TO every Member of Parliament Charles Hotham of Peter-house in Cambridge presents this following brief Account of the proceed of the Committee for Reformation of the Universities, in their depriving him of his Fellowship in the said College, together with his Exceptions against those proceed. In answer to such suggestions as may possibly be made in Parliament by his adversaries; who by their presence there, will have the opportunity of objecting against him, when himself cannot be permitted in person to make a Reply. And for such a clear stating the Question of his Appeal, as that he may at length, after his near twelve Month's attendance, have a speedy Judgement in Parliament, without being further delayed, and again put in danger of being wronged by a tedious unnecessary reference to the uncertain Report of a Committee. His long attendance for a Hearing having already been more burdensome to him, than the worst of Censures. Himself having been thereby enfored, to his great expense, and prejudice of his studies, to attend almost, a whole year at the Parliament door, while another hastily put in by that Committee, hath stood possessed of his legal and just right.  
A true and perfect Copy of their proceed out of the public Journal Book of that Committee, being the only true ground for a Superior Judicature to proceed upon in Appeals of this nature.  

May 22. 1651. At the Committee for Reformation of the Universities.  
ORdered That Doctor Palmer, Mr. Nevil, Mr. Oldsworth, Mr. Moil, Mr. Millington, Mr. Dormer, Mr. Peter Temple, and Mr. Rous, or any two of them be a Sub-Committee; to consider of the Book this day presented to this Committee, Entitled, The Petition and Argument of Mr. Hotham, etc. And to Report their opinions concerning the same to this Committee on this day seven night.   

The Report.  
The Petition and Argument of Mr. Hotham.  
THe Book, though without a name, owned by him, dispersed by him, his Letter about it, Epistle to the Committee, his Argument against the Order of the Sub-Committee, pag. 11, 12, 13.  
This I say, That that power which can eject a man out of his legal possession for a misdemeanour of a date near two years old, committed and punished in the days of his minority, long before his entrance into that possession, must sure be very transcendent, and above that of any, either Common Law, or Chancery that I have heard, pag. 137, 138.  
Gilbert Millington. Peter Temple.   

May 29. 1651. At the Committee for Reformation of the Universities.  
Upon hearing the Report from Mr. Millington, touching the Book entitled The Petition and Argument of Mr. Hotham, etc. And upon long and serious debate thereof,  
It is Resolved by this Committee.  
That the writing and publishing of the said Book, which was this day publicly owned before this Committee by the said Mr. Hotham, is scandalous, and against the privilege of Parliament.  
Resolved by this Committee.  
That Mr. Hotham, Fellow of Peter-house in Cambridge, be deprived of his Fellowship in the said College from this time forward, And the Precedent of the said College is to see that this be put in execution accordingly.  
Present at the making of this Order, besides the Chairman, were these  
Members following.  


Mr. Oldsworth.  
Mr. Salloway Sen.  
Sir. Arthur Haslerig.  
Mr. Say.  
Mr. Millington.  
Mr. Peter Temple.  
Mr. Rous.  
Col. Harvey.  
Ex. by me R. Needler, C. C.  
James chaloner.  
Robert Brewster.  
Law. Whitaker.  
Will. Say.  
Gilbert Millington.     

Exceptions against the  Proceed.  
1. THe Sub-Committees not indifferent discharge of their trust, which was to consider and report their opinions of the Book in general, which they did not, but neglecting the general scope of the Book, wholly tending to the advancement of a Commonwealth interest, only culled out of the Preface and Conclusion such passages as seemed distasteful, and presented those only to the Committee.  
2. Their delivering in their Report, not while he was present, but after he was withdrawn, so that he had no means of knowing his Charge, or making any Defence.  
3. Granting he had been, according to Justice, admitted to the hearing of his charge, and making his defence, the charge should have contained a recital of a breach of some Law, which it did not, and the defence should have been admitted to those two necessary points of inquisition, 1. An fecerit. 2. An jure fecerit, to matter of right aswell as of fact; but the question of fact was not moved to him, in reference to any precedent charge (which was not, as far as he knows, delivered in till he had first owned the Book) and from the latter and most necessary part of a defence, viz. To the point of right he was wholly excluded.  
4. The writing and publishing of his Book was resolved to be scandalous, but he conceive that a punishable scandal must be such only as the Law determines to be of that nature, and not left to the breast of every Judge or Committee to determine and punish at their own arbitrary discretion. Besides, if what he hath written be true, he hopes 'twill be accounted no scandal.  
5. It appears not that the publishing the proceed of any Court without their licence, is a thing unlawful, or that to publish a Committees proceed without their leave, is any breach of privilege of Parliament. And by the way, he cannot but stand amazed that such printing, if only matter of fact or right, Christianly and truly stated without the least falsification, untrue imputations, or uncivil raylings upon any, should be such a scandal in the eyes of many: the same thing being so commonly practised in our legal Courts of Judicature; and besides, it being much to the Parliaments Honour to have their proceed such as they may allow and countenance the publication of them to all the world. But if any shall be found to have in a Committee grossly abused the trust committed to them by Parliament, the manifesting of those persons enormities in a way of seeking redress from the justice of the House, is no dishonour to the Committee in general, or to the Parliament, but rather 'twill be esteemed their greatest honour to hear and redress the just complaints of any, even against their own members. Now to give full notice to every member of the House, and others concerned, of the whole state of the Case without printing, 'twas near impossible, his bodily strength not sufficing to transcribe so many Copies himself; and to have done it by others, would have been too vast a charge: yet was it necessary for him, to counterbalance the advantage his adversaries had of misinforming the members of the House, by some large and particular information of the whole truth in all its circumstances. Besides, there was some necessity of publication of these proceed in all places where his name, so eminently blasted by this Censure, was known or heard of. If a Committee of Malignants had done him this evil, he might have born it, the censure of such known enemies had been no slander; but for a Committee of Parliament, whose honour and interest he had always, throughout the whole wars, and by this very Book so faithfully asserted, thus highly to censure him, was a deep stain upon his repute, not to be otherwise washed off, then by a public vindication, especially his complaints to the Parliament, by their multitude of other affairs, finding so slow and difficult an audience.  
6. Of Parliament privileges, not known to be such by any due promulgation, a breach cannot be justly punishable.  
7. Quere, whether it belongs not solely to the Law, or Parliament itself to declare their own privileges, or to the proper Committee of privileges, and therefore whether for this Committee to take upon them to determine of the privileges of that grand body, and punish a breach thereof, was not in them a breach of privilege.  
8. Committees in their original Constitutions, were never set up to the arbitrary Courts, but only to be executors of the new emergent Parliamentary Laws, as were the ordinary Judges of the old established Laws, and therefore are to proceed according to those rules, not their own arbitrary discretion, else they would seem to hold too much resemblance with so many Star-Chambers and High Commissions: yet was it he thinks never heard of even in those most arbitrary Courts, that a man was sentenced without being admitted to hear his charge, and make his defence both to matter of right and fact.  
9 A man put into a Fellowship by Parliamentary Authority, is by that power invested with the same rights as one regularly elected into his Fellowship: Now such as are elected into Fellowships, were never conceived justly ejectable, but for a transgression of some local Statute of the Founder, or Law of the Nation declared punishable, with such forfeiture: One formerly admitted by mandate, was not more ejectable at the Kings will, than one legally elected. Therefore the Petitioner being made Fellow by authority of Parliament, renders him not at all the more obnoxious to an arbitrary censure.  
10. Those words culled out against him by the Reporters, were spoken of one, who having petitioned the Committee for a Fellowship in our College, they did thereupon order us to elect a godly and learned person into that Fellowship: We looking at this man, as the most eminent in all good qualifications, and tacitly recommended to us by the Committee itself, chose him into the said Fellowship: but Doctor Seaman suggesting to the Committee that he was guilty of Heresy, and that he had once drunk the King's health, though he was not the principal, but only occasionally present, and the fault besides both committed and punished in the days of his minority, near three years before that judgement; he having all his life both before and after that short seducement, given abundant evidence of his piety and good affection to the State; the Committee did notwithstanding at the sole instance of Doctor Seaman, eject this man out of his legal possession, newly conferred on him by a due election of the Precedent and Fellows, according to Justice, and our Founder's Statute, and put in Doctor seaman's Sizar, a man uncapable by Statute, into his room. Therefore 'tis left to the judgement of every indifferent man, whether his descant upon those proceed were not very temperate, and abundantly within the bounds of modesty, when he only affirmed that that power which could do those things, must sure be very transcendent, and above that of any, either Common Law or Chancery, that he had heard of. Besides, in that very passage presented by the Reporters to the Committee, they much wronged him, both in their omission of that preceding introduction, which might have caused a more favourable interpretation, and misreciting the very words themselves, as may appear by comparing their recital with the expression itself, pag. 137. of his Book, last Edition.  
11. If any object to him his expressions of Mr. Byfield: He answers, that he could not but call a Spade a Spade, and wishes they had been by that Committee taken notice of to a better purpose, that man's manifest and frequent intrusions having been in the eyes of many a great scandal to their proceed.  
12. There are (as common fame gives out) some other objections against him whispered into men's ears by some Clergy complying Monarchists, as that he holds erroneous opinions, and is dis-affected to the present Government; but he hopes, better credit will be given to the language of his actions, and to the testimonies of those Gentlemen of the University of known worth and fidelity to the State, who have known his conversation these many years, then that such rumours should be given ear to. And he is well assured 'twill appear by all his words and actions when they shall come to an open scanning, that a redundancy, not want of affection to true Religion and this Commonwealth, hath been the only cause of these aspersions from counterfeit Professors, and of all his other sufferings.  
Yet if aught of this nature was in his absence objected against him by any of the Committee when the Question of his Printed Book of the Negative Voice was in Debate, or shall now be repeated in Parliament, he hopes 'twill by all indifferent men be looked at as a most gross impertinency: the Question being then in Committee only concerning his Printed Book of the Negative Voice referred to a Sub-committee to consider, and make Report of to that Committee, which Report (as appears by their own Register) was the only ground of their Sentence; and much more impertinent must these suggestions needs be in Parliament; the matter humbly tendered to their Judgement being only, whether the Prerogative of a Negative Voice as inconsistent with a Commonwealth-Interest shall be forthwith abolished; and whether a Sentence, pronounced against a Member of this Commonwealth, and known Friend to the public Interest without his being allowed the Common Justice of knowing his Accuser, hearing his Charge and making his Defence, be not in all Law and Equity a mere Nullity, and of right to be declared such by the Supreme Authority of this Commonwealth.  
If notwithstanding any shall trouble the Wisdom of Parliament with such impertinencies, he hopes, that by whomsoever objected, they will among just men be accounted no just ground of Censure till the truth and weight of them appear upon a full hearing of both parties, and mean while that this present extrajudicial Sentence, with all proceed thereupon be revoked and himself restored to his Right and Possession again in as full and ample manner, as if he had never been ejected by that Committee.  
And finally, that the Negative Voice, the root of this and many other mischiefs, in all its threefold branches; of having the power of 1. Calling and dissolving of Meetings. 2. Proposing or refusing of Questions. 3. Acting or neglecting the Resolves of the Major part. Placed in the sole Power of one Man of the Community, be as a pressing Grievance, speedily and for ever abolished by the wisdom, and to the great Honour of this present Parliament.  
CHARLES HOTHAM.