<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>9-14-10</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Latta</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Added TEMPHEAD, checked ID, and added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate. Proofed title. Checked ^s. Reviewed structure; remvoved a DIV2; changed HEAD to P. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, --s, oe's, and UNCLEARs. Corrected [dollar]s. Checked for EPIGRAPHs and ARGUMENTs. Checked spacing of foreign GAPs. Checked CLOSERs, BYLINEs, SIGNEDs, OPENERs, SALUTEs, and TRAILERs. Checked for startqs and endqs, abq's, Ae's, qs, and Qs. Checked I / Js and U / Vs. Checked proofsheets and made corrections. Sample: 2 minutes. Proofing: 10 minutes. Tag review and corrections: 10 minutes. DONE.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A86587">
<STC T="W">H2899</STC>
<STC T="T">669.f.17[32]</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99870325</BIBNO>
<VID>163282</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="account">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>TO every Member of Parliament <HI>Charles Hotham</HI> of <HI>Peter-hou&s;e</HI> in <HI>Cambridge</HI> pre&s;ents this following brief Account of the proceedings of
the Committee for Reformation of the Univer&s;ities, in their depriving him of his Fellow&s;hip in the &s;aid Colledge, together with his Exceptions again&s;t tho&s;e
proceedings. In an&s;wer to &s;uch &s;ugge&s;tions as may po&s;&s;ibly be made in Parliament by his adver&s;aries; who by their pre&s;ence there, will have the opportunity of
objecting again&s;t him, when him&s;elf cannot be permitted in per&s;on to make a Reply. And for &s;uch a clear &s;tating the Que&s;tion of his Appeal, as that he may at length, af|ter
his near twelve Moneths attendance, have a &s;peedy Judgement in Parliament, without being further delayed, and again put in danger of being wronged by a tedious
unnece&s;&s;ary reference to the uncertain Report of a Committee. His long attendance for a Hearing having already been more burden&s;ome to him, then the wor&s;t of Cen|&s;ures.
Him&s;elf having been thereby enfor't, to his great expence, and prejudice of his &s;tudies, to attend almo&s;t, a whole year at the Parliament door, while another
ha&s;tily put in by that Committee, hath &s;tood po&s;&s;e&s;t of his legal and ju&s;t right.</P>
<P>A true and perfect Copy of their proceedings out of the publike Journal Book of that Committee, being the only true ground for a Superiour Judicature to proceed
upon in Appeals of this nature.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="order">
<OPENER><DATELINE><DATE>May 22. 1651.</DATE> At the Committee for Reformation of the Univer&s;ities.</DATELINE></OPENER>
<P>ORdered That Doctor <HI>Palmer,</HI> Mr. <HI>Nevil,</HI> Mr. <HI>Old&s;worth,</HI> Mr. <HI>Moile,</HI> Mr. <HI>Millington,</HI> Mr. <HI>Dormer,</HI> Mr. <HI>Peter Temple,</HI> and Mr. <HI>Rous,</HI> or any two of them be a Sub-Committee;
to con&s;ider of the Book this day pre&s;ented to this Committee, Entituled, <HI>The Petition and Argument of Mr.</HI> Hotham, &amp;c. And to Report their opinions con|cerning
the &s;ame to this Committee on this day &s;even night.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="report">
<HEAD>The Report.</HEAD>
<HEAD>The Petition and Argument of Mr. Hotham.</HEAD>
<P>THe Book, though without a name, owned by him, di&s;per&s;ed by him, his Letter about it, Epi&s;tle to the Committee, his Argument again&s;t the Order of the Sub-Com|mittee,
<HI>pag.</HI> 11, 12, 13.</P>
<P>This I &s;ay, That that power which can eject a man out of his legal po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion for a mi&s;demeanour of a date near two years old, committed and puni&s;hed in the daies of his minority,
long before his entrance into that po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, mu&s;t &s;ure be very tran&s;cendent, and above that of any, either Common Law, or Chancery that I have heard, <HI>pag.</HI> 137, 138.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Gilbert Millington. Peter Temple.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="resolution">
<HEAD><DATE>May 29. 1651.</DATE> At the Committee for Reformation of the Univer&s;ities.</HEAD>
<P>VPon hearing the Report from <HI>Mr.</HI> Millington, touching the Book entituled <HI>The Petition and Argument of Mr.</HI> Hotham, &amp;c. And upon long and &s;erious debate
thereof,</P>
<P><HI>It is Re&s;olved by this Committee.</HI></P>
<P>That the writing and publi&s;hing of the &s;aid Book, which was this day publikely owned before this Committee by the &s;aid Mr. <HI>Hotham,</HI> is &s;candalous, and again&s;t the
priviledge of Parliament.</P>
<P><HI>Re&s;olved by this Committee.</HI></P>
<P>That Mr. <HI>Hotham,</HI> Fellow of <HI>Peter-hou&s;e</HI> in <HI>Cambridge,</HI> be deprived of his Fellow&s;hip in the &s;aid Colledge from this time forward, And the Pre&s;ident of the &s;aid Col|ledge
is to &s;ee that this be put in execution accordingly.</P>
<P>Pre&s;ent at the making of this Order, be&s;ides the Chairman, were the&s;e</P>
<P>Members following.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED><LIST>
<ITEM>Mr. Old&s;worth.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Mr. Salloway Sen.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sir. Arthur Ha&s;lerig.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> Say.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mr.</HI> Millington.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Mr. Peter Temple.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Mr. Rous.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Col. Harvey.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ex. by me R. Needler, C. C.</ITEM>
<ITEM>James Challoner.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Robert Brew&s;ter.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Law. Whitaker.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Will. Say.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Gilbert Millington.</ITEM>
</LIST></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="exceptions to the proceedings">
<HEAD>Exceptions again&s;t the fore-mentioned Proceedings.</HEAD>
<P>1. THe Sub-Committees not indifferent di&s;charge of their tru&s;t, which was to con&s;ider and report their opinions of the Book in general, which they did not, but neg|lecting
the general &s;cope of the Book, wholly tending to the advancement of a Common-wealth intere&s;t, only culled out of the Preface and Conclu&s;ion &s;uch pa&s;|&s;ages
as &s;eemed di&s;ta&s;tful, and pre&s;ented tho&s;e only to the Committee.</P>
<P>2. Their delivering in their Report, not while he was pre&s;ent, but after he was withdrawn, &s;o that he had no means of knowing his Charge, or making any Defence.</P>
<P>3. Granting he had been, according to Ju&s;tice, admitted to the hearing of his charge, and making his defence, the charge &s;hould have contained a recital of a breach of
&s;ome Law, which it did not, and the defence &s;hould have been admitted to tho&s;e two nece&s;&s;ary points of inqui&s;ition, 1. <HI>An fecerit. 2. An jure fecerit,</HI> to matter of right
a&s;well as of fact; but the que&s;tion of fact was not moved to him, in reference to any precedent charge (which was not, as far as he knows, delivered in till he had fir&s;t
owned the Book) and from the latter and mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary part of a defence, <HI>viz.</HI> To the point of right he was wholly excluded.</P>
<P>4. The writing and publi&s;hing of his Book was re&s;olved to be &s;candalous, but he conceive that a puni&s;hable &s;candal mu&s;t be &s;uch only as the Law determines to be of
that nature, and not left to the brea&s;t of every Judge or Committee to determine and puni&s;h at their own arbitrary di&s;cretion. Be&s;ides, if what he hath written be true,
he hopes 'twill be accounted no &s;candal.</P>
<P>5. It appears not that the publi&s;hing the proceedings of any Court without their licence, is a thing unlawful, or that to publi&s;h a Committees proceedings without their
leave, is any breach of priviledge of Parliament. And by the way, he cannot but &s;tand amazed that &s;uch printing, if only matter of fact or right, Chri&s;tianly and truly &s;ta|ted
without the lea&s;t fal&s;ification, untrue imputations, or uncivil raylings upon any, &s;hould be &s;uch a &s;candal in the eyes of many: the &s;ame thing being &s;o commonly practi&s;ed
in our legal Courts of Judicature; and be&s;ides, it being much to the Parliaments Honour to have their proceedings &s;uch as they may allow and countenance the publication
of them to all the world. But if any &s;hall be found to have in a Committee gro&s;ly abu&s;ed the tru&s;t committed to them by Parliament, the manife&s;ting of tho&s;e per&s;ons
enormities in a way of &s;eeking redre&s;s from the ju&s;tice of the Hou&s;e, is no di&s;honour to the Committee in general, or to the Parliament, but rather 'twill be e&s;teemed their
greate&s;t honour to hear and redre&s;s the ju&s;t complaints of any, even again&s;t their own members. Now to give full notice to every member of the Hou&s;e, and others con|cerned,
of the whole &s;tate of the Ca&s;e without printing, 'twas near impo&s;&s;ible, his bodily &s;trength not &s;ufficing to tran&s;cribe &s;o many Copies him&s;elf; and to have done it
by others, would have been too va&s;t a charge: yet was it nece&s;&s;ary for him, to counterbalance the advantage his adver&s;aries had of mi&s;informing the members of the Hou&s;e,
by &s;ome large and particular information of the whole truth in all its circum&s;tances. Be&s;ides, there was &s;ome nece&s;&s;ity of publication of the&s;e proceedings in all places
where his name, &s;o eminently bla&s;ted by this Cen&s;ure, was known or heard of. If a Committee of Malignants had done him this evil, he might have born it, the cen&s;ure of
&s;uch known enemies had been no &s;lander; but for a Committee of Parliament, who&s;e honour and intere&s;t he had alwayes, throughout the whole wars, and by this very Book
&s;o faithfully a&s;&s;erted, thus highly to cen&s;ure him, was a deep &s;tain upon his repute, not to be otherwi&s;e wa&s;ht off, then by a publike vindication, e&s;pecially his complaints to
the Parliament, by their multitude of other affairs, finding &s;o &s;low and difficult an audience.</P>
<P>6. Of Parliament priviledges, not known to be &s;uch by any due promulgation, a breach cannot be ju&s;tly puni&s;hable.</P>
<P>7. <HI>Quere,</HI> whether it belongs not &s;olely to the Law, or Parliament it &s;elf to declare their own privileges, or to the proper Committee of priviledges, and therefore
whether for this Committee to take upon them to determine of the priviledges of that grand body, and puni&s;h a breach thereof, was not in them a breach of priviledge.</P>
<P>8. Committees in their original Con&s;titutions, were never &s;et up to the arbitrary Courts, but only to be executors of the new emergent Parliamentary Laws, as were
the ordinary Judges of the old e&s;tabli&s;ht Laws, and therefore are to proceed according to tho&s;e rules, not their own arbitrary di&s;cretion, el&s;e they would &s;eem to hold
too much re&s;emblance with &s;o many Star-Chambers and High Commi&s;&s;ions: yet was it he thinks never heard of even in tho&s;e mo&s;t arbitrary Courts, that a man was &s;en|tenced
without being admitted to hear his charge, and make his defence both to matter of right and fact.</P>
<P>9. A man put into a Fellow&s;hip by Parliamentary Authority, is by that power inve&s;ted with the &s;ame rights as one regularly elected into his Fellow&s;hip: Now &s;uch as
are elected into Fellow&s;hips, were never conceived ju&s;tly ejectable, but for a tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion of &s;ome local Statute of the Founder, or Law of the Nation declared puni&s;ha|ble,
with &s;uch forfeiture: One formerly admitted by mandate, was not more ejectable at the Kings will, then one legally elected. Therefore the Petitioner being made
Fellow by authority of Parliament, renders him not at all the more obnoxious to an arbitrary cen&s;ure.</P>
<P>10. Tho&s;e words culled out again&s;t him by the Reporters, were &s;poken of one, who having petitioned the Committee for a Fellow&s;hip in our Colledge, they did there|upon
order us to elect a godly and learned per&s;on into that Fellow&s;hip: We looking at this man, as the mo&s;t eminent in all good qualifications, and tacitly recommend|ed
to us by the Committee it &s;elf, cho&s;e him into the &s;aid Fellow&s;hip: but Doctor <HI>Seaman</HI> &s;ugge&s;ting to the Committee that he was guilty of Here&s;ie, and that he had
once drunk the Kings health, though he was not the principal, but only occa&s;ionally pre&s;ent, and the fault be&s;ides both committed and puni&s;ht in the dayes of his mino|rity,
near three years before that judgement; he having all his life both before and after that &s;hort &s;educement, given abundant evidence of his piety and good affe|ction
to the State; the Committee did notwith&s;tanding at the &s;ole in&s;tance of Doctor <HI>Seaman,</HI> eject this man out of his legal po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, newly conferred on him by a due
election of the Pre&s;ident and Fellows, according to Ju&s;tice, and our Founders Statute, and put in Doctor <HI>Seamans</HI> Sizar, a man uncapable by Statute, into his room. There|fore
tis left to the judgement of every indifferent man, whether his de&s;cant upon tho&s;e proceedings were not very temperate, and abundantly within the bounds of mo|de&s;ty,
when he only affirmed that that power which could do tho&s;e things, mu&s;t &s;ure be very tran&s;cendent, and above that of any, either Common Law or Chancery, that
he had heard of. Be&s;ides, in that very pa&s;&s;age pre&s;ented by the Reporters to the Committee, they much wronged him, both in their omi&s;&s;ion of that preceding introdu|ction,
which might have cau&s;ed a more favourable interpretation, and mi&s;-reciting the very words them&s;elves, as may appear by comparing their recital with the expre&s;|&s;ion
it &s;elf, <HI>pag.</HI> 137. of his Book, la&s;t Edition.</P>
<P>11. If any object to him his expre&s;&s;ions of Mr. <HI>Byfield:</HI> He an&s;wers, that he could not but call a Spade a Spade, and wi&s;hes they had been by that Committee taken
notice of to a better purpo&s;e, that mans manife&s;t and frequent intru&s;ions having been in the eyes of many a great &s;candal to their proceedings.</P>
<P>12. There are (as common fame gives out) &s;ome other objections again&s;t him whi&s;pered into mens ears by &s;ome Clergy complying Monarchi&s;ts, as that he holds
erroneous opinions, and is di&s;-affected to the pre&s;ent Government; but he hopes, better credit will be given to the language of his actions, and to the te&s;timonies of
tho&s;e Gentlemen of the Univer&s;ity of known worth and fidelity to the State, who have known his conver&s;ation the&s;e many years, then that &s;uch rumours &s;hould be gi|ven
ear to. And he is well a&s;&s;ured twill appear by all his words and actions when they &s;hall come to an open &s;canning, that a redundancy, not want of affection to true
Religion and this Commonwealth, hath been the only cau&s;e of the&s;e a&s;per&s;ions from counterfeit Profe&s;&s;ors, and of all his other &s;uffrings.</P>
<P>Yet if ought of this nature was in his ab&s;ence objected again&s;t him by any of the Committee when the Que&s;tion of his Printed Book of the Negative Voice was in
Debate, or &s;hall now be repeated in Parliament, he hopes twill by all indifferent men be lookt at as a mo&s;t gro&s;s impertinency: the Que&s;tion being then in Committee
only concerning his Printed Book of the Negative Voice referred to a Sub-committee to con&s;ider, and make Report of to that Committee, which Report (as appears
by their own Regi&s;ter) was the only ground of their Sentence; and much more impertinent mu&s;t the&s;e &s;ugge&s;tions needs be in Parliament; the matter humbly ten|dred
to their Judgement being only, whether the Prerogative of a Negative Voice as incon&s;i&s;tent with a Commonwealth-Intere&s;t &s;hall be forthwith aboli&s;ht; and
whether a Sentence, pronounc't again&s;t a Member of this Common-wealth, and known Friend to the publick Intere&s;t without his being allowed the Common Ju&s;tice
of knowing his Accu&s;er, hearing his Charge and making his Defence, be not in all Law and Equity a meer Nullity, and of right to be declared &s;uch by the Supream Au|thority
of this Commonwealth.</P>
<P>If notwith&s;tanding any &s;hall trouble the Wi&s;dom of Parliament with &s;uch impertinencies, he hopes, that by whom&s;oever objected, they will among ju&s;t men be ac|counted
no ju&s;t ground of Cen&s;ure till the truth and weight of them appear upon a full hearing of both parties, and mean while that this pre&s;ent extrajudicial Sentence,
with all proceedings thereupon be revoked and him&s;elf re&s;tored to his Right and Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion again in as full and ample manner, as if he had never been ejected by
that Committee.</P>
<P>And finally, that the Negative Voice, the root of this and many other mi&s;chiefs, in all its threefold branches; of having the power of 1. <HI>Calling and di&s;&s;olving of
Meetings. 2. Propo&s;ing or refu&s;ing of Que&s;tions. 3. Acting or neglecting the Re&s;olves of the Major part.</HI> Plac't in the &s;ole Power of one Man of the Community,
be as a pre&s;&s;ing Grievance, &s;peedily and for ever aboli&s;ht by the wi&s;dom, and to the great Honour of this pre&s;ent Parliament.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>CHARLES HOTHAM.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
