Arguments Exhibited in PARLIAMENT BY SIR NICHOLAS BACON, Lord Keeper of the great seal of ENGLAND. Whereby it is proved, That the Persons of Noble men are Attachable by Law, for Contempts by them committed in the right Honourable Court of Chancery, for disobeying the Decrees of that Court.  
Printed in the year, 1641.   

Arguments Exhibited in PARLIAMENT, By Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the great seal of England, &c.  
THis Argument was occasioned about an Attachment, awarded out of the aforesaid Court of Chancery to the sheriff of Norfolk, to attach the body of the than Lord Cromwell for his disobeying a Decree made in that Court, The said attachment being executed, and the body of the said Lord Cromwell by virtue thereof detained by the said sheriff, whereof the said Lord Cromwell being a peer, complained in Parliament.  

I.  
First (saith he) That for Contempts committed by a Noble man against his Prince, his person is attachable by Law. And if a Noble man disobey a Decree, made in Chancery upon a cause examinable, there he commits a contempt against his Prince, and therefore, by the common Law, his body, for his contempt, is attachable, and the rather for that decrees given there are Coram nobis in Cancellaria nostra.   

II.  
Secondly, if a Noble Man offend against the Queen's majesty's Prerogative in one of the highest degrees, his body is attachable by Law: and if a Noble man commit a contempt against a decree made in the high court of chancery & warranted to be made by her highness' Prerogative, he commits a contempt against that Prerogative & therefore his body for the same is attachable by Law.   

III.  
Thirdly, it hath always been accustomed that Noble men have been and still are called into the chancery for matters examinable in the same Court; and the same hath been ordered there, and if custom hath allowed thereof, than it must necessarily allow the necessary dependence of the same, which is the execution of these orders: and other means for the ecution of these orders in chancery there is none but by Attachment, and as for that, that there is no use or precedent of execution by Attachment of the persons of Noble men, he answered that in former ages Noble men were of that prudence, that they never disobeyed any of those orders in chancery, and therefore no cause of that use.   

iv.  
Fourthly, to grant a Court power to hear and order, and not to execute the same, is a plain absurdity: & again to leave all coppihoulders of Noble men without remedy, if they be amoved by their Lords, and all other men without remedy against Noble men, in matter of equity, seems much prejudicial to the Commonwealth, considering how great the number of these may be; besides what inconvenience is it to have a Noble man bring a case into the Chancery, & the Court to have power to do justice for him, but not against him. This is not Ius equabile, and all th', ease and other inconveniences, in his opinion will succeed except Attachments in the causes of contempt before remembered be allowed and executed.   

V  
Fiftly, and lastly, for as much as the chancery is warranted to hear, order, and determine causes by virtue of the Queen's majesty's Prerogative; where otherwise by law the subject hath no help: and also to qualify the rigour of the Law, therefore if all causes examinable in the Court of chancery for the respects aforesaid, between a Noble man and another should be taken from the hearing and ordering of the said Court. It must needs be Derogation of the Queen's said Prerogative, which he thinks ought not to be questioned or debated without her majesty's privity, and therefore prays her highness may be therewith acquainted.  
FINIS.