sideration: it is agreed the Lord-Keeper render unto his Majesty from the house their humble thanks for his gracious respect unto their priviledges: and then the Lord-Keeper demanded of the Lords whether their Lordships would adjourn the house until thursday: whereupon it was agreed by the Lords, and the house was adjourned, and all businesses to cease, unto the said Thursday.

Jovis 8 die Junii 1626. the Lord Keeper delivered this message to the Lords from his Majesty (viz) that on Saturday last his Majesty sent word to the house, that by this day he would send them such an answer concerning the Earl of [Page 233] Arundel, as should satisfie them in point of priviledge; and therefore to take away all dispute, and that their priviledges may be in the same estate as they were when this Parliament began, his Majesty hath taken off his restraint of the said Earl, whereby he hath liber­ty to come to the house: Presid. 8 The Earl of Arundel being present, did ren­der his humble thankfulness unto his Majesty for his gracious favour unto him, and gave their Lordships also most hearty thanks for their often intercessions for him unto the King, and protested his Loyalty, and faithful Service unto his Maiesty.

How the parties arrested have been set at Libertie.

AN. 8. H. 6. no 5. 7. William Lark servant unto William Wildred a Burgesse of Parliament, being arrested and Imprisoned in the Fleet upon an Execution out of the Kings Bench, upon complaint made thereof by the Commons, the [Page 234] King by the advice of the Lords, at the request of the Commons, and by consent of the Plaintiff, ordered the said William Lark to be delive­red out of prison: And that after the end of the Parliament, the plain­tiff shall have execution again by Process, as if there had bin no exe­cution had before.

An. 31. H. 6. the Parliament began at Reading 6 March, and con­tinued untill the 18 day of March, and then after divers prorogations it began at Westminster the 14 of February following; in the interim of the prorogation in April, and the access the 14 of February fol­lowing, Thomas Thorpe the Speaker is arrested in execution at the suite of the Duke of York, the Commons made request to the Lords for their Speakers liberty, the Lords deman­ded the opinion of the Judges (touching the arrest in time of Pro­rogation, and denyed him his liber­tie, whereupon the Commons were commanded to choose a new spea­ker.

Anno. 39 H. 6. no. 9. Walter [Page 235] Clark of Chippingham, in the Coun­ty of Wilts being committed to the Fleet for sundry condemnations, as well to the King as to others, is dis­charged and sent at liberty out of the Fleet at the petition of the Commons to the King and Lords, and that without bail or main­prise.

Anno. 12. E. 4. at the petition of the Commons, William Hide a Bur­gess of Chippingham in Wilts, being in execution in the Kings bench, is delivered by a Writ out of the Chancery, saving the Plaintifs right to have execution again, after the Parliament ended, no. 55.

An. 17. E. 4. no. 35. it is enacted that John Attwill a Burgess for Exe­ter, being condemned during the Par­liament in the Exchequer upon 8 se­veral informations, by the pursute of John Taylor of the same Town, shall have as many writs of superse­deas therefore, as he will until his coming home.

Here ariseth a doubt whether the party priviledged might be delive­red out of the execution without an [Page 236] Act of Parliament, that is without the consent of both Houses and the King.

There may be much dispute upon this question, the strongest allega­tion against it is, that it will preju­dice the Plaintifs execution; but since the party priviledged is not to be arrested for any debt, Trespass, or contract, prout An. 5. H. 4. no. 7. An­tedicto, none can be arrested during the Parliament, but for Treason, Felony, or breach of the peace, prout An. 8. H. 6. no. 57. My opi­nion is, that the arrest upon an exe­cution for debt, trespass, or contract, is meerly void: And then it can be no prejudice to the Plaintif, but he may have a new execution after the end of the Parliament; so that an Act to deliver him that is so arrest­ed, or to save the Plaintifs rights for a new execution, is (ex abundanti,) and needless.

The opinion of the Judges in Thorps Case An. 31. H. 6.

AS for declaration of the pro­ceedings of the lower Courts, in such cases as Writs of superse­deas of priviledge of Parliament be brought and delivered: The Chief Justice said there be many and di­vers supersedeas of priviledge of Parliament brought into the Court, but there is no general supersedeas brought to surcease all process; for if there should be, then this high Court of Parliament that mini­streth all justice and equity, should let the process of the common Law, and so he shall put the partie com­plainant without remedie for so much as actions at common Law be not determined in this high Court of Parliament: and if any person that is a Member of this high Court of Parliament be arrested in such cases as be not for Treason or Fe­lony, or surety of the peace, or for a condemnation had before the Par­liament, It is used that all such per­sons [Page 239] should be released of all such arrests, and make an Attorny, so they may have their freedome and liberty freely to attend upon the Parliament

And under correction be it spok­en, the declaration of the Judges in Thorps Case being Speaker, and arrested in the interim after the ad­journment of Parliament, An. 31. H. 6. (viz.) that there is no gene­ral supersedeas to surcease all pro­cess, must be understood for all time and not for all process, and thereby to exempt executions, and their declaration at that time also, that if any person that is a Member of this high Court of Parliament be arrested in such Cases as be not for Treason, or Felony, or security of the peace, or for a condemnation had before the Parliament, that is used in all such persons, shall be re­leased of such arrests, &c. cannot be understood to except arrests up­on execution sitting the Parliament, but of such arrests in the interim between the adjournment and the accesse as Thorps was; for other­wise, [Page 238] to say that the priviledge is from arrests for debt, is meer fri­volous, and but a shew of privi­ledge, and no priviledge in deed: and whereas the Judges did then further declare, that it is used that all persons should be released upon such arrests, and make an Attorny, so they may have their freedome and liberty ful­ly to attend upon the Parliament: I am of opinion that in such Cases they did not use to make an Attour­ny at all, for the partie had a super­sedeas to stay all proceedings against him; for it is a breach of priviledge to Commence but a suite in Parlia­ment time against a Member there­of, or else Bogo de Clare, had not been punished for citing the Earl of Cornwall, whereas he might appear by a Proctor, An. 8. E. 1. nor had the Master of the Temple his peti­tion been denyed to distrain upon a house of the Bishop of Saint Davids in Parliament time, whereas the Bishops might make an Attorny to prosecute a Replevin, An. eodem E. 1. nor would King E. 2. have [Page 240] commanded by Proclamation that the Justices of Assize should Super­federe, where Barons or other Sum­moned to Parliament were parties, they then not being arrested, but Defendants only; It is not enough that a Member of Parliament be free in person onely, but in mind also; but how can his mind be free if he be subject to Suits and Execu­tions, and being arrested in Execu­tion, be without remedy for his li­berty, unless by a solemn Act made by consent of King, Lords, and Commons; so that I conclude, leaving others to their own sense in this poynt, That all arrests upon Execution are meerly void in this case; that the party so arrested might be set at liberty by a Super­sedeas out of the Chancery, and that such deliverance is no prejudice to the Plaintiff, the former arrest be­ing none, but meerly void.

But if you demand for ancient precedents, I answer, there are none recorded, for that the Super­sedeas was granted of course, (be­ing due) and needed no Petition [Page 241] for it, yet there are Precedents of latter times to prove it directly, (viz.)

Ex Journal. Domus Communium Die Mercurij, 22. Februarii, Anno 18. Eliz. report was made by Mr. Attorny of the Dutchy, upon the Committee for the delivery of Mr. Hales man, Edward Smalleye, arrested upon Execution, that the said Committees sound no Prece­dent for the setting at large by the Mace, any person in arrest, (but only by Writ) and that by divers Precedents of Record perused by the said Commitees, it appeareth, that every Knight, Citizen, and Burgess of this house, which doth require priviledge, hath used in that case to take a corporal Oath before the Lord Chancellour, or Lord Keeper of the great Seal of Eng­land, for the time being: That the party for whom such Writ is pray­ed, came up with him, and was his servant at the time of the Ar­rest made, and thereupon Mr. Hall was moved by the house, that he should repair to the Lord Kee­per, [Page 242] and make Oath in form afore­said, and then to proceed to the ta­king of a Warrant, for a Writ of priviledge for the said servant, ac­cording to the said Report of the said former Precedent.

By this appears the remedy for their liberties out of Arrests, and that Executions are not exempted, for Mr. Hall his man was then in Execution, as appears afterwards in the same Journall: I find not the Burgesse did take an Oath in case of priviledge for his own liberty, happily the Sheriffs return, or a certificate thereof was sufficient.

The Writ of priviledge being so easie to be had, what needed any Petitions to be made by the Com­mons to the King, and the Lords for the same? And as there is no Precedent for this in the time of E. 3. R. 2. H. 4. nor H. 5. so there are none to the contrary, and the Lords in Queen Elizabeths time, did usu­ally of their own authority deliver their servants out of Execution if arrested in Parliament time.

But now this doubt is cleared by [Page 243] the statute of Anno 1: Jacobi, Cap. 13. for new Executions to be had against such as are delivered out of Execution by priviledge of Parlia­ment, and for discharge of them, out of whose custody they are de­livered, which statute notwith­standing saith, that it was hereto­fore onely doubted of, whether such deliverance by priviledge of Parli­ament were prejudical to the Plain­tiff or no.

In what Case a new SPEAKER hath been chosen.

ANno 1. H. 4. N ^o: 62. The Commons presented Sir John Chenye Knight, for their Speaker whom the King allowed.

The next day the said Sir John, and the Commons came before the King, and Sir John declared, that for a sudden disease which happen­ed, he was unable to serve: And that the Commons had chosen Sir John Dorewood in his place, be­seeching the King to allow of him, which the King did, and com­manded him to be Speaker, N ^o 63.

Anno H. 4. The Commons pre­sented William Sturton their Spea­ker, the 18. Maij, the 22. of May, the said William Sturton made a Speech to the King, on the behalf of the Commons, and being requi­red to exhibit certain Articles in writing, he immediately promised so to do.

On the 25. of May, Sir John Dorewood did on the Commons be­half deny that th [...]y had given their assent to exhibite the said Articles in writing, N: 9

And on the third of June, the Commons presented the said John Dorewood for their [...]eaker whom they had chosen, fo [...] that the said William Sturton lay sick in his bed, and was not able to execute the said Office, N: 11. It should seem Sturton was sick for grief, that the King was not first acquain­ted with their choice of a new Spea­ker, before they presented him.

Anno 15. H. 6. The Commons presented Sir Thomas Tyrrell Knight, their Speaker in Janu­ary.

The 11. of March, the King un­derstanding Sir John Tyrril was fallen sick, commanded the Com­mons to chuse a new Speaker, which they did that day.

Anno 28. H. 6. Sir John Popham Knight, was presented Speaker, he desired to be excused in respect of his age, and that a new choice might be made, whereunto the King a­greed; And thereupon the Com­mons chose and presented Sir Wil­liam Tresham Knight, the same day.

Anno 31. H. 6. Thomas Thorpe was presented Speaker, after the adjournment of the Parliament he was arrested in execution at the suite of the Duke of Yorke. The Commons at the access the 14. of February, pray his liberty, which was denyed; And the Commons commanded to choose a new Spea­ker: The 16. of February, the Com­mons sent word that they had chos­en Sir Thomas Charleton Knight, for their Speaker in place of the said Thomas Thorp; and the Chan­cellour answered, that the King [Page 246] liked him, No: 29. these are all the ancient Precedents.

Anno 5. Eliz. Thomas Williams Esquire, was presented their Spea­ker.

This Parliament is prorogued divers times.

The Speaker dyes in the interim.

At their Accesse, Anno 8. Eliz. 30. of September, the Commons (by four of their house) signifying their Speakers death to the Lords, re­questing their Lordships aide, to intimate the same to her Majesty, Which was done.

On the first day of October, the Commons were assembled in the upper house: And her Majesties Commission read, directed to the Lord Keeper, repeating the whole business of Parliament, comman­ding, constituting, and appointing the Lord Keeper in her name, to call the Commons before his Lord­ship, and the Lords in the higher house of Parliament, and there in her Majesties name to will and command them to resort to their accustomed place, and there to [Page 247] chuse amongst themselves a new Speaker: And after they have made their Election, that three or four of them, for and in all their names, shall signifie the same unto her Ma­jesty; and thereupon her Majesty will signifie unto them, on what day they shall present him unto her: this is the effect of her Commis­sion.

The next day the Commons pre­sented Sir Richard Onslow, the Queenes Solliciter for their Spea­ker.

Anno 14. of Eliz. Robert Bell was presented Speaker, the Parlia­ment being prorogued divers times he was made a chief Baron of the Exchequer, and dyed at the ac­cesse 16. of January, Anno 23. Eliz. the Commons acquainted the Lords with his death, and the same course was taken for a new Ele­ction, prout antea, Anno 18 Eliz.

The Commission for Choice of a new SPEAKER.

ELIZABETH by the Grace of God, Queeen of England, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To our Trusty, and right Wel-beloved Councellour, Sir Nicholas Bacon Knight, Lord Keeper of the great Seal of Eng­land, Greeting; Whereas in the beginning of this present Parlia­ment holden at Westminster, the 17. day of January, in the first year of our Reign, the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, being assembled in the same Parliament, were com­manded by us to go to their accu­stomed place, and there to chuse amongst themselves one to be their Speaker, according to the accusto­med manner; whereupon the same Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, did elect and chuse one Thomas Williams Esquire to be their Spea­ker; And the same their election, did afterwards certifie unto us, which we did allow and ratify, [Page 249] since which time, this our present Parliament hath been continued by divers prorogations, until the 30. of September, in this present eighth year of our Reign; At which day the Lords spiritual and temporal, and also the said Knights, Citi­zens, and Burgesses, being assem­bled for this Parliament, at West­minster in their accustomed places; The said Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, have declared unto us, that the said Thomas Williams since the last session of this present Par­liament is dead, and thereupon have made their humble suite and Petition unto us, that they might have licence and Commandment from us to proceed and Elect a­mongst themselves, one other to be their Speaker, for the rest of this present Parliament yet to come; wherefore we having cer­tain and perfect knowledge that the said Thomas Williams is dead, as they have alledged: And consi­dering their humble Petition very meet and necessary to be granted, have appointed and constituted [Page 250] you, and by these presents we do will, and command, constitute, and appoint you for us, and in our names, to call the said Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, before you, and other the Lords Spiritu­al and Temporal assembled in this our present Parliament, in the high­er House of Parliament at West­minster, and then for us, and in our names, to will and command the said Knights, and Citizens, and Burgesses, to resort to their accustomed place; And there to E­lect and chuse amongst themselves, one sufficient and able person to be their Speaker, for the rest of this present Parliament yet to come; And after they have so made their Election, That then three or four of them, and in all their names, shall signifie unto us; And thereupon we will further signifie our pleasure unto them, what day and time they shall pre­sent the person Elected before us, as heretofore hath been in like ca­ses accustomed to be done: where­fore our will and pleasure is, that [Page 251] you do diligently attend about the doing of the premises, and exe­cute the same with effect; In wit­ness whereof we have caused these our Letters of Commission, to be sealed with our great Seal, witness our self at Westminster, the first day of October, the 8. year of our Reign.

The last Ceremony used the first day of the Parliament is, that when the Lord Chancellour hath ended his Speech to the Commons to chuse their Speaker, then the Clerk stands up, and reads in French the names of the Receivers and Tryers of Petitions.

Who were anciently appointed Recei­vers and Tryers of Petitions.

REceivers of Petions were ever the Masters of the Chancery; the Records name them Cleres de la Chancellary, and no other were an­ciently appointed, but they say that An. 6. E. 3. the Clerk of the Parliament who I think was a Ma­ster of the Chancery is appointed one, but none that had Writs of Summons were appointed Recei­vers, &c. since 6. E. 3.

This order was constantly observed whilest these Receivers and Tyers were in use: but since they began to be out of use, and named (pro for­ma tantum) the Judges are ming­led with them: as none that were summoned to Parliament were ap­pointed Receivers; so none but they that were summoned were appoint-Tryers of Petitions.

They were ever of the Prelates, nobles and Judges.

And the Chancellor and Treasurer were appointed to be called when need required, and they should at­tend as some Records have it.

An. 21. E. 3. the Receivers, and Tryers of Petitions of England, &c. shall call the Kings Serjeants, and the Tryers of Petitions of Gascoyne shall call unto them the Justice and Treasurer of Ireland, for Irish busi­ness if need be: then it follows, Et pur efforcer les Auditors, et Tryers des ditz Petitions: as well for England as for other places, these undernam­ed are ordained.

The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.

The Chancellor.

The Treasurer.

And the Chief-Justice to be with the said Treasurer when they may intend it, and need shall be.

Within what time the Petitions were to delivered.

PRimo die debet fieri Proclamatio primo in Aula vel Monasterio tenetur et postmodum in civitate vel [Page 261] villa quod omnes illi qui petitiones & querelas deliberare voluerint ad Par­liamentum, quod illas deliberent a pri­mo die in quinque dies proximum se­quentes, ex, Manuscript, modus te­nendi Parliamentum Cap. de.

This order was anciently obser­ved, as it may appear by the Parlia­ment of E. 3. where the Proclama­tion is mentioned, vide 15. 17. 20. 25. Ed. 3.

In all the Parliament Rolls, which Record their Receivers, and Try­ers, day is limited for the delivery of their Petitions.

They seldom allow six dayes, which hath some times been pro­longed for 2 or 3 dayes, ex gratia Regis prout An. 25. E. 3. Octabis purificationis et 25. E. 3. festo sanct. Hillarii.

The reason of this short time, for the deliverie of Petitions, was for that the Parliament did seldome last many dayes: And therefore they were then appointed also on the first day of the Parliament, al­though it was afterwards adjourned to another day.

Here may be a doubt of the time for answering these Petitions whe­ther during the Parliament only.

As many as time would permit were answered sitting the Parlia­ment, and to that purpose the se­veral Tryers had several places to meet in, and they were often put in mind by the Chancellor to attend the same prout An. 25. E. 3. no. 8. in fine.

What kind of Petitions they were.

THey were for the most part pe­titions for private persons for relief of any wrong, or for the Kings grace prout.

An. 1. E. 3. Petitio Bartholomew de Badlesmeere for restitution to Lands, and Charters, taken vio­lently from him.

Petitio Henrici Com. Lancaster for delivery of evidences.

Petitio Johannis de Vinne to be re­stored to his office.

Petitio Thomae de Northrope to be allowed his costs layed out in keep­ing the Kings Cattle of Bromham.

Petitio William filii Eudonis le Zouch for an outlawry for mur­ther.

Petitio Thomae de Brackly, of his liberties of Weasts and Strays, &c. seized by the King.

Petitio Rici. de Prorers, to be al­lowed a debt due by the King in his account.

Petitio Ballivorum, & proborum hominum ville de Norwich to be al­lowed 200 pound which King Ed­ward the third borrowed of them.

Petitio Liciae & Multon, to have justice in a sute begun in the Kings Bench against the Kings Father for certain mannors.

Petitio Elizabeth Multon against delay of justice.

Petitio Fran. Massey & other Mer­chants strangers touching a wrong done them in France, by Merchant strangers who are now in England: Petitio Ode Lacer Merchant of Lon­don, for a redress touching a depre­dation in Lumba die in partibus Bo­noniae.

Petitio H. S. against a priracie by 4. of the French Ships, &c.

And amongst these, are sometimes petitions of a County, or a City, prout eodem An. 1. E. 3. Rot. 3. in Dorso.

Petitio hominum Westmorland quod exonerentur de patera Balivorum Re­gis ibidem.

A Petition of the Cinque Ports for an explanation of their Char­ter.

A Petition of the Dyers of Lon­don against false fulling, &c. of Cloth, &c.

How the Petitions were answered.

FIrst, let us see their direction in the time of E. 3. They were directed (Au. nostre sr le Roy & au son Councel; some few otherwise prout An. 1. E. 3. au Councel le Roy Monster a le Pours Prior de T.

Al Treshonorable s Monsr. William de Clinton supplie, I de Tampli Mer­chant du Portugal: touching a rob­bery at Sea; Lord Clinton was Constable of Dover, and Admiral at that time, as I conceive.

But this occurs very seldome ye [...] they were received and answered [Page 265] generally, they were directed to our Lord the King and his Coun­cel.

The question is who are here meant by the Kings Councel, whe­ther all the Lords of Parliament, or they only which were of his privy Council: I was long of opi­nion, that by the council were meant all the Lords of Parliament; But if you observe how the answers were given to these Petitions, you shall find that the consent of Parlia­ment, was very seldome required.

Vide 6. E 3. which is the first Parliament that mentions the man­ner thereof, and thereafter the names of the Receivers and Try­ers are appointed as follows.

Item, it is agreed, that the petiti­ons which shall be tryed and de­termined by the aforesaid Prelates, Barrons, and Justices so appoin­ted Tryers, shall be delivered o­ver into the Chancery under the Seals of two or one of them at the least. And that the rest of the petitions shall rest under the Seals of the said Tryers in the custody of [Page 266] the Clerks, until the next day, and so from day to day, and that the petitions which are to be try­ed Coram Rege, be tryed before his Majesty, calling unto him whom ye please.

And that those petitions shall re­main under the Seals of the audi­tors or of some of them, until they be Reported before the King.

Here you see that the petitions are to rest under the Seals of the Tryers, and in the Custody of the Clerks (that is of the Recei­vers) until they be answered, and then to be sent from Day to Day, as they are answered unto the Chancery.

Except the petitions Corum Rege, that is, those that required the Kings Grace, they were to be tryed before the King, and to rest in the mean time under the Seals of the Auditors (viz) the Try­ers.

To prove that by these words (the Councel) are not meant all the Lords of Parliament, but the [Page 267] Kings Council only, vide, An. 31. E. 3. no 63. The answer of the Petition of the Commons (viz) Il semble au Council que fait affair pur grant bien sil plaist au Roy et a les gentz de la terre. Et puis nostre Seigneur le Roy per assent des gentz Commanda a la [...]dite Coment adonque este autz devant luy auiser Come, &c. Touching an Act of provision against Rome.

Where I observe also a good testimony that Bishops are not Peers (or gentes de la terre) they are not hear understood, for they never medled in any thing against the Pope.

And the answers in these pri­vate petitions were such (as in my opinion) required not the consent of Parliament, prout if the Peti­tion were for wrong done by a pri­vate person: Ro. let him have a Writ in the Chancery to enquire thereof, and thereupon fiat justi­tia, if for allowance of any thing in their account, &c.

Ro. let him have a Writ in the Chancery directed to the Treasu­rer, [Page 268] and Barons of the Exchequer, to view and examine the same, and thereupon to make the allow­ance and the like.

If for delivery of Charters or the like in the Kings custody, Ro. let him have a Writ in the Chan­cery to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer, to make search, &c.

If for reversal of an outlawry or the like, let him have a Writ in the Chancery to the Justice of the Kings Bench, to cause the Record to be brought before them; and if ther [...] be error, to reverse the same.

If for Piracy, or any other wrong done by Merchant strangers in foreign Dominions, Ro. let the Petitions be delivered in Chancery, and upon hearing of the cause (let justice be done, secundum legem in tali usu usitat.)

For these and more such peruse the Petitions of E. 3.

All their remedy is out of the Chancery, yet now and then, a Petition is of such weight or dif­ficulty, [Page 269] that the Matter is repor­ted to the house, and there openly heard and determined (prout the Petition of the Abbot of Thornton super Humber) touching lands re­covered by him in the Kings bench, whereof he was in possession, and afterwards disseized by Hugh de Spencer.

The answer is Recordium & pro­cessus predicti Monstret, in Parlia­mento ita quod Jus inde fiat, A. 1 E. 3. Rot. 1. in dorse.

And the long Petition of the two Corbets, Eodem An. which depended Tempore E. 1. & 2.

But it was answered An. 11 E. 3. by Tryers thus: Soit Ceste Peti­tion soit Mande a luy pur mesme le Breefe q'il fac regarder tout les proces don [...] mencier est fait en cest Petition & Appellez Zeux qui sont de la dit Besoigne sans qil ne dyle mye an Judgment sanuz le Roy, An. 1. E. 3. Rot. 9. Dorso, they sued for the Ca­stle of Tremington, and divers o­ther Lands which Roger de Vantort (whose heirs they were) gave unto Richard King of Almaine (the Earl [Page 270] of Cornwal) and to the heirs of his body, the remainder to the heirs of the said Roger Vantort: The Pe­tition of Elizabeth de Burgo is worth the observation. It is touch­ing a recognizance enforced from her unto Ed. 2. not to rejoyce any of his enemies, not to marry with­out his license, nor to sell any of her Land, without his consent: the Copie of which recognizance was annex­ed to the Petition: the Answer is by the Tryers, (Perce q tesmoigne est q le dit escript est en la garderobe dit breife in Chancery au gardeyn de­lagarderobe de fair venir lescript de vant le Consaile sanz delay. Then follows (pur quel endorsement, The Writ was made, which was there recited and directed to the Clerk of the privy seal, (who was also Ma­ster of the VVardrobe commanding him to bring the same writing, Co­ram Consilio nostro in presente Parlia­mento, &c. Teste Meipse. &c.

Per Petitionem de Consilio.

WHich shewes that the Chan­cellor had no other Warrant then the endorsement of the Peti­tions.

The Clerk of the privy Seal by vertue of this Writ brings in the said writing, which being examined and delivered in full Parliament, it was considered by the Lords and Commons that it was contrary to the Laws of the Land, and all rea­son; and therefore it was damned, per agarde del Parliament, And de­livered it unto the said Elizabeth: By this Petition you may perceive that what was done in full Parlia­ment, is so recorded.

So the long Petition of Gee Staun­ton An. 14 E. 3. was viewed and read in full Parliament, and assen­ted unto by all in full Parliament: It was to demand Judgment in a Case depending in the Common pleas, which was of such difficulty for point in Law, that the Judges did forbear to proceed, and so the [Page 272] Lords of Parliament directed them on which side to give Judgement.

Note, that the Commons Joined with the Lords to damn the recog­nizance of Elizabeth de Burgo, and so it was necessarily to avoid a Re­cord; but the Commons did not join in assent touching G. de Stantons Petition, for there the Lords did but direct Justice to be done in ano­ther Court.

In the time of R. 2. the Petitions were directed sometimes to the King, and his Councel, as in Ed. 3.

Sometimes a nostre tresdoute Sr. le Roy et ces noble Srs. en cest. Parli­ament.

And some (A nostre Sr. le Roy et a touz lez et comes. defon Roialme, but they were publick Petitions, as that of the officers of the Mint within the Tower of London, and the like.

And the Parliament sitting long in those days, over they did in E. 3. time, most of the Answers to these Petitions (if not all) were as­sented unto by all the Lords, prout An. 15. R. 2. the Petition of Joan [Page 273] the wife of Sr. Robert Swinbourn Knight, directed to the King, and the Lords, shewing that the said Sir Robert enfeoffed divers gentle­ment of certain Lands to the use of her, and of her younger Children, and of his last Will and Testament: And that Thomas Swinbourne his Son and heir entred violently upon the Lands, and possess d himself of di­vers goods and Chattl [...]s, &c. And by threats and maintenance kept her out, &c.

Answered thus.

The petition being read in Parli­ment, and the reasons of the one side, and on the other, and of all the Feoffees present in Parliament be­ing heard, it was awarded by the King and all the Lords, that the said Thomas Swinbourn shall make full restitution, &c. And also, that the said parties shall come before the council of the King, at a day certain to be limited them by the said council, and there shew all their evidences, &c. And the coun­cil [Page 274] to make a good end if they can; if they cannot, to adjourn them over to the Common Law: And further, that the said Thomas, find to the petitioner, her Children, and Servants, and to the said Feoffees, and to the Executors of his Fa­thers Will, sufficient sureties for the Peace: and that he should do no maintenance, menace, nor o­ther things whereby the Common Law may be any way disturbed of its right course, touching all the said matters. And moreover, be­cause the said Thomas acknowledged that he sent unto certain persons, a Letter (shewed in Parliament) of horrible menaces to the Kings peo­ple touching this matter, he is a­warded to the Tower of London, there to remain at the Kings Will; The which imprisonment at the in­stance of the Duke of Yorke, the King afterwards pardoned him upon his good behaviour.

I have recited his answer some­what at large: by this I gather, & by some answers of E 1. E. 2 E 3. that intricate businesses were discussed [Page 275] in open Parliament (what answer soever the Tryers had prepared) o­thers of smaller moment were di­rected to be redressed by the Chan­cery without any further trouble to their Lordships.

But the Commons were not pri­vy to their Answers, as I noted in those of E. 3. unlesse it were to such as otherwise legally could not pass, prout An 23. E. 2. VVest. Crast. nat. sanct. Johann. Baptisti (A nostr le Roy et a son Cons [...]l. monstrent Ercevesques, Evesques; comites Barones et Autrez genz de la Cominaltie d'engle terre, who petitioned that they might let to farm the wastes belonging to their Mannors, which they held of the King in Capite, as well within Forrests at without, without the Kings licence: which Petition is indorsed Coram Rege, and the Kings Answer is thus.

Il ne puit estre fait sanz novele lui laquele chose fere la comminaltie de la terre ne vult nie uncore Assenti.

In the times of H. 4. Few Peti­tions were directed to the King and [Page 276] his Council, some were directed to the King alone.

Some to the Lords alone.

And some to the Commons.

But I find none answered by the Commons only. If they were Petitions of grace, the Commons wrote only this Inscription under the first line, viz.

Soit baile as Sr. per les a Roy, or soit per le a Roy per les Seiniurs.

The others were sent up to the Lords without any directions; and here first began the private bills, now exhibited in Parliament.

In An. H. 5. H. 6. and E. 4. there are some Bundels of Petitions extant of these times.

But I cannot determine whether they were delivered to the Recei­vers of Petitions or no, many of them are directed to the Com­mons, some to the King and his Councel.

By these answers it seems, that these and those also of H. 4. were assented unto in open Parliament, and none past by the Tryers alone as in the times of E. 3.

After these times we have no Bundles of Petitions extant in the Tower.

Petitions endorsed Coram Rege.

THese were Petitions of grace from the King, and therefore the Tryers might not answer them rege inconsulto.

I will recite some of them, and the proceedings thereupon, &c. viz.

An. 1. E. 3. Rot. 3. Thomas Bi­shop of Worcester petitioned, that whereas he is charged in the Ex­chequer with divers tenths granted for E. 2. that the said tenths might be allowed him in certain Bills in the Wardorbe, and that payment might be made to him of the resi ue per Assignation. eidem Episc. faci­end.

Ro. Let him shew his Bills in the Chancery, and have a writ to the Treasurer, and Barons of the Ex­chequer, to allow him in Debts exacted of him in the Exchequer, the sum contained in these Bills, & quoad assignationem s [...]bi faciend. [Page 278] de residuo summae in eisdem billis Content. ponutur ista Petitio Coram Rege.

The petition of the Bishop of Winchester, shewing that the Chur­ches of Estunes & Hameldon, are annexed to his Bishoprick as things spiritual, and whereof the Gar­dians of the spiritualities, Sede Va­cante are only to meddle, as the use of other Bishopricks, yet Ro­bert de Welle Gardian of the tempo­ralities, hath levyed the proffits thereof, and accounted for them to the King, to the value of 400 Marks, whereof he prayeth resti­tution.

Ro. videtur consilio, quod occupatio de fructibus hujusmodi ecclesiarum est injuriosa, sed propter possessionem ha­bitam in hac parte, ponatur ista peti­tio Coram Rege.

Postea retractata ista petitione Co­ram Rege & Magno Consilio, conces­sum est quod Custodes temporalium in­fra scripti Episcatus non se in tromit­tant Amplius temporibus vacationum de hujusmodi fructibus ecclesiarum An. 1. E. 3. Rot. 9 Dorso.

Here at this time some Petitions Coram Rege were answered at the great Councel, which was often as­sembled at the end of the Parlia­ment, and there also were answered divers petitions of the Commons which were not answered in Parlia­ment, as shall be shewed in the 2 book, Cap. An. 14. E. 3. at the Par­liament held after Midlent, all bu­sinesses not being ended at Easter, the Parliament was adjourned till Wednesday seavennight after, and the King willed that at that day, the petitions which were not al­ready answered, should be then heard, and duly answered, and those undernamed were assigned to set upon Petitions, Coram Rege (viz.)

The Bishop of Chester.

The Earl of Huntington.

Monsr. Thomas Wake de Lydel.

Monsr. John de Stonnard.

Monsr. William de Shareshal, &c. Associez a eux les Chancellor, & Treasurer, quant Busoigne serra No. 28. & 29.

An. 25. E. 3. Receivers and Try­ers [Page 280] being appointed, it followeth thus.

And that alwaies there be present when the said Petitions be read, in case any of them doe touch the Kings Chamber, Sir Thomas de Brembre, or Sir Henry de Greistock is appointed to be called to all Peti­tions that concerned the Kings Chamber only, and not generally for all petitions which required the Kings special grace, or Bounty.

An. 4. E. 3. Apud Winton inter Bundel Petition. Robert de Vere Earl of Oxford exhibited his Petition for the office of great Chamberlain of England, whereof his Ancesters were seized in fee by the grant of Henry [...] King of England, un­till H. 3. outed his Father Robert de Vere (sans Judgment.)

The first answer is, let him come before the Councel, and shew his deeds and monuments.

And having shewed his Charter to the Councel, &c. The second answer is, Pur ce q cest chose touche es­pecialment le Roy, soit ceste Besoigne devant le Roy & son Conseil.

The third answer to the Petition, is, soit ceste petition mande au Chan­cellarie, & le Chancellor pris a luy les Justices, & autres Sages en Counseil ordinent remedie en ce cas.

An. 16. R. 2. no 32. Inter petiti­ones Communium Roberte Atmulle, & Alice his wife prayed the Kings par­don for that they were wrongfully condemned for taking of 700 pound of Treasure Trove at Gilford.

Ro. let them sue to the King, for this is no petition of Parliament.

The meaning is, this is a Pe­tition of grace, and could not be answered by the Councel Rege inconsulto.

Nota, the Kings Councel prepared all the answers to the Petitions of the Com­mons, to compare with the answer to this petition made in the upper House of Parlia­ment, An. Jacobi.

That Bills of restitution to blood begin in upper House only, and ought to be first signed by the King.

An. 1. H. 4. no. 18. amongst the Petitions of the Commons, the Citi­zens of Lincolne pray to be eased of their Fee Farme, being 110. pound, which they are unable to pay.

Ro. let them sue to the King who will be gracious, which is as much in effect, as (Ponatur ista petitio Co­ram Rege) and not to begin with the Commons.

An. 29. E. 3. no. the 18. the Pe­tition by the Commons touching Alienations without license tempore H. 3.

Ro. soit Monstre, declare a nostre sr. le Roy.

Of Petitions endorsed per authorita­tem Parliamenti.

THe first of this sort I find in An. 15. R. 2. to the Petition of Richard Pryour; the direction is thus.

A nostre tres puissant & tres graci­ous sr. le Roy & ason tres honorable Councel en Parliament complains, that whereas divers Lands in the [Page 283] Counties of Glocester, and Somer­set, &c. which were the Lands of Tho. de la River, sonne and heir of Richard de la River (who held of E. 3. in Capite lately within age, and in ward to the King, and dying within age, were delivered by com­mandement of E. 3. unto him the said Richard Pryor and Jane his wife, Cousen and Heir to the said Thomas for that Agnes the Sister of the said Thomas was a Nunne pro­fessed in the Abbey of Cheston as by the Records, &c. appeareth.

That presently after the said Li­verie made, he and his wife were disseised by Richard Cleydon: and the said Agnes his Concubine, who was a Nunne professed, and by Tho. Brook, &c. and their maintainors and [...] for which they have been in suite these 15 years, and are like to be utterly disinherited, &c.

The answer is thus endorsed, Let this Petition be delivered in Chan­cery, and let the Chancellor by au­thority of Parliament cause the par­ties to come before him in the Chan­cery, and there the matter compri­sed [Page 284] in this petition be diligently viewed and examined, the reasons of the one part, and the other heard; let that be done by authority of Parliament, which right and reason (& bone foy bone conscience) requires in the case. I may doubt whether these words, by authority of Parlia­ment, were added to countenance this answer or no; for if they had omitted them yet the Lord Chan­cellor was directed by the Parlia­ment to proceed, and his proceed­ings warranted thereby I find divers other Petitions so answered this Parliament, but not all.

Divers other Peritions were re­ferred to be determined in the Chancery that year, but they were such as could not be determined by the Common Law without these words, per authoritatem parliamenti prout, &c.

The petition of Sir John Panely Knight, to be discharged of 30. shil­lings rent upon an hundred acres of asserted Lands part of his Mannor o [...] Pay in Com: Northton, which was sometimes within the Whittlewood, [Page 285] but since disforrested by perambu­lation.

The answer is, let this petition be delivered in the Chancery, and the Justices and the Kings Serjeants be­ing called, and the matter well exa­mined, let that be done which right and reason demands.

But in the following times most Petitions have the same words by authority of Parliament.

And it seems to be, that they were added, for that the parties were thereby directed to the Chancel­lor.

Whereas they might otherwise have remedy at the Common Law, and sued in Parliament only for that they were interrupted in their ordinary proceedings by Menaces, or maintenance, or the like, where­by their suits in Law were become long and intricate, and the Chancel­lor happily made dainty then to meddle in such cases, and perad­venture, the defendant excepted a­gainst it, as may appear by this, that the Commons exhibited their Peti­tion against these kind of answers, [Page 286] An. 8. H. 5. no. 12. in these words.

Item, praying the Commons in this present Parliament, that if any man sue a Bill or petition endorsed by these words, by authority of Par­liament, let this Bill or Petition be committed to the Councel of the King, or the Chancellor of England, to execute and determine the con­tents thereof.

Whereas the said Bill or Petition is not by the Commons of the Land, required to be affirmed or assented unto.

That no men to such a Bill or Pe­tition (unless the assent, or request of the Commons be endorsed) be bound to answer contrary to the Laws of England.

Unto which was answered (viz) foit avise le Roy.

And so the same answers conti­nued in the times of King 8 H. 6. and E. 4. notwithstanding this Petition of the Commons.

The Names of the Spea­kers of the Honourable House of Commons, as they have Assembled in Parlia­ment.

IN the Reign of William Rufus, there was a great Councel of Parliament held at Rockingham, as may be collected out of the History of Eadmerus, for he term­eth the same, Totius Regni Adu­natio; and saith, that a certain Knight came forth & stood before the peo­ple, and spake in the name & behalf of them all, whereby the mind and consent of the people was under­stood, who (as is conceived) was the Speaker of the Commons; but the Author nameth him not: this is mentioned only because of the anti­quity thereof.

• [Page 288]Petrus de Mountford. 44 H. 3.

That he was Speaker of the House of Commons, may be collected out of the Register of St. Albane, Fol. 207 where it is said, that he Vice totius communitatis consented to the ba­nishment of Adomer de Valence, Bi­shop of Winchester; by which also it may be conceived, that the Lords and the Commons in that time sate in several Houses, or at leastwise gave have their assents severally.

• Scroope, 6 Ed. 3.
• Monsieur William Tressel. 13 Ed. 3.

The Commons answer by his mouth, and therefore it is conceived he was their Speaker; though not so named in the Record.

• Sir Peter de la Mare. 49 Ed. 3.
• Sir Thomas Hungerford. 51 Ed. 3.

This is the first named Speaker up­on Record, 51 Ed. 3. n. 89.

• Sir Peirce de la Mare. 1 Rich. 2.
• [Page 289]Sir James Pickering. 2 Rich. 2.
• Sir John Goldesborough. 3 Rich. 2.
• Sir John Goldesborough. 4 Rich. 2.
• Sir Richard VValgrave. 5 Rich. 2.

He was the first that made excuse desiring to be discharged (for ought appearing in Record;) but the King commanded him upon his allegiance to accept the place, seeing he was chosen by the Commons.

• Sir James Pickering. 6 R. 2.

No Speaker recorded from 6 R. 2. to 17.

• Sir John Bushey. 17 R. 2.

He was presented to the King in full Parliament by the Commons, the first I find so presented; he was a special Minion to the King.

• Sir John Bushey. 20 R. 2.

There are many Parliament-rolls of R. 2. which mention no Spea­ker, as 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18.

• Sir John Bushey. 21 R. 2.

This Parliament was h [...]ld in the Palace yard of Westminster, in a long house built with Timber of purpose, left open at both ends; both the Houses sate together there­in, an especial place made for the Speaker: the cause of this extra­ordinary meeting was the impeach­ment of the Duke of Gloucester, the Earl of Arundel and Warwick.

• Sir John Cheyney. 1. H. 4.

He is stiled in the Roll not onely Parlour, but Procurator de les Commons: the next day after he was presented he grew sick, and the Commons made choice of Mr. John Dorwood in his place; and yet he came up with the Commons to the Lords House, and prayed to be discharged, by reason of his infirmi­ty, declaring whom the Commons had made choice of, and prayed he might be accepted, which was gran­ted; and he made the like Protesta­tion as Sir John Cheyney had done, which was, that he might have liber­ty to amend any mistaking in that which he should deliver from the [Page 291] Commons, and made none of the o­ther requests now usual.

• John Dorwood Esquire. 1. H. 4.

He made no excuse, for ought appeareth.

• Sir Arnold Savage. 2. H. 4.

The first time appearing upon any Record that the Commons were required by the King to choose a Speaker, but afterward it is still continued, only omitted 16. of Henry the Fourth.

• Sir Henry de Redeford. 4. H. 4.
• Sir Arnold Savage. 5. H. 4.

After he had made the ordinary protestation concerning his own mi­stakings, he further desired the King in the names of the Commons, that they might freely make complaint of any thing amiss in the Govern­ment, and that the King by the sini­ster information of any person, would not take offensively that [Page 292] which they should complain of in that behalf: which Petition was yiel­ded unto by the King, 5. H. 5. 11. 8.

• Sir VVilliam Sturmy. 6 H. 4.
• Sir John Cheyney. 6 H. 4.

Parliamentum indoctorum, so cal­led, because in the writ of Summons there was a Clause no Lawyer should be chosen.

• Sir John Tiptoft, 7 H. 4.

He desired to be discharged, be­cause of his youth, but he was ne­vertheless allowed of; but having forgotten to make the usual pro­testations upon the day of his al­lowance, he came up the next day and made it, and added further (which never any Speaker did be­fore or since) that if any writing were delivered by the Commons in this Parliament, and they should de­sire to have it again to amend any thing therein, it might be restored to them; which was granted, R. Par. 7. Henry 4. n. 6. he was the son of John Lord Tiptoft, and in the [Page 293] tenth of Henry the fourth was made Lord Treasurer of England, & crea­ted Earl of VVorcester by H. 6. while he was Speaker, he signed and sealed the Deed of the intailing of the Crown, 7 H. 4. with these words, Nomine totius Communitatis.

• Thomas Chancer Esq 9 H. 4.
• Thomas Chaucer Esq 10 H. 4.
• Thomas Chaucer Esq 13 H. 4.
• VVilliam Sturton Esq 1 H. 5.

This Speaker, without the assent of his Companions, did agree before the King to deliver in Parliament, certain Articles; but about three dayes following, the Commons finding themselves agrieved there­with, sent unto the Lords (the King being then present) Mr. John Dore­wood, and divers of the Commons with him, and declared to the King that their Speaker had no authority from them to yield thereunto, and therefore they desired to be excused therein, which the King was pleased to accept: about 2. months after the Commons coming before the King, did present for their [Page 294] Speaker the same Mr. John Dor­wood, because their old Speaker be­ing sick in his bed was not able to execute the place, whom the King allowed of.

• John Doreward, Esquire. 1 H. 5.
• Thomas Chancer, Esquire. 3 H. 5.
• Walter hungerford, Esquire. 2 H. 5.
• Richard Redman, Esquire. 3 H. 5.
• Sir Walter Beauchamo. 3 H. 5.
• Roger Flower, Esquire. 4 H. 5.
• Roger Flower, Esquire. 5 H. 5.
• Roger Flower, Esquire. 7 H. 5.
• Richard Baynard. 9 H. 5.
• Roger Flower, Esquire. 1 H. 6.
• John Russel, Esquire. 2 H. 6.
• Sir Thomas VVanton. 3 H. 6.
• Richard Vernon, Esquire. 4 H. 6.
• John Tirell, Esquire. 6 H. 6.
• VVilliam Allington, Esq 8 H. 6.
• John Tirell, Esquire. 9 H. 6.
• John Russel, Esquire. 10 H. 6.
• Roger Hurst, Esquire. 11 H. 6.
• John Bowes, Esquire. 14 H. 6.
• Sir John Tirrel. 15 H. 6.
• Sir John Tirrel. 17 H. 6.

The King taking notice of the sickness of the Speaker, and that by [Page 295] reason thereof he could not attend the affairs of the Parliament, com­manded the Commons to make choice of a new Speaker; who ac­cordingly did make choice of one Mr. VVilliam Boerly and did by one John Hody (Knight of the Shire) in­form the King thereof, who there­upon was allowed of by the King without any more ceremony.

• VVilliam Boerly, Esquire. 17 H. 6.
• VVilliam Tresham, Esq 18 H. 6.
• VVilliam Burley, Esquire. 23 H. 6.
• VVilliam Tressam Esq 25 H. 6.
• John Day, Esquire. 27 H. 6.
• Sir John Popham 28 H. 6.

His excuse by reason of his age and impotency by his servic in the war, was allowed of by the King, and the same day the Commons presented Mr VVilliam Tresham for their Speaker, and he was allowed.

• VVilliam Tresham, Esquire. 28 H. 6.

He made no excuse at all, for ought appearing on the Record.

• [Page 296]Sir VVilliam Oldham. 29 H. 6.

He made no excuse.

• Thomas Thorp, Esq 31 H. 6.
• Thomas Thorp, Esq 31 H. 6.

He was arrested in execution at the suit of the Duke of York be­tween two Sessions of Parliament; wherein the opinions of the Judges being demanded by the Lords, they answered, it belonged not unto them to judge of the liberties of Parliament; whereupon (without them) it was adjudged that he was not to have priviledge; which was signified to the Commons by some of the Lords, and the Kings pleasure for present chusing of a new [...]peaker was declared unto them; whereupon they forthwith chose Sir Thomas Charlton.

• Sir Thomas Charlton, 31 H. 6.
• Sir John VVenlock, 33 H. 6.
• Thomas Tresham, Esq 38 H. 6.
• John Green, Esq 39 H. 6.
• Sir James Strangwaies. 1 Ed. 4.
• John Say Esq 7 Ed. 4.
• VVilliam Allington, Esq 12 Ed. 4.
• [Page 297]VVilliam Allington, Esq 17 Ed. 4.
• John VVood, Esq 22 Ed. 4.
• VVilliam Catesby, Esq 1 R. 3.

In these times the Lord Chancel­lor, Speaker of the Lords House (being for the most part a Bishop) took a Text out of Scripture or some other Theme, and grounded his Oration thereupon, therein declaring the cause of the Sum­mons of the Parliament; and in conclusion thereof, as the use now is, declared to the House of Com­mons the Kings pleasure, that they should repair to their House, and make choice of a Speaker, not na­ming any day when they should pre­sent him (as is now used;) and when the Commons had chosen their Speaker; they sent up some of their House to the Lords to desire them to intimate to the King that they had made choice of a Speaker, not naming whom; and to move the King to appoint a time when they should present him, and (commonly the King having been formerly spoken unto) the day a­greed upon by the K. was declared to [Page 298] them; at the day appointed, the Commons, presented their Speak­er, who prayed that he might be excused; but his excuse not being admitted, he maketh the common protestation touching his own mistakings, without any petitions in the behalf of the Commons, as is now usual.

• Thomas Lovel, Esq 1 H. 7.

After Knighted and made of the Privy Councel to King Henry 7. and Henry 8.

• John Mordant. 3 H. 7.
• Sir Thomas Fitzwilliams. 4 H. 7.
• Richard Empson, Esq 7 H. 7.

Learned in the Laws, Recorder of Coventry, afterwards of the Pri­vy Councel to Henry 7.

• Sir Reginald Bray. 11 H. 7.

He made the usual protestation for himself, but there is no mention at all upon the Record concerning any petition for the liberty of the Com­mons.

• [Page 299]Robert Drury, Esq 11 H. 7.
• Thomas Inglefield, Esq 12 H. 7.
• Edmond Dudley, Esq 19. H. 7.

Learned in the Laws, he was af­terward of the Privie Councel to Henry 7.

• Sir Thomas Inglefield. 1. H. 8.
• Sir Robert Sheffield. 3. H. 8.

Recorder of London.

• Sir Thomas Nevil. 6 H. 8.

The Speakers presentment, excuse, and protestation, were only entered on Record before this time, but no oration of theirs till this time.

• Sir Thomas More. 14 and 15 H. 8.

Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lan­caster, after Lord Chancellor of Eng­land, he was Speaker of the House of Commons in this Parliament, and Speaker of the Lords House the next; he made the usual protestation for himself, and prayed if any of the [Page 300] Commons should in debate of mat­ters speak more largely then they ought, that it might be pardoned by the King; which the King granted.

• Thomas Audley. 21 H. 8.

Serjeant at Law, Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, in 24 H. 8. made Lord Chancellor of England, and lastly created a Baron: he made the usual protestation for himself; but there is no mention upon the Re­cord of any petition by him made in the behalf of the commons.

I have not found any Speaker na­med in the Record or Chronicles in these years of H. 8. viz. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.

• Richard Rich. 28 H. 8.

Afterwards made L. Chancellor, and created a Baron; the first that is recorded to have made request for access to the King: from him are discended the Earls of Warwick and Holland, now living.

• [Page 301]Sir Nich. Hare. 31 H. 1.

Afterwards Master of the Rolls, and after that Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, after which he lived but fourteen days.

• Thomas Moyle Esq 34 H. 8.

The first that is recorded to have made petition for freedom of speech; the petition for priviledge from arrest is of latter dayes, but it appears in the first of H. 4. that Sir John Cheney then Speaker, made a general request, that the Commons might enjoy their ancient priviled­ges and liberties, not naming any liberty in particular; and he is no­ted to be the first that is recorded to have made that request; but they all make the usual request or prote­station touching themselves.

In the latter end of the reign of K. H. 8. there is no mention made in the Parliament-Roll of the presenting of any Speaker, nor in the time of E. 6 or Queen Mary, nor during the reign [Page 302] of Queen Eliz. when Sir John Puc­kering was Speaker, but the memo­ries of the Speakers names of those latter times is onely presented in the Journals of both houses.

• Sir John Baker. 1 Ed. 6. to 5.

Four Sessions. Chancellor of the Augmentations.

• Sir James Dyer, Knight. 7 Ed. 6.

Serjeant at Law, afterwards Kings Serjeant, and Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas.

• John Pollard, Esq 1 Mary.

Learned in the Laws, he continued Speaker during two Sessions.

• Clement Higham, Esq 1. & 2. P.M.

Learned in the Lawes, and one of the Privie Councel, afterward Knighted, and made Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer.

• [Page 303]John Pollard, Esq 2. and 3. P.M.

Learned in the Lawes, afterward made Serjeant.

• William Cordal, Esq 1. & 2. P.M.

Master of the Rolls, and one of the Privie Councel; he was Knighted the day he made his Oration, and was Master of the Rolls when he was chosen Speaker; as may appear by comparing the date of his Letters Patents, with the time of his being chosen Speaker.

• Sir Thomas Gargrave. 1 Eliz.

Learned in the Lawes, and one of the Queens Councel in the North: he made the four Requests, ever since and now usually made by most Speakers, as appears by his Oration.

First, for free access to the Queen.

Secondly, liberty of speech.

Thirdly, for priviledge from Ar­rests.

Fourthly, that his mistaking might not prejudice the House.

• Thomas Williams Esq 5. Eliz.

Learned in the Lawes.

• Richard Onsloe Esq 8 Eliz.

The Queens Solicitor; he was first chosen Member of the Commons House, and then being made Queens Solicitor, had a writ to attend in the upper House; and upon the death of Mr. Williams, at the request of the Commons, was sent unto them, and they chose him their Speaker; but so, as the House was divided upon the question.

• Christopher Wray Esq 13 Eliz.

Learned in the Laws, afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench.

• Robert Bell Esq 14 Eliz.

Learned in the Lawes, after made [Page 305] Serjeant and Lord Chief Baron.

• John Popham Esq 23 Eliz.

Solicitor to the Queen, chosen in place of Sir Robert Bell, who was made Lord Chief Baron, and died also before this Session. Mr. Popham was afterwards made the Queens Atturney, and after Chief Justice of the Kings Bench, and one of the Pri­vy Councel; when he was chosen Speaker, he was an Assistant in the Upper House, and sent for as Mr. Ousloe was.

• Mr. Serjeant Puckering 27 Eliz

Till twenty eight, during two Sessions: afterwards made the Queens Serjeant, and Lord Keeper of the Great Seal.

• Mr. Serjeant Snag. 31 Eliz.

Afterward made Queens Serjeant.

• Edward Cook Esq 35 Eliz.

Solicitor general, afterward made [Page 306] Queens Atturney, and Knighted; Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas a Privy Councellor; and lastly made Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench.

• Mr. Serjeant Yelverton. 39 Eliz.

Afterward made Queens Serjeant, and after that one of the Judges of the Kings Bench, and Knighted.

• Mr. Serjeant Crook. 43 Eliz.

Recorder of London, afterwards made Serjeant to King James, and one of the Justices of the Kings Bench, and Knighted.

• Mr. Serjeant Phelips. 1 Jac.

He was, during the time he was Speaker, made Master of the Rolls, and yet sate as Speaker.

• Sir Ranulph Crew. 12 Jac.

Serjeant at Law, afterwards made Kings Serjeant and Chief Justice of the Kings Bench.

• [Page 307]Sir Thomas Richardson. 18 Jac.

Serjeant at Law, afterwards made Kings Serjeant and Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and after Chief Justice of the Kings Bench.

• Sir Thomas Crew. 21 Jac.

Serjeant at Law, afterwards made Kings Serjeant.

• Sir Thomas Crew. 1 Car. Reg.
• Sir Heneage Finch. 1 Car. Reg.

Recorder of London, Serjeant at Law.

• Sir John Finch. 3. & 4. Car.

Queens Atturney, afterwards made one of the Kings Councel at Law, then Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and lately Lord Keeper of the Great Seal.

• John Glanvile Esq 16 Car.

Serjeant at Law, at the Parlia­ment begun the 13. of April 1640. and was dissolved May 5. follow­ing; and so continued but twenty two days; afterwards he was made the Kings Serjeant.

• VVilliam Lenthal Esq 16 Car.

Learned in the Laws, one of the Benchers and Readers of Lincolns-Inne, at the Parliament which begun November 3. 1640.

• Sir Harbottle Grimston Bar. 12 Car. 2

A Bencher of Lincolns-Inn, the publisher of Sir George Crokes Re­ports, at the healing-Parliament which began the 15 of April 1660. afterwards Master of the Rolls.

• Sir Edward Turner Kt. 13 Car. 2

Learned in the Laws, a Bencher of the Middle Temple, at the par­liament begun May 8. 1661. after­wards His Majesties Sollicitor Ge­nerall.

• Sir Job Charleton. 26. Car. 2.

Doctor Learned in the Laws.

• Edw. Seymour. Esq 26. Car. 2.

Speaker at this time to the house of Commons.