← caselaw_viewer.html ← caselaw_viewer2.html ← court_precedents.html | 1. All 25 Privilege & Petitioner Cases 2. Mesne Process, Vawdrey (1621) & Treason Pretexts 3. Grievances Are Not Crymes (1640) 4. 1640 vs. 1800s Attitude 5. All 10 Full Verbatim Petitions (1621 & 1640) 6. 1640 Precedent Roll

Privilege, Petitioners’ Safe-Conduct, & “Grievances Are Not Crymes” — The Law in 1640

Full single-page audit cross-referencing Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640 (ed. Esther S. Cope & Willson H. Coates, Camden Fourth Series Vol. 19, pp. 1–340) and Edwarde Vawdrey’s Petition (1621, HL/PO/JO/10/13/7) with caselaw_viewer.html, caselaw_viewer2.html, and court_precedents.html. All sections are displayed continuously on this single page.

Section 01 · Complete Single-Page Case Table

1. Complete Table of 25 Privilege & Petitioner Cases (1621 Vawdrey Precedent + 24 Short Parliament 1640 Cases)

Includes the 9 Short Parliament entries in Viewers 1 & 2, the 15 additional/expanded cases from the 1640 diaries and Main Papers, and Edwarde Vawdrey’s 1621 Petition (HL/PO/JO/10/13/7).

< Drag or Use Top / Bottom Slider Bars to Scroll Table Horizontally >

ID / Viewer Ref	Case / Actor / Role	Date	Protection Type	Legal Basis	Type	Charge / Proceeding	Facts & Verbatim Manuscript Record	Constitutional Outcome	Primary Citation
1621-VAWDREY Power of Petitioning HL/PO/JO/10/13/7 (1621) · cf. Viewer 2 [EP1-059]	Edward Vawdrey v. Edward Dodd (Register of the Exchequer of Chester) — Protection to Follow Causes & Examine Witnesses (1621 Precedent) House of Commons · Petitioner / Private Citizen	1621 (Direct Precedent for 1640)	Parliamentary Protection to Follow Causes, Summon Witnesses, & Punish Menaces Against a Petitioner	Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti; Judicial Hearing & Safe-Conduct of Petitioners in the High Court of Parliament	Parliamentary Contempt / Judicial Bribery & Oppression Inquiry	Register of the Exchequer of Chester Menacing a Petitioner ("that the daie will come he shall be remembered for the same") & Bribery in 8 Cases	Edward Vawdrey preferred a petition of grievance into the House of Commons for oppressions by the Court of Exchequer at Chester, and was admitted to prefer his bill in Parliament. Edward Dodd Esq., Register of the Exchequer at Chester (shrouding himself under the authority of the Earl of Derby, Chamberlain of Chester), menaced and threatened Vawdrey, calling him "clamorous" and threatening retaliation after Parliament ("that the daie will come he shall be remembered for the same"). Vawdrey had investigated and gathered evidence of bribery and record-tampering by Dodd across 8 cases in that court (Fraunces West v. John Strethill, 100 marks/£30; Edmond & Roger Jodrell v. Bishop of Chester, £100; Okell v. Rudgate, £10; Burgeny v. Pulford, altering records; Burgesse v. Pimlott; Fawkener v. Leeche; Massie v. William Leighe, £20; Partington of Cotton, £100 demanded pendente lite) plus two court attorneys (Master Whitby and Master Case). Vawdrey prayed (1) "that by the aucthoritye of this highe and honorable house of Parliament he maie be protected to followe his causes", (2) that the House call and examine the witnesses in those 8 cases, and (3) that Master Dodd (then in London) be called to answer his menaces and misdemeanors. — “The peticioners humble desire is that by the aucthoritye of this highe and honorable house of Parliament he maie be protected to followe his causes: and if upon examinacion of his wronges it prove he compleine without cause he lookes for noe other from this honourable courte but lex talionis to be imposed upon him... And further this peticioners humble desire is that this high and honorable assemblie woulde be pleased for thadvancement of justice and suppression of the abuses of that Courte of the Eschequer at Chester to call before theise persons folowinge and to examyne them... [Endorsed:] Edward Vaudrey 1621. Master Dod to be sent for [on Thursday next?].”	Endorsed by the House of Commons: "Master Dod to be sent for [on Thursday next?]". Proves that a petitioner investigating judicial corruption, gathering third-party evidence, and submitting a petition to Parliament enjoyed Parliamentary protection from threats/retaliation and compulsory process to summon witnesses and the menacing official.	Parliamentary Archives HL/PO/JO/10/13/7 (1621); cf. Smart’s Petition (22 April 1640, p. 282) HL/PO/JO/10/13/7 (1621); cf. C.J. Vol. 1 (1621) & EP1-059
SP-01 Viewer 1 [471]	Sir George Hastings MP / Lord Keeper Coventry Chancery Subpoena House of Commons · Member of Parliament	25 April 1640	Immunity from Chancery Subpoena During Session	Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti; Ancient Custom of the High Court of Parliament	Equity Process / Chancery Subpoena	Serving Chancery Subpoena on Sitting Member of Parliament	A subpoena out of Chancery was served upon Sir George Hastings MP during the sitting of the Short Parliament. The Commons resolved that serving a Chancery subpoena on a sitting Member during privilege time is a breach of privilege and stayed the equity proceedings. — “C.J. ii, p. 12; Hatsell, Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons, Vol. I, p. 162.”	Subpoena stayed; serving equity process on a sitting Member declared a breach of privilege.	Ref. C.J. ii, p. 12 (25 April 1640) CJ Vol. 2, p. 12; Hatsell Vol. I, p. 162
SP-02 Viewer 2 [EP1-168]	Thomas Smith MP (Vincent & Corbet Arrest Prior to Time of Privilege) House of Commons · Member of Parliament	24 April 1640	Stay of Suit by Speaker’s Warrant vs. 16-Day / 15-Day Temporal Limit on Contempt	Lex Parliamenti; Temporal Rule of 16 Days Exclusive / 15 Days Inclusive	Civil Arrest / Debt Process	Motion for Speaker’s Warrant to Stay Suits and Punish Arresting Parties (Vincent & Corbet)	In the case concerning Thomas Smith MP (involving Vincent and Corbet, clarified by Nalson i, p. 331 and Cope & Coates p. 45 n.1), the House ordered the Speaker to issue his warrant to stay suits against the Member during the time of Parliament, but declined to punish the arresting parties for contempt because the arrest occurred outside the 16-day/15-day window before the beginning of Parliament. — “Speaker to issue Warrant to stay Suits against [Mr. Thos. Smith] during the Time of Parliament; the Contempt of the Arrest declined, not being committed within Time of Privilege, 24 Apr. Said, and not contradicted, that Members had Privilege for Sixteen Days exclusive, and Fifteen inclusive, before the Beginning, and after the Ending, of a Parliament.”	Suit stayed during session by Speaker’s warrant; contempt punishment declined due to strict temporal boundary (16 days exclusive / 15 days inclusive).	p. 45 n. 1 (citing Nalson, i, p. 331 & C.J., ii, p. 10) CJ Vol. 2, p. 10 (EP1-168 & EP1-174)
SP-03 Viewer 2 [EP1-170]	Sir Peter Temple MP — Stay of Suits at Common Law House of Commons · Member of Parliament	29 April 1640	Inherent Parliamentary Privilege / Stay of Civil Suits	Lex Parliamenti; Speaker’s Letter / Warrant of Stay	Civil	Suits at Law Against a Sitting Member (Sir Peter Temple Bt., MP for Buckingham)	Sir Peter Temple MP claimed parliamentary privilege against pending common-law suits during his attendance at Westminster. The House granted privilege and ordered a stay of all suits at law against him. — “Privilege to Sir Peter Temple, by Stay of Suits at Law against him, 29 Apr 1640.”	Immediate stay of suits at law granted by order of the House of Commons.	Ref. C.J. ii, p. 15 (29 April 1640) CJ Vol. 2, p. 15 (EP1-170)
SP-04 Viewer 2 [EP1-171]	Mr. Wharton MP v. Rainshawe — Stay of Suits in the Earl Marshal’s Court of Honour House of Commons · Member of Parliament	30 April 1640	Immunity from Prerogative / Chivalry Court Process & Summons of Prosecutor	Lex Parliamenti; Supremacy over the Court of Honour	Parliamentary Contempt / Prerogative Court Suit	Prosecuting a Member of Parliament in the Earl Marshal’s Court of Honour during Session	Following Edward Hyde’s 18 April speech attacking the illegal exactions and imprisonment practiced by the Earl Marshal’s Court of Honour, Mr. Wharton MP complained on 30 April of suits prosecuted against him in the Court of Honour. The Commons stayed the suits and ordered Rainshawe to be sent for to answer the breach of privilege. — “Privilege to Mr. Wharton MP by stay of suits against him in the Court of Honour; Rainshawe sent for, 30 Apr 1640.”	Court of Honour proceedings stayed; prosecutor Rainshawe summoned by the House.	Ref. C.J. ii, p. 16; cf. Hyde’s Speech on Court of Honour, pp. 158, 260–62 CJ Vol. 2, p. 16 (EP1-171)
SP-05 Viewer 2 [EP1-172]	Mr. Solicitor General (Edward Herbert MP) & Mr. Tooley — Stay in the Court of Wards House of Commons · Member of Parliament	1 May 1640	Stay of Prerogative / Feudal Court Proceedings Touching a Member or Necessary Agent	Lex Parliamenti	Civil / Court of Wards	Proceedings in the Court of Wards Against Mr. Tooley Touching Solicitor General Herbert MP	Even though Solicitor General Edward Herbert was the Crown’s chief legal spokesman in the Commons, he claimed parliamentary privilege on 1 May 1640 to stay proceedings in the Court of Wards against Mr. Tooley. — “Privilege to Mr. Solicitor General / Privilege to Mr. Tooley, by Stay of Proceedings against him in the Court of Wards, 1 May 1640.”	Proceedings in the Court of Wards stayed by order of the House of Commons.	Ref. C.J. ii, p. 17 (1 May 1640) CJ Vol. 2, p. 17 (EP1-172)
SP-06 Viewer 2 [EP1-173]	Herefordshire MP’s Servants Summoned by Deputy Lieutenant for Military Muster House of Commons · Peer / Servant	2 May 1640	Servant Privilege Against Deputy Lieutenant Military Summons	Lex Parliamenti (Servants Necessary to Member’s Attendance)	Civil / Military Muster	Summoning a Member’s Servants to Attend the Deputy Lieutenant of Herefordshire During Session	A motion was made for privilege on behalf of a Herefordshire Member’s servants (likely Sir Robert Harley MP for Herefordshire) who had been summoned to attend the Deputy Lieutenant of Hereford during the sitting of Parliament. — “Motion for Privilege to a Member’s Servants summoned to attend the Deputy Lieutenant of Hereford; respited, 2 May 1640.”	Motion recorded and respited amid the final crisis over the King’s supply message on 2 May.	Ref. C.J. ii, p. 18 (2 May 1640) CJ Vol. 2, p. 18 (EP1-173)
SP-07 New — Cope & Coates pp. 160, 162	Sir Samuel Rolle MP — Sheriff’s Distraint of Member’s Goods for Shipmoney During Session House of Commons · Member of Parliament	18 & 20 April 1640	Privilege of Member’s Goods & Chattels vs. Illegality of Shipmoney	Lex Parliamenti; Property of Goods; Petition of Right (3 Car. I c. 1)	Civil / Crown Distraint	Sheriff Distraining a Sitting MP’s Goods for Non-Payment of Shipmoney	Sir Samuel Rolle MP (brother of John Rolle MP of the 1629 Tonnage & Poundage case [214]) complained in the Committee of the Whole on 18 April that while he was attending Parliament in the service of his country, the Sheriff had distrained his goods for Shipmoney. Some MPs demanded the Sheriff be sent for as a delinquent; Sir Hugh Cholmley moved to "lay a brand upon shippmoney" and stop sheriffs from distraining until adjudged. Solicitor General Herbert argued that "if the Kinge have right the howse protects noe man in doeing wronge," which directly catalyzed the Commons’ order to bring in all Shipmoney records and try the legality of the tax itself. — “Sir Samuell [Rolle] made complaynte to the howse that whilst he served his countrye in giveing his attendance in the howse, the sheriffe had distrayned his goods for Shippmoney and added that if there might not be priviledge for or goods as well as or persons, it would dishearten men from the service of the countrye... Sir H. Cholmely said that since that Gentlemans goods were taken away in this manner, he thowght it the best waye before the howse showld rise to laye a brand upon shippmoney.”	Rather than treating Shipmoney as a valid Crown debt from which only MPs were exempt, the Commons sent for the King’s Bench and Exchequer Shipmoney records to condemn the tax as illegal for all subjects.	Finch-Hatton MS. 50, pp. 45–46, 47–48 (Cope & Coates, pp. 160, 162) C.J. ii, p. 6; M.C.J. p. 28
SP-08 New — Cope & Coates pp. 64, 68, 94, 104	Sanderson (Servant to Lord Stanhope) v. Roberts, Bailiff Redfort, & Contumacious Gaoler House of Lords · Peer / Servant	20, 23 April & 2 May 1640	Freedom from Arrest for Menial Servant & Enforcement of Habeas Corpus Against Gaoler	Lex Parliamenti; Standing Orders of the House of Lords; Writ of Habeas Corpus	Civil Arrest & Contempt of Habeas Corpus	Arrest of Lord Stanhope’s Servant in St. Dunstan’s & Gaoler’s Refusal to Obey Habeas Corpus	Sanderson, employed by Lord Stanhope for two months, was arrested by Bailiff Redfort at the suit of Joseph Roberts. The Lords first required Lord Stanhope to aver upon his honor under hand and seal that Sanderson was "his meniall servant or solicitor or otherwise imployed in his necessary affaires" (20 & 23 April). On 2 May, Roberts and Redfort proved at the bar that Sanderson had only showed a folded paper without reading it. Lord Keeper Finch ruled that privilege was not to be termed a "protection" but "priviledges," discharged Roberts and Redfort because the paper was not read to them, ordered Sanderson released, and referred the Gaoler’s contempt in refusing to obey the Habeas Corpus to the Subcommittee of Privileges. — “The jaylor will not obey the habeas corpus for to sende Sanderson. LO STANHOPE confest Sanderson hath ben his servant but 2 mo... L KEEP. No intencon to Q. priv[ilege] nor ye Averm[en]t [of L Stanhope], nor ye men to lie in prison. No protections shewed but only a paper and not reade nor to terme it protection but priviledges. All the p[ers]ons set at large and the prisoner. The contempt of the jaylor to be ex[amined] by the subcommittee of Priviledges [for] either refusing to dd [deliver] or to sende him up.”	Servant Sanderson discharged by privilege; plaintiff and bailiff excused for lack of notice; Gaoler prosecuted for contempt in disobeying Habeas Corpus.	Braye MS. 16, fos 14r, 19r, 45v–46r; Montagu Diary, p. 3c (Cope & Coates, pp. 64, 68, 94, 104) L.J. iv, pp. 59, 64, 78–79
SP-09 New — Cope & Coates pp. 83, 285	Henry Presse (Servant to Lord Paget) v. Mayor Churchey of Weymouth & Sergeants at Mace House of Lords · Peer / Servant	28 April 1640	Inherent Parliamentary Privilege Overriding Municipal Arrest Warrant & Indemnity Bond	Lex Parliamenti; Peer’s Letters of Privilege under Hand and Seal	Civil Arrest / Contempt of Parliamentary Privilege	Mayor and Sergeants of Weymouth Refusing to Honor Lord Paget’s Letters of Privilege	Henry Presse, household servant to Lord Paget, was arrested in Weymouth and Melcombe Regis by Sergeants at Mace Joseph Mander and Justinian Bagg on a warrant from Mayor George Churchey at the suit of Dorchester merchant Joseph Perkins. Although Presse produced Lord Paget’s letters of privilege under hand and seal at the arrest, the Mayor and sergeants refused to release him, calling it "a pretended proteccon," and the Mayor took a £100 indemnity bond from the plaintiff to detain him. Presse petitioned the House of Lords. — “And notwithstanding the said letters of priviledge (being at the arrest shewed to the said maior and serjeants and the said plaintiff) they did refuse to release or sett your petitioner at libertie; alleadging that the said lettres of priviledge was a pretended proteccon and the said maior tooke a bond of 100li from the plaintiff to save him harmles touching the detayning of your petitioner.”	The House of Lords immediately ordered the Mayor of Weymouth, both Sergeants at Mace, and the plaintiff Perkins to be sent for to answer the breach of privilege.	Braye MS. 16, fo 34r; H.L.R.O. Main Papers, 28 April 1640 (Cope & Coates, pp. 83, 285) L.J. iv, p. 71
SP-10 New — Cope & Coates pp. 67–68, 83, 100–101	Edward Bradshaw — Forging & Selling Counterfeit Parliamentary Protections House of Lords · Petitioner / Private Citizen	22, 23, 28 April 1640	Policing Abuse of Privilege (Punishment of Counterfeit Protections)	Inherent Penal Jurisdiction of the House of Lords; Standing Order on Protections	Criminal / Forgery & Contempt	Counterfeiting Lord Morley’s Hand and Seal to Sell Three Protections for £3	Lord Keeper Finch informed the Lords on 22 April "That many protections are sould up and downe Towne and conceived to be counterfeited." Edward Bradshaw was apprehended and brought to the bar on 23 April, where he confessed he told Marston the seal-cutter that he had lost Lord Morley’s seal, bespoke a new seal, and sold three counterfeit protections to Kynaston for £3. — “Seale cuttor to be realest and Kynaston. Bradshaw to be bound backe to the [Fleete]; Cheape and Westm[inster] pillory; bound and restrained to ye House [of] Correction untill sufficient suerties [of] good behavior, Fine 100li... It was putt to voting whether he should be nayled or no, but the non contents carried yt by far [39 to 19]. (28 April: Bradshaw not to be whipped.)”	Seal-cutter Marston and buyer Kynaston released as innocent; Bradshaw sentenced to the pillory, £100 fine, and House of Correction (nailing of ears and whipping remitted).	Braye MS. 16, fos 18v, 19r, 34r; Montagu Diary, pp. 2c–2d (Cope & Coates, pp. 67–68, 83, 100–101) L.J. iv, pp. 63, 64, 71
SP-11 New — Cope & Coates p. 284	High & Petty Constables of Oxfordshire (Appletree & Coleman) — Refusal to Distrain for Shipmoney Without Indemnity House of Commons · Local Constable / Collector	24 April 1640	Protection of Local Officers Refusing to Execute Illegal Distraint Warrants Without Indemnity	Common Law Liability for Executing Void Warrants; Right to Petition Parliament	Criminal / Arbitrary Imprisonment by Sheriff	Imprisoned in Oxford Castle by High Sheriff Rodolph Warcupp for Refusing to Distrain Citizens’ Goods	Richard Appletree (High Constable of Wootton Hundred), Joseph Coleman (High Constable of Banbury Hundred), and petty constables of Oxfordshire collected voluntary Shipmoney payments, but when High Sheriff Rodolph Warcupp issued a third warrant commanding them "personally to distrayne and the distresses to sell away," the constables demanded that the Sheriff indemnify ("secure") them against common-law trespass actions that citizens would bring against them. When the Sheriff refused to indemnify them, the constables refused to execute the distraint warrant and refused to be bound to appear at the Council Table, whereupon the Sheriff imprisoned them in Oxford Castle. — “...whereuppon issued a third warrant from the said High sheriff directed to your peticioners personally to distrayne and the distresses to sell away rendring the surplusage to the owners: your petitioners desired the said High sheriff to secure them from accions to be brought in case they should distreyne which he refused to doe and your petitioners denyed the execucon of the sayd warrants for the which they alsoe denying to be bound to appear at the councell table stand committed by the sayd High sheriff. Humbly crave theire inlardgement...”	Petition received by the Commons on 24 April and incorporated into the 6th Head of Property Grievances ("The frequent imprisonment of such as failed to pay unwarrantable taxes" / execute illegal warrants).	H.L.R.O. Main Papers, 24 April 1640 (Cope & Coates, p. 284) C.J. ii, p. 10 (24 April 1640)
SP-12 New — Cope & Coates pp. 287–288	John Tynge & Thomas Poole (Constables of Fyfield, Essex) — Imprisoned by Privy Council in the Fleet House of Commons · Local Constable / Collector	1 May 1640	Relief Against Privy Council Close Imprisonment & Coerced Star Chamber Bonds	Magna Carta; Petition of Right (3 Car. I c. 1); Right to Petition Parliament	Criminal / Privy Council & Star Chamber Prosecution	Close Imprisonment in the Fleet for Refusing to Make an Unwarranted Parish Rate for Shipmoney	Tynge and Poole, constables of Fyfield, Essex, were summoned by a messenger before the Privy Council for not making a Shipmoney rate "which your peticioners had of them selves no warrant to doe." Refusing to enter into a £100 bond to make the rate and obey the Sheriff, they were committed close prisoners to the Fleet for 5 weeks and 3 days ("kept asunder locked up in fouall chambers remote debarred from all accesse of wife, frends pen inke and paper") and 3 weeks and 4 days more until forced to give bond to answer the Attorney General’s Information in Star Chamber, costing them over £45. — “...which wee your peticioners refuseing to doe were by the said Lords committed prisoners to the fleete the 31 of the said month of January and there did remayne five weekes and three dayes closse prisoners kept asunder locked up in fouall chambers remote debarred from all accesse of wife, frends pen inke and paper... They therefore most humbly pray that they may have their bond delivered in which they entered into unto his said Majesteys attorney generall and may have such further releife as this grave and honorable assembly shall thinke fytt.”	Read in the House of Commons on 1 May 1640 as primary evidence of Privy Council and Star Chamber oppression under the Property & Liberty Heads of Grievance.	H.L.R.O. Main Papers, 1 May 1640 (Cope & Coates, pp. 287–88) C.J. ii, p. 17 (1 May 1640)
SP-13 New — Cope & Coates pp. 285–287	Walter Oke & William Newet (Citizens of London) v. Lord Mayor Sir Edward Bromfield House of Commons · Local Constable / Collector	30 April 1640	Redress for Unlawful Imprisonment in Newgate to Extort Uncollected Shipmoney	Magna Carta; Petition of Right; Common Law Liberty of the Subject	Criminal / False Imprisonment by Lord Mayor	Committed to Newgate for 6 Days for Refusing to Advance £50–£60 of Uncollected Shipmoney	Appointed collectors of Shipmoney in Cordwainer Ward (1637), Newet and Oke paid in all sums collected, but Lord Mayor Sir Edward Bromfield demanded Newet pay £50 more than he had received within 3 days or go to Newgate. When Newet’s pregnant wife begged for his release or at least that her melancholic husband not be left alone, Bromfield said "that was but a reasonable request" and committed Walter Oke to Newgate "for company" for 6 days "to spurre on others." — “Which unjust imprisonment and greivances done unto your peticioner by the said Sr Edward and his officers being injuries of a high nature contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of this kingdome and the ancient liberties of the subjects thereof, Your petitioner humbly prayeth this honorable assembly to take into your grave and judicious consideracions and to be pleased to affoard the peticioner such remedy and releife therein for his damage and losse sustained...”	Read on 30 April 1640 and ordered "To be moved in when the House falls into the debate of the shippmoney." Later pursued in the Long Parliament (Notestein, D’Ewes, p. 218).	H.L.R.O. Main Papers, 30 April 1640 (Cope & Coates, pp. 285–87) C.J. ii, p. 16 (30 April 1640)
SP-14 New — Cope & Coates pp. 167, 199, 246, 280–282	Peter Smart (Prisoner in the King’s Bench) v. Dr. John Cosin & the High Commission House of Commons · Petitioner / Private Citizen	21 & 22 April 1640	Parliamentary Relief from High Commission Imprisonment, Oath Ex Officio, & Obstruction of £600 Common-Law Judgment	1 Eliz. c. 1 (High Commission has no power to fine/imprison); Common Law Judgment Enforcement	Ecclesiastical / Criminal Imprisonment & Civil Damages	10 Years’ Imprisonment, £500 Fine, Deprivation, and Blocking Execution of £600 Common-Law False Imprisonment Judgment	Peter Smart, Senior Prebendary of Durham, petitioned from the King’s Bench prison. After preaching in July 1628 against Dr. Cosin’s altar innovations, Smart was suspended before articles were exhibited, forced to take the oath ex officio at Durham and London, degraded, fined £500, and imprisoned for nearly 10 years. Smart had sued the High Commissioners at common law for false imprisonment and won a judgment for £600 damages, "yett cannot have any fruit thereof." On 21 April the Commons required Smart to sign his petition in person; on 22 April it was read, a select committee was appointed to examine by what authority he lay in prison, and warrants were issued to fetch Dr. Cosin. — “That your petitioner was two severall times imprisoned att Yorke before their said sentence for which injurious imprisonment he commenced his accion att law against some of ye said high Commissioners and obteyned judgement thereupon and 600li damages yett cannot have any fruit thereof... hee humblie beseecheth you presentlie to give order for his release from his close imprisonment. And that he may have present execucion upon the said judgement for ye said 600li...”	Select committee appointed 22 April to investigate Smart’s imprisonment; warrants issued for Dr. Cosin; directly informed the Commons’ condemnation of High Commission fines, imprisonment, and the Oath Ex Officio.	H.L.R.O. Main Papers, 22 April 1640; Finch-Hatton p. 52; Bernard p. 1 (Cope & Coates, pp. 167, 199, 246, 280–82) C.J. ii, pp. 8–9, 14
SP-15 New — Cope & Coates pp. 158, 260–262	Say’s Case (The Widow’s Lawyer) & Dover v. Fox (The Swan/Goose Case) in the Court of Honour House of Commons · Petitioner / Private Citizen	18 April 1640	Protection of Legal Counsel Advising Clients on Unlawful Fees & Citizens Against Arbitrary Fines	Magna Carta; Common Law Jurisdiction vs. Usurped Chivalry Jurisdiction	Prerogative Court Fine & Imprisonment	Imprisoning a Lawyer (Mr. Say) for Advising a Client That Heralds’ Funeral Fees Were Not Due by Law	In his maiden speech on 18 April, Edward Hyde MP exposed two egregious abuses of private persons’ rights by the Earl Marshal’s Court of Honour: (1) A widow asked her lawyer (Mr. Say) whether funeral fees demanded by the Heralds were due by law; for advising his client that he knew of no law making them due, the lawyer was summoned before the Court of Honour, fined, imprisoned, and bound over de die in diem because he refused to sign a recantation that they were due by law. (2) A merchant of good quality (Fox) was imprisoned and ruined for a jest mistaking a nobleman’s swan crest for a goose. — “A gentlewoman, hee said that had beene sollicited by the Herralds for their fees for her husbands corpes asked but a Lawyers advise, whether it was due, hee replyed not, that he knewe by Lawe, for this the Lawyer was summoned to that courte, and being he would not there recant his opinion and make submission, hee was find, imprisoned, and not dischardged in a long tyme.”	Laid the foundation for the Commons’ stay of Court of Honour suits (30 April, Wharton’s Case) and the abolition of the Court of Honour’s arbitrary jurisdiction in the Long Parliament.	Finch-Hatton MS. 50, p. 44; Bodl. MS. Clarendon 18, fos 155r–155v (Cope & Coates, pp. 158, 260–62) C.J. ii, pp. 6, 16
SP-16 New — Cope & Coates pp. 91–93, 283–284	Archibald Niccoll & 13 Partners v. Sir John Hippesley & Privy Council Warrant House of Lords · Petitioner / Private Citizen	22, 30 April & 2 May 1640	Enforcement of Definitive Admiralty Court Judgment Against Executive Seizure by Council Warrant	Judicial Finality; House of Lords Appellate & Petition Jurisdiction	Civil / Executive Seizure of Adjudicated Goods	Seizure by Privy Council Warrant of £3,277 in Goods Awarded to Petitioners by Judge Sir Henry Marten in Admiralty	Niccoll and his 13 partners obtained a definitive sentence in the Court of Admiralty for £4,577 18s., and Judge Sir Henry Marten delivered inventoried goods in full satisfaction. Sir John Hippesley then came with a warrant from the Lords of the Council and seized back all the goods except £2,000 worth, leaving the petitioners unpaid £3,277 and facing debtors’ prison. — “Whose most humble suite is That your lordships (who next under god and his majestie are the fountaines of justice and upon whome their whole hopes relyes) will in commisseracon of their greate oppression longe since and extreame poverty occasioned thereby be honorably pleased to settle some speedy and constant course whereby they may be paid the said some of 3277li appearing to be justly due unto them...”	On 2 May 1640, the House of Lords voted that the Earl of Dorset should present the case of Archibald Niccoll directly to the King for restitution.	Braye MS. 16, fos 44r, 45v; H.L.R.O. Main Papers, 22 April 1640 (Cope & Coates, pp. 91–93, 283–84) L.J. iv, p. 78
SP-17 New — Cope & Coates p. 287	Sir Peter Vanlore Bt. v. Dr. John Littleton — Obstruction of Quare Impedit in Common Pleas House of Commons · Petitioner / Private Citizen	1 May 1640	Petition Against Denial / Hindrance of Ordinary Course of Justice in Westminster Hall	Magna Carta c. 40; 5th Head of Property Grievances (Denial of Justice in Courts of Westminster)	Civil / Quare Impedit	Hindering the Ordinary Course of Justice in a Quare Impedit Touching the Vicarage of Tilehurst	Sir Peter Vanlore Bt. petitioned the Commons against Dr. John Littleton because "the ordinary course of justice is hindered in a quare impedit" in the Court of Common Pleas concerning the vicarage of Tilehurst, praying that counsel be assigned him and that the Prothonotaries and Secondaries of the Common Pleas bring in the records and rules. — “Hee humbly prayes that councel may bee assigned him and in some speedy day appoynted for discusment thereof and that such other prothonatories [?] secondaries of the common Pleas as have the records and rules in this case may bee moved to attend...”	Presented 1 May 1640; exemplifies the 5th Head of Civil Grievances voted on 24 April ("The deniall of Justice in Westminster to the subject").	H.L.R.O. Main Papers, 1 May 1640 (Cope & Coates, p. 287) C.J. ii, p. 17
SP-18 New — Cope & Coates pp. 114, 185–86, 204–205	Dr. William Beale (Master of St. John’s & Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge) — Summons Respecting Convocation Privilege House of Commons · Clergy / Convocation	1 May 1640	Due Process & Convocation Privilege from Arrest vs. Accountability for Preaching Against Property & Parliament	8 Hen. VI c. 1 (Convocation Privilege); Lex Parliamenti	Parliamentary Summons / Contempt Inquiry	Preaching at St. Mary’s Cambridge (1635) That Taxes, Goods, Servants, and Children Are the King’s Absolutely	John Pym presented extracts of a sermon preached by Dr. William Beale in 1635 asserting that the King may constitute laws without Parliament and that "Taxes and subsedyes, tonnage and poundage... are the Kings Absolutely, defend hee the seas or defend them not they are his as absolutely as his crowne and likewise or selves our goods our servants, our children." Because Beale was a member of the Convocation House and the charges were not yet proved by witnesses, the Commons voted NOT to arrest him as a delinquent and NOT to seize or seal his study and papers, but to leave a Speaker’s summons at his lodging to appear by Thursday. — “The House upon this misdeamenor of Dr Beale (though they were unwilling to send for him as a delinquent in regard hee was a member of the Convocation House) Never thelesse ordered that hee should have informacion att his lodgeing given him; That the house had taken notice of such allegacons against him and that if hee desired to purge himselfe hereof hee might before the Thursday following repaire to the House of Commons... And whether his stud[y] and papers should be seised on or seale[d]. Resolved not to seise or seale.”	Divided vote (Noes carried against immediate arrest in custody); formal summons signed by Speaker left at his chamber; seizure of papers rejected before proof.	Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fos 73r–74r; Bernard Diary, pp. 14–16; Lee Warner, p. 5 (Cope & Coates, pp. 114, 185–86, 204–205) C.J. ii, p. 18 (1 May 1640)
SP-19 New — Cope & Coates pp. 63, 65, 82–83, 98–99, 102	Dr. Roger Manwaring (Bishop of St. Davids) & Lionel Cranfield (Earl of Middlesex) — Finality of Parliamentary Judgments House of Lords · Clergy / Convocation	18, 20, 21, 28 April & 2, 4 May 1640	Supremacy of Parliamentary Judgments Over Unilateral Royal Pardon until Restored by the House	Lex Parliamenti; Judicial Finality of the High Court of Parliament	Parliamentary Impeachment Judgment Enforcement	Sitting or Sending a Proxy in the House of Lords After Disability Imposed by Parliamentary Judgment	Dr. Roger Manwaring, impeached and disabled from ecclesiastical preferment in 1628 for preaching that the King could take subjects’ goods without Parliament, had been pardoned by Charles I and made Bishop of St. Davids. Lord Say warned on 18 April: "If Judgments are overthrowne, it will be worse for ye body of the Peres of this House." On 21 April the Lords ordered that Manwaring should neither sit nor send a proxy, forcing the King on 28 April to command him not to sit or send a proxy. Conversely, the Earl of Middlesex (impeached in 1624), though pardoned and sent a writ by the King, dutifully refrained from sitting or sending a proxy and humbly petitioned the Lords on 2 May for restoration by the House itself. — “L VISCOUNT SAY. Yt he struck at the roots, parliament, Lawes, and Liberties not only touch upon Privileges as Peeres, but trench far upon the Constitucon of this House. If Judgments are overthrowne, it will be worse for ye body of the Peres of this House... Ordered that Dr Manwaring, [now B of St Davids], shall [not] come and sitt [in] this hon[ora]ble House, nor sende his Proxie unto the House.”	Manwaring excluded from sitting or sending a proxy; Middlesex’s humble petition for restoration approved by the Committee of Privileges on 4–5 May because he respected the House’s judgment.	Braye MS. 16, fos 12v–13r, 15v, 34r, 45v; Montagu Diary, pp. 2, 3a, 3c–3d (Cope & Coates, pp. 63, 65, 82–83, 94, 98–99, 102–104) L.J. iv, pp. 58, 60–61, 70, 78
SP-20 Viewer 2 [EP1-167 & EP1-173]	The 1629 Dissolution & King’s Bench Prosecution of Sir John Eliot et al. — Voted a Breach of Privilege House of Commons · Member of Parliament	16–20 April 1640	Exclusive Jurisdiction of Parliament Over Speeches & Self-Adjournment of the House	Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti; Strode’s Act (4 Hen. VIII c. 8)	Constitutional / Criminal Information in King’s Bench	Verbal Command to Speaker Not to Put the Question & King’s Bench Imprisonment of MPs for Speeches in Parliament	Throughout 16–20 April, Seymour, Pym, Strangways, Lewknor, and Oliver St. John attacked (1) Speaker Finch’s refusal in 1629 to put the question upon a verbal royal command, and (2) the King’s Bench judgment against Sir John Eliot, Valentine, Holles, and Long for speeches and actions in Parliament. Strangways declared that "the Kinge may out of Parliament question Treason or felony in the Howse, but not misdemeanors, the howse was to be the sole judge hereof." St. John proved that since Parliament is called by the Great Seal, a verbal command cannot adjourn it ("for the courte must adjourne it selfe"). On 20 April, the Commons formally resolved that the 1629 verbal adjournment command and Speaker’s refusal were a breach of privilege. — “MR ST JOHNS. Hereupon said that he did not beleive this Question any way against the Prerogative... hee shewed that the Kinge called Parliaments by his Greate Seale and not by bare command of word, and therefore he held it might not be adjourned with a bare command, Nay hee said it was a Question whether the Greate Seale could adjourne it, for the courte must adjourne it selfe... At length it was put to the howse Whether the adjournment of the howse by a verball command of the Kinge from the mouth of the Speaker bee not a breach of Priviledges And voted that it was.”	Voted a breach of the privileges of the House on 20 April 1640; King’s Bench records sent for on 18–21 April to reverse the 1629 judgments.	Harvard MS. fos 26v–27r, 35r–35v; Finch-Hatton pp. 45–49; Worc. Coll. fo 17r (Cope & Coates, pp. 141, 149–50, 159–63, 220) C.J. ii, pp. 6–7 (EP1-167, EP1-173)
SP-21 Viewer 2 [EP1-169]	The Indemnity of the Commons (9 Hen. IV) & Exclusive Origination of Supply — Commons vs. Lords Both Houses · Member of Parliament	24 April – 1 May 1640	Exclusive Commons Privilege Over Origination/Order of Supply & Secrecy of Internal Proceedings	Indemnity of the Lords and Commons (9 Hen. IV, Rot. Parl. iii, p. 611); Lex Parliamenti	Inter-Cameral Constitutional Privilege	Lords Voting That Supply Should Precede Grievances & Taking Notice of Internal Commons Votes via the King	After the Commons voted on 23–24 April to consult with the Lords on the Three Heads of Grievances (Religion, Property, Privileges) before granting supply, Charles I went to the House of Lords on 24 April and revealed the Commons’ internal vote, urging the Lords not to join with them unless supply came first. Despite warnings from Lord Say and 25 dissenting peers (listed in Worc. Coll. fo 26v, p. 229), the Lords voted (60 to 21) that supply should precede grievances. On 27–28 April, the Commons voted the Lords’ action a double breach of privilege: (1) meddling with the priority of supply, and (2) taking notice of internal Commons proceedings before the Commons reported them, contrary to the Statute/Ordinance of 9 Hen. IV ("The Indemnity of the Commons"). — “MR ST JOHN... s[ai]d there was an Act in H. 4 not printed; That noe man showld speake to the Kinge or any other of what passeth in the Howse. And finally said that whosoever acquaynted the Kinge with the intentions of the Howse deserved not to sitt there... MR PIMME [at the Conference, 28 April]: Nowe, my Lords, if you have voted this you have not onely meddled with matter of supplyes, [but] (as farre as in you lyes) have concluded both the matter and order of proceedings which the Howse of Commons takes to bee a breach of their priviledges; And for which I am commanded to desire reparation from yor Lopps.”	Pym delivered the famous demand for reparation on 28 April, receiving formal thanks recorded in the Commons Journal.	Braye MS. 16, fos 20v–45r; Finch-Hatton pp. 64–70, 74v (Cope & Coates, pp. 69–93, 177–84, 187, 266–72) C.J. ii, pp. 13–15, 18; L.J. iv, pp. 66–77 (EP1-169)
SP-22 New — Cope & Coates pp. 168–69, 236, 246	William Dell MP (Secretary to Archbishop Laud) — Censure for Misreporting John Pym’s Speech House of Commons · Member of Parliament	22 April 1640	Protection of Members Against False Reporting & Slander of Parliamentary Speeches	Lex Parliamenti; Indemnity of Debate	Parliamentary Contempt / Misreporting Speech	Falsely Accusing John Pym of Saying Foreign Churches Were Forsaking England Because England Forsook Her Religion	On 22 April, William Dell MP (Secretary to Archbishop Laud) claimed he had heard a member say "that the churches beyond sea were about to forsake us because wee did forsake or Religion." Forced by the House to name the member, Dell named John Pym. The House by vote cleared Pym of the words, George Peard MP called Dell’s accusation "murther because he said it was done in cold bloode," and only Pym’s and Hampden’s intercession saved Dell from being brought to the bar on his knees. — “And after the Howse by vote cleared Mr Pimme of those words. They were inclyned to have Mr Delle come to the Barre and make his recognition, but Mr Pimme did intercede for him takeing his acknowledgm[en]t of sorrowe, not as a delinquent but in his place; desireing him to acquaint his Lord [Archbishop Laud] alsoe of his mistake, for he said he doubted not but he had misinformed him herein... Hee was therefore ordered to aske forgiveness and to recant it wherever hee had told it.”	Pym cleared by formal vote; Dell ordered to ask forgiveness in his place and recant the misreport wherever he had repeated it (especially to Archbishop Laud).	Finch-Hatton MS. 50, p. 54; Harl. MS. 4931, fo 47v; S.P. 16/451/57 (Cope & Coates, pp. 168–69, 236, 246) C.J. ii, p. 9 (22 April 1640)
SP-23 New — Cope & Coates pp. 65, 99–100, 236	Joseph Hall (Bishop of Exeter) — Admonition in the Lords for Comparing Lord Say to Scottish Covenanters House of Lords · Peer / Servant	20 & 21 April 1640	Freedom of Debate in Committee Against Defamatory Imputations of Disloyalty	Standing Orders of the House of Lords	Parliamentary Contempt / Offensive Words in Committee	Saying in the Grand Committee of Privileges That a Peer’s Argument Savoured of a Scottish Covenanter	During the Grand Committee of Privileges debate on 20 April concerning whether Bishops constituted a "third estate" and Convocation’s sitting days, Bishop Joseph Hall of Exeter let fall words comparing Lord Say’s arguments to the Scottish Covenanters. On 21 April, Viscount Mandeville and the Earl of Hertford complained to the House. When Bishop Hall initially said "If I have offended I cry pardon," the Lords cried out "No Ifs!" and forced him to make an unconditional apology. — “BP HALL of Exeter spoke against one of ye Lords, (if I mistake not it was my Ld Say) who was appointed one of ye Committees in a businesse, ye BP said, yt ye Lord savoured of A Scottish Covenanter, for which speach ye Bp was made openly before all ye House to goe downe to ye Barre, who yr said, If I have offended I cry pardon; they all cried out, No Ifs, whereupon hee begged pardon positively.”	Bishop Hall required to retract unconditionally without "Ifs" to vindicate freedom of debate in committee.	Braye MS. 16, fo 16r; Montagu Diary, p. 2b; Harl. MS. 4931, fo 47v (Cope & Coates, pp. 65, 99–100, 236) L.J. iv, p. 61
SP-24 New — Cope & Coates pp. 16, 18, 28, 48, 194, 210	Post-Dissolution Seizure of MPs’ Papers, Searching of Pockets, & Imprisonment of Members Privy Council / Post-Dissolution · Member of Parliament	5–10 May 1640	Immunity of Parliamentary Papers, Petitions, & Speeches After Dissolution	Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti; 16-Day / 15-Day Privilege Window; Freedom of Speech	Criminal / Privy Council Warrants	Searching Chambers & Pockets of Say, Brooke, Pym, Hampden, and St. John; Imprisoning Crew, Belasyse, Hotham; Seizing 250 Petitions	Immediately upon dissolving the Short Parliament on 5 May 1640, the Privy Council violated every principle of parliamentary privilege: they summoned MPs to be examined on their parliamentary speeches (Sir Hugh Cholmley, Henry Belasyse, Sir John Hotham), committed John Crew (Chairman of the Committee for Religion, who refused to hand over petitions), Belasyse, and Hotham to prison, searched the chambers, trunks, and even pockets of Lord Brooke, Lord Say, Pym, Hampden, and Oliver St. John, and forced Clerk Henry Elsyng to hand over "One bundle of petitions 250" (returned in October 1640). — “The loss and destruction of records began immediately following the dissolution. Members were called before the Council and questioned about remarks made in Parliament. Chambers and even men themselves were searched and papers seized. The clerk of the Commons was ordered to bring in Parliament’s papers [including "One bundle of petitions 250", S.P. 16/452/30], those who had chaired committees were commanded to turn over petitions that were in their custody...”	Condemned by the Long Parliament in November 1640 as a high breach of privilege; reparations awarded to the imprisoned and searched members.	Intro. pp. 16, 18, 24, 28, 48; Bernard Diary p. 27; Footnotes pp. 175 n.3, 185 n.2, 194 n.2 S.P. 16/452/30; CSP Dom. 1640, pp. 152–56

Section 02 · Mesne Process, Evidence-Gathering & Pretextual Charges

2. Mesne Process, Edwarde Vawdrey (1621), Counterfeit Protections, & The “Treason” Pretext (1640 vs. 1800s)

Evaluating how petitioners investigating third-party cases and gathering evidence were protected in 1621–1640, why forged protections sold for £3, the two sides of “Grievances vs. Crimes,” and why privilege blocked the King’s treason charge in 1640–1642.

Q01 · 1621 Smoking-Gun Precedent · Parliamentary Archives HL/PO/JO/10/13/7 · Matched to Peter Smart (22 April 1640, p. 282)

Edwarde Vawdrey’s Petition (1621): The Exact Legal Basis for Protecting a Petitioner Investigating & Gathering Evidence

How does Edwarde Vawdrey’s 1621 petition (HL/PO/JO/10/13/7) prove that a petitioner investigating third-party cases, gathering evidence, and submitting to Parliament was protected from threats and retaliation?

Your 1621 manuscript petition of Edwarde Vawdrey (HL/PO/JO/10/13/7 from the Power of Petitioning collection) is the exact constitutional template for Peter Smart’s 1640 petition (p. 282) and the 1640 Short Parliament petitions:
1. A Private Petitioner Investigating Systemic Judicial Corruption Across 8 Cases: Vawdrey petitioned the House of Commons against oppressions by the Court of Exchequer at Chester (where Edward Dodd Esq. was Register under the Earl of Derby) and was admitted to prefer his bill in Parliament. To prove systemic corruption by Dodd and the court’s officers, Vawdrey personally investigated and compiled a dossier of 8 specific cases of bribery and record-alteration in that court (Fraunces West v. John Strethill, 100 marks/£30; Edmond & Roger Jodrell v. Bishop of Chester, £100; Okell v. Rudgate, £10; Burgeny v. Pulford, altering records for an amicus curiae; Burgesse v. Pimlott; Fawkener v. Leeche; Massie v. William Leighe, £20; Partington of Cotton, £100 demanded pendente lite) plus two attorneys of that court (Master Whitby and Master Case) who could lay open the abuses upon examination.
2. Menacing a Petitioner with Future Retaliation Is a High Contempt: Register Edward Dodd menaced and threatened Vawdrey, charging that he was "clamarous," that he was attacking the reputation of the Earl of Derby, and threatening "that the peticioner hath hitherto done noe good nor heareafter shall doe any good in his complainte, and that the daie will come he shall be remembered for the same."
3. Parliamentary Protection "To Followe His Causes" & Compulsory Summons of the Official: Vawdrey prayed (a) "that by the aucthoritye of this highe and honorable house of Parliament he maie be protected to followe his causes," (b) that the House call before them and examine the witnesses in the 8 cases he had investigated, and (c) that Master Dodd (then in town) be called to answer his menaces and misdemeanors. And look at the official endorsement at the foot of the petition: "Edward Vaudrey 1621. Master Dod to be sent for [on Thursday next?]!"

Primary Manuscript / Journal Record
“The peticioners humble desire is that by the aucthoritye of this highe and honorable house of Parliament he maie be protected to followe his causes: and if upon examinacion of his wronges it prove he compleine without cause he lookes for noe other from this honourable courte but lex talionis to be imposed upon him... And further this peticioners humble desire is that this high and honorable assemblie woulde be pleased for thadvancement of justice and suppression of the abuses of that Courte of the Eschequer at Chester to call before theise persons folowinge and to examyne them of the undue proceedinges of that courte... Master Dodd is nowe in towne whoe this peticioner praieth maie be called to answeare the said menaces and threates and other the misdemeanours in this peticion.
[Endorsed:] ● Edward Vaudrey 1621. Master Dod to be sent for [on Thursday next?]. (HL/PO/JO/10/13/7, 1621)”

Q02 · 22–28 April 1640 · House of Lords · Braye MS. 16, fos 18v–19r

Why Edward Bradshaw Sold Forged Parliamentary Protections for £3 Apiece

Why was a slip of paper bearing a Peer’s or MP’s seal worth £3 on the streets of London in April 1640?

In 1640, Parliamentary Privilege operated as an immediate, self-executing bar to all civil arrest and mesne process (capias ad respondendum, latitat, attachment, equity subpoena, or distraint). If a sheriff’s bailiff or municipal sergeant-at-mace arrested a person carrying a valid protection as a Parliamentary suitor, solicitor, or servant, the officer was personally summoned to the Bar of the House in custody—just as Mayor George Churchey and the two Sergeants-at-Mace of Weymouth were ordered sent for on 28 April 1640 when they ignored Lord Paget’s sealed letters of privilege for Henry Presse (p. 83, p. 285).
Because bailiffs were terrified of Parliamentary commitment, a black market sprang up in London: Edward Bradshaw told Marston the seal-cutter that he had lost Lord Morley’s seal, had a counterfeit seal cut, and sold three forged protections to Kynaston for £3 (pp. 67–68, 100–101). To protect genuine suitors and servants, the Lords sentenced Bradshaw to the pillory at Westminster and Cheapside and a £100 fine.

Primary Manuscript / Journal Record
“LO KEEP. That many protections are sould up and downe Towne and conceived to be counterfeited... The examination of Edward Bradshaw was reade, concerning the counterfeiting of three protections under hand and seale of the Lo Morleys. Bradshaw brought to barr. He confest he did bespeake a seale to be cutt and did tell Marston, the seale cutter, that he had lost the Lo Morely seale and soe bespoke another and sould the three to Kynnaston for 3li. (Braye MS. 16, fos 18v–19r, pp. 67–68)”

Q03 · 16 April – 2 May 1640 · Both Houses · Main Papers & Committee Orders

Privileged Mesne Process for Petitioners Investigating & Gathering Evidence in 1640

Was a petitioner to Parliament investigating a case, gathering evidence, and submitting a petition protected from the courts and Star Chamber in 1640?

Yes. In 1640, the High Court of Parliament protected petitioners, suitors, witnesses, and their solicitors at every stage of preparing and prosecuting a petition:
1. Explicit Coverage of "Solicitors" & Necessary Agents (20 April 1640, p. 64): In Sanderson’s Case, the House of Lords defined the scope of privilege to cover any person averred to be a "meniall servant or solicitor or otherwise imployed in his necessary affaires."
2. Releasing Imprisoned Petitioners to Prosecute & Prove Their Complaints (22 April 1640, p. 282): Directly matching Edwarde Vawdrey’s 1621 prayer ("that he maie be protected to followe his causes"), Peter Smart in his 1640 petition from the King’s Bench prison expressly prayed for immediate release and execution of his £600 common-law judgment against the High Commissioners "whereby he shalbe enabled to prosecute and prove this his most just complaint against these his adversaries."
3. Compulsory Process for Records & Witnesses (16, 18, 28 April & 1 May 1640): Both Houses armed their Committees for Petitions, Privileges, and Grievances with plenary power "to send for all records and witnesses as should bee thought necessary for them" (p. 144) and "to sende for any persons they please to prepare businesses for the House" (p. 83).
4. Why Were Prynne, Burton, & Bastwick Detained in Castles for 3 Years (1637–1640)? You are 100% right: Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick were NOT arrested for petitioning Parliament—they were convicted by Star Chamber in June 1637 for printing unlicensed Puritan books and pamphlets attacking the Bishops during the 11-year period when no Parliament was called (1629–1640), and were banished for 3 years (Aug 1637 – Nov 1640) to remote island castles outside the reach of Westminster writs of Habeas Corpus—William Prynne in Mont Orgueil Castle (Jersey), Henry Burton in Castle Cornet (Guernsey), and John Bastwick in Star Castle (Isles of Scilly)—strictly barred from pen, ink, and paper. That is why Peter Smart (held in the King’s Bench Prison in Southwark) was able to sign his petition in person during the 3-week Short Parliament (21–22 April 1640, p. 167), whereas Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick were freed by Speaker’s warrants sent to Jersey, Guernsey, and Scilly as soon as the Long Parliament met in November 1640!

Primary Manuscript / Journal Record
“Ordered that the Committees of Peticons and Priviledges shall have power to sende for any persons they please to prepare businesses for the House. (Braye MS. 16, fo 34r, 28 April 1640, p. 83)
And that he may have present execucion upon the said judgement for ye said 600li whereby he shalbe enabled to prosecute and prove this his most just complaint against these his adversaries. (Petition of Peter Smart, 22 April 1640, p. 282)”

Q04 · 17, 29 April & 4 May 1640 · House of Commons · Finch-Hatton MS. 50, pp. 68, 81

Clarifying the Two Sides of “Grievances vs. Crimes” in 1640

Did "Grievances are not Crymes" mean the allegations IN the petitions against officials were voted as grievances rather than crimes, OR did it mean the crimes accused AGAINST the petitioners?

Both occurred in the Short Parliament, and distinguishing them makes the 1640 constitutional strategy crystal clear:
A. The Allegations IN the Petitions Against Officials (Voted "Grievances Only" on 29 April 1640, pp. 181–82): When the Commons voted the 8 religious complaints (drawn from the Norwich, Hertfordshire, Essex, and Smart petitions) for the Conference with the Lords, they debated whether to present them "as of crimes or grievances or both." On Robert Holborne’s advice, "the Howse was pleased to take notice of those not as Crimes but as Greivances onely and soe voted it." Why? Because calling them "Crimes" (Praemunire) would trigger technical criminal defenses in the Lords and allow the King to issue a Royal Pardon (as the Earl of Manchester noted in Manwaring’s case, p. 63: "As a penaltie and personall, Majestie may remitt"). Calling them "Grievances" meant the unlawful practice itself had to be abolished regardless of any royal pardon!
B. The Crimes Accused AGAINST the Petitioners & Citizens (17 April & 4 May 1640, pp. 196–97, 234): Outside the Commons, courtiers smeared the county petitions of Middlesex, Suffolk, and Northamptonshire as "ye Scottish Covenant wanting only hands" (p. 234), and on 4 May Sir Henry Slingsby MP called citizens who refused to pay Shipmoney "rebels" ("it was rebellion in any to withstand the payment of it", p. 196). The Commons immediately called Slingsby to the Bar and forced him to retract!

Primary Manuscript / Journal Record
“It was questioned whether the Howse showld make use of these complaynts as of crimes or grievances or both... MR HOLBORNE. Was of a contrarye opinion because he said if they were called crymes, wee bring all that are criminall into a Praemunire... Neverthelesse the Howse was pleased to take notice of those not as Crimes but as Greivances onely and soe voted it. (Finch-Hatton MS. 50, p. 68, 29 April 1640, pp. 181–82)”

Q05 · 18 April 1640 (Strangways) & 4 Jan 1642 (Five Members) vs. 1800s Cases

The “Cromwell” Movie Question: Why Privilege Blocked the King’s Treason Charge in 1640–1642, But Failed in the 1800s

Why did Parliamentary Privilege protect MPs against the King’s Treason accusation in 1640–1642, whereas in the 1800s judges held that criminal indictments override privilege?

Look at Sir John Strangways’s speech on 18 April 1640 (Finch-Hatton MS. 50, p. 45, p. 159):
1. In 1640, Misdemeanors Were Strictly Protected, and the House Was Sole Judge of Pretextual "Treason": Strangways stated the exact 1640 rule: "Hee graunted that the Kinge may out of Parliament question Treason or felony in the Howse, but not misdemeanors, the howse was to be the sole judge hereof." Furthermore, when Charles I in January 1642 (dramatized in the 1970 film Cromwell) had Attorney General Sir Edward Herbert file Articles of High Treason against Pym, Hampden, Holles, Haselrig, and Strode ([209] & [PA-014] in caselaw_viewer.html) for their parliamentary speeches and petitions, Parliament held that the Crown CANNOT strip Parliament of its privilege merely by labeling parliamentary speeches or petitions "Treason," and that no Member can be arrested until the House itself first adjudges whether the charge is a genuine crime or a pretext!
2. How the 1800s Reversed This: Between 1763 (Wilkes) and 1815–1839 (Lord Cochrane [236], Burdett [168], Lovett & Collins [346]), 19th-century judges expanded the old "Treason, Felony, and actual Breach of the Peace" exception to cover ALL indictable misdemeanors (including constructive "unlawful assembly" and "seditious libel"), and refused to let the House screen whether the prosecution was pretextual—until the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (ss. 1–3) and the appellate reversals in Reg. v. Feargus O’Connor (1843 [120]) and O’Connell v. The Queen (1844 [125]) restored protection for parliamentary publications and peaceful mass petitioning!

Primary Manuscript / Journal Record
“Sr John Stranguage. Said that the first he conceived necessary was liberty in Parliament accordinge to Mr Pymme, for without that we sate there in vayne (he said). Hee graunted that the Kinge may out of Parliament question Treason or felony in the Howse, but not misdemeanors, the howse was to be the sole judge hereof... (Finch-Hatton MS. 50, p. 45, 18 April 1640, p. 159)”

Section 03 · Core 1640 Constitutional Doctrines

3. What We Learn From Reading the Short Parliament Intelligently: “Grievances Are Not Crymes” & The “Void Command” Doctrine

The four foundational constitutional doctrines established in the Short Parliament debates (13 April – 5 May 1640).

Doctrine 01 · 29 April & 6 May 1640 · House of Commons Resolution (29 April 1640) & Sir Thomas Peyton MP (6 May 1640) · Finch-Hatton MS. 50, p. 68 (Cope & Coates, pp. 181–82) & Oxinden Letters, p. 173 (Cope & Coates, p. 8)

“Grievances Are Not Crymes” — The Twofold Constitutional Principle of 1640

Why the Commons Voted Complaints as “Grievances Only” (29 April) & How Petitioning Transformed Private Resistance into the Act of the Third Estate (6 May)

Verbatim 1640 Text (Cope & Coates OCR)

It was questioned whether the Howse showld make use of these complaynts as of crimes or grievances or both. MR PIMME. Hereupon advised the Howse not to be afraid to call Crimes Crimes if they be soe; and further that the Howse may proceede against any person hereafter if any bee fownd guilty or criminall... MR HOLBORNE. Was of a contrarye opinion because he said if they were called crymes, wee bring all that are criminall into a Praemunire. SR ROB HARLYE. Said It was noe matter if crimes were called crimes though the guiltye fall into a Praemunire. Neverthelesse the Howse was pleased to take notice of those not as Crimes but as Greivances onely and soe voted it. — Finch-Hatton MS. 50, p. 68 (29 April 1640) "Some say wee are where wee were, but I thinke wee are worse; for what greivances so ever the subjects thought themselves molested with, and therefore would resist 'em, this striving with the King could bee thought butt the Act of private men, till now it is in Parliament made the Act of the third Estate." — Sir Thomas Peyton, 6 May 1640 (Cope & Coates, p. 8)

1640 Constitutional Analysis:
Reading the Short Parliament text intelligently reveals that "Grievances are not Crymes" operated on two complementary constitutional levels in 1640:
1. Protecting Private Citizens' Resistance & Petitions from Criminalization: Outside Parliament, when citizens refused to pay Shipmoney or Coat-and-Conduct Money, or when counties (Essex, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Middlesex, Suffolk) organized mass freeholder petitions, courtiers called their petitions "ye Scottish Covenant wanting only hands" (Harl. MS. 4931, fo 47r, p. 234) and Sir Henry Slingsby MP called withholding Shipmoney "rebellion" (Finch-Hatton p. 81, p. 196). The Commons immediately called Slingsby to the bar and forced him to retract! And as Sir Thomas Peyton observed, once the Commons received the 250 petitions and voted the Three Heads of Grievances, the people's resistance ceased to be "the Act of private men" (punishable as sedition or contumacy) and became "the Act of the third Estate."
2. Procedural Power of Voting Abuses as "Grievances Only" (29 April 1640): Robert Holborne persuaded the House on 29 April to vote the 8 religious articles "not as Crimes, but as Grievances onely" (while reserving criminal impeachment for later). Why? Because a "Crime" requires proving personal mens rea in a judicial forum (the Lords) and can be pardoned by the King (as the Earl of Manchester argued regarding Manwaring on 18 April: "As a penaltie and personall, Majestie may remitt," p. 63). A "Grievance," by contrast, strikes at the unlawful practice or usurped jurisdiction itself—no royal pardon or judicial opinion can validate a public grievance against the liberties and property of the subject.

Direct Bridge to 1800s Caselaw (court_precedents.html):
In 1843–1844, Lord Denman C.J. in Reg. v. Feargus O'Connor (4 St. Tr. N.S. 1235) and Chief Justice Tindal & Lord Campbell in O'Connell v. The Queen (5 St. Tr. N.S. 779; 11 Cl. & Fin. 155) vindicated this exact principle: citizens combining in immense numbers to state their grievances and petition Parliament to change the laws ("the mere display of numbers" or agreeing to cease work to petition for the Charter without violence) is the exercise of a constitutional grievance right, NOT a criminal conspiracy.

Doctrine 02 · 15 April 1640 · Serjeant Sir John Glanville, Speaker of the House of Commons · Harvard MS. Eng. 982, fo 14r; L.J. iv, p. 51 (Cope & Coates, p. 127; cf. p. 56)

The Doctrine of the “Void Command” — Why Illegal Warrants Cannot Shield Officials

Speaker Sir John Glanville’s Constitutional Address to King Charles I at the Bar of the House of Lords

Verbatim 1640 Text (Cope & Coates OCR)

The Liberty of the people strengthens kings prerogatives And the kings prerogative is to defend the peoples Libertyes, Apples of Gold in Pictures of silver. Kings as they are kings are not said to erre, only the best may bee mistaken by informacion and the highest pointe of prerogative is the king can doe no wrong. If therefore by the subtilty of misinformers by their spetious false pretences of publique good by cunning and close contriving of these wayes... the sacred royall person shall at any time bee circumvented or surprised or wrought or drawne to command things contrary to Lawe and that the same bee done accordingly, this comand will bee void and the king Innocent even in his very person defended by his prerogative. Nevertheless the Authors of such informacion and actors in these abuses will stand lyable and exposed to strict examinacion and Just Censures as having nothing to defend themselves but the Collour of a void command made void by just prerogative according to fundamentall and true reason of State and Monarchy; or what difference is there or can there bee in Lawe betweene a void command and no command at all.

1640 Constitutional Analysis:
This passage—delivered by Speaker Glanville face-to-face to Charles I on 15 April 1640 and summarized in Harl. MS. 4931 (p. 234) as "ye K can wrong no man; if he rules not by lawes, its the officers fault"—is the cornerstone of private persons' legal protection in 1640.
1. Turning "The King Can Do No Wrong" Into a Shield for the Subject: Instead of meaning the Crown is above the law, Glanville defines the maxim to mean that the King's prerogative cannot legally authorize a wrong. Therefore, any royal warrant, commission, or Council order commanding something contrary to common law or statute is "a void command" ("no command at all").
2. Personal Liability of Actors & Subordinates: Because an unlawful command is void ab initio, every subordinate actor (sheriff, bailiff, constable, lord mayor, or ecclesiastical commissioner) who executes it acts without lawful warrant and is personally liable to the aggrieved citizen in common-law damages and parliamentary censure. This explains why the Oxfordshire Constables (p. 284) refused to distrain for Shipmoney unless the High Sheriff gave them an indemnity bond against common-law actions, and why Peter Smart (p. 282) won a £600 common-law judgment against the High Commissioners!

Direct Bridge to 1800s Caselaw (court_precedents.html):
Directly anticipates Rex v. Fursey (1833, 3 St. Tr. N.S. 569, 584–585; 6 C. & P. 86), where Gaselee J. and Parke J. ruled that an unsigned Government proclamation banning the Coldbath Fields meeting was a legal nullity ("no command at all") that could neither make a peaceful assembly unlawful nor shield Metropolitan Police constables who beat attendees without lawful authority.

Doctrine 03 · 16, 17, 30 April & 2, 4 May 1640 · Sir Francis Seymour, John Pym, George Peard, Charles Jones, & Speaker Glanville · Harvard MS. fos 27r, 35r, 79v, 81v–82r; Bernard p. 13; Add. MS. 11045, fo 115r (Cope & Coates, pp. 141, 150, 172 n.1, 185 n.1, 192, 195)

Parliament as the “Physician” and Highest Court vs. Inferior Judges as “Apothecaries”

Why Inferior Courts Cannot Censure Parliamentary Proceedings or Create New Taxes by Extrajudicial Opinion

Verbatim 1640 Text (Cope & Coates OCR)

What Lawe or reason is there that a parliament which is the highest of all courts should bee questioned by Inferior courts and judges. Surely they themselves will not like that the Common Pleas should conclude the Kings Bench or either of them, the Courte of Chancery. Sure I am that the Parliament is the Superior Courte of any and consequently not to bee censured by any. — Sir Francis Seymour, 16 April 1640 (p. 141) The Parliament was the only creator of lawes, and the expounder of those lawes. The Parliament was the Phisitian to prescribe remedy to the diseases of the commonwealth, and the Judges were as the Apothecaries (not to putt, or add to any newe ingredient but such onely as the Phisitian, the Parliament had before prescribed) wherefore hee concluded the Judges had done beyond their Commission in giveing Judgment in this businesse of shipp mony, although the necessity were never soe greate. — George Peard MP, 30 April 1640 (Rossingham Newsletter, Add. MS. 11045, fo 115r, p. 172 n.1)

1640 Constitutional Analysis:
In 1640, the Commons confronted two judicial usurpations: (1) the King's Bench claiming jurisdiction in 1629 to fine and imprison Sir John Eliot and other MPs for words and actions in Parliament, and (2) the Exchequer Chamber judges issuing extrajudicial opinions and the Hampden judgment creating a non-parliamentary tax (Shipmoney) on the pretext that "salus regni periclitabatur" (necessity).
1. Precedent of 39 Hen. VI (Rot. Parl. vi, pp. 375–76): On 30 April (Bernard p. 13, p. 185 n.1) and 2 May (Charles Jones, Harvard MS. fo 79v, p. 192), MPs cited 39 Hen. VI, where the Judges refused to adjudicate a high constitutional question and referred it to Parliament as "a thing of too high a nature for them to judge of."
2. Declaratory Judgment of Nullity: On 4 May 1640 (Harvard MS. fo 81v; Bernard pp. 23–24, pp. 195, 208–209), Speaker Glanville stepped into the Committee of the Whole to declare that Shipmoney should not merely be repealed by a future statute, but branded by a "declaratorye Judgement that shippmoney never was due" and that the judges' opinion "that shippmoney was soe inherent in the crowne yt a Parliament could not take it away" was "damned and impious."

Direct Bridge to 1800s Caselaw (court_precedents.html):
This exact conflict between Westminster Hall judges and the High Court of Parliament erupted again in Stockdale v. Hansard (1839, 9 Ad. & E. 1), when the Queen's Bench claimed authority to judge the scope of Parliamentary privilege over published reports and petitions—directly forcing the enactment of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 9) to compel inferior courts to stay their hands.

Doctrine 04 · 17 & 28–29 April 1640 · Sir Walter Erie (17 April) & Sir John Eliot / John Glyn (28–29 April 1640) · Finch-Hatton MS. 50, p. 43; Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fos 22v–23r; Neilson MS. 2688, p. 1042 (Cope & Coates, pp. 157, 225–26, 266)

County Freeholder Petitions & The Right of Thought Against the Oath Ex Officio

Direct Reception of County Petitions on the Floor of the House & Protection Against Self-Incrimination

Verbatim 1640 Text (Cope & Coates OCR)

MR BALL. Hereupon moved that it was unseasonable to present any of these petitions [Northamptonshire & Middlesex] to the howse and advised that they might be delivered to the Committee of Greivances. SR WAL EARLE. Answered That if any Petitions were presented by any without dores it was fitt for such to be delivered to the Committee; But he was of a different mind, where the Petitions came from members of the [house on behalf of their counties]. — Finch-Hatton MS. 50, p. 43 (17 April 1640, p. 157) By ye laws of England no man is bound to accuse himself... Wittnesses of Presentment are a just ground of proceeding in all Courts, and upon all causes. Butt neither wittnesse nor Presentment can bee a just ground of the oath ex officio. For if the partie accused bee examined noe further then is testified, then the oath ex officio is superfluous. If hee bee examined further or upon other matter then is testified, then a man is made to betray himselfe which is unjust. Mr. Speaker, Such is the mercie of our Common lawes, that murtherers and poysoners are nott examined upon the wracke, but the Civill law uppon everie occasion wrackes the Conscience... I desire the law may punish, nott make, offenders, I desire that our words and actions, may bee subject to the lawes; I would have thoughtes free. — Speech of Sir John Eliot / John Glyn (Worc. Coll. MS. 5.20, fo 23r & Neilson MS. 2688, pp. 226, 266)

1640 Constitutional Analysis:
The Short Parliament established two enduring protections for private persons and petitioners:
1. Constitutional Standing of County Freeholder Petitions: Freeholders in Northamptonshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Suffolk, Middlesex, Norfolk, and Norwich met openly at the parliamentary elections, voted county petitions of grievance, and entrusted them to their Knights of the Shire. Against Court attempts (Peter Ball MP) to bury these petitions in committee, Sir Walter Erie established the rule that county petitions presented by Members of the House are entitled to be read openly on the floor of the House of Commons, where they were adopted directly into the 2nd Head of Religious Grievances ("The complaynts of the Countryes in their petitions," 24 April, p. 174).
2. Immunity from Fishing Inquisitions & the Oath Ex Officio: Both in the Norwich Petition (complaining of 200 visitation articles forcing churchwardens into impossible oaths, p. 279), Peter Smart's Petition (p. 281), and Eliot/Glyn's speech (pp. 225–26, 266), the Commons condemned the ecclesiastical Oath Ex Officio—whereby private citizens were "sworne unto blanques and nott to accusacions and charges declared" to betray their own thoughts without two witnesses or a specific bill of complaint.

Direct Bridge to 1800s Caselaw (court_precedents.html):
By the 1800s, while the Oath Ex Officio remained abolished (since 1641), the Crown used Ex Officio Informations by the Attorney General for seditious libel (e.g., Sir Francis Burdett 1820 [168], Lovett & Collins 1839 [346]) and procedural gagging rules (1839–1842) that ended the 1640–1839 right to debate petitions on the floor of the House upon presentation.

Section 04 · Constitutional Evolution (1640 to 1844)

4. How the Protection Changed: 1640 Attitude vs. 1800s Attitude (court_precedents.html)

Side-by-side comparison across all four constitutional dimensions from 1640 to 1810–1844.

1. Legal Basis of Parliamentary & Petitioner Protection

In 1640 (Short Parliament Attitude)

High Court of Parliament Supremacy (Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti) + Common-Law Nullity of Unlawful Royal Commands

Legal Basis: Magna Carta (17 John); Indemnity of the Lords & Commons (9 Hen. IV); Strode’s Act (4 Hen. VIII c. 8); Petition of Right (3 Car. I c. 1)

Parliament is "the highest of all courts" (Seymour, p. 141) and "the soule of the common wealth" (Pym, p. 149). Any royal warrant or judicial act invading parliamentary privilege or subjects’ property without statute is void ab initio (Glanville, p. 127).

Cite: Cope & Coates, pp. 72, 77, 127, 141, 149–50, 179, 184, 270

By the 1800s (1810–1844 Attitude in court_precedents.html)

Statutory Compartmentalization (Bill of Rights 1689 Art. 5 & 9 + Parliamentary Papers Act 1840) vs. Common-Law Judicial Review

Legal Basis: Bill of Rights 1689 (1 Wm. & Mary Sess. 2 c. 2, Arts. 5 & 9); Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 9, ss. 1–4)

In Stockdale v. Hansard (1839 [PA-020]), Queen’s Bench denied that a single House’s resolution could bar a common-law action outside Westminster. Parliament had to enact the 1840 Act (ss. 1–2 mandatory certificate stay; s. 3 bona fide extract defense) to force courts to terminate proceedings.

Cite: Stockdale v. Hansard (1839) [201]; Parliamentary Papers Act 1840; court_precedents.html

Constitutional Synthesis: The 1640 holistic conception of Parliament as the Supreme High Court was split in the 1800s into statutory immunities (1689 & 1840 Acts) policed by common-law courts—making the explicit statutory stay in the 1840 Act essential.

2. Status of Mass County / Public Petitioning ("Grievances Are Not Crymes")

In 1640 (Short Parliament Attitude)

County Freeholder Assemblies & Mass Petitions Welcomed as the Foundation of the Third Estate’s Business

Legal Basis: Ancient Right of the Commons to Present Petitions of Grievance; Sir Walter Erie’s Floor-Reading Rule (17 April 1640)

Over 250 petitions were brought in during 3 weeks (p. 48), including mass county petitions from Northamptonshire, Essex, Hertfordshire (with 300+ signatures in Norwich, p. 158). Though royalists called them "ye Scottish Covenant wanting only hands" (p. 234), the Commons read them on the floor and voted them into the Heads of Grievances (24 & 29 April).

Cite: Cope & Coates, pp. 8, 48, 157–58, 174, 181–82, 234, 275–79

By the 1800s (1810–1844 Attitude in court_precedents.html)

Abstract Right to Petition Acknowledged (1689 Art. 5), But Outdoor Assemblies Policed via "Unlawful Assembly" & "Terror/Alarm" Tests

Legal Basis: Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 (13 Car. II c. 5); Seditious Meetings Acts 1817/1819; Common Law Unlawful Assembly

In Hunt (1820 [173]), Vincent (1839), Neale (1839), and Lovett & Collins (1839 [346]), judges instructed juries that meeting to petition for the Charter was lawful under the 1688 Bill of Rights, yet convicted organizers if nocturnal crowds or fiery rhetoric caused "terror and alarm to firm and rational men"—until O’Connor (1843 [120]) and O’Connell (1844 [125]) held that peaceful mass numbers ("mere display of numbers") and work-stoppages to petition for law reform are NOT crimes.

Cite: Reg. v. Vincent (9 C. & P. 91); Reg. v. O’Connor (4 St. Tr. N.S. 935); O’Connell v. The Queen (11 Cl. & Fin. 155)

Constitutional Synthesis: With the repeal of the 1661 Tumultuous Petitioning Act (in 1986) and Seditious Meetings Acts, and the 1843–1844 appellate victories in O’Connor and O’Connell, peaceful public petitioning and demonstration "in order to Parliament" is restored to its 1640 legitimacy.

3. Scope of Personal, Servant, & Property Privilege

In 1640 (Short Parliament Attitude)

Broad Umbrella Covering MPs, Peers, Menial Servants, Necessary Solicitors/Agents, and Goods/Chattels During Session + 16/15 Days

Legal Basis: Lex Parliamenti; Privilege of Parliament Act 1603 (1 Jac. I c. 13); 16-Day Exclusive / 15-Day Inclusive Rule (24 April 1640)

Protected sitting MPs from Chancery subpoenas (Hastings [471]), Court of Honour suits (Wharton [EP1-171]), common-law suits (Sir Peter Temple [EP1-170]), and Court of Wards proceedings (Tooley [EP1-172]), while the Lords freed Peers’ servants (Sanderson, Henry Presse) and punished gaolers/mayors who defied privilege.

Cite: Cope & Coates, pp. 64, 68, 83, 94, 160, 285; C.J. ii, pp. 10, 12, 15–18

By the 1800s (1810–1844 Attitude in court_precedents.html)

Servant & Property Privilege Stripped by Statute (1770); Personal Privilege Restricted to Civil Arrest of Sitting MPs Only

Legal Basis: Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 (10 Geo. III c. 50); Lord Cochrane’s Case (1815 [236])

By the 1800s, MPs’ servants had zero immunity, civil suits and property distress proceeded freely against MPs during session under the 1770 Act, and in Lord Cochrane’s Case (1815 [236]), the Commons held that privilege did not even prevent the Marshal from arresting a convicted MP sitting on the benches of the Chamber.

Cite: Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770; Lord Cochrane MP (1814–1815) [158, 236]; Sawrey v. Sawrey (1701)

Constitutional Synthesis: Because 18th-century statutes stripped away personal/servant immunity from ordinary civil process, modern protection for parliamentary participants and petitioners rests on functional immunity ("in order to Parliament" under the 1689 Bill of Rights, 1840 Act, and modern public-order exemptions) rather than feudal status.

4. Local Officials, Constables, & Executive Pretexts

In 1640 (Short Parliament Attitude)

Constables & Citizens Refusing Illegal Warrants Protected by Parliament; Tyrannical Magistrates Summoned as Delinquents

Legal Basis: Doctrine of the Void Command (Glanville, 15 April 1640); Petition of Right (1628)

When Oxfordshire Constables (p. 284) and Fyfield Constables Tynge & Poole (p. 287) were imprisoned for refusing to distrain or rate citizens for Shipmoney without legal warrant, and London collector Walter Oke (p. 285) was jailed in Newgate by Lord Mayor Bromfield, the Commons received their petitions and voted their imprisonment a national grievance.

Cite: Cope & Coates, pp. 127, 174, 284–88

By the 1800s (1810–1844 Attitude in court_precedents.html)

Executive Proclamations Held Void at Common Law (Fursey 1833), Though Local Magistrates Used Riot/Obstruction Pretexts

Legal Basis: Rex v. Fursey (1833, 3 St. Tr. N.S. 569); Reg. v. Neale (1839, 9 C. & P. 431); Reg. v. Collins & Lovett (1839, 9 C. & P. 456)

In Rex v. Fursey (1833), Gaselee and Parke JJ. held that a Government notice banning a meeting is a legal nullity and police have no right to charge in with truncheons. In Collins (1839), Littledale J. held it is NO sedition for citizens to assert their right to meet in the Bull Ring to petition or to accuse police of acting illegally without a warrant or the Riot Act.

Cite: Rex v. Fursey (3 St. Tr. N.S. 569); Reg. v. Collins (9 C. & P. 460–461); court_precedents.html

Constitutional Synthesis: Directly parallels modern local council pretexts (using Highways Act s. 137 "obstruction" or "safety" notices where the council itself licenses commercial digital billboards): under Glanville’s 1640 Void Command doctrine, Fursey (1833), and O’Connell (1844), an administrative notice cannot extinguish a constitutional right to petition.

Section 05 · Primary Manuscript Petitions (Printed in Full)

5. Full Verbatim Texts of All 10 Petitions (Edwarde Vawdrey 1621 + 9 Short Parliament 1640 Petitions)

Every petition printed in full on this page—starting with Edwarde Vawdrey’s 1621 petition (HL/PO/JO/10/13/7) and followed by the 1640 Oxfordshire Constables, Fyfield Constables, Walter Oke, Henry Presse, Peter Smart, Northamptonshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, and Norwich petitions.

Petition 01 · 1621 (Direct Precedent for 1640 Petitioner Protection) · House of Commons · Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/JO/10/13/7 (1621) — Power of Petitioning Collection (HL/PO/JO/10/13/7 (1621); cf. Smart Petition, p. 282)

Petition of Edwarde Vawdrey Against Edward Dodd, Register of the Exchequer at Chester (1621 Precedent)

Petitioners: Edwarde Vawdrey (Vaudrey), Petitioner & Suitor in the House of Commons

Constitutional Significance: Smoking-gun 1621 precedent establishing the exact basis invoked by Peter Smart and the 1640 petitioners: (1) a private petitioner who investigates systemic corruption in an inferior court (here, 8 bribery/record-alteration cases in the Exchequer of Chester) and submits his findings to the Commons is entitled to Parliamentary protection ("protected to followe his causes"); (2) threatening a petitioner with future retaliation ("that the daie will come he shall be remembered for the same") is a high contempt; and (3) the House immediately endorsed the petition: "Master Dod to be sent for."

Edwarde Vawdrey. HL/PO/JO/10/13/7 (1621)
To the honorable knightes, burgesses, and citizens of the moste highe and honorable Comons House of Parliament.
The humble peticion of Edwarde Vawdrey.

Sheweth
That whereas your peticoner hath preferred his peticion of greevance into this honorable courte for many and greate oppressions imposed upon him by the Eschequer of Chester upon which peticion the peticioner is admitted to preferr his bill into the Parliament house for the redresse of his particuler wronges. But soe it is that Edward Dodd esquier register of that Courte of Eschequer at Chester doth greatelie menace and threaten this peticioner charginge him that he is clamarous and that he this peticoner tendes his complainte against the reputacion of the righte honorable the Earle of Derbie whose aucthoritye the inferiour officers of that courte have abused and doe soe stronglie shrowde themselves thereunder as they have ever used the same to countenance them out in all their proceedinges which have tended to the subvercion of this peticioners whole estate whereof this peticoner shall ever be unable to unmaske them unlesse it please this honourable assemblie of Parliament to vouchsaeffe him a judiciall hearinge. The said Master Dodd further saieth that the peticioner hath hitherto done noe good nor heareafter shall doe any good in his complainte, and that the daie will come he shall be remembered for the same. A most miserable case that a pore subjecte soe wronged and seekinge to redresse the same in soe honorable a courte by the sufferinge and allowance of his majestie whose gracious inclynacion to justice extendes itself to all his pore oppressed subjectes: yet notwithstandinge that he shall be thus menaced to be suppressed by greatnes in soe highe and honorable assemblie, as alsoe threatened to be rewarded with further oppressions when tyme serves. The peticioners humble desire is that by the aucthoritye of this highe and honorable house of Parliament he maie be protected to followe his causes: and if upon examinacion of his wronges it prove he compleine without cause he lookes for noe other from this honourable courte but lex talionis to be imposed upon him wherein he findes this comforth that havinge spent himself by longe labouringe for justice nowe he assures himself he shall finde the same. And further this peticioners humble desire is that this high and honorable assemblie woulde be pleased for thadvancement of justice and suppression of the abuses of that Courte of the Eschequer at Chester to call before theise persons folowinge and to examyne them of the undue proceedinges of that courte videlicet:
Fraunces West a silkeman in Cheapeside plainant against John Strethill of Mobberley in comitatu Cestria whether he did give or lende 100 markes or 30 pounds to Master Dodd pendente lite and soe had his order for him.
Edmond Jodrell and Roger Jodrell whoe had a suite against the late Lord Bishop of Chester whether (pendente lite) they did give or lende 100 pounds unto Master Dodd. And whether was the same soe given or lent in respect of favour to be done to them the said Jodrells in that suite.
Okell against Rudgate which Oyell is nowe in towne. Whether for the obteyninge of his order he gave 10 pounds and to whom he gave the same and what further abuse was committed by the courte in his cause.
Burgeny against Pulford: this Pulford beinge (amicus curie) had extreordinarie favour in his proceedinges against Burgeny by abusinge and alteringe the recordes.
Burgesse against Pimlott: in this cause the aforesaid Okell can declare the abuses by the court therein.
Fawkener against Leeche: which Fawkener is in towne and complaineth of the undue orders of that courte.
Master Whitby and Master Case 2 atturneys of that courte whoe can upon examynacion laie open the abuses of that courte.
Massie against William Leighe: whether this Massie gave 20 pounds for obteyninge of his order, and to whom he gave the same.
Partington of Cotton whoe had a suite in the Eschequer at Chester. Whether pendente lite, Master Dodd sent unto him to borowe 100 pounds and whether upon his refusall Master Dodd sent to his adversarie and had soe much money from him, and whether did the cause thereupon passe against the said Partington.
Master Dodd is nowe in towne whoe this peticioner praieth maie be called to answeare the said menaces and threates and other the misdemeanours in this peticion.
[Endorsed:]
● Edward Vaudrey 1621
Master Dod to be sent for [on Thursday next?]

Petition 02 · 24 April 1640 · House of Commons · H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 24 April 1640 (C.J. ii, p. 10) (p. 284)

Petition of the High & Petty Constables of Oxfordshire (Prisoners in Oxford Castle)

Petitioners: Richard Appletree (High Constable of Wootton Hundred), Joseph Coleman (High Constable of Banbury Hundred), and Petty Constables of Oxfordshire

Constitutional Significance: Demonstrates that local constables knew Shipmoney distraint warrants were illegal and exposed them to personal common-law actions by citizens; when High Sheriff Rodolph Warcupp refused to indemnify them, they refused to execute the warrants and petitioned Parliament from Oxford Castle.

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE THE KNIGHTS BURGHESSES AND CITTIZENS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
THE HUMBLE PETICION OF RICHARD APPLETREE ONE OF THE HIGH CONSTABLES OF WOOTTON HUNDRED, JOSEPH COLEMAN ONE OF THE HIGH CONSTABLES OF THE HUNDRED OF BANBURY AND DIVERS OTHER PETTY CONSTABLES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF OXON NOWE PRISONERS IN THE CASTLE OF OXON.

Humbly shewe that your peticioners have receaved severall warrants from Rodolph Warcupp High Sheriff for the County of Oxon. for the leveying collecting gathering and distreyning (in case of non payment) of the shipp money in theire severall divisions within the foresayd county of Oxon, that in obedience to the most parte of the said High sheriffs warrants they have collected and gathered the said shipp money and returned the same to the said High Sheriff togeather with the names of such as refused to pay whereuppon issued a third warrant from the said High sheriff directed to your peticioners personally to distrayne and the distresses to sell away rendring the surplusage to the owners: your petitioners desired the said High sheriff to secure them from accions to be brought in case they should distreyne which he refused to doe and your petitioners denyed the execucon of the sayd warrants for the which they alsoe denying to be bound to appear at the councell table stand committed by the sayd High sheriff.
Humbly crave theire inlardgement and referr the consideracon hereof to your honors. And they shall praye etc.
Thos Etrey, sollicitor for the Prisoners.

Petition 03 · 1 May 1640 · House of Commons · H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 1 May 1640 (C.J. ii, p. 17) (pp. 287–288)

Petition of John Tynge & Thomas Poole, Constables of Fyfield, Essex

Petitioners: John Tynge and Thomas Poole, Constables of Fyfield, Essex

Constitutional Significance: Documents how the Privy Council enforced Shipmoney by committing local parish constables as close prisoners in the Fleet—barred from wives, friends, pen, ink, and paper—until they entered into bonds to answer Star Chamber informations.

TO THE HONORABLE THE COMMONS IN THE HIGH COURT OF PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED. THE HUMBLE PETICION OF JOHN TYNGE AND THOMAS POOLE OF FYFEILD IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX.

Sheweth that your poore peticioners being constables of Fyfeild aforesaid anno do 1637 were the three and twentieth day of January in the same yeare sent for by a messenger to appeare before the lords of his Majesteys most honorable privie counsell as touching the shipping busines for not makeing a rate for the same in the said Parishe which your peticioners had of them selves no warrant to doe whereto wee did appeare and there the clarke of the counsell shewed unto us the Lords order which was that wee should enter into bond of 100li a man to make a rate for the shipp money and to carry it to the high shreife and to doe and performe whatsoever the said shreife should further require of us laying all excuses aside or to the like effecte which wee your peticioners refuseing to doe were by the said Lords committed prisoners to the fleete the 31 of the said month of January and there did remayne five weekes and three dayes closse prisoners kept asunder locked up in fouall chambers remote debarred from all accesse of wife, frends pen inke and paper and all others but such as the warden of the fleete should thinke fytt And also there did remaine more for ye space of three weekes and fower dayes having the libertie of the prison.
And that your poore peticioners could not bee discharged out of prison untill they had entered into bond with suerties in a greate summe to answere to his Majesteys attorneys informacon in ye starr chamber touching the said shipp service which bond your peticioners did enter into with suerties and have answered to the said informacion being examined upon interrogatories, but as yett there hath byne no further proceeding against us. And that the charge of the imprisonment the messengers and lawyers fees and other expenses touching the same amounts to the sume of 45li and upwards besides the damage they sustained in beeing detayned from their wives children and caleings which mon[i]es your peticioners are still out of purse and for want of the same and other damage they sustayned are greatly impoverished.
They therefore most humbly pray that they may have their bond delivered in which they entered into unto his said Majesteys attorney generall and may have such further releife as this grave and honorable assembly shall thinke fytt. And your poor peticioners as in duty bound will dayly pray for his Majestie and all his loyall and true harted subjects.
Thomas Poole, John Tynge.

Petition 04 · 30 April 1640 · House of Commons · H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 30 April 1640 (C.J. ii, p. 16) (pp. 285–287)

Petition of Walter Oke, Citizen of London (Cordwainer Ward)

Petitioners: Walter Oke, Citizen of London (and on behalf of William Newet, deceased)

Constitutional Significance: Exposes the arbitrary imprisonment of London citizens in Newgate by Lord Mayor Sir Edward Bromfield to extort £50–£60 of uncollected Shipmoney out of the collectors’ own pockets "to spurre on others."

TO THE HONORABLE THE KNIGHTS CITTIZENS AND BURGESSES ASSEMBLED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT. THE HUMBLE PETICION OF WALTER OKE, CITTIZEN OF LONDON.

Sheweth: That in the yeare 1637 Sr Edward Bromfeild Kt being then Lord Maior of London, your peticioner and one Wm. Newet dec[eased] were appointed collectors of shipmony for part of Cordwayner Ward. Who having paid in severall sommes which they had received. Afterwards on Monday the 18th of September in the yeare aforesaid the said Sr. Edward made a warrant for the conventing of one Robert Gibbon of that Ward to shew cause why he would not pay the shipp money demanded of him, the said Newet being then present after the said Gibbon was dismissed Sr. Edward charged the said Newet with negligence and carelessesnes in collecting the shippmony and told the said Newet that unlesse he would promise to pay in 50li of his colleccion more then was received within 3 daies next ensuing he would send him to Newgate which the said Newet (who with your peticioner had lately paid in the money by them received) refused to doe and thereupon was committed to prison. Whereof the said Newets wife having notice being then great with child ready to laye downe went with a freind to Sr Edward to desire her husbands enlargement in regard of her pute[tive] condicion and for that she had no body to follow her husbands shopp and trade which the said Sr Edward denying, she then desired him in regard her husband was a sick weake melancolique man that he might not be alone but that his partner Collector your petitioner might be likewise committed for company; the said Sr Edward told her that was but a reasonable request And thereupon the same day sent for your peticioner by his officer and told him his partner collector was gon to Newgate and he would send him thither for company and then did send your peticioner to Newgate where he and the said Newet remained prisoners 6 daies to their great losse and hinderance in their estates and trades...
Which unjust imprisonment and greivances done unto your peticioner by the said Sr Edward and his officers being injuries of a high nature contrary to the Lawes and Statutes of this kingdome and the ancient liberties of the subjects thereof, Your petitioner humbly prayeth this honorable assembly to take into your grave and judicious consideracions and to be pleased to affoard the peticioner such remedy and releife therein for his damage and losse sustained and for the suppressing of the like daring insolencies in time to come and for establishing of the rights and liberties of the petitioner and all other subjects as this honorable assembly shall in their great judgements and wisdomes think fitt.
Walter Oke

Petition 05 · 28 April 1640 · House of Lords · H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 28 April 1640 (L.J. iv, p. 71) (p. 285 (cf. p. 83))

Petition of Henry Presse, Gent. (Household Servant to Lord Paget)

Petitioners: Henry Presse, Gentleman, Household Servant to William, 5th Baron Paget

Constitutional Significance: Direct precedent of the House of Lords sending for a Mayor (George Churchey of Weymouth), two Sergeants at Mace, and the plaintiff for arresting a Peer’s household servant and dismissing his sealed letters of privilege as "a pretended proteccon."

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE THE LORDES SPIRITUALL AND TEMPORALL IN THE UPPER HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED. THE HUMBLE PETITION OF HENRY PRESSE GENT.

Most humblie shewing. That your petitioner is howshold servant to the right honorable the lord Pagitt (whose letters of priviledge under his lordships hand and seale are extant.)
That your petitioner was latelie arrested in the Towne of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis in the Countie of Dorsett by Joseph Mander and Justinian Bagg sergeants at mace of the said Towne by virtue of a warrant from George Churchey Maior of the Towne of Weymouth aforesaid at the suite of Joseph Perkins of Dorchester in the said countie of Dorset Merchant; And notwithstanding the said letters of priviledge (being at the arrest shewed to the said maior and serjeants and the said plaintiff) they did refuse to release or sett your petitioner at libertie; alleadging that the said lettres of priviledge was a pretended proteccon and the said maior tooke a bond of 100li from the plaintiff to save him harmles touching the detayning of your petitioner.
Your petitioner (having suffered much damage by his imprisonment and restraint besides his disparagement and the breach of the priviledges of this high court); Doth humblie leave the premisses to the honorable consideracon of this great assemblie And to vouchsafe to take such order with the said maior sergeants and plaintiff for the petitioners release maintayning the priviledges of parliament as in your great wisdomes shalbe thought meete.

Petition 06 · 21 & 22 April 1640 · House of Commons · H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 22 April 1640 (C.J. ii, pp. 8–9) (pp. 280–282 (cf. pp. 167, 199, 246))

Petition of Peter Smart, Prisoner in the King’s Bench

Petitioners: Peter Smart, Senior Prebendary of Durham, Prisoner in the King’s Bench

Constitutional Significance: Landmark prisoner petition challenging the High Commission’s power to fine, imprison, and tender the Oath Ex Officio, and praying for execution of Smart’s £600 common-law false imprisonment judgment against the High Commissioners.

TO THE HONORABLE THE KNIGHTS CITTIZENS AND BURGESSES OF THE COMMONS HOWSE OF PARLIAMENT.
THE HUMBLE PETICION OF PETER SMART A POORE DISTRESSED PRISONER IN THE KINGS BENCHE.

Humblie sheweth: That after ye death of Bishopp James, Bishopp Neale comeinge to ye sea of Durham the deane and prebendaries of that Cathedrall Church cast ye communion table out of ye same and erected an high alter att ye east end of ye quire, of marble stones with a carved screene most gloriouslie painted and guilded which cost about 200li...
Your petitioner beinge a senior prebendarie residentiar of that Church and one of his Majesteys high commissioners for causes ecclesiasticall within ye province of Yorke and in judgement and practise punctually conformable to ye doctrine and ceremonies established in ye Church of England opposed ye same innovacions and doctrines accordinge to his dutie place and callinge, but not prevaileinge therein, hee in July 1628 accordinge to the third injunccion preached in the said church against the same for which sermon hee was presentlie convented before the high commission houlden att Durham and before any articles exhibited against him suspended and his liveing sequestered... He was served with a warrant under ye high commission seale for ye province of Canterbury and hand of William L. Bishopp of London, Samuell lo Bishopp of Norwich, Dr Cesar, Dr Lamb to appeare before ye high commission houlden in London and there forced againe to take the oath ex officio and to attend above a quarter of a yeare for Articles... and was afterwards remanded without any articles to Yorke where in August 1630 they proceeded to sentence ex parte havinge denied your petitioner a commission to examine witnesses on his behalfe where he was excommunicated degraded, fined 500li and imprisoned for opposinge and preachinge against the said doctrines and superstitious innovations...
That your petitioner was two severall times imprisoned att Yorke before their said sentence for which injurious imprisonment he commenced his accion att law against some of ye said high Commissioners and obteyned judgement thereupon and 600li damages yett cannot have any fruit thereof...
And for that your petitioner is much decaied in his health by reason of his late restraint and verie poore hee humblie beseecheth you presentlie to give order for his release from his close imprisonment. And that he may have present execucion upon the said judgement for ye said 600li whereby he shalbe enabled to prosecute and prove this his most just complaint against these his adversaries.
Peter Smart, Prisoner in the Kings Bench

Petition 07 · 17 April 1640 · House of Commons · S.P. 16/450/25 (C.J. ii, p. 5) (p. 275 (cf. p. 157))

Petition of the Freeholders of the County of Northampton

Petitioners: The Freeholders of the County of Northampton (entrusted to John Crew Esq. & Sir Gilbert Pickering Bt., Knights of the Shire)

Constitutional Significance: The first county freeholder petition presented on the floor of the House of Commons on 17 April 1640, prompting Sir Walter Erie’s ruling that county petitions brought in by Knights of the Shire are entitled to be read openly in the House.

THE HUMBLE PETICION OF THE FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON TO THE HONORABLE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE INTENDED PARLIAMENT.

SHEWETH: That whereas of late we have bine unusually and unsupportably charged, troubled and greived in our consciences, persons and estates by innovacion in religion, exaccions in Spirituall courts, molestacions off our most godly and learned ministers, shipp monie, monopolies, undue imposicions, armie monie, waggon monie, horse monie, conducte monie, and inlardging the forrest, beyond the auncient bounds and other such for not yeildinge to which things or some of them diverse of us have bine molested distrayned and imprisoned. Wee have intrusted John Crewe, Esq. and Sir Gilbert Pickeringe, kt and Barronett chosen Kts for our said county to present these our greivances humbly desiring that you will be pleased deepely to take them into yr tender consideracion and that these may for the present be redressed and that it may be soe ordered that we may have a Parliament once a yeare as by lawe we ought 4to Edw 3o Stat [1]4, 36 Edw 3 Stat. 10 for preventinge the like inconveniences in time to come.

Petition 08 · 18 April 1640 · House of Commons · B.L., Harl. MS. 4931, fo 41r (C.J. ii, p. 6) (pp. 275–276 (cf. p. 158))

Petition of the Freeholders of the County of Essex

Petitioners: The Freeholders of the County of Essex (entrusted to Sir Thomas Barrington Bt. & Sir Harbottle Grimston Bt., Knights of the Shire)

Constitutional Significance: Presented on 18 April 1640; highlights how the Forest Eyre had afforested most of Essex, rendering land titles doubtful, alongside Shipmoney, monopolies, and ecclesiastical court extortions.

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS NOW ASSEMBLED IN PARLIAMENT.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF YE FREEHOLDERS OF YE COUNTY OF ESSEX.

SHEWETH: That ye petitioners having of late yeares beene unwontedly overcharged and insupportably burdened in their consciences, Estates, and Freedomes.
By innovations in matters of Religion, both in doctrine and discipline; By molesting and depriving of godly and learned Ministers, [By tolerating and countenancing of ye profanation of the Lords Holy day;] By [wronging] raging against and abusing to new inventions about ye blessed sacrament. By chargeable various and vaine alterations in and about Churches; By greate expenses, losse, and molestation through unnecessary, and unreasonable attendance and unjust vexation, insolency, and extortions by Ecclesiasticall Courts and Officers...
And by Impositions and greate paiments upon Merchants goods and necessary commodities both native and forraine.
And also by Inhaunsing and making worse both our Countrey, and Beyond-sea commodities through Monopolies and Restraints whereby also a free trade is hindered and allmost wholly ruined to ye undoing of many, and ye heavy grievance of all.
And furder by Inforresting ye greatest part of our County, whereby for the present wee are charged with sore paiments, and for ye future [our lands like to be much incombered] ye title to our lands is made doubtfull; the legality of which proceeding wee humbly pray may be fairely and according to law and justice againe examined.
And lastly by ye paiment of shipp-money, which is a burden unknowne to our fathers, insupportably grievous to ourselves, and exceedingly prejudiciall to ourselves ye Liberties and Immunities of his Majestyes subjects...
Humbly praying that you wold please to take ye premisses deepely to heart and to endeavour a full and perfect redresse therein in this present Parliament; and for prevention of ye saime, or ye like grievances in time to come, to provide that a Parliament may be held at least once every yeare, as of right it ought to be done by the lawes, and statutes of this Realme.

Petition 09 · 18 April 1640 (Adopted at Hertford Election, 12 March 1639/40) · House of Commons · B.L., Harl. MS. 4931, fos 42r–42v (C.J. ii, p. 6) (pp. 277–278 (cf. p. 158))

Petition of the Freeholders and Freemen of Hertfordshire

Petitioners: The Freeholders and Freemen of the County and Borough Towns of Hertfordshire (entrusted to Sir William Lytton, Arthur Capel, Viscount Cranborne, & Sir Thomas Fanshawe)

Constitutional Significance: Dated 12 March 1639/40 at the Hertford election; documents how ecclesiastical courts cited and excommunicated hundreds of poorer parishioners who refused to come up to the new altar rails, extracting more money from towns than Shipmoney or subsidies.

TO YE RIGHT HONOURABLE YE HOUSE OF COMMONS NOW SHORTLY TO BE ASSEMBLED IN PARLIAMENT. THE HUMBLE PETITION OF YE FREEHOLDERS AND FREEMEN OF YE COUNTY AND BURROUGH TOWNES OF HARTFORDSHIRE [Hartford, March 12, 1639].

SHEWETH: That your Petitioners having of late yeares beene unusually overcharged and insupportably burdened in their Consciences, Persons, Estates, and Freedomes:
First by Innovations in matters of religion by some violent and indiscreete cleargy men, who in many Towns of this County under pretense of authority have boldly violated and audaciously attempted many things contrary to ye Canons of ye Church, ye Rubrick, and Book of Common Prayer, ye Proclamations of our religious Kings and Princes, and our most gracious Soveraigne King Charles and to ye acts of Parliament established, and in our Bibles imprinted. They daring to deny even ye holy sacrament, even for a yeare together, to hundreds in our Congregations, and where they have found opposition to reject great numbers which wee well know to be conformable persons... And where they have found opposition by ther Parishioners herein, ye course hath beene to cite great nombers of ye poorer sort of people to ye Ecclesiasticall Courts (wherein themselves are for ye most part ye Judges)...
Secondly by ye manifest abuses of feodaries and Escheators pretending tenures for his Majesty where none are, and so to exact greate summes of money from ye meaner sort of commons without any benefitt also to his Majesty.
Thirdly ye manifest abuses, and incroachments of Purveyors...
Fourthly by monopolies, restraints, and impositions...
Lastly by ye paiment of Shipp-money, ye legality whereof wee most humbly pray may be reexamined... praying that you wold all with your best assistance endeavour the blessed peace, and unity of these his Majestyes Kingdomes, and that you wold be pleased to take ye premisses deapely to heart, and to advance by your allowance this our most humble petition to our most Gracious Soveraigne, and to ye upper house of Parliament and to andeavour for us a full and fast redresse hearin, in this present Parliament and for prevention of ye same and ye like grievances in time to come to provide that Parliaments may be more frequently holden according to ye lawes and statutes of this realme.

Petition 010 · 18 April 1640 · House of Commons · H.L.R.O., Main Papers, 18 April 1640 (C.J. ii, p. 6) (p. 279 (cf. p. 158))

Petition of the Mayor, Sheriffs, Aldermen, and Citizens of Norwich (Subscribed by 300 Hands)

Petitioners: The Mayor, Sheriffs, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Norwich

Constitutional Significance: Presented with 300 signatures on 18 April 1640; directly formed the basis of the 4th Religious Grievance voted on 29 April ("The making and enjoyning Articles at visitations without any authority saving off ye bishop").

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE THE HOWSE OF COMMONS IN THIS PRESENT PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE MAIOR, SHREIFFES, ALDERMEN AND CITIZENS OF THE CITTY OF NORWICH.

Humbly Sheweth That whereas within these twelve yeares last past there have beene five remooves of Bishopes by death and otherwise in the diocese of Norwich These are humblye to informe this honorable assembly that at the two last visitations of the Lord Bishope of Ely [Matthew Wren] that nowe is, beinge then Bishoppe of Norwich, and this last of the present Lord Bishoppe of Norwich [Richard Montagu], there have beene such an exceedinge number of Articles more then in former times, that they have not only bin excessive chargible to every particular parish more then in times past, but alsoe the number beinge so greate and the qualitie and inquirie made into many of them so diffringe from the Articles of former Bishoppes that it soe perplexeth the consciences of the Church wardens and other sidemen that they cannot possible keepe the oath that they are inforced to take and the people in generall are much agreived at the varietie and vast number of severall articles being neere two hundred which hath made many very honest and able men to sell their estates, and transplant themselves into parte beyond the seas in consideration wherof wee humblye intreate this honorable assemblie that they would be pleased to take this greivous complainte into your honorable consideracion and take such course that not onlye the greate extraordinarie charge at visitations may be reduced to the former moderate rate for there verdictes as it was thirtie yeares agoe and our consciences freede from so many needles and unprofitable Articles, as are nowe pressed uppon us.

Section 06 · Statutory & Parliamentary Precedent Roll

6. Statutory & Parliamentary Precedents Invoked in 1621–1640

Complete roll of medieval and Tudor-Stuart statutes and Parliamentary Rolls cited in the Short Parliament (Cope & Coates, Appendix, pp. 321–323).

< Drag or Use Top / Bottom Slider Bars to Scroll Table Horizontally >

Statute / Parliamentary Roll	Invoked By	OCR Page Reference	Constitutional Principle Established
Magna Carta (17 John, c. 39–40)	Harbottle Grimston (16 Apr), John Pym (17 Apr)	pp. 135, 154, 258, 322	Restitution of ancient laws; Privy Councillors and Judges bound to do justice to all and sell/deny justice to none.
6 Edw. III, 14 Edw. III, 15 Edw. III, 17 Edw. III	Sir Benjamin Rudyerd (16 Apr), Oliver St. John (4 May), Earl of Bridgewater (24 Apr)	pp. 77, 110, 139, 171, 200, 209, 249	Even when the French were coming by sea and the Scots by land in extreme necessity, Edward III moved supply in Parliament and redressed grievances to make an atonement with his subjects.
4 Edw. III c. 14 & 36 Edw. III c. 10 (Annual Parliaments)	Northamptonshire Freeholders Petition (17 Apr), John Pym (17 Apr), Voted in Heads of Grievances (24 Apr)	pp. 113, 155, 175, 258, 275	Statutory right of the subject that a Parliament shall be holden once every year for redress of grievances and maintenance of the laws.
51 Edw. III No. 46 & 6 Ric. II (Clergy Cannot Bind Laity)	John Pym & Oliver St. John (22 Apr)	pp. 168, 201, 321	No ordinances or canons made by the Clergy in Convocation can bind the laity without the assent of the Commons in Parliament.
9 Hen. IV ("The Indemnity of the Lords and Commons", Rot. Parl. iii, p. 611)	Viscount Say and Sele (24 Apr), Oliver St. John (27 Apr), John Pym (28 Apr), Lord Keeper Finch (1 May)	pp. 72, 77, 87, 90, 92, 179, 184, 206, 270	Solemn parliamentary establishment at Gloucester (1407) that Lords and Commons may commune separately of the state of the realm, that grants originate in the Commons, and that no report of internal proceedings be made to the King until both Houses agree via the Speaker.
39 Hen. VI (Rot. Parl. vi, pp. 375–376)	Charles Jones MP (2 May) & Debate on Shipmoney (30 Apr)	pp. 185 n.1, 192, 321	When required to give advice on a high constitutional question touching the Crown, the Common Law Judges refused to adjudicate it as too high for inferior courts, referring it to the High Court of Parliament.
4 Hen. VIII c. 8 (Strode’s Act)	Earl of Bridgewater in Lords Committee of the Whole (24 Apr)	pp. 77, 322	All suits, fines, imprisonments, and condemnations against Richard Strode or any Member of this or any future Parliament for any bill, speaking, reasoning, or declaring of any matter concerning the Parliament are utterly void and of none effect.
35 Eliz. (1593 Commons Refusal to Confer with Lords on Supply)	Robert Holborne & Charles Jones (27 Apr)	pp. 179, 321	When the Lords in 35 Eliz. attempted to prescribe to the Commons touching a subsidy, the Commons declined to confer with them on supply, conferring only on general dangers of the realm.
19 Jac. I (1621 Petition of Edwarde Vawdrey, HL/PO/JO/10/13/7)	Power of Petitioning Collection (1621) · Matched to Peter Smart (22 Apr 1640)	HL/PO/JO/10/13/7 (1621); cf. p. 282	Petitioner investigating 8 bribery/corruption cases in the Exchequer of Chester and menaced by Register Edward Dodd granted Parliamentary protection to follow his causes and an order sending for Dodd.
3 Car. I c. 1 (The Petition of Right, 1628)	Speaker Glanville (15 Apr), Harbottle Grimston (16 Apr), Oliver St. John (30 Apr)	pp. 128, 136, 185, 209, 322	Declaratory statute enacted by "Soit droit fait come est desire" barring any tax, tallage, aid, forced loan, or arbitrary imprisonment without common consent by Act of Parliament.