fact to be open and high treason; and
hereupon they award two writs, the one to the sheriff of York, and the
other to the sheriffs of Derby, to take the body of the said Sir Thomas,
returnable in the king's bench in the month of Easter then ensuing. And
open proclamation was made in Westminster Hall, that upon the sheriffs
return, and at the next coming in of the said Sir Thomas, the said
Thomas should be convicted of treason, and incur the loss and pain of
the same; and all such as should receive him after the proclamation
should incur the same loss and pain. Cotton, p. 354. It is to be
observed, that this extraordinary judgment was passed in a time of
tranquillity. Though the statute itself of Edward III. reserves a power
to the parliament to declare any new species of treason, it is not to
be supposed that this power was reserved to the house of lords alone, or
that men were to be judged by a law "ex post facto." At least, if such
be the meaning of the clause, it may be affirmed, that men were at that
time very ignorant of the first principles of law and justice.]

[Footnote 15: NOTE O, p. 301. In the preceding parliament, the commons
had shown a disposition very complaisant to the king; yet there happened
an incident in their proceedings which is curious, and shows us the
state of the house during that period. The members were either country
gentlemen or merchants, who were assembled for a few days, and were
entirely unacquainted with business; so that it was easy to lead them
astray, and draw them into votes and resolutions very different from
their intention. Some petitions concerning the state of the nation were
voted: in which, among other things, the house recommended frugality to
the king; and for that purpose desired that the court should not be
so much frequented as formerly by bishops and ladies. The king was
displeased with this freedom; the commons very humbly craved pardon. He
was not satisfied unless they would name the mover of the petitions.
It happened to be one Haxey, whom the parliament, in order to make
atonement, condemned for this offence to die the death of a traitor.
But the king, at the desire of the archbishop of Canterbury and the
prelates, pardoned him. When a parliament in those times, not agitated
by any faction, and being at entire freedom, could be guilty of such
monstrous extravagance, it is easy to judge what might be expected from
them in more trying situations. See Cotton's Abrid