ARTICLES OF ACCUSATION, EXHIBITED By the Commons House of Parliament now assembled, AGAINST 

Sr. John Bramston Knight, Justice of his majesty's Bench.  
Sr. Robert Berkley Knight, Justice of his majesty's Bench.  
Sr. Francis Crawley Knight, one of the Justices of the Common-pleas.  
Sr. Humphrey Davenport Knight, Baron of his majesty's Exchequer.  
Sr. Richard Weston Knight, Baron of his majesty's Exchequer and.  
Sr. Thomas Trevor Knight, Baron of his majesty's Exchequer.    2 CHRON. 19.6, 7. 
Jehosophat said to the Judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord; wherefore let the fear of the Lord be upon you; for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor taking of gifts.  
Printed for I. H. 1641.   

The Articles of impeachment of Sir Robert Berkley Knight, one of the Justices of the Court of the King's Bench; by the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in their own name, and in the name of all the Commons of England, in maintenance of their accusation, whereby he standeth charged with high treason, and other great misdemeanours.  
INprimis, that the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the Justices of the said Court of King's Bench, hath traitorously, and wickedly, endeavoured to subvert the fundamental laws, and established government of the realm of England; and, instead thereof, to introduce an arbitrary, and tyrannical government against Law, which he hath declared by traitorous and wicked words, opinions, judgements, practices, and actions appearing in the several Articles ensuing.  
2 Whereas by the Statute made in the five & twentieth year of the reign of the late King Henry the eighth, prices of victuals are appointed to be rated in such manner, as in the said Statute is declared: But it is manifest by the said Statute, corn is none of the victuals thereby intended. Nevertheless some ill-affected persons endeavouring to bring a charge upon the subjects contrary to Law, did surmise that the prices of corn might be rated, and set according to the direction of that Statute, and thereupon great gain might be raised to his majesty, by licences and dispensations for selling corn at other prices: And a command from his majesty being procured to the Judges, and sent to them by William Noye Esquire, his Majesties then Attorney general; to deliver their opinions touching the question, whether corn was such victuals as was intended to have the price rated within the said Statute: In answer to which demand, the said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of his majesty's Justices of the Court of King's Bench, in furtherance of the said unlawful charge, endeavoured to be imposed, as aforesaid, the 30. day of November, in the 8. year of his now majesty's reign, did deliver his opinion, that corn was such victual as was intended to have the price rated within the said Statute; which said opinion was contrary to Law, and to the plain sense, and meaning of the said Statute; and contrary to his own knowledge, and was given and delivered by him, with a purpose and intention, that the said unlawful charge might be imposed upon the Subject.  
3 That an information being preferred in the Court of Star-chamber by they said William Noy, his Majesties then Attorney general, against John Overman, and fifteen other soap maker's Defendants, charging them with several pretended offences, contrary to divers Letters Patents and Proclamations, touching the making and uttering soap, and using the trade of Soape-makers, and other offences in the said Information mentioned, whereunto the Defendants did plead, and demur as to part, and answer to other part of the said Information: And the said Plea and demurter being overruled, for that the particulars therein insisted upon, would appear more fully after answer and proof; therefore the Defendants were ordered to answer without prejudice, and were to be admitted to such exceptions to the said Information, and advantages of the matter of the Plea and demurrer upon the hearing as shall be material; and accordingly the Defendants did put in their answers, and set forth several Acts of Parliament, Letters Patents, Charters, customs, and Acts of common-council of the city of London, and other matters materially conducing to their defence; and in conclusion pleaded not guilty. The said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, upon the 30. day of March, in the eighth year of his Majesties now reign, upon an Order of Reference to him and others by the said Court of Star-chamber, to consider of the impertinency of the said answers, did certify the said Court of Star-chamber, that the whole answers, excepting the four words and ten last lines, should be expunged, leaving thereby no more in substance of the said answers, than the Plea of not guilty. And after upon a Reference to him and others, by order of the said Court, of the impertinency of the Interrogatories and depositions of witnesses taken on the Defendants part; in the same case the said Sir Robert Berkley, upon the second day of May, in the eighth year of his now majesty's reign, certified that nine and thirty of the said Interrogatories, and the depositions upon them taken, should be suppressed, with answers (except as aforesaid) and depositions, although the same did contain the said Defendants most material defence. Yet were expounged and suppressed according to the said Certificates; both which said Certificates were contrary to Law, and Justice, and contrary to his the said Sir Robert Berkley's own knowledge, and contrary to the said former order, whereby the advantages were saved to the Defendants, as aforesaid: And by reason thereof, the said John Overman, and the said other fifteen Defendants, were sentenced in the said Court of Star-chamber, to be committed prisoners to the fleet, and disabled from using their trade of Soape-makers: And one of them fined in a thousand five hundred pounds; two of them in a thousand pound a piece; four of them in a thousand mark a piece; the rest five hundred pounds a piece; which fines were estreated into the Exchequer without any mitigation: And the said Defendants according to the said sentence were imprisoned, and deprived of their trade and livelihood, tending to the utter ruin of the said Defendants, and to the overthrow of free trade, and contrary to the liberty of Subjects.  
4 That he the said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, and having taken an oath for the due administration of Justice, according to the laws and Statutes of this realm, to his majesty's liege people, on or about the last of December subscribed an opinion, in haec verba: [I am of opinion, that as where the benefit doth more particularly redound to the good of the Ports, or Maritime parts, (as in case of piracy or Depredations upon the Seas) there the charge hath been, and may be lawfully imposed upon them, according to precedents of former times; so where the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, (of which his majesty is the only Judge) there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the realm in general: this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason.]  
5 That he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, and duly sworn as aforesaid, in February 1636. subscribed an extrajudicial opinion, in answer to questions in a letter from his majesty, in haec verba:  
Charles R. When the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, whether may not the King, by writ under the great seal of England, command all the Subjects of this kingdom, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, victual and Munition; and for such time, as he shall think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom, from such danger and peril; and by Law compel the doing thereof in case of refusal, or refractoriness? And whether in such case is not the King the sole Judge, both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoided? C. R.  
May it please your most excellent majesty, We have, according to your majesty's command, severally every man by himself, and all of us together, taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your majesty, and enclosed in your royal letter; and we are of opinion, that when the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, your majesty may, by writ under the great seal of England, command all your Subjects of this your kingdom, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, victual and Munition; and for such time as your majesty shall think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom, from such danger and peril; And that by Law your majesty may compel the doing thereof in case of refusal, or refractoriness: And we are also of opinion that in such case, your majesty is the sole Judge both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoided. John Brampston, John Finch, Humphrey Davenport, John Denham, Richard Hutton, William Jones, George Crook, Thomas Trevor, George Vernon, Robert Berkley, Francis Crawley, Richard Weston.  
6 That he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, and duly sworn as aforesaid, did on the 〈◊〉 deliver his opinion in the Exchequer Chamber, against John Hampden Esquire in the Case of Ship-money, That he the said John Hampden upon the matter and substance of the Case, was chargeable with the money then in question: A copy of which proceeding, and judgement, the Commons of this present Parliament have delivered to your Lordships.  
7 That he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, and one of the Justices of Assize for the county of York; did at the Assizes held at York in Lent, 1636. deliver in his charge to the grand jury, that it was a lawful and inseparable flower of the crown, for the King to command not only the Maritime Counties, but also those that were inland, to find ships for the defence of the kingdom. And then likewise falsely, and maliciously affirmed, that it was not his single judgement, but the judgement of all his brethren, witnessed by their subscriptions: And then also said, that there was a rumour that some of his Brethren that had subscribed, were of a contrary judgement; but it was a base and unworthy thing, for any to give his hand contrary to his heart; and then wished for his own part that his hand might rot from his arm, that was guilty of any such crime; when as he knew that Mr. Justice Hutton and Mr. Justice Crook, who had subscribed, were of a contrary opinion, and was present when they were persuaded to subscribe; and did subscribe for conformity, only because the major number of the Judges had subscribed. And he the said Sir Robert Berkley then also said, that in some Cases the Judges were above an Act of Parliament; which said false and malicious words were uttered, as aforesaid, with intent and purpose to countenance and maintain the said unjust opinions. and to terrify his majesty's Subjects that should refuse to pay Ship-money, or seek any remedy by Law against the said unjust and illegal taxation.  
8 That whereas Richard Chambers Merchant having commenced a suit for trespass and false imprisonment against Sir Edward Bromfield Knight, for imprisoning him the said Chambers for refusing to pay Ship-money, in the time that the said Sir Edward Bromfield was Lord Maior of the city of London, in which suit the said Sir Edward Bromfield did make a special justification: The said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, in trinity term last, then sitting on the Bench in the said Court, upon debate of the said Case, between the said Chambers and Sir Edward Bromfield, said openly in the said Court, that there was a rule of Law, and a rule of government: And that many things which might not be done by the rule of Law, might be done by the rule of government; and would not suffer the point of legality of Ship-money to be argued by the said Chambers his council; all which opinions, declarations, words and speeches, contained in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Articles, are destructive to the fundamental laws of this realm, the Subjects right of property, and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament, and to the petition of right: which resolutions in Parliament and petition of right were well known to him, and resolved, and enacted, when he was the King's Sergeant at law, and attendant in the Lord's house of Parliament.  
9 That he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then being one of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, and being in commission of the Peace, and duly sworn to execute the office of a Justice of Peace in the County of Hertford, on or about the seventh of January, 1638. at which time the general Sessions of the Peace for the said county were there holden: The said Sir Robert Berkley, then and there sitting on the Bench, did revile and threaten the grand jury returned to serve at the said Sessions, for presenting the removal of the Communion Table in All Saints Church in Hertford aforesaid out of the place where it anciently and usually stood, and setting it Altar-wayes, against the laws of this realm, in that Case made and provided, as an innovation in matters concerning the Church; the said grand jury having delivered to them in charge at the said Sessions, by Master Sergeant Atkins a Justice of Peace of the said County of Hertford, that by the oath they had taken, they were bound to present all innovations concerning Church matters. And he the said Sir Robert Berkley compelled the foreman of the jury, to tell him who gave him any such information, and thereby knowing it to be one Henry Browne, one of the said grand jury, he asked the said Browne how he durst meddle with Church matters; who affirming that in the said charge from Master Sergeant Atkins, the said jury were charged so to do; he the said Sir Robert Berkley told the said Browne, he should therefore find 〈◊〉 for the good behaviour: and that he the said Sir Robert Berkley would set a great fine on his head, to make him an example to others; and thereupon the said Browne offered sufficient bail: but he the said Sir Robert Berkley, being incensed against him, refused the said bail, and committed the said Browne to prison, where he lay in Irons till the next morning, and used to the said Browne and the rest of the Jurors, many other reviling and terrifying speeches; and said, he knew no Law for the said presentment, and told the said Browne that he had sinned in the said presentment: And he compelled the said grand Jurors to say, they were sorry for what they had done in that presentment; and did bid them to trample the said presentment under their feet, and caused Brown to tear the said presentment in his sight. And he the said Sir Robert Berkley, when as John Houland, and Ralph Pemberton late Maior of St. Albans, came to desire his opinion on several Indictments against John Browne Parson of Saint Albans, and Anthony Smith Vicar of St. Peter's in Saint Albans, at the quarter Sessions held for the said town of St. Albans on the four and twentieth of June, 1639. for the removal of the Communion Table out of the usual place, and not administering the Sacrament according to the Law in that Case provided, he the said Sir Robert Barkley then told them that such an Indictment was before him at Hertford, and that he quashed the same, and imprisoned the Promoters; by which threatening and reviling speeches, unjust actions and declarations he so terrified the Jurors in those parts, that they durst not present any Innovations in Church matters, to their great grief and trouble of their consciences.  
And whereas several indictments were preferred against John Brooke Parson of Yarmouth by John Ingrane and John Carter, for refusing several times to administer the Sacrament of the Lord's supper to them without any lawful cause, at the Assizes held at Norwich in 〈◊〉 1633 he the said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Judges of the Assize▪ proceeded then to the trial on the said Indictments; where the matter in issue being, that the said Brooke refused to administer the said Sacrament, because the said Ingram and Carter would not receive tickets with their surnames before their Christen-names, which was a course never used amongst them but; by the said brook; He the said Sir Robert Berkley did then much discourage the said Ingrams council, and overruled the cause for matter of Law, so as the jury never went from the Bar but there found for the said brook. And the said Sir Robert Berkley bound the said Ingram to the good behaviour for prosecuting the said Indictments; and ordered him to pay costs to the said brook for wrongfully inditing him. And whereas the said Carter, not expecting the trial at the same Assizes, he preferred his Indictment, was then absent, whereupon the said Sir Robert Berkley did cause to be entered on the said Indictment, a vacat quia non sufficiens in lege, and ordered an attachment against the said Carter, which said proceedings against the said Ingram and Carter, by the said Sir Robert Berkley, were contrary to Law and Justice, and to his own knowledge.  
10. That the said Sir Rob. Berkley, being one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, and duly sworn as aforesaid, in trinity term, an. 1637. deferred to discharge or bail Alexander Jennings prisoner in the Fleet, brought by Habeas Corpus to the Bar of the said Court, the return of his Commitment being, that he was committed by two several warrants from the Lords of the council, dated the fift of November 1636. the first being only read in Court expressing no cause, the other for not paying Messengers fees; and until he should bring a certificate that he had paid his assessment for Ship-money in the County of Bucks, but remitted him: And in Michaelmas term after, the said Jennings being brought by another Habeas Corpus before him, as aforesaid, and the same returned; yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley, refused to discharge or bail him, but remitted him. And, in Easter term, after several rules were given for his majesty's council to show cause why the said Jenings should not be bailed, a fourth rule was made for the said Jenings, to let his majesty's Attorney general have notice thereof, and notice was given accordingly; and the said Jenings by another Habeas Corpus, brought to the bar in Trinity term after, and the same return with this addition of a new Commitment of the fourth of May, suggesting he the said Jenings had used diverse scandalous words in derogation and disparagement of his majesty's government: He the said Jenings after several rules in the end of the said Trinity term, was again remitted to prison. And he the said Sir Robert Berkley, did on the fifth of June last, defer to grant his majesty's Writ of Habeas Corpus, for William Pargiter and Samuel Danvers Esquires, prisoners in the gatehouse, and in the Fleet: And afterwards having granted the said Writ of Habeas Corpus, the said Pargeter and Danvers were on the eighth of June last, brought to the bar of the said Court, where the returns of their Commitments were several warrants from the Lords of the council, not expressing any cause; yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley, then sitting in the said Court, deferred to bail the said Pargeter and Danvers, and the eighteenth of June last, made a rule for a new return to be received, which were returned the five and twentieth of June last, in haec verba:  
Whereas his majesty finding that his subjects of Scotland, have in rebellious and hostile manner assembled themselves together, and intend not only to shake off their obedience unto his majesty, but also as enemies to invade and infest this his kingdom of England, to the danger of his royal Person, &c.  
For prevention whereof, his majesty hath by the advice of his council-board, given special commandment to all the Lord lieutenants of all the Counties of this realm, appointed for their Randenvouz, in their several and respective Counties, there to be conducted and drawn together into a body for this service. And whereas his majesty, according to the laws and Statutes of this realm, and the constant custom of his predecessors, Kings and Queens of this realm, hath power for the defence of this kingdom, and resisting the force of the Enemies thereof, to grant forth Commissions under his great seal to such fit persons as he shall make choice of, to array and arm the Subjects of this kingdom, and to compel those who are of able body, and of able estates, to arm themselves; and such as should not be able of bodies, but of ability in estate, to assess them according to their estates, to contribute towards the charge of arraying and arming others, being able of body, and not able in estate, to arm themselves. And such persons as should be contrariant to commit to prison, there to remain until the King should take further order therein.  
And whereas the Earl of Exeter, by virtue of his majesty's Commission to him directed, for the arraying and arming of a certain number of persons in the County of Northampton, hath assessed William Pargiter, being a man unfit of body for that service, but being of estate and ability fit to contribute amongst others, to pay the sum of five shillings towards the arraying and arming of others of able bodies, and wanting ability to array and arm themselves.  
And whereas we have received information from the said Earl, that the said William Pargiter hath not only in a wilful and disobedient manner refused to pay the said money assessed upon him towards so important a service, to the disturbance and hindrance of the necessary defence of this kingdom; but also by his ill example hath misled many others, and, as we have just cause to believe, hath practised to seduce others from that ready obedience which they owe, and would otherwise have yielded to his majesty's just command, for the public defence of his person and kingdom; which we purpose with all convenient speed to inquire further of and examine.  
These are therefore to will and require you, to take into your custody the persons of the said William Pargiter, and Samuel Danvers; and them safely to keep prisoners till further order from this Board, or until by due course of Law they shall be delivered: Yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley, being desired to bail the said Pargeter and Danvers, remitted them, where they remained prisoners till the ninth of November last, or thereabouts, although the said Jennings, Pargiter, and Danvers, on all and every the said returns, were clearly bailable by Law; and the council of the said Jennings, Pargiter, and Danvers▪ offered in Court very sufficient bail. And he the said Sir Robert Berkley, being one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, denied to grant his majesty's Writs of Habeas Corpus to very many others his majesty's subjects; and when he had granted the said Writs of Habeas Corpus to very many others his majesty's subjects, and on the return no cause appeared, or such only as was clearly bailable by Law; yet he remanded them, where they remained prisoners very long; which said deferring to grant the said Writs of Habeas Corpus, and refusals, and delays to discharge prisoners, or suffer them to be bailed, contained in this Article, are destructive to the fundamental laws of this realm, and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament, and to the petition of Right; which said resolutions and petition of Right were well known to him the said Sir Robert Berkley, and were resolved on and enacted, when he was the King's sergeant at Law, and Attendant in the Lord's House in Parliament.  
11 That whereas there was a cause depending in the Court Christian at Norwich, between Samuel Booty clerk, and 〈◊〉 Collard for 2. s. in the l. for tithes, for rents, and houses in Norwich, and the said Collard moved by his council in the Court of King's Bench for a prohibition to stay proceedings in the Court Christian at Norwich, and delivered into the said Court of King's Bench his suggestions, that the said cause in the said Court Christian was only for tithes for rents of houses in Norwich, which was determinable by the Common Law only: yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley, being one of the Justices of the said Court of King's Bench, and sitting in the said Court, deferred to grant a Prohibition to the said Court Christian in the said cause, although the council did move in the said Court many several times, and several terms for a Prohibition: And he the said Sir Bobert Berkley deferred to grant his majesty's writ of Prohibition to several other Courts on the motions of divers others of his majesty's subjects, where the same by the laws of this realm ought to have been granted, contrary to the Laws of this realm, and his own knowledge.  
All which words, opinions, and actions, were so spoken and done by him the said Sir Robert Berkley traitorously and wickedly to alienate the hearts of his majesty's liege people from his majesty, and to set a division betwixt them, and to subvert the fundamental laws and established government of his majesty's realm of England: For which they do impeach him the said Sir Robert Berkley one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, of high treason against our sovereign Lord the King his crown and Dignity, and of the misdemeanours abovementioned.  
And the said Commons by protestation, saving to themselves only the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter, any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Robert Berkley, and also of replying to the answer, that he the said Sir Robert Berkley shall make to the said Articles, or any of them, or of offering proof of the premises, or any other impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them, as the Case shall according to the course of Parliaments require, do pray that the said Sir Robert Berkley, one of the Justices of the Court of King's Bench, may be put to answer to all and every the premises; and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, judgements and executions, may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to Law and Justice.   

Articles of the House of Commons, in the name of themselves, and all the Commons of England, against Sir John Brampston Knight, Lord chief justice of the Court of King's Bench, impeaching him as followeth.  
1. THat the said Sir John Brampston, then being Lord chief justice of the Court of King's Bench, and having taken an oath for the due administration of justice to his majesty's liege people, according to the laws and Statutes of this realm, did on or about the last of November 1635. subscribe his name to an opinion, in haec verba: [I am of opinion, that as where the benefit doth more peculiarly redound to the good of the Ports, or Maritime ports, (as in case of piracy or Depredations upon the Seas) there the charge hath been, and may be lawfully imposed upon them, according to precedents of former times; so where the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, (of which his majesty is the only judge) there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the realm in general: this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason.]  
2 That he the said Sir John Brampston, then being Lord chief justice of the Court of King's Bench, about the month of February, 1635. did subscribe an extrajudicial opinion in answer to questions in a letter from his majesty, which letter, questions and answer follow, in haec verba;  
Charles R. When the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, whether may not the King, by writ under the great seal of England, command all the Subjects of this kingdom, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, victual and Munition; and for such time, as he shall think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom, from such danger and peril; and by Law compel the doing thereof in case of refusal, or refractoriness? And whether in such case is not the King the sole Judge, both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoided? C. R.  
May it please your most excellent majesty, We have, according to your majesty's command, severally every man by himself, and all of us together, taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your majesty, and enclosed in your royal letter; and we are of opinion, that when the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, your majesty may, by writ under the great seal of England, command all the Subjects of this your kingdom, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, victual and Munition; and for such time as your majesty shall think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom, from such danger and peril; and that by Law your majesty may compel the doing thereof in case of refusal, or refractoriness: And we are also of opinion that in such case your Majesty is the sole Judge both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoided. John Brampston, John Finch, Humphrey Davenport, John Denham, Richard Hutton, William Jones, George Crook, Thomus Trevor, George Vernon, Robert Berkley, Francis Crawley, Richard Weston.  
Which said opinions contained in the first and second Articles, are destructive to the fundamental laws of this realm, the subjects right of property, and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament, and to the petition of right.  
3 That he the said Sir John Brampston, than Lord chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, about Trinity term, 1637. refused to bail or discharge Alexander Jennings prisoner in the Fleet, brought by Habeas Corpus to the bar before him, the return of this Commitment being two several warrants from the Lords of the council, dated the fifth of November 1635. the first expressing no cause, the other for not paying messengers fees, and until he should bring certificate that he had paid his assessment for ship-money, in the County of Bucks: And the said Sir John Brampston, the first warrant being only read, then said, The cause of this Commitment did not appear; and it was not fit for every gaoler to be made acquainted by the Lords of the council why they committed, and therefore remitted him; and in Michaelmas term after, the said Jennings being brought by another Habeas Corpus, as aforesaid, and the same returned, yet he the said Sir John Brampston, refused to discharge or bail him, but remitted him. And in Easter term next, after several rules for his majesty's council to show cause why he the said Jennings should not be bailed, a fourth rule was made for the said Jennings, to let his majesty's Attorney have notice, which notice was given accordingly, yet he remitted him. And the said Jennings by another Habeas Corpus brought to the bar, as aforesaid, in Trinity term after, and the same return with the addition of a new Commitment of the fourth of May, 1638. suggested, that he the said Jennings had used divers scandalous words in derogation and disparagement of his majesty's government; after several rules, in the end of the said Trinity term, he again remitted him to prison. And he the said Sir John Brampston, about the ninth of July after, at his chamber in sergeants inn, being desired by Master Meautis, one of the clerks of the council-board, to discharge the said Jennings, for that he the said Jennings had entered into a Bond of 1000 pounds, to appear before the Lords of the council the next Michaelmas term after, and to attend de die in diem; yet he the said Sir John Brampston refused to discharge the said Jennings until he entered into Recognizance to appear the next term, and in the mean time to be of his good behaviour. And the said Jennings was continued on his said Recognizance till Easter term after. And the said Sir John Brampston, did on the 5. of June, 1640. defer to grant his majesty's writ of habeas Corpus for Samuel Danvers, and William Pargiter Esquires, prisoners in the gatehouse, and in the Fleet; and when he had granted the said writ, the said eighth of June after the return, being the order of the council Table, not expressing any cause, he the said Sir John Brampston deferred to bail the said Pargeter. And the eighteenth of June after made a rule for a new return to be received, which was returned the five and twentieth of the said June, in haec verba:  
Whereas his Majesty finding that his Subjects of Scotland, have in rebellious and hostile manner assembled themselves together, and intend not only to shake off their obedience unto his Majesty, but also as enemies to invade and infest this his kingdom of England, to the danger of his royal person, &c.  
For prevention whereof his Majesty hath, by the advice of his council-board, given special commandment to all the Lord lieutenants of all the Counties of his realm. with expedition, to array and arm a certain number of able men in each County, to be prepared, and ready to be conducted to such place as should be appointed for their rendezvous, in their several and respective Counties, there to be conducted and drawn together into a body for this service.  
And whereas his Majesty, according to the laws and Statutes of this realm, and the constant custom of his predecessors, Kings and Queens of this realm hath power, for the defence of this kingdom, and resisting the force of the enemies thereof, to grant forth Commissions under his great seal to such fit persons as he shall make choice of, to array and arm the subjects of this kingdom, and to compel those who are of able bodies, and of able estates, to arm themselves; and such as should not be of able bodies, but of ability in estate, to assess them according to their estates, to contribute towards the charge of arraying and arming others' being able of body, and not able in estate to arm themselves: And such persons as should be contrariant to commit to prison, there to remain until the King should take further order therein.  
And whereas the Earl of Exeter, by virtue of his majesty's Commission to him directed, for the arraying and arming of a certain number of persons in the County of Northampton, hath assessed William Pargiter being a man unfit of body for that service, but being of estate and ability fit to contribute, amongst others, to pay the sum of five shillings towards the arraying and arming of others of able bodies, and wanting ability to arm and array themselves.  
And whereas we have received information from the said Earl, that the said William Pargiter hath not only in a wilful and disobedient manner refused to pay the said money assessed upon him towards so important a service, to the disturbance and hindrance of the necessary defence of this kingdom; but also by his ill example hath misled many others, and, as we have just cause to believe, hath practised to 〈◊〉 others from that ready obedience which they owe, and would otherwise have yielded to his majesty's just command, for the public defence of his person and kingdom; which we purpose with all convenient speed to inquire further of and examine.  
These are therefore to will and require you to take into your custody the person of the said William Pargiter, and him also safely to keep prisoner till further order from this Board, or until by due course of Law he shall be delivered (And the like return was then made in all things, mutatis mutandis, concerning the said Danvers for not paying a sum of money assessed upon him:) yet he the said Sir John Brampston defered to bail the said Danvers and Pargiter, but remitted the said Danvers to the Fleet, where he remained till the twefth of July, 1640. and the said Pargeter to the pison of the gatehouse, where he remained till the ninth of November last, although the said Jennings, Danvers and Pargiter, upon all and every the said returns, aught to have been discharged or bailed by Law; and the council of the said Jennings, Danvers and Pargiter offered in Court very sufficient bail. And he the said Sir John Brampston being chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, denied to grant his majesty's writ of habeas Corpus to very many others his majesty's subjects: and when he had granted the said writs of habeas Corpus to very many others his majesty's subjects, and on the return no cause appeared, or such cause only as was clearly bailable by Law, yet he remanded them, where they remained prisoners very long; which said deferring to grant the said writs of habeas Corpus, and refusal, and delays to discharge prisoners, or suffer them to be bailed, contained in this Article, are destructive to the fundamental laws of this realm, and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament, and to the petition of Right; which said resolutions and petition of Right were well known to him the said Sir John Brampston.  
4 That whereas there was a cause depending in the Court Christian at Norwich, between Samuel Booty clerk, and 〈◊〉 Collard for two shillings in the pound for tithes for rents of houses in Norwich, and the said Collard moved by his council in the Court of King's Bench for a prohibition to stay proceedings in the Court Christian at Norwich, and delivered into the said Court of King's Bench his suggestions, that the said cause in the said Court Christian was for tithes for rents of houses in Norwich, which was determinable by the Common Law only; yet he the said Sir John Brampston, being chief Justice of the said Court of King's bench, and sitting in the said court, deferred to grant a prohibition to the said Court christian in the said cause, although the council did move in the said court several times and several terms for a prohibition: And he the said Sir John Bramston deferred to grant his majesty's Writ of prohibition to several other Courts on the motions of divers others his majesty's subjects, where the same by the laws of this realm ought to have been granted, contrary to the laws of this realm and his own knowledge.  
And the said Commons by Protestation saving to themselves only the liberties of exhibiting at anytime hereafter, any other accusation or impeachment, &c. ut supra, in the former charge.   

Articles of the House of Commons in the name of themselves, and of all the Commons of England, against Sir Francis Crawley Knight, one of the justices of his majesty's Court of Common-pleas, impeaching him as followeth.  
1. THat he about the month of November Anno Dom. 1635. then being one of the justices of the Court of Common-pleas, & having taken an oath for the due administration of justice to his majesty's liege people, according to the laws and Statutes of this realm, subscribed an opinion in haec verba: [I am of opinion, that as where the benefit doth more peculiarly redound to the good of the Ports, or Maritime parts, (as in case of piracy or Depredations upon the Seas) there the charge hath been, and may be lawfully imposed upon them, according to precedents of former times; so where the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, (of which his majesty is the only judge) there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the realm in general: this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason.]  
2. That he, in or about the month of February, An. Dom. 1636. then being one of the justices of the said Court of Common-pleas, subscribed an extrajudicial opinion, in answer to questions in a letter from his majesty, in haec verba:  
Charles R. When the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, Whether may not the King, by writ under the great seal of England, command all the Subjects of this kingdom, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, victual and Munition; and for such time as he shall think fit for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom from such danger and peril, and by Law compel the doing thereof, in case of refusal, or refractoriness: And whether in such case is not the King the sole judge, both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoided, C.R.  
May it please your most excellent majesty, we have, according to your majesty's command, severally every man by himself, and all of us together, taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your majesty, and enclosed in your royal letter; and we are of opinion, that when the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, your majesty may, by Writ under the great seal of England, command all the Subjects of this your kingdom, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships, with Men, victual and Munition, and for such time as your majesty shall think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom, from such danger and peril; and that by Law your majesty may compel the doing thereof in case of refusal, or refractoriness: And we are also of opinion that in such case your majesty is the sole judge both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoided. John Brampston, John Finch, Humphrey Davenport, John Denham, Richard Hutton, William Jones, George Crook, Thomas Trevor, George Vernon, Robert Berkley, Francis Crawley, Richard Weston.  
3 That he then being one of the justices of the said Court of Common-pleas, delivered an opinion in the Exchequer Chamber against John Hampden Esquire, in case of Ship-money; that he the said John Hampden upon the matter and substance of the case, was chargeable with the money then in question, (a copy of which proceedings and judgement, the Commons of this present Parliament have already delivered to your Lordships.)  
4 That he then being one of the Justices of the said Court of Common-pleas, declared and published in the Exchequer Chamber, and Westminster Circuits, where he went Judge, That the Kings Right to Ship-money was so inherent a Right in the Crown, as an Act of Parliament could not take it away. And with divers malicious speeches enveighed against, threatened and discountenanced such as refused to pay Ship-money. All which opinions and judgements contained in the first, second, and third Articles, are destructive to the fundamental laws of this realm, the Subjects right of property, and contrary to former resolutions in Parliament, and to the Petition of Right, which said resolutions and Petition of Right were well known to him.  
And the said Commons by protestation, saving to themselves only the Liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Francis Crawley, and also of replying to the answer that he the said Sir Francis Crawley shall make unto the said Articles, or any of them, or of offering proof of the premises, or of any of their impeachments, or accusations that shall be exhibited by them, as the Case shall according to the course of Parliaments require, do pray that the said Sir Francis Crawley, one of the Justices of the said Court of Common-pleas, may be put to answer to all and every the premises; and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgements may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to Law and Justice.   

Articles of the House of Commons in the name of themselves, and of all the Commons of England, against Sir Humphrey Davenport Knight, Lord chief Baron of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, impeaching him as followeth.  
THat whereas in the month of October, in the fourth year of his majesty's reign, the Farmours and Officers of the customhouse, having seized great quantities of Currants, being the goods of Samuel vassal Merchant, and having conveyed them into certain storehouses at the customhouse and detained them, because the said Samuel vassal refused to pay an imposition of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of the said Currants, pretended to be due, and demanded by the said Farmours and Officers on his majesty's behalf for the said Currants, whereas no such imposition was due or payable for the same; but the said imposition was and is against the laws of this realm. And whereas also in Michaelmas term, in the said fourth year of his majesty's reign, his Majesties then Attorney general exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer, against the said Samuel vassal, setting forth that King James by his Letters Patents dated tertio Novem. in the second year of his reign, did command the said imposition of 5. s. 6. d. upon every hundred weight of Currants should be demanded and received: And that his majesty that now is, by his Letters Patents dated the six and twentieth day of July, in the second year of his reign, did, by advice of his privy council, declare his will and pleasure be, that Subsidies, customs and Impost should be levied in such manner as they were in the time of King James; and the same, and the farms thereof to continue until it might receive a settling by Parliament, and commanded the levying and receiving the same accordingly; and that the said Samuel Vassal before the said first day of October than last before the said Information exhibited, did bring into the port of London in ships four thousand six hundred thirty eight hundred weight of Currants; and that Richard Carmarthen Surveyour in the said port of London, the said first day of October demanded of the said Samuel vassal the said Imposition of five shillings six pence for every hundred weight of the said Currants; and that the said Samuel vassal refused to pay the said imposition, and unjustly detained it from the King: To which Information the said Samuel vassal appeared, and pleaded the Statute of Magna Charta, and the Statute of De Tallagio non concedendo, and that he was a Subject borne under the King's Allegiance, and a Merchant of London using that trade, and that the said sum of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of Currants, was and is malum taluetum, and not antiqua, seu recta consuetudo, and that it was imposed without assent of Parliament: to which Plea the said attorney general demurred in Law, and the said Samuel vassal joined in demurer with him; and when the said cause came to be argued, viz. in Trinity term, in the sixth year of his majesty's reign, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport being then Lord chief Baron of his majesty's said Court of Exchequer, did contrary to his oath, and contrary to the laws of this realm, and to the great impoverishment of the said Samuel vassal, publicly deny to hear the counsel of the said Samuel Vassal to argue for him, and said, that the Case of the said Samuel Vassal would fall under the same rule with the case of one Bats, and therefore was already judged: and when the council of the said Samuel vassal answering that they had nothing to do with Bates his Case, but desired to argue for M. vassal, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport replied, that they knew the opinion of the Court, and should be heard no further; and said, that the King was in possession, and that they (meaning the said Court of Exchequer) would keep him in possession: And the said Sir Humphrey Davenport shortly after did (together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) imprison the said Samuel Vassal for not paying such sums of money, as were pretended by the said Officers of the customhouse, to be due to his majesty, and did delay the said Samuel Vassal from time to time, from having restitution of his said goods, being often in Court moved thereto, with intention to force the said Samuel Vassal to pay the said unlawful imposition, and did also give his opinion and judgement upon the said Information for the King, and against the said Samuel vassal; and by several orders for that purpose made, did continue the possession of the said goods in the King, and the said Samuel Vassal could never obtain any restitution at all of his said goods: whereas it was commanded to the sheriff of the County of York, by Writ under the seal of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, dated the sixteenth day of May in the seventh year of his majesty's reign that now is, That he should distrain James Maleverer Esquire, to appear before the Barons of his majesty's said Court of Exchequer, in the Octaves of the holy Trinity than next following, to make fine to the King for his trespass and contempt in not coming to the presence of the King before the 31. day of January in the first year of his said majesty's reign, to take upon him the order of Knighthood, according to the form of a Proclamation in that behalf formerly made: At which day of the said Octaves of the holy Trinity, the said J. Maleverer did appear, and pleaded to the said Writs, that although his said Majesty, the said 31. day of January, and for three years' next before, the said 31. day of January was resident and remaining at his palace at Whitehall in the County of Middlesex, and that the said James Maleverer the said one and thirtieth day of January, and three days' next before the said one and thirtieth day of January, was resident and remaining at Ancliffe in the said County of York, which is distant from the said Palace of Whitehall, the space of one hundred and fourscore miles; and that the said James Maleverer the said one and thirtieth day of January aforesaid, or at any time before, had no lands or rents in his own hands, or in the hands of Peoffees, to his use, out of the said County of York, and that that part of the said County of York which is nearest to the said Palace of Whitehall, is distant from the said Palace of Whitehall the space of one hundred and thirty miles; and that no Proclamation by virtue of any Writ of Proclamation, for the appearance of any persons whatsoever, to take the said Order of Knighthood, was made in any part of the said County of York before the thirtieth day of January in the said first year of his majesty's reign, by reason whereof the said James Maleverer could not personally come to the presence of his said majesty to take the said Order of Knighthood before the said one and thirtieth day of January in the said first year of his majesty's said reign, yet the said James Maleverer for his fine in the premises did humbly submit himself to the said Court, and demanded to be discharged of the said issues returned and imposed upon him by reason of the premises; yet notwithstanding the said Plea and submission of the said James Maleverer, and after the same was made as aforesaid, and entered upon Record in his majesty's said Court of Exchequer, and the said Court moved for stay of the process, and discharge of the issues, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport being then Lord chief Baron of the said Court of Exchequer, contrary to his oath, and contrary to the Laws of this realm, and to the great impoverishing of the said James Maleverer, did (together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court) refuse to impose any Fine whatsoever upon the said James Maleverer, and told him that the said Court had no power to Fine him, and that he must compound with certain Commissioners for that purpose appointed. And did farther, order and direct several other Writs of Distringas, to issue forth of his majesty's said Court of Exchequer, under the seal of the said Court, directed to the several high sheriffs of the said County of York; whereby the said sheriffs were commanded further to distrain the said James Maleverer to appear, as aforesaid: upon which said Writs of Distringas, several great and excessive issues were returned upon the Lands of the said James Maleverer, amounting to the sum of two thousand pounds or there abouts; a great part whereof, the said James Maleverer was enforced to pay; and in like manner the said Sir Humphrey Davenport (together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) did order and direct such and the like unjust and undue proceedings; and the said proceedings were had and made accordingly against Thomas Moyser Esquire, and against several other persons his majesty's Subjects in several parts of this realm, to the utter undoing of many of them.  
2 That a sentence of Degradation, being given by the high Commissioners of the Province of York, against Peter Smart, Clerk, one of the Prebends of the Church of Durham, for a Sermon by him formerly preached against some Innovations in the Church of Durham, a trial was afterwards had, viz. in August in the seventh year of his said majesty's Reign, before the said Sir Humphrey Davenport Knight, than one of the Judges of Assizes and Nisi prius for the County Palatine of Durham, concerning the corpse of the Prebend of the said M. Smart, which was then pretended to be void by the said sentence of Degradation; the said Sir Humphrey Davenport contrary to his oath, and contrary to the laws of this realm, and to the destruction of the said Master Smart, upon reading the Writ de haeretico comburendo, did publicly on the Bench, in the presence of divers his majesty's Subjects then attending, declare his opinion to be, that the said Prebends place was void, and gave direction to the Jury then at bar to find accordingly: and being then informed that although the said Master Smart had been dead or deprived, yet the profits of his Prebend had been due to his Executors till the Michaelmas following; the said Sir Humphrey Davenport then answered, though the said Master Smart was not dead, yet if he had had his desert, he had been dead long ago, for he deserved to have been hanged for the said Sermon, and that he was as wicked a man as any lived in the world: call him no more Master Smart, but plain Smart. And when the said jury had found against the said Master Smart, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, in scandal of his majesty's Government and Justice, and of the proceedings of his majesty's judges, did publicly as aforesaid speak words to this effect; That the said jury had well done, and that the said Smart had do remedy save by appeal to the King; and there he should find but cold comfort; for the King would not go against his own Prerogative, upon which the judges and high Commissioners did depend, and therefore would not contradict one another's Acts.  
That the said Sir Humphrey Davenport about the Month of November, Anno Dom. 1635. then being Lord chief Baron of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, and having taken an oath for the due administration of justice to his majesty's Liege people, according to the laws and Statures of this Realm, subscribed his name to an opinion, in haec verba: [I am of opinion, that as where the benefit doth more particulary redound to the good of the Ports, or Maritime parts, (as in Case of piracy or Depredations upon the Seas) there the charge hath been, and may be lawfully imposed upon them, according to precedents of former times; so where the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, (of which his majesty is the only Judge) there the charge of the defence ought to be borne by all the realm in general: this I hold agreeable both to Law and reason]  
That in or about the month of February Anno Dom. 1636. the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, then being Lord chief Baron of the said Court of Exchequer, subscribed an extrajudicial opinion in answer to questions in a letter from his majesty, in haec verba:  
Charles R. When the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, whether may not the King, by writ under the great seal of England, command all the Subjects of this kingdom, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, victual and Munition; and for such time, as he shall think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom, from such danger and peril; and by Law compel the doing thereof in case of refusal, or refractoriness? And whether in such case is not the King the sole Judge, both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoided? C. R.  
May it please your most excellent majesty, We have, according to your majesty's command, severally every man by himself, and all of us together, taken into serious consideration the Case and Question signed by your majesty, and enclosed in your royal letter; and we are of opinion, that when the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, and the whole kingdom in danger, your majesty may by writ under the great seal of England, command all the Subjects of this your kingdom, at their charge, to provide and furnish such number of Ships with Men, victual and Munition; and for such time as your majesty shall think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom, from such danger and peril; and that by Law your majesty may compel the doing thereof in case of refusal, or refractoriness: And we are also of opinion that in such case your majesty is the sole Judge both of the danger, and when, and how the same is to be prevented and avoided. John Brampston, John Finch, Humphrey Davenport, John Denham, Richard Hutton, William Jones, George Crook, Thomas Trevor, George Vernon, Robert Berkley, Francis Crawley, Richard Weston.  
That whereas an Action of battery was brought by one Richard Legge, against Robert Hoblins, to which the said Hoblins pleaded a Justification de son assault demesne, and the said cause came to trial at the Assizes held for the county of Gloucester in Summer, 1636. before the said Sir Humphrey Davenport then one of the Justices of Assize and Nisi prius for that county: At the said trial the said Robert Hoblins did begin to make proof of his said justification, and produced one Robert Tilly a witness in the cause, who proved upon oath that the said Richard Legge did make the first assault upon the said Robert Hoblins and that the occasion thereof was, that the said Richard Legge and others came upon the lands then in possession of the said Hoblins, and did take and drive away eighteen cows of the said Hoblins, pretending they had a warrant from the sheriff to distrein the same for forty shillings assessed upon the said Hoblins for Ship-money; and when the said Hoblins (being present) endeavoured to hinder the said leg and others from taking away his said cattle, the said leg struck the said Hoblins with a staff, who afterward defended himself. That upon the opening of the matter the said Sir Humphrey Davenport would not suffer the said Hoblins to produce any more witnesses on his behalf, (though the said Hoblins desired that other of his said witnesses then present, and sworn might be heard) nor his council to speak for him, but being informed that the said Hoblins (when Ship-money was demanded of him) answered, that he would not pay the same, because it was not granted by Parliament, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport did then (openly in the hearing of a great number of his majesty's liege people▪ then assembled and attending the said Court) in great passion reprove the said Hoblins, and told him that the King was not to call a Parliament to give him satisfaction; and did then and there also falsely and of purpose, to prevent his majesty's loving Subjects from the due and ordinary course of Law, and contrary to his oath and the laws of this realm, publish, declare and affirm, that it was adjudged by all the Judges of England, that Ship-money, was due to the King, and directed the Jury sworn in that cause to find a Verdict for the said Richard leg; and the said Jury did accordingly, and gave him twenty pound damages. And the said Humphrey Davenport did then also without any cause imprison the said Robert Hoblins, and bound him to the good behaviour. That whereas in the month of April, Decimo sexto Caroli, the officers of the customhouse, having seized a Ship of one Samuel Warner's, laden with Tobacco, being the goods of the said Warner's, the bulk of the said ship not being broken, and no information exhibited for the King according to the course of the Exchequer, for any duty, the Barons were moved, that the said ship might be restored to the Proprietors, giving security to pay such duties as did belong to the King; But upon the Allegation of the King's Attorney, that there needed no information because there was no penalty, the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, being then Lord chief Baron of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court, did (contrary to his oath, and contrary to the laws of this realm,) deny the restitution of the said ship, unless all the duties demanded by the Farmours of the customhouse were first paid. Hereupon the said Warner brought an action of Trover in the office of Pleas in the Exchequer against the said Officers that seized his ship and goods; whereupon the King's Attorney general exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer chamber against the said Warner; setting forth, that customs and Subsidies upon merchandise were a great part of the King's revenue, and payable to him, and that the said Ship was seized for nonpayment of the aforesaid duties, notwithstanding the said Warner then Proprietor, prosecuted the officers upon a suit at Law, and prays that he may answer the said Information before any further proceedings be had at Law: Thereupon the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court of Exchequer, ordered, that the Proprietor moving for the delivery of the said goods, should first answer to the information; after which the said Warner demurred to the said Information, in regard no title for any certain duty was set forth by the Information, which demurrer yet remains not overruled; but the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, with the said other Barons, without overruling the demurrer, ordered, because Warner had put in a demurrer and not answered to the said Information, that he should not proceed upon the action of Trover. The Proprietor being thus prevented of his remedy by Action at Law, sued forth a Replevin, and upon pretence of viewing the said goods, caused them to be brought forth of a Cellar, hired by a deputy to the Farmours to that use; and being brought forth, they were taken by the sheriffs of London, by virtue of the said Replevin; and upon oath made of the manner of the taking, as aforesaid, before the Barons, and upon view of the precedent, enrolls his case; the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, with the said other Barons, adjudged, that the said goods were not Replevisable, and granted an Injunction to maintain possession of them as they were before. And the said house of Commons by protestations, saving to themselves only the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter, any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, and also of replying to the answer that he the said Sir Humphrey Davenport shall make unto the said Articles, or any of them, or of offering proof of the premises, or any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them, as the Case shall (according to the course of Parliaments) require, do pray that the said Sir Humphrey Davenport, Lord chief Baron of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, may be put to answer to all and every the premises; and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgements may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to Law and Justice.   

Articles of the House of Commons in the name of themselves, and all the Commons of England, against Sir Richard Weston Knight, one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, impeaching him as followeth.  
1 THat the said Sir Richard Weston about the month of November, Anno Domini 1635. then being one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, and having taken an oath for the due Administration of Justice to his majesty's liege people, according to the laws and Statutes of this realm, subscribed his name to an opinion in haec verba: I am of opinion, &c. ut suprà in Sir Robert Berkley's Charge, pag. 4.  
2 That in or about the month of February, Anno Domini 1636. the said Sir Richard Weston (being then one of the Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) subscribed an extrajudicial opinion in answer to questions in a Letter from his majesty, in haec verba:  
Charles R. When the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, &c. ut suprà, pag. 4.  
3 That the said Sir Richard Weston (being then one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer) did deliver his opinion and judgement in the Exchequer Chamber against John Hampden Esquire in the Case of Ship-money, That he, the said John Hampden, &c. as in Judge Crawley's Charge, pag. 23.  
4 That whereas in the month of April 16. Caroli, the Officers of the customhouse having seized a ship of one Samuel Warner's, laden with Tobacco, being the goods of the said Warner, the bulk of the said ship not being broken, and no information exhibited for the King, according to the course the Exchequer, for any duty, the Barons were moved, that the said ship might be restored to the proprietors, giving security to pay such duties as did belong to the King. But, upon the allegation of the King's Attorney, that there needed no information, because there was no penalty, the said Sir Richard Weston (being then one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court) did (contrary to his oath, and contrary to the laws of this realm) deny the restitution of the said ship, unless all the duties demanded by the Farmours of the customhouse were first paid. Hereupon the said Warner brought an action of Trover upon the case in the Office of Pleas in the Exchequer against the said Officers that seized his ship and goods: Whereupon the King's Attorney general exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber against the said Warner, setting forth, that customs and Subsidies upon merchandise were a great part of the King's revenue, and payable to him, and that the said ship was seized for nonpayment of the aforesaid duties; notwithstanding the said Warner, the proprietor prosecuted the Officers upon a Suit at Law, and prays that he may answer the said Information before any further proceedings be had at Law. Thereupon the said Sir Richard Weston, together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court of Exchequer, ordered that the proprietor moving for delivery of his said goods, should first answer to the Information, after which the said Warner demurred to the said Information: in regard no title for any certain duty was set forth by the Information: Which demurrer yet remains not overruled, but the said Sir Richard Weston (with the said other Barons) without overruling the demurrer, ordered (because Warner had put in a demurrer, and not answered to the said Information) that he should not proceed upon the action of Trover: The proprietor being thus prevented of his remedy by Action at Law, sued forth a Replevin, and (upon pretence of viewing the said goods) caused them to be brought forth of a cellar, hired by a Deputy to the Farmers to that use, and being brought forth, they were taken by the Sheriffs of London, by virtue of the said Replevin; and upon oath made of the manner of the taking, as aforesaid, before the Barons, and upon view of the precedent, enrolls his case; the said Sir Richard Weston, with the said other Barons, adjudged that the said goods were not replevisable, and granted an Injunction to maintain the possession of them, as they were before.  
And the said house of Commons by Protestation, saving to themselves only the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Richard Weston, and also of replying to the answer that he, the said Sir Richard Weston shall make unto the said Articles, or any of them, or of offering proof of the premises, or any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them, as the case shall (according to the course of Parliaments) require, do pray, that the said Sir Richard Weston, one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, may be put to answer, &c.   

Articles of the House of Commons in the name of themselves, and of all the Commons of England, against Sir Thomas Trevor Knight, one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, impeaching him as followeth.  
1. THat in or about November, 4. Car. divers goods and merchandizes (whereof John Rolls, George Moor, and other Merchants of London were Proprietors) being seized and conveyed into certain storehouses at the customhouse, by Sir John Worstenham, Abraham Dawes, and others the Farmours and Officers of the customs, and by them there detained, because the said Proprietors refused to pay the subsidy of Tonnage and Poundage, pretended to be due, and demanded by the said Farmours and Officers on his majesty's behalf for the said Merchandizes, whereas no such subsidy or duty of Tonnage or Poundage was due or payable for the same, no subsidy of Tonnage and Poundage having been granted by Parliament to his majesty. The said John Rolls, and other the Proprietors of the said goods, having by reason of such unlawful seizure and detainer, as aforesaid, fued forth one or more writ or writs of Replevin, directed to the sheriffs of London (being the proper remedy provided by the Law to regain the possession of goods taken and withheld from the owners contrary to Law) the said Sir Thomas Trevor Knight then and yet one of the Barons of his majesty's said Court of Exchequer, together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court, upon information to them given, that the said Proprietors, or some of them, had sued forth and did prosecute such writ, or writs of Replevin for delivery of the said goods, did order an Injunction under seal of the said Court to issue forth, directed to the sheriffs of London, commanding them thereby not to execute the said writ or writs of Replevin, or any like writ thereafter to be sued forth by any person or persons for the delivery of any goods in the like nature detained: And did declare and order publicly in the said Court of Exchequer, that the said goods by Law were not Replevisable, alleging for cause that the said goods were in the Kings own possession, whereas the same did not judicially appear to them, and they did well know that the said goods were at that time in the possession of the Farmours and Lessees of the said customs, and no lawful cause to them appearing or suggested of the taking and detaining of the said goods: which Injunction and declaration so granted and made, were and are against the laws of the realm, and in subversion of the common right, and remedy of the Subject for regaining the possession of his goods being taken and withholden from him without lawful cause.  
That the sheriffs of London for that time being served with the said Injunction, did forbear to execute the said writ or writs of Replevin: By means whereof the said goods continued so detained as aforesaid, contrary to Law, from the said month of November until the month of June next following.  
That the said Sir Thomas Trevor and other the Barons aforesaid, knowing the said goods to be unlawfully seized and detained for the pretended duties and subsidy of Tonnage and Poundage, whereas no such were payable by Law, did from time to time delay the respective Proprietors from having restitution of their said goods, being often in Court moved therein, with intention thereby to force the said Proprietors (by wanting their goods and the use thereof) to pay all such sums as the said Officers of the customs pretended to be due to his majesty.  
That to the end aforesaid the said Sir Thomas Trevor, and the said other Barons refused to accept of any security to be given by the said Proprietors, upon restitution had of their goods, for payment of all such duties as should be made appear to be payable to his majesty in such manner as the said Barons should direct. That the said Sir Thomas Trevor and other the Barons aforesaid, knowing that the said sums demanded on his majesty's behalf by the said Officers of the customs not to be due by Law, did refuse to order restitution of any part of those goods, (so detained as aforesaid) to the Proprietors thereof, unless the said Proprietors would deposit all such sums of money as the said Officers respectively demanded of them for pretended duties to his majesty; and the said Proprietors refusing to deposit the said sums demanded, the said Sir Thomas Trevor, and other the Barons aforesaid, did order the said Officers to detain double the value of the sums by them demanded for pretended duties to his majesty, and to restore the residue: The said Sir Thomas Trevor, and other the said Barons then knowing that the pretended sums demanded by the said Officers, were not by Law due or payable to his majesty.  
2 That in or about January 4. Car. the said Officers having seized several merchandise of the goods of Richard Chambers Merchant, upon the pretences aforesaid, did detain the same; and the said Chambers prosecuting by plaint to have his said goods replevied, the said Sir Thomas Trevor, together with the said other Barons, did in like manner in the said Court of Exchequer, declare the said Chambers goods not to be Replevisable, and enjoined the sheriffs of London to proceed no further therein, no cause to them appearing of such seizure or detainer. And the said Sir Thomas Trevor, and other the Barons of the said Court, refused to order the delivery of the said Chamber's goods, upon good security offered by him to pay all such sums as should be made appear to be due, and for which the said goods were pretended to be detained and the said Barons being often moved in Court; therein, did refuse to order restitution of any part of the said Chambers goods, until the three and twentieth of November, 5. Caroli, and then ordered that the said Officers should detain in their hands double the value of the sums by them demanded, and restitution of the residue to be made to the said Chambers, no cause of detaining any part of the said goods to them in any wise appearing.  
3 That whereas in the month of October, in the fourth year of his said majesty's reign, the Farmers and Officers of the customhouse having seized great quantities of Currants, being the goods of Samuel vassal Merchant, and having conveyed them into certain storehouses at the custom house and detained them, because the said Samuel vassal refused to pay an imposition of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of the said Currants, pretended to be due, and demanded by the said Farmours and Officers on his majesty's behalf for the said Currants, whereas no such imposition was due or payable for the same, but the said imposition was and is against the laws of this realm. And whereas also in Michaelmas term, in the said fourth year of his majesty's reign, his Majesties then Attorney general exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer Chamber against the said Samuel Vassal, setting forth that K. James, by his Letters Patents dated 3. Novem. in the second year of his reign, did command that the said imposition of 5. s. 6. d. upon every hundred weight of Currants should be demanded and received: And that his majesty that now is, by his Letters Patents dated the six and twentieth day of July, in the second year of his reign, did, by advice of his privy council, declare his will and pleasure to be, that Subsidies, customs and Imposts should be levied in such manner as they were levied in the time of King James; and the same, and the Farmers thereof to continue until it might receive a settling by Parliament and commanded the levying and receiving the same accordingly; and that the said Samuel Vassal before the first day of October then last past before the said Information exhibited, did bring into the port of London in ships four thousand six hundred thirty eight hundred weight of Currants, and that Richard Carmarthon Surveyour in the said port of London, the said first day of October demanded of the said Samuel vassal the said imposition of five shillings six pence for every hundred weight of the said Currants, and that the said Samuel vassal refused to pay the said imposition, and unjustly detained it from the King: To which Information the said Samuel vassal appeared, and pleaded the Statute of Magna Charta; and the Statute of De Tallagio non concedendo, and that he was a Subject borne under the King's allegiance, and a Merchant of London using that trade, and that the said sum of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of Currants, was and is malum talnetum, and not antiqua seu recta consuetudo, and that it was imposed without assent of Parliament: to which Plea the said attorney general demurred in Law, and the said Samuel vassal joined in demurrer with him.  
That the said Sir Thomas Trevor, being then and yet one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court, knowing the said Currants to be unlawfully seized and detained for the pretended duty of five shillings six pence imposition upon every hundred weight of the said Currants (whereas no such imposition was payable by Law) did from time to time delay the said Samuel Vassal from having restitution of his said goods, being often in Court moved therein, with intention thereby to force the said Samuel vassal (by wanting the said goods, and the use thereof) to pay all such sums as the said Officers of the customs pretended to be due to his majesty, and imprisoned the said Samuel vassal, because he refused to pay such sums of money as were demanded of him for the said unlawful imposition, and that in Trinity term in the sixth year of his majesty's reign, the said case coming to be argued in open Court upon the demurrer, the said Sir Thomas Trevor, contrary to his oath, and contrary to the laws of this realm, and to the great impoverishment of the said Samuel vassal, did (together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) give his opinion and judgement upon the said Information for the King, and against the said Samuel vassal, and by several Orders for that purpose, did continue the possession of the said goods in the King, and the said Samuel Vassal could never obtain any restitution at all of the said Currants.  
4 Whereas it was commanded to the sheriff of the county of York, by Writ under the seal of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, dated the sixteenth day of May in the seventh year of his majesty's reign that now is, That he should distrain James Maleverer Esquire, to appear before the Barons of his majesty's said Court of Exchequer, in the Octaves of the holy Trinity than next following, to make fine to the King for his trespass and contempt in not coming to the presence of the King before the 31. day of January in the first year of his said majesty's reign, to take upon him the order of Knighthood, according to the form of a Proclamation in that behalf formerly made; at which day of the said Octaves of the holy Trinity the said J. Maleverer did appear, and pleaded to the said Writ, that although his said Majesty, the said 31. day of January, and for three days' next before, the said 31. day of January was resident and remaining at his Palace at Whitehall in the County of Middlesex, and that the said James Maleverer the said one and thirtieth day of January, and three days' next before the said one and thirtieth day of January, was resident and remaining at Ancliffe in the said County of York, which is distant from the said Palace of Whitehall the space of one hundred and fourscore miles; and that the said James Maleverer the said one and thirtieth day of January aforesaid, or at any time before, had no lands or rents in his own hands, or in the hands of Feoffees to his uses, out of the said County of York, and that that part of the said County of York which is nearest to the said Palace of Whitehall, the space of one hundred and thirty miles, and that no Proclamation by virtue of any Writ of Proclamation, for the appearance of any persons whatsoever, to take the said order of Knighthood, was made in any part of the said County of York before the thirtieth day of January in the said first year of his majesty's reign, by reason whereof the said James Maleverer could not personally come to the presence of his said majesty, to take the said order of Knighthood, before the said one and thirtieth day of January in the said first year of his said majesty's reign, yet the said James Maleverer for his fine in the premises, did humbly submit himself to the said Court, and demanded to be discharged of the said issues, returned and imposed upon him by reason of the premises; yet notwithstanding the said Plea and submission of the said James Maleverer, and after the same was made as aforesaid, and entered upon Record in his majesty's said Court of Exchequer, the said Sir Thomas Trevor (being then one of the Barons of his majesty's said Court of Exchequer) contrary to his oath, and contrary to the laws of this realm, and to the great impoverishing of the said James Maleverer, did (together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court) refuse to impose any fine whatsoever upon the said James Maleverer, and told him that the said Court had no power to fine him; but that he might compound with certain Commissioners for that purpose appointed. And did farther order and direct several other writs of Distringas, to issue forth of his majesty's said Court of Exchequer, under the seal of the said Court, directed to the several high sheriffs of the said county of York, whereby the said sheriffs were commanded further to distrain the said James Maleverer to appear, as aforesaid: upon which said writs of Distringas, several great and excessive issues were returned upon the lands of the said James Maleverer, amounting to the sum of two thousand pounds or there abouts, a great part whereof, the said James Maleverer was enforced to pay; and in like manner the said Sir Thomas Trevor (together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) did order and direct such and the like proceedings, and the said proceedings were had and made accordingly against Thomas Moyser Esquire, and against several other persons his majesty's subjects in several parts of this kingdom, to the utter undoing of many of them.  
5 That he the said Sir Thomas Trevor, about the month of November, Anno Domini 1635. then being one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, and having taken an oath for the due administration of Justice to his majesty's liege people, according to the laws and Statutes of this realm, subscribed his name to an opinion, in haec verba: [I am of opinion, &c. ut suprà in Baron Davenports Charge, pag. 30.  
6 That in or about the month of February Anno Dom. 1636. (then being one of the Barons of the said Court of Exchequer) he subscribed an extrajudicial opinion in answer to questions in a letter from his Majesty, in haec verba:  
Charles R. When the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned, &c. ut suprà, loco citato, and subscribed ut priùs.  
7 That the said Sir Thomas Trevor (being then one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer) did deliver his opinion, and judgement in the Exchequer chamber, against John Hampden Esquire, in the Case of Ship-money; That he the said John Hampden upon the matter and substance of the Case, was chargeable with the money then in question: a copy of which proceedings and judgement the Commons in this present Parliament have already delivered to your Lordships.  
8 That whereas in the month of April 16. Car. the Officers of the customhouse having seized a Ship of one Samuel Warner's laden with Tobacco, being the goods of the said Warner, the bulk of the said Ship not being broken, and no information exhibited for the King, according to the course of the Exchequer, for any duty, the Barons were moved that the said Ship might be restored to the Proprietor, giving security to pay such duties as did belong to the King; But upon the allegation of the King's Attorney that there needed no information, because there was no penalty, the said Sir Thomas Trevor, (being then one of the Barons of his majesty's said Court of Exchequer, together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court,) did (contrary to his oath, and contrary to the Laws of this realm,) deny the restitution of the said Ship, unless all the duties demanded by the Farmours of the customhouse were first paid. Hereupon the said Warner brought an action of Trover in the office of Pleas in the Exchequer against the said Officers that seized his Ship and goods: whereupon the King's Attorney general exhibited an information by English Bill in the Exchequer chamber against the said Warner; setting forth, that customs and Subsidies upon merchandise were a great part of the King's revenue, and payable to him; and that the said Ship was seized for nonpayment of the aforesaid duties, notwithstanding the said Warner then Proprietor, prosecuted the Officers upon a suit at Law, and prays that he may answer the said Information before any further proceedings be had at Law: Thereupon the said Sir Thomas Trevor, (together with the rest of the than Barons of the said Court of Exchequer,) ordered, that the Proprietor moving for delivery of the said goods, should first answer to the said Information; after which the said Warner demurred to the said Information in regard no title for any certain duty was set forth by the Information, which demurrer yet remains not overruled; but the said Sir Thomas Trevor, with the said other Barons, (without overruling the demurrer) ordered, (because Warner had put in a demurrer and not answered to the said Information, that he should not proceed upon the action of Trover. The Proprietor being thus prevented of his remedy by action at Law, sued forth a Replevin, and (upon pretence of viewing the said goods,) caused them to be brought forth of a Cellar, hired by a deputy of the Farmours to that use; and being brought forth, they were taken by the sheriff of London, by virtue of the said Replevin; and upon oath made of the manner of the taking, as aforesaid, before the Barons, and upon view of the precedent, enrolls his case; the said Sir Thomas Trevor, with the said other Barons, adjudged, that the said goods were not Replevisable, and granted an Injunction to maintain the possession of them as they were before.  
And the said house of Commons by protestation▪ saving to themselves only the liberties of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Sir Thomas Trevor, and also of replying to the answer that he the said Sir Thomas Trevor shall make unto the said Articles, or any of them, or of offering proof of the premises, or any of their impeachments or accusations that shall be exhibited by them, as the Case shall (according to the course of Parliaments) require, do pray that the said Sir Thomas Trevor, one of the Barons of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, may be put to answer to all and every the premises; and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgements may be upon every of them had and used, as is agreeable to Law and Justice.  
FINIS.