An ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEED and ARGUMENTS of the Counsel on both Sides, concerning the PLEA of Mr. Fitz-Harris, To his INDICTMENT of High Treason, At the Kings-Bench-Bar in Westminster-Hall, on Saturday May the 7th. 1681.  
THIS day Mr. Edward Fitz-Harris was again brought to the Kings-Bench Bar: And, it being a Remarkable Case, there was a very numerous Auditory, and divers Lords, and Persons of Quality; as the Duke of Monmouth, the Earl of Shaftsbury, Sir Robert Clayton, Mr Sheriff Cornish, etc. The Court was set between 8 and 9 a Clock in the Morning, and Mr. Attorney General maintained his Demurrer.  
First, Because, They had made a General Plea.  
Secondly, There was no Record mentioned in the Impeachment.  
Mr. Williams, the late Speaker of the House of Commons, being the first That argued the Prisoner's Plea, made a very learned Discourse, and cited many Precedents to confirm it; That Substance whereof was to make out,  
That, the Attorney General, and the KING's Counsel by their Demurrer did prove the Truth of Their Plea: and, That the Parliament had a Right to impeach any Commoner. Asserting likewise the Dignity and Excellency of Parliaments: and the Respect that in all Ages had been paid thereunto, both as to the Jurisdiction of the Lords, and likewise to the Rights and Privileges of the Commons: and that when at any time heretofore any such weighty Matters came before the Judges, they wholly declined being concerned therein, or were at least very tender in their Determination.  
sir Frank Winnington being next, insisted upon the same Plea, and confirmed it with Three Reasons:  
I. That the Commons in PARLIAMENT were the Representatives of ALL the People of England, and consequently All the People have a share in their Impeachment: and, therefore can neither be Judge nor Jury.  
II. He compared the Impeachment to an Appeal, and, that it was to be heard before an Indictment for the King: And, That by the Third of Henry the VII. in case of Murder, The King could not proceed in an Indictment, till a year and a day was allowed for an Appeal.  
III. The Question is, whether, if Fitz-Harris be Tried here and Acquitted, that will be a sufficient Plea, if the Lords call him to an Account for the same; and that, if they could, it was contrary to our Law, in regard it would put a man in jeopardy of his Life twice for the same Crime, it being the Birthright of an English-Man to answer but once for the same thing.  
Mr. Wallop and Mr. Pollexfen backed it with Precedents: As particularly in the Case of the Earl of Stafford, and the rest of the Lords in the Tower, who being Impeached in Parliament, it was concluded by all the Judges in England, That they could not be Tried elsewhere: And likewise in the Case of the Earl of Shattsbury, who being committed Prisoner to the Tower by the Horse of Lords, only for a misdemeanour, yet it was resolved by the Court of Kings-Bench, that they could take no Cognizance thereof.  
Mr. Attorney pressed the insufficientcy of their Plea, and, that the Demurrer ought to be Granted; adding, That if it were contrary to Law, God forbidden it should be done: and farther said, That, in his Judgement, that Court had Power to Try him.  
The Solicitor General laboured to make it appear, That a man might be Tried twice for the same thing, and that an Appeal and an Indictment might be within a year and a day.  
Sir George Jefferies said, That the Plea was desective in Matter and Form, and that every man ought to search his own Conscience, and not be Bugbeared out of his Reason, nor to decline doing Justice for fear of being called to an Account hereafter; and prayed his Lordship that it might be overruled.  
Sir Francis Within and Mr. Saunders spoke also what they thought necessary to that point.  
After which the Lord Chief Justice told them, He had heard all their Arguments, but thought it best to take a farther time to give in his Judgement, and not to run precipitately into matters of that nature; it being a Cause of great weight, and variety of Precedents having been alleged on both sides, and that it did therefore require deliberate Consideration to advise upon all that had been said, before the Court gave their Opinion in the Case, and hereupon the Judgement of the Court was deferred, and no certain day assigned.  
It is Discoursed that Mr. Fitz-Harris being withdrawn, a motion was made that his Wife might have Liberty to go to see him, as she had done lately, but that it was objected she had abused her Liberty in that Case; but the result thereof we know not.  
FINIS.   

LONDON, Printed for T. Davies. 1681.