THE COMMONERS LIBERTY: OR, THE ENGLISHMAN'S BIRTHRIGHT. COKE INST. 2. PAG. 56. If any by colour of any authority (where he hath not any in that particular case) arrest or imprison any man, or cause to be arrested or imprisoned, this is against this Act, (viz. Magna Charta, cap. 29.) and it is most hateful when it is done by countenance of Justice. Ibid. pag. 56. L exest tutissima cassis. Ibid. pag. 161. Dormiunt aliquando Leges, moriuntur nunquam. LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane. 1659. THE COMMONERS LIBERTY: OR, The English-man's Birthright. 1. THE Subjects of this Kingdom have ever esteemed (amongst earthly blessings) the greatest to have consisted in the due administration of Justice, and therefore have on all occasions, had recourse to their Princes for the confirmation, and right execution of their Laws, the undoubted birthright of every Englishman, the surest sanctuary any can take, and the strongest fortress to protect the weakest. 2. This made Aldred, Archbishop of York at the Coronation of the Conqueror, take a solemn Oath of him, a Male, de Pontif. in vita Aldred. fo. 154. b. 9 That aequo jure Anglos, quo Francos tractaret. And the people still call for their old customs, the Laws of S. Edward, and such like, even to the granting of Magna charta by b Mat. Par. An. 1215. pag. 254. l. 20. King john, quae ex parte maximâ leges antiquas & regni consuetudines continebat. And these are those we now call the Common Law, which is no other than c 2 〈◊〉. Action sur le case, 25. the common Custom of the Realm, which is seldom at any time d Coke Inst. 2. p. 210. Coke Inst. 2. p. 29. changed or taken away without some notable damage to the people. 3. One of these ancient Customs is, That no Freeman of England should be tried or proceeded against nisi per legale judicium parium suorum, by his Peers, that is, his equals, such who either in respect of his Nobility is of the Lords House, or if he be Commoner of such as is capable of being of the House of Commons, at least, unless some Law have disabled him. 4. The Original of this Custom in England is, for aught I know, as Ancient as any Trial in this Nation, no doubt long e See M. Pyrus Plea for the Lords, p. 29 before the Conquest, and since that time amongst the Laws of Henry the First, (which were apparently for the most part drawn from the Customs f Leg. H. 1. cap. 70. cap. 87. of the Kingdom) we find them speak as an undoubted Maxim, that Unusquisque per pares suos judicandus est, & ejusdem Provinciae, we now say de Vicineto peregrina vera judicia modis omnibus submovemus, and in those times a man might challenge whom, and as many as he would. g Leg. H. 1. cap. 5. judices non debent esse nisi quos impetitus elegerit: which must be understood for the trial by Jury: for other Judges (as the chief Justice, etc.) he might not except against. According to this William de Brauce, Anno 1208. * Mat. Par. An. 1208. p. 227. affirmed he was ready to satisfy the King, secundum judicium Curiae suae & Baronum parium meorum, saith he, which was before Magna Charta. And this Custom thus ancient was at the first establishing of Magna Charta confirmed by express words in the 29. Chapter, and ever since taken as a great injury when any hath otherwise been proceeded against. K. john soon after the first grant of the Great Charter had recourse to the Pope against the Barons, who takes notice their trial ought to be h Epist. Innocent. 3. apud Mat. Par. p. 266 46. ● n. 1215. in curia sua per pares eorum secundum leges & consuetudines regni, i M. Par. An. 1227. p. 337. An. 1227. King Hen: the 3. urging his brother to deliver a Manor of his to one Waleran, The Earl answered, the Manor belonged to him, yet he was ready Curiae regiae subire judicium & Magnatum terrae. At which the King being very angry, told him, if he persisted in the refusal he should leave the Kingdom, who with great resolution answered, he would not, sine judicio Parium suorum. So An. 1234. one of the reasons the Earl marshal gives for his taking up of arms was, that the King had several times defied him, k M. Par. An. 1234. 22. Edit. 1640. cum semper, saith he, paratus essem in curia, juri parere, & stare judicio parium meorum. By all which and many more Examples, which for brevity I here omit, it hath ever been held an undoubted injury, when any hath been proceeded against otherwise then per Pares, in such cases as were of their cognizance. 5. Some of the grounds of reason (for avoiding all partiality) on which this is built, I shall hereafter touch, though I can add nothing to that is so learnedly done by other men: Yet it will not be here amiss to show that this ancient and fundamental way of proceeding, hath been never in any kind altered, but to the intolerable detriment of the Subject. The cause of making the Statute of 3 Hen. 7. cap. 1. is said, to be for that by several enormities in untrue demeanings of Sheriffs in making of Panells, and other untrue returns, little or nothing could be found, but divers were almost utterly destroyed, etc. And therefore it doth enact, that certain Councillors there named, should upon Bill or Information call before them the said misdoers, and examine them, and others by whom the truth might be known, and to punish such as they should find defective, after the form and effect of Statutes thereof made, etc. Yet how intoller able a burden the proceedings, Censures, Decrees of the Star-chamber were found to the Subject, and the means to introduce an Arbitrary power, every man's memory reacheth to, and the Act for abolishing it, sufficiently declares. The 11 H. 7. cap. 3. authorized justices of Assize, and of the Peace upon a bare information (without any finding or presenting by verdict of twelve men) to hear and determine all offences, by colour of which Act, shaking (saith l Inst. 2. p. 51. Sir Robert Coke) the Fundamental Law, it is not credible what horrible oppressions were committed, etc. I might here remember the 31 H. 8. cap. 8. and the 34 H. 8. cap. 23. which altering that ancient and known try all by Jury, were not long lived, being both repealed, the 1 E. 3. cap. 12. nor could the King by them work that Reformation he expected. And whereas it is objected, There must somewhere be an Arbitrary power. I grant, some must judge, whether Laws to be made are for the good government of a Commonwealth, & that is the Parliament, but not in the executing of them: For m Inst. 4. p. 43. Cum leges institutae fuerint, non erit liberum arbitrium judicare de ipsis, sed oportebit ipsum judicare de ipsas. 6. Under this impartial way of distributing equal justice to all men (in receiving which certain it is reasonable the highest Duke should be level with the lowest beggar, and is for aught I know the chiefest Levelling aimed at the Subjects of England have enjoyed great Peace and happiness, ever struggling against the exercise of any arbitrary power whatsoever. But now of late when we are freed of the Star-chamber, etc. there is an opinion raised by some Grandees who are feared to aim at an Arbitrary power, to carry on their designs, that the Lords, without any presentment upon Oath, or trial by jury, may upon a bare information, and examining of certain Witnesses, proceed against any Commoner whatsoever, and that to deny this, or not submit unto them, is a breach of the Privilege of the House of Peers: And a great Lawyer of late hath writ a Tract to justify their Sentencing, Fining, and Imprisoning any Commoner, and handling all who refuse to answer to them, and by pen defend their so n M. pryn's plea for the Lords, pag. 18, 30, 36, 45. doing, as contemners of their authority, ignorant, sottish Sectaries, illiterate Ignoramus's, altogether unacquainted with our Histories and Records, etc. To which I must needs say, (to answer once for all) that this is not a sincere way of treating the matter in question, to make the world believe there are none but such as contemn the authority of Parliament, ignorant persons, and the like, which believe this: when I dare boldly say, of such as have studied, and understand the question, four parts of five are of that opinion. And himself, pag. 45. holds their indubitable right of Judicature of Commoners to be but in extraordinary cases of Treason, Felony, Trespass, and Misdemeanours, tryable only in Parliament; which, if he shall be pleased to enumerate, what they are that cannot elsewhere be tried, I shall not much differ with him, but that the trial of such offences might be proper for Parliament, but such I confess I know none. And to make that a crime, which no known Law calls a crime, is against the Apostles definition of one, Sin is the 1 joh. 3. 4. Rom. 7. 7. Transgression of the Law, and again, I had not known sin but by the Law. It is likewise against the Laws of this Land. 7. Before I pass farther, it will not be amiss to agree upon the Question, which is not, Whether upon the Petition of the Commons, and that passing the Lords House, the King assenting to it, a Commoner may not be condemned, it being indeed then an Act of Parliament, such were those of 50 E. 3. against Richard Lions, William Ellis, etc. which were confirmed by the King at Eltham. Neither if the King and Lords (which I neither affirm, nor deny) can censure in some cases a man according to Law, doth it therefore follow the Lords alone can cause a Commoner to be fined, imprisoned, or executed? It being certain, the King for ratifying any such thing in Parliament, must be present in his natural capacity, of which there needs no other instance than the last I mentioned of o 50 Ed. 3. 〈◊〉. 51. the 50 E. 3. when the King being sick, sent for the Lords and Commons to Eltham; which certain he had not done, had there been any other practised way for confirming what he intended to pass (besides his own presence) before the Statute 33 H. 8. cap. 21. which yet enacts that every law confirmed in his absence shall be both under his Seal, and signed with his hand, of which the last is certainly personal. Neither is it the Question, Whether the Lords can judge such cases as come into their House, according to the Statute 14 E. 3. c. 5. Stat. 1. or give Judgement upon a Writ of Error on a Cause legally brought thither, out of the King's Bench. Neither do I impugn, but that their opinion is of great Authority in point of Law; every circumstance rightly considered, before their delivering of it, of which an undoubted one I conceive to be, the knowing what the Law is, by the Judges, or other, who best understand the thing in question, for if otherwise, it is contrary to sense, to imagine a few Lords (of whom, not many are usually skilled in the Laws, and being out of the House, are but like other men) should within those walls, as it were by inspiration, be the supreme Judicature of the Realm. There must at the trial of a Peer be at p Inst. 3. pag. 28. 30. pag. 29. n. 12. 13. The 4. Febr. 27 Elizab. there was only 4. Earls, 1. Viscount, 18 Barons. The 29 Elizab. 15 Febr. 3. Earls, 1. Viscount, 15 Barons. least 12. or above, who have ever assisting them some of the Judges to advise the Lord Steward and them, what the Law is; who coming up to the House of Peers, may direct the Judges (who have spent much time in studying it) what the Law is. This is so clear it needs no proof, else I could show where the opinion of the Judges not q Rot. Parl. 15 Edw. 3. n. 42 & 50. Edw. 3. n. 48. See no. 10. taken, the Judgement of the Lords was soon made void; And in other, where being given according to their sense, it remains Law to this day. But the Question is, whether the Lords alone, upon a bare Information (for a Trial by Jury they use not, nor ever did, to my knowledge, without the King) can Try and Censure any Commoner to his Detriment, either in his Person or Estate▪ 8. First. And this, I conceive they cannot, being not certain to be de Vicineto. Secondly. Because in point of Life, no Commoner can ever Try a Lord of Parliament. Thirdly. Because the party Accused; cannot challenge any of the Lords his Tryers, etc. Fourthly. Because it is expressly enacted, 4 Edw. 3. that they should never have any power of so doing, which, because the Act itself is not Printed, and is by some, said to be only a Protestation; I will therefore, for the clearing of it, set down at large. r Rot Parl. die Lunae prox. post festum sanctae Kathcrinae. nu. 6. Concordia ne trahatur in consequentiam. Et est affentu & accord par nostre Seignieur leRoy, & touse les grantz en plein Parliament, que tout soit il que le ditz peers come juges du Parliament empristrent en la presence nostre Seign. le Roy, a fair & a rendre les ditz jugemēts par assent du Roy sur aucuns de ceux que n'estoient pas lour peers & ce par encheson de murdre de Seig. Liege, & destruction de celui que fut si pres de sank Royal & fitz du Roy que per tant les ditz peres q' ore sont, ou les peres q' serront en temps avenir ne soient mes tenuz ne charges a rendre jugements sur autre que sur lur peers ne ace fair, mes ayent les peres de la terre poer einz de ce pur touse jours soient dischargez & quites: & que les avantditz jugementzes ore rendez ne soient tret en ensample n'en consequence en temps avenir pur quoy les ditz Peres puissent estre charges desore a juger autres que lour peers contre la ley de la terre, si au tiel eas aveine, que Dieu defend. An accord lest it should be drawn in consequence. It is assented and agreed by our Lord the King, and all the great men in full Parliament, that however the said Peers as judges of Parliament, did undertake in the presence of our Lord the King to give and render the said judgements by assent of the King upon some of those who were not their Peers, and that by reason of the murder of our liege Lord, and destruction of him who was so near the Blood Royal, and son of a King. That notwithstanding the Peers that now are or hereafter shall be may be never held nor charged to give judgement on other then on their Peers, neither shall the Peers of the Land ever have power to do it, but shall be for ever discharged and quitted from the doing of it: And that the aforesaid judgements now rendered, shall not in the future be drawn into example, or consequence, for the charging the said Peers hereafter to judge other than their Peers against the Laws of the Land, if the like case should happen, which God forbid. 9 I profess, for my part, I cannot imagine how it is possible for any thing to be penned more fully, being a plain Declaration, what they had done was against Law, and a provision for the future: But, because a learned Gentleman hath of late, made an artificial Discourse to blind the world, and take off the force of this Act of Parliament (for such it was) it will be necessary to examine what he opposeth against it. 1. That this is no Act of Parliament, but a bare Protestation M. Prins Plea for the Lords. pag. 35. without the Kings, or Commons Assent. And yet it is expressly said to be Assented to by our Lord the King, and all the great Ones in full Parliament: I desire to know, whether any thing can pass in full Parliament, to which the Commons are not Parties: For the being but a bare Protestation, the Title shows the contrary, which calls it an Accord, which is, a Compact, an Agreement, not of one party that dissents from others, but of all parties concluding together what the Law is; such a Compact or Agreement is a Law. That the House of Commons, nor the Commoners then That the Commoners then judged, did not demur to their jurisdiction argued their Ignorance, but the 4 Aldermen Sir I. Maynard, M. Lilburne, & Overton, better understanding their ownright, are not to be concluded by their lachesse, and have demurred. judged, ever demurred or excepted against the Lord's jurisdiction, etc. And yet it is plain it was Assented unto by the King and Lords, etc. I shall desire to know of him, whether ever any Assented to that no man desired; Certainly some excepted against what was then done, themselves could not, for they agreed it should be so no more, it must therefore necessarily follow, the House of Commons, or the Parties themselves did it: and this may serve, For that he saith a little after, that this Protestation was merely voluntary: it should seem then the Judgement given by the Lords was not voluntarily, the King over ruling them. And this Protest, (if it be no more) is an exception against it somewhere. 2. The Lords, in that, do profess and justify their right of being judges in Parliament. Which is not denied the King and them in some cases, but they do likewise profess, that it extends not to a Commoner. 3. That this was, that they might not be constrained by the pag. 36. King's Command (against their wills) in his presence, to give judgement in ordinary cases of Treason or Felony in the High Court of Parliament, against such that by Law might, and aught to be Tried in the King's Court at Westminster, etc. but only in such cases which could not well be Tried elsewhere, etc. This is in effect what lie says. To which I am forced to desire him to tell me, what those cases are, that now cannot well be Tried elsewhere; And whether there are now in our Law, any such cases as the Canonists and Casuists call casus reservati: That cannot be Tried by the ordinary Judicatories of the Law, but must have recourse back to the Legislative power to be ventilated there, ex post facto, our Law being now a better disputed, & more complete & comprehensive Law then it was in Edw. 3. Reign: This I should be glad to know, from some that understand the Fountain and Reason of our Law as well as the Letter. It is certain, that for above 200. years there is no example of proceeding against any Commoner in the House of Peers but by Act of Parliament, during which time, there was none of those cases fell out, that could not well be Tried elsewhere, but by Judgement in the Lord's House: Whatsoever is an offence, is punishable by Law, and aught to be Tried in His Majesty's ordinary Courts of Justice. The Statute of Marlebridge provides, quod tam majores cap. 1. quam minores, justiciam habeant & recipiant in Curia domini Regis: And to think, that any one House, or both (which are not s Dyer, so. 60. a full Court without the King) hath power Arbitrarily to punish one no Member of their own, for that the Law takes not notice of to be a fault; I know not how well it agrees with the rules of Justice, and how far distant from that so much complained of Arbitrary Power, which I shall never think, a Court of Parliament will ever desire to have, or exercise, whose jurisdiction the more high and absolute it is, the more just and honourable ought the proceedings in it to be, and to give example of Justice to other inferior Courts, for their being not constrained to give judgements against their wills, etc. That is true, but it is likewise, that they should never have power to do it, and an affirmance what they had done, was against the Law of the Land. 4. He affirms, this Protestation to have been made only against the Lords giving Sentence in Felony and Treason, and in the Kings own presence, who usually pronounced Sentence Himself, with the Lords assent, and did not charge to give it as here He did; not against Sentencing, Fining, and Imprisoning any Commoner, for railing and libelling against their Persons, jurisdictions, and Proceedings, etc. All this hath no colour out of the Record, or practice of other times; and it being certain, there was then Crime but only Treason mentioned in that Act or Protestation, as he calls it, why is it not as well to bar their giving Judgement against a Commoner in other Causes, as Felony? which himself confesseth it reacheth to ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos debemus distinguere. For the Kings giving Judgement in Parliament with the Lords Assent, I do confess, Judgements there ought to be, properly and punctually entered as given, t Rot. Parl. apud Leicester, 2 H. 5. n. 16. Par nostre Seignieur le Roy que est Soveraigne juge en toutz cas, & par les Seignieurs spirituels & temporels avel' assent de les comes de laterre, ou a lour petition, & nemy par les Seignieurs temporelx seulement. That is, [by our Lord the King, who is Sovereign Judge in all Causes, and by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the Assent of the Commons, or at their Petition.] But it doth not follow, that if otherwise, they are invalid, it being certain there be many Judgements generally entered as given in the King's presence by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and that not held to be any cause of Exception. Compare Rot. Parl. apud Lecest. 2. H. 5. nu. 16. with Parl. apud Westmin. nu. 13. See likewise the Judgements against the Spencers, 21 R. 2. nu. Rot Parl. For Lilburnes and overton's Railing and Libelling against the Persons and Jurisdictions of the Lords; for my part I shall say nothing, having not taken upon me to defend those men's Actions, whom I neither know, nor their carriages, but their Cause, and that too, no farther than as it hath reference to the liberty of a Commoner of England, being judged by the Lords. Yet I cannot but say, I have heard they have been great and long sufferers, and by the English proverb, we may give Loser's leave to speak, such being the frailty of humane nature, that laesa patientia fit furor. Neither are they alone involved in the case, There is a noble Knight, and four grave Aldermen, who have been Magistrates in one of the famous Cities of Europe, who all of them have put out their Protestations in Print, which he found perhaps, more difficult to confute, then to neglect. But for their refusing to Answer, and contemning the Lords Authority to their faces at the Bar. To this I must needs say, that for my part, I did never hear that refusing to Answer in a Court, and demurring to the excesses of any Court, was ever reputed a Contempt of the lawful jurisdiction of that Court: we all remember, when certain Gentlemen refused to Answer in the Star-chamber, and pleaded against the Jurisdiction of that Court, Yet neither the King nor the Lords excepted against their so doing; And in the end, their demurrer was allowed: It is no contempt to affirm a Court hath not Authority in an especial case, that is to be determined by the Law, to which every man is to submit: And in a case of Imprisonment, without any limitation of time, certainly the Law ought be very clear that deprives a free-subject of that liberty, is so much to be prised: And if a Subject may not demur to the Jurisdiction of any Court, every Court may enlarge its Jurisdiction, and pretend what dormant Rules and Privileges it pleaseth, upon all occasions, and become a faction of Tyrants over the People, they being disabled to defend themselves from such encroachments, and demur to their Jurisdictions when they exceed their limits: A Demurrer is a Dilatory plea, not a contempt. 10. For their appealing from their judicature in case of breach of Privilege, of which themselves alone, and no others are, or can be judges. I answer, the thing now in Question is, whether they have a Privilege to Judge Commoners: It is said in Master Justice u pag. 26. Huttons Argument, that every Prerogative of the King, contains in itself, matter of prescription, (and by consequence, is not against any established Law;) So may I say of the Privileges of either House, that they are such as are not against any Statute Law: And that the continual practice of all Ages hath made known to the world, but more to themselves, and therefore they are the Judges of them: But if a question be of their Privileges, or it be doubtful whether they can do a thing or not. Their Judgement is not to be received, tanquam ex tripod, they delivering it not by Inspiration, but by Inquisition; and therefore are bound to certify themselves by all humane means whatsoever, of the truth of every circumstance, as by hearing the King's Learned Council; the opinion of Judges, Precedents of former Parliaments, Practise of other Courts in the like cases, and such like. And this was the manner of their proceedings, x Parl. apud Reding, 32 H. 6. n. 27. etc. 32 H. 6. when, though the Justices after mature deliberation had among themselves, resolved they ought not to determine the Privileges of the High Court of Parliament; Yet the chief Justice showed, the example of other Courts, on which they grounded their Sentence according to Law: And yet that case was in the point of their Speaker, a principal Member of the Commons, and of a difference between him and the Duke of York, one too of the House of Lords. Neither may they extend their Privileges farther than the Law warrants; to which purpose there is of late years a notable Precedent, y journal of the Lords House, 14 El. june 30. Henry Lord Cromwell having an Attachment served on him, out of the Chancery, for not obeying an Injunction contrary to the ancient Privilege and Immunity time out of memory to the Lords of Parliament, whereof the said Lord Cromwell prayed remedy: The Lords having examined the case in Parliament, in the presence of the judges, and others the Queen's learned Council; and upon hearing of their opinions, it not appearing unto them that the said Attachment was warranted by the Common Law, Custom of the Realm, or by any Statute or Precedent of the Chancery, they did order the said Lord Cromwell should be discharged from the said Attachment: Yet with this proviso, That if at any time during this Parliament, or hereafter in any other Parliament, there shall be showed sufficient matter, That by the Queen's Prerogative, or by the Common Law, or custom of the Realm, or by any Statute Law, or sufficient Precedent the person of any the Lords of Parliament in the like case is or aught to be attached, or is attachable, then from thenceforth, that to take place which shall be so showed or warranted, etc. by which it is manifest the privileges of the Lords are and must be regulated by Law, and by the opinions of the Judges and Lawyers, and the practice of other Courts are to be known before any resolution taken. And it may be farther observed, that when any of the Houses have concluded on a Privilege without that mature care, it hath not continued; of which, for the Lords House there is a strong Precedent, z Rot. Parl. 15 Ed 3. n 7. n. 42. 15 Ed. 3. where the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, affirming with one consent that the Peers of the land ne deivent estre aresnez in menez en judgement, si non en Parliament & par lour Peres, etc. The Judges opposing, it lasted not long, being taken away, as the printed Book shows the same year, or certainly a Rot. Parl. 17. Ed. 3. n. 23. 27. the Parliament next following: And for the House of Commons to speak of later times, that House having signified to my Lord Keeper, b journal des Comes 27 Eli: Feb. 10, 11. That by the ancient Liberties of that House no Member of it ought to be served with a Sub pena out of Chancery: The Lord Keeper did not only refuse to recall his Sub pena, but told the Messengers sent unto him, he should not submit to any opinion of that House touching their Privileges, unless they could show the same to have been allowed likewise in Chancery. And of the same opinion was Egerton, 39 Eliz. By all which it is evident the Law and perpetual Custom must be the foundation of all their Privileges. 11. Neither the Voting in one or both Houses a right of doing a thing, or the having sometimes exercised what they concluded upon, prove it justly done, or that they have by Law a Privilege to do it if stood upon, or that it ought to be. It is now generally held, No Member of either House can be Bail for any before the Lords, without leave of the House, whereof they are Members: c Rot. Parl. 13 Ric. 2. n. 16, 17. yet the 13 Rich. 2. the Bishops of Lincoln and Norwich, undoubtedly of the Lords House, and john de Nevil, and Level, Members, as it seems of the Commons, did Bail certain persons during the sitting of the Parliament. There is no privilege more certain than that a Member of the House of Commons may not on any occasion be molested by Suit: Yet it is clear by the Statute d 23 H. 6. cap 15. 23 Hen. 6. any man may be sued even before the Judges of Assize, on a supposition he was falsely returned, for that Statute limits him that shall be injured to bring his action against the person returned within three months: And it is certain some Parl. did then last above that time. And e Rot. Parl. 16 Rich. 2. n. 6. 13, 14. the Knight of Devon was proceeded against in the House of Peers, during his being of the House of Commons. But to speak of later times, who would not conclude it a certain privilege of the House of Commons, to have called any one of their Members out of the Lords House, and especially the Solicitor; they having done it both to Onslow and Popham, the 8 and 23 Eliz. Yet attempting it * journal of the Commons. the 31 Eliz. the Lords refused to transmit the Solicitor unto them: The f Rot Parl. apud Glocest. 2 Rich. 2. n. 23. 2 of Rich. the 2. the Lords affirm, though what was desired by the Commons, had been used in the three last Sessions, yet it was not the Custom of Parliament. By all which it is manifest a thing stood upon, sometimes practised and allowed, is not certainly a Privilege of Parliament, or to have been justly done, if opposed, and this goes very far in answering all M. Prins Presidents, of which more hereafter. Lastly, says he, This Protestation did not foreclose the pag. 36. Lords in this, or future Parliaments to give judgement against Commoners in other Cases of Felony and Treason, even without Commons. And yet the Act doth expressly say, That as they should not be charged, So they should not at all ever have power to give such judgement; And their now doing it should not be drawn into Example for the future. And thus I have answered all his Exceptions against this Law. Only where he makes in so few lines two Exclamations against such as hold this a Law, and think to justify themselves by it, of showing their nonsense rather than reason and Law, their injudiciousness and folly, rather than justification, etc. I am forced to reply, a person of Integrity and Judgement, ought not with such sharpness raise envyagainst any that defend themselves by Law. Nonsense, Folly, and injudiciousness are words of relation, and that which seems Nonsense to him, may be of great weight in others Judgement. But if any should make an Appeal, whether to affirm (with these men) this is a Law made in pursuance of the Common right of the Realm, and in affirmation of Magna Charta is nearer Nonsense then to call that a Protestation (which by its own nature imports some disagreeing) is in plain words styled an Agreement or nigher Folly, than the affirming that to have passed without the King's Concurrence, he is expressly said to have assented unto: or more Injudicious then to think the Commons not to have been parties to what was agreed in full Parliament, or less Reason then to say, that Law not to bar the Lords in future, which clearly provides they should never hereafter have power to judge a Commoner; I do not know, I say, (if any should thus appeal) who could be met with, would not think this Gentleman's Interpretation farther off reason, than the very letter of the Law: Interpretari legem, est dare rationabilem intellectum sive sensum praecipientis, & praecepti. Neither could he any way term Vide pag. 66. this raising, murmuring, or playing the Bethlehem; thus to have his own words, retorted on him: for my part, I am confident the Gentleman would never have alleged this Record, and many other Authorities I have met with in his works, had he thought any would have examined the truth of his sayings, or had he any other way to weaken what must of necessity be inferred from them, but by such viperine glosses. And now it will not be unfit to see this (as it is undoubtedly a Law) how it hath been practist on all occasions, in which he is so confident there is hundreds of Precedents to the contrary of what is pretended by it, viz. That no man (especially claiming that right, for if otherwise they may be thought to have submitted to the Trial, vigilantibus & non dormientibus jura subveniunt) being a Commoner ought ever to be tried otherwise then by a Jury. 12. First, then in the same g Rot. Parl. 4 Edw. 3. n. 16. Parliament of Edw. 3. Wherein this Statute or Declaration of the Law was made, Sir Thomas Berkley, Knight, in whose Castle Edw. 2. was destroyed; was questioned for the said Murder, and pleaded not guilty, and put himself upon his Country, whereupon there was a Jury summoned to appear, Coram domino rege in Parliamento suo apud Westminster, in Octabis sancti Hillarii prox' futur. Some two months after, who found him not guilty, The Record remembers all the Jurors names, and gives the reasons of their Verdict; (and this is the only Commoner I ever read of Tried by Jury in Parliament;) Which as it doth enough prove, the Lords cannot Try a Commoner, but that his Trial must be by men of his own condition, per pares, so the never being on any occasion at any time after exercised, shows it ought to have been there, it being certain the King cannot (as here) sit personally to Judge any, in case of Felony and Treason. In the case of the Genovesa, slain by one Kirkby, however the killing him, was adjudged Treason in Parliament; Yet the proceedings against him that did it, was in the King's Bench, where Kirkby was Tried by h Rot. Parl. 3. Rich. 2. n. 18. Term. S. Hill. 3 Ric. 2. Rot. 31● a Jury, and found guilty. So likewise in that himself i Rot. Parl. 17 Rich. 2. n. 20. alleages, 17 Rich. 2. in the case of Thomas Talbot, however the King and Lords adjudged the case Treason; yet for his Trial, he was only to render himself into the King's Bench, there to remain till it should be ordained, par advis du Roy & son conseil, how he should be further proceeded against, which was not in Parliament. In breach of Privilege, they have not heretofore took upon them to Judge a Commoner, otherwise then to seek a Law for the punishing of him, k Rot. Parl. 5 Hen. 4. n. 78. & cap. 6. 5 Hen. 4. Richard Cheddre, a menial Servant of Sir Thomas Brook coming to the Parliament, was wounded by one john Sallage or Savage, the Commons nor the Lords never at all go about the punishing the said Savage, but petition the King would be pleased to ordain such sufficient remedy as may terrify others, viz. 1. That if any killed or murdered one so coming (as an additional to what he was by Law to suffer) he might lose his hand. 2. But if he wounded or beat any, that he should be imprisoned a year, and sinned to the King. 3 That His Majesty would abstain from granting any Pardon without the agreement of the Party. But to these the King doth not consent, and allows the offender his Trial in the King's Bench, as is to be seen in the printed Book. The gentleman l Plea for the Lords, p. 48 citys this Precedent, & I entreat him to peruse the Roll again, and tell me if there can be possibly one more punctual against the Lords judging a Commoner. A servant attending a Member coming to Parliament is wounded; The Lords and Commons do not so much as attempt to Try and Censure the doer of it; and the Judgement given, is by Act of Parliament, less than what both Lords and Commons hold but sufficient: And the Party is allowed his Trial by Jury, in an ordinary Court of Justice. 13. The 28. Hen. 6. The Commons impeached the Duke of Suffolk who waived his Peers, and the King gave Judgement but during the sitting of that Parliament: The Lords being assembled in the Star-chamber in m Rot. Parl. 29 H. 6. n. 5. 6. Council, the 28 of Novemb. Will: Talboyes Esquire, and others arrayed with jacks, Salads, Swerds and Glaives, in manner of War attempted to have slain one of the Lords of Parliament, and of His Majesty's privy Council there Assembled, which being one of the most odious riots had been seen in the King's time. The Commons then sitting, declare their detestation of the fact, and impeach the said Talboyes, and desire he may (being then imprisoned in the Tower of London) remain there for 12 months, and to answer the same in His Majesty's Court in presence of his Justice; but the thing desired, being not altogether according to the course of the Common-law (the Subjects undoubted birthright) was denied by the King, and stopped; and no proceedings against him in Parliament ever thought on. I should be tedious to repeat the Examples of Murders, Riots, Rapes, and other misdemeanours complained of in Parliament; and yet the Lords not at all attempting to Judge the offenders being a Commoner, but To be transmitted over, and to have a fair Trial in the King's Bench: was the continual desire of Sir john Maynard, the 4 Aldermen, Lieut Colonel Lilburne, etc. only to provide a fair Trial should be had in the King's Bench, or other ordinary Courts of Common-law against him, and sometimes by Statute, desire to increase the punishment at the Common-law, which had been vain, had it been in their power Arbitrarily to have censured the Offender. Such as would see them, may amongst others, read Rot. Parl. 13 Rich. 2. nu. 11. 11 Hen. 4. nu. 37, 38. 11 Hen. 6. nu. 12. 43. 15 Hen. 6. nu. 13, 14, 15. 18 Hen. 6. nu. 28. 23 Hen. 6. nu. 42. And here I thought to have ended the Precedents I have observed in this case, but that of Cambridge comes so fit, that though it have been touched by others, formerly, I cannot but set it down somewhat more fully. n Rot. Parl. in crastino Anim. n. 45. Unto Rich. 2. There was a great complaint in Parliament against the Major, Bailiffs, and Cominaltee of Cambridge, for some compliance in a late commotion against the University; the Commons of that Town in their defence, by their Council plead against the Jurisdiction of the Court, Que ceste Court n'ent doit avoir coniscance ne jurisdiction: The Lords moved, num. 57 affirm, if they will give no other Answer, they will proceed against them, as men that know not what to say. In the end a middle course is taken. The Major and Citizens submit themselves to the King's Ordinance, touching only their Franchises, by virtue of which submission, the King, by the assent of the Lords, seized the Franchises of the said Town: And in the end, committed to the Chancellor and Scholars, the cognizance and punishment of defaults, in the Assize of Bread, Wine and Beer, and of Flesh, Fish, etc. And the rest of all the Franchises bestowed on the Major and Bailiffs again: This Ordinance gave no content to the Commonalty there, who often molested the Scholars, indicting them on true, and sometimes on feigned pretences. Whereupon the Chancellor and Scholars, about 7 years after, Rot. Parl. 13 Rich. 2. n. 14. framed a Petition to the Parliament against them, which was sent down to the Major and Bailiffs of Cambridge, commanding them to appear before the King and His Council, the next day after Candlemas, with sufficient instructions and power to Answer all things, for the Cominalty there, under the Common-seal of the Town; At which time the Major and Bailiffs came into Parliament, but the Cominalty would not give them Authority to answer for them; whereupon nothing was done, of which contempt there is no question but we should have found some prosecution in that, or some following Parliament, but that not submitting the Lords knew, they had no power to Try and Judge them being Commoners. 14. And to speak seriously, if the Lords may Try a Commoner, they may Judge any man's title to his Lands, for no Law limiting the extent of their power, but that being Arbitrary, it may reach to all causes whithersoever they will stretch it, and so Westminster Hall sit quiet; And the Subject of England hath not desired an illimited power, no, not in the two Houses, and have therefore moderated Parliaments, that they should not subvert the Laws of the Land. See 1 Hen. 4. cap. 14. 4 Hen. 4. cap. ●3. sometimes by express words, determining that some things cannot be done in Parliament, as that any should be impeached there, of that concerns his Franktenement or hereditament, etc. Rot. Parl. 10 Hen. 6. nu. 35. And as there is no limit of their power, so being directed by nothing but their will, either in judging what is an Offence, or punishing of it, they alone, or with the Commons, may alter the Law, for ubi non est lex, non est transgressio, Rom. 4. 15. And if they can question and punish a man at their wills, for that is neither Malum in se, nor Malum prohibitum; that is, for that is no offence either by the Common or Statute Law, a man may suffer by Fine, Imprisonment; or farther, for that the Law takes no notice to be an Offence, which is contrary to Magna Charta, cap. 29. and a plain change of the Law, which cannot be made but by the King, and the three Estates in o Fortescu cap. 9 fol. 25. b. Rot. Parl. 6 Hen. 6. nu. 22. The King that dead is in his life, ne might by his last will, nor otherwise alter, change, or abrogue the Law, without the consent of the three Estates, etc. Parliament. 15. Having thus showed the Antiquity, continuance, inconvenience, if otherwise of this Law, There remains only to answer some precedents the Gentleman hath alleged, as if the Practice had been always othrewise; of all which, though I might affirm with my Lord Cook in Slades case, lib. 4. fol. 94. that being never questioned, nor confirmed by Judgements given when the case was stood upon, they ought not to be regarged, yet I shall show him, not one of them is at all to purpose, every circumstance considered. His first then is, p Plea for the Lords, pag, 36, 37. that of John Hall, who killed the Duke of Gloucester at Calais, whose case yet he confesseth was not Tryable but in Parliament. 16. Whether the King & Lords had not cognizance of the fact of a Commoner so heinous, not Tryable by the Common Law, as this was not, is a question I will not now dispute; That being absolutely taken away by q 1 H. 4. c. 14 Statut. Besides, I am not satisfied, this was not by Act of Parliament with the Commons consent; for at the end of the Roll, they thank the King for his just Judgement, who, yet never is read to have showed it unto them, (as indeed it was not then usual.) But I shall ask the Gentleman whether he will justify all the proceedings in that Cause, as standing with the Common Justice of the Realm. Certainly it would be now by many thought very hard, for a person in custody to be first examined privately upon his own Oath to accuse himself, and then without being further proceeded with by Law, to have the Judgement in effect, of a Traitor, for killing a Person apparently not within the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. doubtless (so far as it appears to me) this may be one of those Precedents, whereof Sir Edward r Cook Instit. 4. pag. 37. Cook aufereat oblivio si potest, si non, utcunque silentium tegat; Of which opinion the Commons it seems were, who, however they let it then pass, (he not pleading the privilege of a Commoner) yet took care it should not be so any s Rot Parl. 1 H. 4. n. 144. more. And it is observable that they desire no such Accusation should be received in Parliament, but in His Majesties other Courts, Come ad este fait & use anciennement en temps de vos tres nobles progenitors, etc. Which affirmation is indeed, as much as is stood upon, viz. That it was not the use to try a Commoner in Parliament. 17. His second proof, t Rot. Parl. 1 H. 4. n. 79. 1 Hen. 4. nu. 79. Where the Commons affirm judgements in Parliament pertain only to the King and Lords, etc. You may see the record at large in his book, pag. 37. and M. Lylburnes, called the Law's funeral, pag. 16. and sets in the Margint nota, and pag. 38. That it is so full and punctual a Parliamentary decision, as is uncapeble of any answer or evasion. To this, if I should answer, that it was no Act of Parliament, and therefore bindeth not in succession, nor is now by consequence of any force; I followed no less Lawyer than Sir Edward Cook, but I confess, that passage Cook Instit. 4. pag. 23. seems to me a Declaration of what of right, did in any Parliament belong to the Lords and Commons, and therefore to be more than temporary. I shall therefore say, that this Precedent must extend only to such things, which were of the cogniscance of the Parliament, and proper for that Judicature, not of things did no way at all appertain unto that Court, Rot. Parl. 13 Rich. 2. nu. 10. after hearing a very long case, the Record notes, Ysembla as Seignieurs du Parlement que la dite petition n' estoit pas petition du Parlement einz que la matter enycelle compris dent este tryepar la come ley. Certainly they seem not to have been Judges in that case, nor in another Petition, Rot. Parl. 16 Rich. 2. nu. 32. To which the Answer is, Suent a Roy purce que ceste petition n' est pas petition del Parliament, Rot Parl. 10. Hen. 6. nu. 35. The Commons affirm matters touching a man's Inheritance, are not examinable in Parliament, and 32 Hen. 6. nu. 27. a Precedent himself remembers, page 51. it is expressly said, Actions at Common-law be not determined in the High Court of Parliament. By all which it is manifest, those words that Judgements pertain to the King and Lords, must be understood of such things whose decision is proper and pertain legally only to the Parliament, such was that, 27 Hen. 6. nu. 18. touching placing the Lords in Parliament, and that was given 1 Hen. 4. in Parliament against the King himself, of which the Commons seem to have had no knowledge, 1 Hen. 4. nu. 145. which, when the like came again in question, Rot. Parl. 39 Hen. 6. nu. 12. in the case of the Title of the Duke of York; The Lords in Parliament charge the judges sadly to advise touching it, who the 20 of October Answer; That they were the King's justices to determine matters in Law, between party and party; That this was above the Law, and passed their Learning, that the decision of it pertained to the Lords of the King's blood, and the Peerage of the Land, and therefore they desired to be excused of giving Council in that matter; Now indeed in such cases I shall not deny, but the King and they may be Judges: Yet whatever that privilege is, in judging, when they make a Law to bind the Subject, concerning any thing of that nature, to that the Commons are parties, as well as the Lords. See 7 Hen. 4. cap. 2. 25 Hen. 8. cap. 22. 28 Hen. 8. cap. 7. 35 Hen. 8. cap. 1. 18. To his next precedent of 17 Rich. 2. nu. 20, 21. pag. 38. touching Tho: Talbots conspiring the death's of the Dukes of Lancaster and Gloucester, I have Answered before, nu. 12. That it was by the Lords only referred to the Common-law. 19 His next precedent is that of the Earl of Northumberland, pag. 39 5 Hen. 4. nu. 12. which being no Commoner, is nothing to the purpose, as himself confesseth, page 29. and page 41. Only touching the Protestation of the Lords, it is apparent, they then had an opinion, the King would have tried him a Lord by the Judges, without them who were his Peers: And for the Kings giving Judgement against Henry and Thomas Percy, he well knows there was no person then Judged, or brought into Judgement, only an opinion of the King and Lords delivered upon a desire of the Archbishop of Canterbury: who conceived himself and the Duke of York in some suspicion of having adhered to Hotspur, and the Earl of Worcester, whom the Earl of Northumberland (then newly cleared by them) did free, from having had any compliance with them. Yet so as the King and Lords did affirm the war formerly raised by them should be held Treason. So indeed judging no man, but delivering an opinion, that a War raised by two, whereof one was slain in Fight, the other beheaded the next day at Shrewesbury, should be held Treason, of which there was little question. His next Precedent is that of Weston and Gomenis, to pag. 41. 42. which, though I have answered before, nu. 15. in the case of Hall, their offences having been committed beyond the Seas, and therefore not Tryable by an ordinary way in England, and now taken away by Statute: Yet it is apparent, that Judgement was an Act of Parliament, passing at the request of the Commons, by the assent of the Lords, and stopped till the King could be informed. 20. His next is, that of Alice Perers, against whom judgement of Banishment, and forfeiture of Land, was pag. 42. given by the Lords without the King or Commons. This is the only Precedent that hath most colour of truth, and to his purpose in all his Book: And whether she a person that laboured then under the public hate, for her many lewd carriages, might not have somewhat acted against her, not fit to be observed at other times I cannot tell, it appearing u Rot. Parl. 51 Edw. 3. n. 89 by record, the Law (on which that Judgement was grounded) x Rot. Parl. 50 Édw. 3. n. 45 of the 50 Ed. 3. did pass without ever calling her to answer. But for my part, I do affirm this was an act of Parliament, That the King was party to the Judgement, is y Rot. Parl. 1 Rich. 2. n. 43. clear by nu. 43. Et est l' intention du Roy & des Seignieurs, & o'er ordeignez & assentuz en mesme le Parliament, etc. The Question than is, of the Commons, of whom there appears nothing in the Roll; but if there be not, it doth not follow they did not assent unto it, and so made it a complete Act. Many things doubtless, passed formerly in Parliaments, which are not found Recorded; And some Statutes to this day Laws, are no where enroled, of which see Sir Edward Cook, Instit. 4. pag. 51. But for the Commons being parties to this Judgement, it is so certain as Walsingham, who then lived, relates, it was expressly at their pursuit. z Walsing. Histo. pag. 198. an. 1377. 1. R. 2. nu. 43. In eo Parlamento says he, fuere péne omnes milites cum Petro de la Mare, etc.— hii itaque resumentes petitiones suas eo loco quo prius dimiserant, institerant pro bannitione illius Aliciae Peres, etc.— quae quamvis plures ex dominis & omnes legis peritos Angliae pecunia corrupisset.— Diligentia tamen & sapientia praedictorum militum ore suo convicta proscribitur, omnibus bonis suis mobilibus & immobilibus, fisco Regio judicatis, which relation agreeing with the Record in every thing, but where it is more full, there can be no doubt of the truth of it, nor that this was other than an Act of Parliament. 21. The next Precedent is of some who delivered pag. 43. Burbugh Casttle in Rich. 2. time, but this he insists not upon, as indeed it makes not to the purpose, and may receive the same answer, Hall, Weston and Gomenis before did. But for Sir Thomas Mortimer and Sir john Cobham it is certain, the Commons did not only Impeach them, but joined with the King and Lords in all things concerned them. Insomuch as though the Lords had Accused in that Parliament several Lords, Yet the Commons in Parliament a Rot. pl●cit. Coro. 21 Rich. 2. n. 15. 17. Impeached and joined in whatsoever was done against any Commoner; So that nothing passed but by the concurrence of the King and the three Estates, which is an Act of Parliament. 22. For the Fining and Imprisoning of Walter Sibyl pag. 43. of London, for b Rot. Parl. 8 Rich. 2. n. 12. slandering the Earl of Oxford; that is true, but before they did so, the said Sibyl, gratiae domini Regis humiliter se submisit, and refused to prosecute his accusation against the Earl, upon whose submission this Sentence passed, as that before of Cambridge, nu. 13. 23. For that of john Cavendish c Rot. Parl. post festum sancti marcae. 7 Rich. 2 nu. 13 accusing Michael de la Poole, Chancellor of England, whom the pag. 43. Lords put over to the Judges. It is certain, if the Lords have power to Fine and Imprison a Commoner, they cannot delegate it to the Judges; nor they, who are the King's Agents in administration of Justice, Fine any man as Deputies to them, but in doing so, must proceed after an ordinary course of Law; and therefore, either that Record of 7 Rich. 2. is imperfect, or it was done as the former, upon Cavendishes submission, who did in part deny his first Accusation of the Chancellor himself, turning it only on his Clark. And for the Lords Fining a Commoner, I am confident, there never was any one penny paid, unless voluntarily, of any sum so imposed by them, though perhaps they may at some time have attempted the doing it, which I do the rather assure myself of, because the House of Peers having an intent really to punish by d Rot Parl. 32 H. 6. nu. 46. Fine, certain Members of their own House, for negligently attending there, (a e Cook Instit. 4. p. 3 Edw. 3. Coro. 161. thing certainly proper for their cogniscance) they attempted no means to lay so small a sum as an 100l. on an Archbishop, and Duke an 100 marks, on every Bishop and Earl, excepting three, and forty pounds on every Abbot and Barron, but by Act of Parliament, nor to levy it but by expressly providing in that Act, those sums should be raised on their lands, and goods by process out of the Exchequer: From whence I cannot but infer that if they would not venture (conceiving it would be stood upon) the Fining a Lord for a default punishable by the Lord's House, but by an Act, which expressly took care how it should be come by, much less are they alone by Law left at large in their Censure of a Commoner, or have any power to levy any sum they set on him. But, where he says the Lords in this case had witnesses examined upon Oath before them. I am not resolved, the Chancellors Clerk protesting his Lord's innoceny, f Rot. Parl. 7 Rich. 2. nu. 14 post ●est S. Marti. Sur. non serment, and others examined, Sur lour liegeances a dire verity, doth necessarily infer the giving an Oath but if any think otherwise; I will not contend. No more than for his last Precedent, that the King and Lords (for so is the g Rot. Parl. 15 Rich. 2. n. 21. Record, not the Lords alone, as by him Cited) might not commit a Commoner perhaps for some small time, for slandering a Peer: The Question is not whether they have done it, Malto facta sunt quae si in judicium vocentur fieri non debent. Besides, I am not satisfied, but the King and His Council (which none can deny the Lords to be) might by the Statute, 12 Rich. 2. cap. 11. on his confession, as it seems this was, imprison a man for slandering a person of that esteem the Archbishp was; and thus I have done with all his elder Precedents. 24. For those of the 18 jocobi and since: I will only say, that the course of Trying men in the Lord's House, having lain asleep (if ever practist) for about two hundred years, than firfis renewed, many might be ignorant of their own right, nor know how to plead to it: And it is certain some of those Precedents he mentions, have never been executed, neither were they done without King's Concurrence; in so much as all was done by an united Vote if put in execution. Another Precedent I have met with, is, that it appears by h Stat. 2. 6 Rich. 2. cap. 1. 6 Rich. 2. cap. 1. Stat. 2. that certain men were Indicted, Arraigned, or Appealed of High TREASON in Parliament next before: And therefore, that it is plain Commoners may be Tried even for TREASON in Parliament. But it is clear, there is no such thing can be gathered, either by the Printed Act here spoken of i Rot. Parl. in Octavis sancti Michael. n. 16. et en tierce semaine de quaresme nu. 17. or by the Roll of either Parliament, on any thing else, more then, that there was a Pardon then granted to several persons, and these words in the Point, As in the same Parliament is more fully contained, must have reference to the pardon granted, which doth appear in the Roll, not to the Arraigning, which is no where found in it. There may now be expected that I speak somewhat; If a Subject should be oppressed by an illegal Sentence of the Lords, how he is to be rectified, for non debet esse defectus justicia; and for any Court Spiritual or Temporal exceeding their power against any Statute. In the like case a Prohibition or Supersedeas out of the King's Bench, lies; though the STATUTE provide not that remedy. Compare Articulii super chartus chap. 3. 417. with the Register, fol 185. 187, etc. But this being a Superior Court, is a greater question, in which there will fall out a great dispute, how far, and in what sense the two Houses are, the High Court of Parliament, which I intent not at this time to enter into, but will conclude, remembering that true advice of Master Prinne; That who shall so suffer, shall have the comfort of a good Conscience to support him; and God, no doubt, will in his good time find some means to relieve him. FINIS. ERRATA. Page 2: line 2. r. a Commoner. ibid. l. 11. r. * Unusquisque. &c in marg. add, * Leg. H. 1. c. 31. ibid. l. 28. r. per parts. p. 4. l. 4. r. Sir Edward. ibid. l. 16. deal ipsum & de, read, oportebit judicare secundum ipsas p. 11. l. penult. r. no crime. p. 15. l. 23. deal by. & lin. antepenult. r. ni. p. 18. l. 22. r. railing. p. 19 l. 20. r. ought not. p. 21. l. penult. r. hath been. p. 22. l. 1. r. Quinto Rich. 2.