Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	act_n	king_n	lord_n	2,770	5	3.9050	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44191	Lord Hollis, his remains being a second letter to a friend, concerning the judicature of the bishops in Parliament, in the vindication of what he wrote in his first : and in answer to ... The rights of the bishops to judge in capital cases in Parliament, cleared, &c. : it contains likewise part of his intended answer to a second tractate, entituled, The grand question touching the bishops right to vote in Parliament, stated and argued : to which are added Considerations, in answer to the learned author of The grand question, &c., by another hand : and reflections upon some passages in Mr. Hunt's Argument upon that subject, &c., by a third.; Second letter to a friend concerning the judicature of the bishops in Parliament	Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680.; Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680. Letter of a gentleman to his friend.; Atwood, William, d. 1705? Reflections upon Antidotum Britannicum.	1682 (1682)	Wing H2466; ESTC R17318	217,539	444

saying is neither in the Judgement it self nor any thing leading to it So he comes to the Arch-bishop Becket's Case where he notably spends his mouth but like an ill Hound all upon false Hunting and indeed runs riot so far as he is not to be lashed in He fills several leaves of his Book with Encomium's of the Popish Clergy because some of them sometimes did what it was their duty to do which doth not excuse them in the general current of their proceedings commonly to stand for the authority of the Pope and the See of Rome against the Regal power and the authority of Parliaments as they did 20 R. 2. saying They were sworn to the Pope and to that See and they would oppose whatever the King and the Temporal Lords should do En restriaion del Poair Apostoliqué ou derogagation de la libertoe de Saina Eglise In restraint of the Power Apostolick or derogation of the Liberty of Holy Church So he takes much pains to assert the Kings natural right to command his Subjects to serve him upon any emergency and so to make Clergy-men Justitiaries if he see cause for it Which then gives them power of Judicature and I do acknowledge it but it is to be understood of Judicature in such Cases as the Law of the Land allows we know they have been some of them Lord Chancellours Lord Treasurers Lord Privy Seal but can he shew me that any of them judged in Cases of Blood For this Case of Beckett's is certainly misrepresented in Fitz-Stephens manuscript We know there have been heretofore in many Counties Justices of Assize which have been Clergy-men joyned with others in Commission who were not Clergy-men to take Assizes in the County And the Act of Parliament 27 E. 1. c. 3. coming to give power to those Justices of Assize to deliver the Gaols and so to be made Justices of Gaol-delivery and try Felons and Murtherers it provides that if one of them be a Clerk then one of the most discreet Knights of the Shire shall be associated to him that is a Lay-man and be empowered by the Knights Writ to deliver the Gaols of the Shires and chasten and punish whom they shall find to be guilty And this Statute is confirmed 2 E. 3. c. 2. which makes it manifest what the intendment of the Law is in that particular that Clerks must not meddle to judge in Cases of Blood and must hold good even for Bishops who are all of them Clerks As for this Case of Beckets which only stands upon the credit of a Manuscript said to be made by Fitz-Stephens a Monk whom he characterizes for a sober and grave Historian and more solito out of the sweetness of his nature gives me a lash saying It is usual with me to let fall expressions to vilifie Testimonies and Precedents when they make against me and this because I stile it a Blind Manuscript and suspect the Author as partial having been a creature of Beckets and consequently no friend to the King And therefore I give rather credit to the unanimous consent of the Historians of those times who do not relate the passages of that Tryal to be as he makes them than I do to him and his Manuscript I call it a Blind Manuscript because it sees not the light lyes obscure in some bodies Closet Mr. Selden doth not tell where and I dare say our Asserter never saw it though he terms the Author a grave Historian His tale is how at that great Council at Northampton Archiepiscopus laesae Majestatis Coronae Regiae arguitur quia est a Rege citatus pro causa Iohannis neque venerat neque idonee se excusasset c. The Arch-bishop is questioned for Treason against the Crown of the King because he was summoned by the King in the Cause of John that is one John the Marshal who complained that the Arch-bishop had done him injustice in his Court and he neither came nor had sifficiently excused himself upon sickness or any other just reason which might necessarily hinder him whereupon he was condemned to forfeit his personal estate and the Bishops and Barons not agreeing who should pronounce the sentence they putting it off from one to another at last the King commanded the Bishop of Winchester to do it This is his story and one may think it a strange piece of Treason one not to come immediately upon a Summons to attend the King especially if it be true what all the Historians that write of those times have related of this business Gervasius Dorobernensis is an Author as Mr. Selden observes who lived in that age and one of whom Mr. Selden and all Antiquaries we are sure have a good opinion and though our Asserter is confident enough to affirm they all have so of Fitz-Stephen it is of what I do not find that much hath been said by them to shew that nor do I think that any of our Antiquaries but Mr. Selden doth so much as mention him And from Gervasius Dorobernensis we have this relation Rex praecepit praesules Proceres regni apud Northamptoniam una cum ipso Archiepiscopo convenire c. The King commanded the Prelates and Nobles of the Kingdome together with the Arch-bishop himself to meet at Northampton where the Arch-bishop was accused of many things first that he had not fully done justice to one John that had a suit before him then that upon this occasion being called into the Kings presence he neglected to come To this the Arch-bishop made answer That John had all the justice done him that was due to him that he had illegally defamed his Court that he would not swear upon the Evangelists as the custome is but upon an old Song-book which he brought with him But that being upon this summoned he came not into the Kings presence was not upon any contempt but that he was hindred by a great sickness and that he had excused himself by two competent witnesses whom he had sent for that purpose yet this served not his turn but Curiali Iudicio Episcoporum consensu condemnatus est He was condemned by the Iudgement of the Court the Bishops consenting to it that all his personal estate should be at the Kings disposing This now is delivered unto us by an unquestionable known Author who lived in that time Fitz-Stephen and he agree in the matter of the Accusation and agree in the Judgement but Fitz-Stephen lays it to be Crimen laesae Majestatis Coronae Regiae High-Treason which must be for not coming to the King when he was summoned Gervasius saith that he sent his excuse by two witnesses who testified that he was then very sick and not able to come which we all know to be a Lawful Essoine De malo lecti which cannot be disallowed but must excuse nay justifie any bodies absence Now can any body that is master of common sense believe Fitz-Stephens relation who will have this to be

Proctor at the beginning of the Tryal as is manifest and agreed by all therefore the Crime charged upon the Clergy could not but be before any Proceedings against any of the Criminals except that preliminary Vote which made them guilty of Blood in that Chronicler's Sense In Conclusion there was no Act to revoke these Pardons but the King it seems caused Execution to be done upon his own Authority and those general Votes in which the Clergy were present so that after all this Attempt the Authority of this MSS is against him But after all this we have one help left saith the Author of the Letter for if this Action in this Parliament would do him any Service the whole Parliament was repealed in I Henry the Fourth and so no Authority to be laid upon it I but replyes the Grand Questionist the Author of the Letter admits that the three Henries Fourth Fifth and Sixth were Usurpers and therefore the Repeal of that Parliament void I acknowledge the Author of the Letter saith so but he is so to be understood as the Law is now taken not as it was then for we see Henry the Fourh in Parliament claimed the Crown as his Right as being Heir to Iohn of Gaunt fourth Son to Edward the Third whereas the Title of Mortimer who was by another Parliament declared next Heir arose by his Marriage with Philippa Daughter and Heir to Lionel Duke of Clarence who was the third Son to Edward the Third but it was never before determined that the Daughter of a third Brother should be preferred in Succession to the Crown to the Son of a Fourth We see Maud the Empress Daughter to Henry the First could not be received Queen though she attempted and sought for it neither ever had we a Queen since the Conquest till that time Nor can I divine how long it might have remained a Question had not that Controversie been determined by the happy Union of both Titles in Henry the Seventh who married the Daughter and Heir of the house of York The next Question will be how far Laws made by an Usurper generally received and accepted by the People upon the resignation of the immediate precedent Possessor shall be esteemed valid I fear if we make such Laws void we must find some new way to make many of ours good till Henry the Second Was not Robert eldest Son to William the First alive till toward the latter end of the Reign of Henry the First who about the eighth Year after he was King deprived him of his Eyes after which he lived a Prisoner twenty six Years William Rufus had no better Title than the Acceptance of the People and his Composition with his Brother Robert who resigned his Title for 3000 Marks per an Henry the First succeeds by Title no better till Robert's miserable Death which happened in the thirty fifth year of his Reign and about a year before his death After him Stephen steps into the Throne help'd by two powerful Friends the Bishop of Winchester the Popes Legate his own Brother and the Bishop of Salisbury his great Friend and this in the Life of Maud Daughter to Henry the First and his own Brother Theobald whose Title though bad was better than Stephen's they being both Grand-children to William the first by Adela his Daughter marryed to the Earl of Blois But for this great favour and their breach of Oath to Maud he promised great Immunities to the Church and amongst other that Clergy-men should not be bound to answer to secular Courts But by our Author's Logick this Concession was void and the Clergy had no reason to complain because the old Law was revived at Clarendon At last to sodder all a Composition was made that Henry Maud's Son should have the Crown after Stephen's death which was performed by her Consent Maud being then alive who having strugled for the Crown as much as she could was at last contented with this Composition which was the only legal Title King Stephen had and no more voluntary in Maud than was that of Richard the Second But at length Maud dyes and Henry the Second and his Son Richard the first enjoyed the Crown in their just Rights After their Death Iohn comes upon the Stage in the Life of Arthur his elder Brother's Son so that here we have another Usurper after whose death and the death of Arthur Henry the Third had a good Title whose Descendents enjoy it to our Time for the Quarrels between York and Lancaster were not about the Line but the Persons insomuch that till Henry the Third the best Title to the Crown was the Acceptance of the People and particular Compositions with those who had the greater Right Come we nearer home to the time of Henry the Seventh who after the Death of his Mother and his Marriage with the Daughter and Heir of Edward the Fourth was rightful King His Eldest Daughter was marryed into Scotland from whom our present King enjoys his Crowns upon an unquestionable Title We will now come to his Son Henry the Eighth he had two Daughters Mary and Elizabeth the first by Katharine his elder Brother Arthur his Relict the second by Anne of Bullein born in the Life of his first repudiated Wife Queen Katharine Mary was by Act of Parliament declared a Bastard as born within unlawful Espousals Elizabeth after the Disgrace of her Mother was served in the same kind yet we see both of them successively enjoyed the Crown by virtue of another Act which entailed it upon them with the approbation of the people whereas otherwise the true Right would have been in Mary Queen of Scots our present Sovereigns great Grand-mother I might pursue this Theme through France in the case of Hugh Capet through Spain in the family of the D. of Medina Celi and at present in Portugal but I will not go out of our own Kingdoms and have said enough to make it manifest that Laws may be made or repealed by such Kings as are in Possession by Composition or Resignation with the acceptance of the People else our unwary Author hath laid a foundation to overthrow or weaken not only most of our Laws but most of the Laws of Europe Over and above all this if the Laws of Henry the fourth fifth and sixth were not good why did not the Nobility made in that time get new Charters of Creation in Edward the fourth's time Nay what became of the whole Hierarchy Many of the Prelates and inferiour Clergy must of necessity be consecrated by those that were no Bishops and consequently their Consecration and Orders by them conferred were void and all our subsequent Clergy who derive their Authority from those who had no legal Right extinguished a thing in my Judgment worth consideration to such as would avoid Laws made by actual Kings though their just Title might be disputed His mentioning Oliver rather deserves pity for his Inadvertence than any other Answer

when they might have been others that they were present when by his own Rules they should have been excluded either therefore the general words where they are not mentioned do not enforce their Absence or that they oughtto have been excluded at some other Trials where the Author of the Letter admits they were or might have been present The chief Case he instanceth in is that of Michael de la Pool Chancellour of England who was accused of many Misdemeanours by the House of Commons and as I think he would infer such as Thorp Chief Justice was found guilty of being Capital where the Author of the Letter saith the Bishops were not present yet allows them to have been present in the Case of this Chancellour a parallel Case as he saith with that of Thorp either therefore saith our Author they might have been present in the Case of Thorp or they should have been absent in Trial of Pool This is his Argument as near as I can gather out of his Words put together something obscurely I need give no other Answer to this than to lay before you the words of the Record This Accusation was exhibited by the Commons in 10 R. 2. against Michael de la Pool Lord Chancellour in full Parliament before the King Bishops and Lords and six Articles were objected by them against him The first was That he purchased Lands of the King of great value whilst he was Chancellour the other five as the Record saith were only Quarrels and of little concern To the first and most considerable the Chancellour put in a fair Answer the Commons reply and urge things to the utmost and amongst other things say That whereas by the Popes Provisions a Person was recommended to the Priory of St. Anthonies he the said Chancellour would not suffer him to be admitted till the Grantee had contracted to pay to the Chancellor and his Son 100 l. yearly and then parallel this with Thorp's Case and would have had the Chancellor in the same fault with Thorp for Bribery as a Judg and consequently incur the same Judgment The Chancellor replies and shews great difference between the Cases Upon the whole matter Judgment was given against him pursuant to the Accusation for Misdemeanours only in which the Bishops were and might be present and the parallelling it with Thorp's Case was only in the Management of the Cause by the Commons and no part of the Accusation Neither is it reasonable to believe that which our Author asserts in the same Page that the Prelates were free Agents and might withdraw at some times and be present at others as they saw cause For beside that this is contrary to the express Law of Clarendon which expresly declares that 't is their duty to be present in all Proceedings in Curia Regis which in that place must be understood of the Parliament because they were to be present with the other Lords tho I know that Curia Regis is sometimes taken in a more laxe Sense for all the Courts in Westminster are the King's Courts and unto which they were to give Obedience and Attendance in Cases not prohibited I say over and above this Act at Clarendon it seems to me very unreasonable to suppose that such a Body of Men had liberty to give their Attendance when they pleased without leave of the House or cause shewed why 't was fit they should be absent or that the Author of the Letter meant more when he saith they might have been present than that they were not prohibited by the Law of Clarendon which only had Relation to Matters of Blood But these Men had other Canons to go by when they thought fit as well as those of Toledo and 't is probable enough that the rest of the Noble-Men finding them most constant Factors for the Pope were willing enough to let them be absent upon any colourable Pretence when they desired it Is not one clear Precedent against them in point of greater weight than many dubious and equivocal ones which cannot without great Art be wire-drawn to speak to their advantage Let him consult the Discourse of Peerage pag. 17. The Case of the Earl of Northumberland 7 Hen. 4. Rot. processus cor Dom. Rege in Parl. in 5 Hen. 4. This Noble-Man came into Parliament and confessed before the King and Lords that he had done against his Allegiance in gathering Power and giving Liveries this Fact by the Lords was adjudged no Treason for which he gives Thanks to the Lords his Judges and a day after the Commons do the like where the Prelates are named as our Author affirms and to which I shall speak by and by But in 7 Hen. 4 the same Earl was in actual Rebellion in the North and his Forces dispersed by the Earl of Westmarland but he and the Lord Bardolf fled into Scotland the rest were most of them taken Prisoners This Case came into Parliament where the King commands the Lords Temporal Peers of the Realm to advise what Process to make and what Judgment to render against the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolf Nothing can be plainer than that the King look'd upon the Lords Temporal as those Peers who were proper to give Judgment touching their Fellow Peers who had fled from Trial in a case of Blood The Record goes on the said Lords advised thereupon and gave Counsel to the King Then the said Lords Peers of the Realm by assent of the King order summoning the said Lords to appear at a day given or to stand convicted by Award of the Peers in Parliament The King farther demanded the Opinion of the Lords Temporal touching the Arch-bishop of York who was in the same Treason The Lords Temporal by the Assent of the King and by their Authority declared and awarded the said Earl and Lord to stand convict of Treason for not appearing upon Summons 'T is very clear that this whole Business was transacted by the Lords Temporal without the Bishops and with the Concurrence of the King 'T is not to be believed that the Bishops would have sate quiet had they thought themselves wronged in these Proceedings See the Discourse of Peerage pag. 17 18. I think it hardly possible to find a more clear Record in the Point than this is First here were two Noble Lords defeated in actual Rebellion and fled from Justice into Scotland The King upon this would not so much as consult with his Prelates knowing them by Law no proper Counsellours against Peers in matters of Blood applies himself to his Lords Temporal they order Proclamations by order of the King enjoyning the said Lords to appear at a day certain or to stand convict they not appearing are by Award of the Lords Temporal convicted of Treason and a Year after one is slain the other mortally wounded at Bramham-moor in York-shire Can any thing be more agreable to the Practice at this day against Men that fly from Justice and

tumultuary way without any formal Tryal the business being brought into Parliament were by the Temporal Lords in a Judicial way of proceeding adjudged to be Traytors and their fact to be Treason But then he adds that I likewise make the Case of the Earl of Cambridge 3 H. 5. like to these which is not true being of a clean different nature an Act of Parliament which had its rise from a request of the House of Commons who brought it up to the Lords here I say the Bishops were and might be present That which he saith to the Case of Sir John Oldcastle 5 H. 5. is so threadbare with rubbing it over and over again and hath been so often said and so often answered as that it would too much trespass upon your patience Sir to trouble you with any one word of it more I think I have made it exceeding clear where under the general term of Lords of Parliament Bishops may be understood to be comprehended and where not Those particular Cases which he now brings to prove his Assertion are point blank against him that is the Case of Mautravers 4 E. 3. and of Gomenitz and Weston 1 R. 2. in that of Gomenitz many particular Lords are named several Earls and Barons and then a general clause Et plusieurs autres Seigneurs Barons Bannerettes Is it possible to think that Bishops come in that fag end Indeed I do observe one thing in this Case of Sautre which is not in any of the other I cannot say that I lay any great stress upon it yet something it is that the Record expresses that the Bishops had done with him declaring him a Heretick and then Relinquentes eum ex nunc Iudicio seculari Leaving him from henceforward to the Secular Judgement as if they should say They would have no more to do with him And as convincingly he argues in the Case of Sir John Mortimer 2 H. 6. He confesses with me that the Indictment found against him at the Guild hall was brought into Parliament before the Duke of Gloucester and the Lords Temporal Fuit liberatum It was there delivered to them and then he cites a Record as he makes it De advisamento dictorum Dominorum auctoritate istius Parliamenti ordinatum est statutum quod ipse usque ad Turrim ducatur By the advice of the said Lords it was ordained and enacted by authority of the said Parliament and by the advice of the said Lords Temporal that he should be led to the Tower These are his words and how he hath mangled and falsely rendred and expounded the Record you will judge by the words of the Record it self which I will here faithfully set down It is this Numb 18. Memorand quod 26. die Februarii anno praesenti de advisamento Dominorum Temporalium ac ad Supplicationem Communitatis Regni Angliae in praesenti Parliamento existentiam redditum fuit quoddam Iudicium versus Iohan. de Mortimer de Bishops Natfield in Comitatu Nertford Chevalier cujus quidem Iudicii recordum patet in Schedula per Iohannem Hals unum Iusticiariorum Domini Regis de banco edita praesenti Rotulo consuta Memor That the 26th of February of this present year by the advice of the Lords Temporal and at the Petition of the Commons in this present Parliament a certain Judgement was given upon Sir John Mortimer of Bishops-Hatfield in the County of Hertford Knight the Record of which Judgement appears in a Schedule drawn by John Hals one of the Justices of the Kings-bench and fastened to this Roll. Then follows the Schedule it self where is set down what past at Guild-hall upon the sinding of the Indictment and how that Indictment was brought into the Parliament Coram duce Bedfordiae ac aliis Dominis Temporalibus Before the Duke of Bedford and the other Lords Temporal and how Sir John Mortimer was brought before them by the Lieutenant of the Tower and how the Commons desired the Indictment might be affirmed and that Judgement might be given upon him Then follows Super hoc viso plenius intellecto Indictamento per dictum Ducem de advisamento dictorum Dominorum Temporalium ac ad requisitionem totius Communitatis authoritate istius Parliamenti ordinatum est statutum quod Indictamentum affirmetur praedictus Iohannes Mortimer de proditionibus praedictis sit convictus ad Turrim ducatur usque ad furcas de Tyburn trahatur super eas suspendatur c. Hereupon the Indictment being viewed and well understood it was by the foresaid Duke by the advice of the said Lords Temporal and at the request of all the Commons ordained and decreed that the Indictment should be affirmed and the foresaid John Mortimer stand convicted of his foresaid Treasons should be carried to the Tower then drawn to the Gallows at Tyburn and there hanged c. This was a Judgement of the House of Peers in their Judicial capacity upon an Impeachment and at the pursuit of the House of Commons who prosecuted and pressed the evidence before the Lords the words of the Record are Tota Communitas praefatum Indictamentum illud in omnibus fuxta vim formam effectum efusoem pro vero fideli Indictamento affirmat ac praefatis Duci ac aliis Dominis Temporalibus supplicat eadem Communitas quatenus iidem Dux Domini Indictamentum praedictum pro vero fideli Indictamento affirmare vellent quod executio dicti Iohannis Mortimer ut de proditionibus feloniis convicti fiat The whole House of Commons do affirm the foresaid Indictment to be in all points for the force form and effect thereof a true and legal Indictment and that execution of the said John Mortimer as of one convicted of the said Treasons and Felonies may follow This you see was a formal Tryal in all points and a Judgement upon it and so it is entred upon the Roll such a day 26 Februarii de advisamento Dominorum Temporalium ad Supplicationem Communitatis redditum fuit quoddam Iudicium versus Iohannem de Mortimer c. And our Asserter here tells us a tale of a Tub that the matter should be decreed after by Authority of Parliament of which the Bishops are an essential part and therefore were present which is an excellent Chimae●…a as if the Advisamentum Dominorum Temporalium Authoritas Parliamenti were two distinct things and the work of several persons some actors in the one who were not so in the other and that the advice of the Lords Temporal had produced some other things which had a greater authority and that the Bishops had joyned in that which shews his ignorance in the course of Parliaments for the Judgement which is given Judicially in the House of Lords hath upon it the stamp and the authority of the whole Parliament and that Advisamentum of the Lords Temporal here was the Judgement as is the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual

and Temporal and of the Commons in Parliament in the passing of an Act of Parliament for when a thing is said to be enacted by the King with the advice and assent of the two Houses that advice and assent of the two Houses is their passing and enacting of it as to their part in it For any thing that is done in either House if the King be mentioned in it is said still to be done by him with the Advice and Consent of that House so in a Judgement judicially given by the House of Peers where anciently the King was often present when they acted judicially it is said to be given by the King by the advice of his Lords and here the Duke of Gloucester represented the Kings Person and held the Parliament by Special Commission so the Judgement is said to be given by him by the advice of the Lords Temporal And so the Lords 28H 6. when the King of himself gave the Judgement upon the Duke of Suffolk the Lords protested against it because it proceeded not by their advice and counsel For that is it which gives the form and being to the Judgement and stamps upon it the Authority of the Parliament Then he comes to a Precedent without debate as he calls it which is that of 28H 6. the Duke of Suffolk's case and confessed so by me as he saith but not truly For I do not allow it to be a just and legal precedent I do acknowledge that the Bishops were present all along the whole transaction of that business but as I said in my first Letter to you so I must and do say in this there was in it from the beginning to the end nothing regular nor according to the usage and practice of Parliaments Then it cannot be said to be a Precedent no more than a Monster that hath no shape nor limb of a true Child can be said to be a Child As for the particular deformities of this Monster for so I may term it they are already so fully deciphered in my former Letter as I will not now trouble you with them again So it shall pass at this time as he will have it for a Precedent without debate for it shall not be any further debated Only I must say still it is but a single Precedent and of what force that is or can be when the constant course and practice of Parliaments hath been to the contrary I leave it to you to judge One single Precedent against all other Parliaments is an unequal match one would think I have heard of a great conquering Prince that gave it for his Motto Souls contra omnes but I have not heard it said so of a Parliament Solum contra omnia The authority of any one Parliament I know to be very great yet it is a known Maxime in the Law Parliament poit errer A Parliament may err and another Parliament may mend what one doth amiss Parliament-men are men and may and do sometimes mistake as well as other men it is possible they did so 28H 6. and more than probable they did so because no other Parliament before nor since did ever do the like And for his Recapitulation of all the fore-mentioned Records in all twenty seven which he makes to prove that this was not a single Precedent as I affirm it to be all the rest as he saith concurring with it to admit Bishops to be Judges in Capital Cases I will only say Sit liber Iudex resort to the Records themselves and to what is already said in my former Letter and this and then judge if he saith true Then he hath a fling at me for what I say upon the Case of Nicholas de Segrave 33 E. 1. where he must give me leave to say with truth what he saith falsly of me upon several occasions which is this That he hath not set down things Faithfully and Ingenuously He saith Segrave came into full Parliament into the presence of the King the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and several Bishops Earls and Barons acknowledged his offence and submitted to the Kings pleasure Upon this he observes That here was no Iudicatory of Parliament and then adds that the King pardoned him De advisamento Comitum Baronum Magnatum aliorum By the advice of the Earls Barons Nobles and others You shall see now how faithful and ingenuous a dealer our Asserter is but certainly he takes all upon trust and takes not the pains to see any thing himself First I do acknowledge it was no formal Tryal for there was no impeachment nor Indictment against him but I must say it was Tantamount for he comes in upon Summons into the Parliament then sitting where the Prelates were among the rest of the Members of the House and how long they continued there it appears not by the Record but he being come Nicholas de Warwick the Kings Councel charged him and pressed matters against him And then the King as the Record saith willing to have the advice of the Earls Barons Nobles and others of his Counsel enjoyned them upon the Homage Fidelity and Allegiance which they owed him to give him faithful Counsel what punishment was fit to be inflicted upon such a fact so confessed Who all of them upon a serious debate and advising upon the matter and well weighing all the particulars of it and what was by the said Nicholas plainly and expressly acknowledged do say That such a man deserved to lose his life But afterwards the Record saith Dominus Rer tamen de gratia sua speciali pietate motus malens vitam quam mortem eorum qui se voluntati suae submittunt remittit eidem Nicholao Iudicium vitae membrorum But the King moved by his special grace and piety desiring rather the life than the death of those that submit to his will did remit unto the said Nicholas the Judgement of loss of Life or Member Here you see the King advised not with his Prelates but with the Earls Barons and other Nobles and what did they advise Not to pardon him as our Asserter will have it but they say he deserved death and then the King of himself would not have it go to that extremity Now whether this Judgement would have been final if they had pronounced sentence and adjudged him to death as they only said such a man deserved death or whether this was only to be preparatory to a Tryal and to proceed afterwards upon a formal Impeachment I confess it is not clear to me nor is it greatly material to our purpose only it shews the Bishops were to give no advice in it one way or other and it is rather stronger to prove they are not to meddle in such matters if it was but preparatory For it shews that in those Capital Cases they must have nothing to do with them to determine and judge any thing concerning them from one end to the other ab ovo usque ad mala as the

Contradictio in adjecto an Imparity in a Parity Thirdly If the Husband be enobled the Wife must be so but the Wife of a Bishop is not enobled therefore the Person of her Husband is not for the Wife and the Husband are one Fourthly If a Bishop were a Peer he could in Parliament time be Tryed no where but in the House of Peers but Matter of Fact we find to be otherwise Therefore I think I may safely conclude that Bishops are no Peers But before I leave this point I must answer one thing which is said They say they hold by Baronage and therefore they are Barons as Fitz Stephen makes the Bishops in their altercation with the Temporal Lords about the pronunciation of the Sentence against the Arch-bishop saying Non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones Nos Barones vos Barones Pares hic sumus We sit not here in Parliament as Bishops but as Barons we are Barons and you are Barons Here we are Peers Fitz-Stephen's authority signifies nothing to me but this I know is said and believed by many therefore it must be answered to disabuse many who may think that holding by Barony creates a Baron which it doth no more than holding by Knights service makes a man a Knight or holding by Villanage makes a man a Villain which many do to this day even but here at East-Barnet and yet are good Free-men and no Villains for it works not upon the Person as Fleta saith l. 3. c. 13. the service they do is ratione tenementi non personae So the Bishops holding per Baronagium are thereby made subject to do the service of Barons and to obey the Kings Writ of Summons to attend the Parliament which makes them Lords of Parliament but affects not their person The Bishop of the Isle of Man is a Bishop as well as any of the rest first instituted by Pope Gregory the Fourth as Sir Edward Cooke saith but not holding by Baronage hath no place nor vote in Parliament We must know that this Tenure by Baronage was first created by William the First of all the Lands which held of the Crown in Capite consisting of so many Knights Fees these Lands were divided some to Lay-men some to Ecclesiastical persons And these were all bound to certain services though not all to the same and among others all to attend in Parliament whenever the King pleased to Summon them and so became Lords of Parliament This continued so till King Iohn's time when the number of the Temporal Lords growing so great and numerous that King made some alteration which certainly was setled and confirmed by Parliament but justly the time when this was done is not known the Record of it being lost The alteration was that none of the Temporal Lords should come to Parliament but such as received the Kings Writ a particular Summons for it These were called Barones Majores those who were not so summoned and so did not come to Parliament were stiled Barones Minores and were still Feodal Barons as before and held their Lands per Baronagium but were not Lords of Parliament Therefore it was not barely holding by Barony which made the person a Baron even in those times there was an act of the Kings requisite even in the Summoning of him to Parliament to make that Honour to affect and enoble the Person and so to fix it and make it hereditary in the Family which way of dignifying a Person continued till the eleventh year of Richard the Second when Iohn de Beauchamp Steward of the Houshold was first created by Patent Baron of Kiderminster since which time it hath still been practised to make them all Barons by Patent But the Bishops have still continued upon the first Institution of being by their Tenures obliged and accordingly Summoned to attend in Parliament which made them Lords of Parliament but not Peers of the Realm And now I come to his last point making them a Third Estate for which he cites the Bill presented to Richard the Third in his first Parliament where they are made so and to this I can oppose other passages in Parliament clean contrary as that 2 H. 4. where the Temporal Lords and they together are made to be one of the three Estates and other instances may be given of the same nature But let us a little consider how that Bill was framed 1 R. 3. it was first devised by certain Lords Spiritual and Temporal and other Nobles and notable Personages of the Commons a Party picked out and chosen for that purpose who presented it in the behalf and in the name of the Three Estates of this Realm of England and what was this to do to declare Edward the Fourth to have lived in adultery with Dame Elizabeth Gray whom he had married being precontracted to Dame Ellianor Bottiler daughter to the Earl of Shrewsbury and consequently all his Children Bastards Edward the Fifth a Bastard and Elizabeth his Sister a Bastard afterwards married to Henry the Seventh which entituled him and his Posterity to the Crown set an end to all the foregoing competitions and setled it as it is at this day this Bill as the Record saith was first presented and delivered to their Soveraign Lord the King that was to R. 3. whom they made so in the name and on the behalf of the said Three Estates out of Parliament and now by the said Three Estates assembled in Parliament ratified and confirmed And truly I must say this is not an authority to be bragged of for making the Bishops a Third Estate But then let us see if the Bishops sitting in the House of Lords have the necessary and essential qualifications of being a Third Estate in Parliament without which they cannot be a Third Estate there That the Clergy is one of the three Estates of the Realm and they the Principal and Chief of them no body denies And that they are Summoned to Parliament as a Third Estate of the Realm the dignified Clergy personally others of the Inferiour sort by their Procurators and Representatives is likewise confessed but not to have any part in making of Laws for the good Government of the Kingdom no not so much as in matters meerly concerning the Church but they may offer and propose and be consulted with but whatever they agree upon must come to the two Houses of Parliament and receive the stamp of their Authority before it can be presented to the King to become a Law and be binding to the People This is the work of the Convocation which meets at the same time with the Parliament and there is convened the Third Estate of the Realm Where the Bishops make the Upper House and there sit as Bishops according to their Spirituality But their Summons gives them another capacity which is to meet in the House of Lords and there Cum caeteris Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus regni de arduis negotiis Statum regni Ecclesiae

Northampton make fully against him as also his Fancy that the Bishops had Right to be present till the definitive Sentence concerning Blood was to be given is against the Opinion of both Houses in the last Parliament Sixthly I have shewed that the Protestation made 11 Richard the Second if it were not a Law was a solemn Confession by themselves that the Canon-Law was against them and further given great Probability that there was in it respect had to the established Law of the Kingdom Seventhly I prove that the Canons are still in force that they are a part of the Law of England and not to be annulled but by act of Parliament and that Irregularity is not taken away by the Reformation Lastly I have given clear Answers to all his pretended Authorities and Reasons urged in his second Chapter and shewed that they are either not to the Purpose or misapplyed or against him I should now come to examine his Precedents in his third Chapter and assert the manner of Tryal of Bishops by common Juries but that is fully done by the learned Author of the Discourse of Peerage and for Precedents if there were any as I think there are not yet the Law being against him they would signifie little Yet least he should think himself neglected I shall in the next Chapter take them into Consideration CHAP. III. I Will not be long in the Examination of his Precedents because in my Opinion the Lords in the last Parliament have determined the Controversie For our Author contends that the Bishops have Right to be present till the definitive Sentence comes to be given and longer if they please for he sets them at Liberty Now the Lords in their explanatory Votes made May 15. 1679. have declared That the Bishops have Right to sit in Court till the Court proceed to the Vote of Guilty or Not Guilty Tho' this their Lordships have now admitted be a Liberty greater than I think their Predecessors ever enjoyed who in Cases of Blood went out at the beginning yet this Vote takes from them all Power Judicature as Peers to the Lords for it gives them no Liberty to pass any Vote but only allows them to sit as Spectators but reserves the Judgment to themselves I perceive this Author is not willing to give much credit to the Relation of Brompton touching what he reporteth of the King 's appealing Earl God-win of the Death of his Brother I will not concern my self in this matter it being before the Conquest and a Story in which the Relaters much differ some say 't was at the Table others in Council why not in both next his Appeal is to the Earls and Barons I wonder our Author doth not say that the Bishops were here meant by Barons For if there were then no Barons some others must be comprehended under that name and not long after our Author tells you the Bishops were comprehended under that Name in the case of Hamel Vid. Leg. Edvar conf cap. 8. nono de decimis apibus where the Name Barons is used before the Conquest I will not give overmuch credit to this Relation of Brompton the rather because William of Malmsbury looks upon it as a Romance for he saith Rumigeruli spargunt Cronica tacent Yet perhaps Brompton's Authority may go hand in hand with Fitz-Stephen But admitting the Story had some Truth in it his Endeavour to prove the Bishops present is not unpleasant He tells you after the Conversion of Ethelbert they were never absent in any Councils of the Nation that were Publick and that there was then no Canon to be afraid of for the Council of Toledo was brought in by Lanfrank some time after First he assumes a Negative they were never absent which cannot be proved except by one who had lived all those times Next he tells you they had no Canon to be afraid of it seems they lived then without Rule I do not believe this Author would have them do so still Thirdly he saith that Council of Toledo take the first or the eleventh the last of them about five hundred years before was first brought in by Lanfrank I think the substance of that Council was observed before but not established as a Canon till the Synod at Westminster of which I have spoke before The Story of the Arch-bishops condemning Queen Emma might be as true as that other of Godwin and both Romantick but however he tells you the Bishops did certainly sit in the County-Courts at all Judgments What their Office was in those Courts I have told you before out of the Laws of Alfred as also you may find the same in Sir Henry Spelman's Gloss. verb. Comes pag. 140 141. where he at large discourses of the Causes to be tryed in those Courts and tells you they were only for the ease of the Poor and things of small value and that the great and powerful men had their Tryals in the Kings Courts and more to the same purpose which the Reader may peruse if he see good and in part are transcribed by the Author of the Letter pag. 108 109 110. Now let any man judge whether the Opinion of Sir Henry Spelman or his Conjecture of Capitalia placita and the Legend of Saint Cuthbert be of most Credit The Author of the Letter tells you that no Capital Crimes were triable in the County-Court But our Author tells us out of the Laws of Edw. the Confes. set out by Henry the first mention is made of Capitalia placita cap. 31. The Title of the Chapter is De Capitalibus Placitis The words follow In summis capitalibus placitis unus Hundredus aut comitatus judicetur à duobus non unus duos judicet Sic inter judices studia diversa sunt ut alii sic alii ali●…er fuisse tendunt vincat sententia meliorum cui justicia magis acquieverit Interesse comitatui debent Episcopi Comites caeterae potestates qui dei leges seculi negotia justâ consideratione diffiniant Recordatione curiae Regis nulli negare licet alias licebit per intelligibiles homines placiti nemo de Capitalibus placitis testimonio convincatur c. Unusquisque per pares suos judicandus est In this obscure Law there is nothing at all that sounds like a Tryal in Criminal Matters except our Author will say that in such Cases no man shall be convicted by Witnesses when there is no other way to try matter of Fact except his own Confession for the Words are that no man may be convicted by Testimony Next it is plain Summa and Capitalia placita are joyned together one explaining the other so that I conceive nothing more is meant than considerable Cases where the matter in Law was dubious to the Judges who were not one Bishop and one Earl but Bishops Earls and other great men and the Judgment was not to be given according to the major

properly they had no Right thereto That all Judgments belonged to the King and Lords is only an Affirmation of the Arch-bishop but binds not the Commons See Posthu Cottoni p. 350. For I think it very plain that anciently the Commons as well as the Lords had their share in Judicature I shall touch some Records which the Reader may consult at leisure Rot. claus 12. E. 2. m. 5. in the Case of Hugh Audley and his Wife Margaret the Relict of Pierce Gaveston they petition'd to be restored to certain Lands given to Pierce A nostre Signure le Roy son Cons●…l Prelatez Countes Barons del ' sa terre the Petition was brought into full Parliament and debated habito dilige●…i tractatu in pleno Parliamento tam per Pr●…latos quam per Comites Barones totam Communitatem Regni Concorda●… Consideratum 't was ordained considered and agreed per Praelatos Comites Barones tot●…m Communitatem Regni that all the King's Grants to the said Pierce Peter and his Wife should be revoked and the Deeds cancelled Et quod istud Iudicrum intretur in Rot. Parliament in Cancellari●… exinde ●…iur in scaccarium ad utrumque Bancum to be enrolled Nothing can be plainer than that this was a Judgment and no Act of Parliament and that not concerning Blood the Prelates concurred and that probably both Houses sate and voted together as one Body I shall add one Record more in a Capital Case and that is entred Rot. Patent 3 E. 3. pars prima me 33. The Case of Adam Orleton or Tarlton Bishop of Hereford and after of Worcester This Bishop was about 17 E. 2. convicted of Treason before Sir Henry Staunton and other Justices In 1 E. 3. he petitions that the Process and Record in which there was Error might be brought into Parliament and examined and he restored to his Estate Praetextu hujus petitionis mandatum fuit by a Writ Galfrido de Scroop who had the Record quod venire faceret recordum processum praedicta quae sunt in custodiâ suâ in pleuo Parliamenio where after he had assigned several Errors the Record concludes Et quia videtur Dom. Regi praefatis comitibus Proceribus Concilio Dom. Regis toti Communitati Regni convocatis ad Parliamentum quod praedictum recordum processus omnino erronea sunt rationibus praedictis concessum est quod eadem recorda processus adnullentur c. This was clearly a Judgment in Parliament in which the Commons were certainly present and that it was not an Act appears plainly for the Record was certified and Errors assigned and 't is worth observation that he did not assign for Error that he was before convicted by a common Jury but admitted it legal Next I think the Prelates were not Parties to the Reversal of the Judgment given in 17 E. 2. for it is coram Praefatis comitibus Proceribus c. though they were at the recital of the Errors neither is it much material for they might very well be Parties to the Examination of a Judgment in a Capital Case for whether they concurred either in affirming or reversing the Record that made them no Parties to the first Judgment but is only a Concurrence in Opinion that what before had been done by others was well or ill done by them I could cite many other Records where the Commons were present in Parliamentary Judgments but let these suffice But this may seem too large a Digression since I was upon the consideration of 5 E. 3. in which I say Secondly It doth not appear that this was an Advice taken up by themselves for the words are not fust avise par eux or ils furent d'avis it was thought fit by themselves but are et pour ceo que avis feust a eux that is because Advice was given them by others to go away they absented themselves probably in Obedience to those Laws which forbad their Presence And they returned no more saith the Author of the Letter p. 8. and the Advice was given by the Lords Temporal only No saith the Grand Questionist p. 102. The Bishops and Proctors of the Clergy went only into another Room to consult therein which was usual in those times I do not at all doubt but the Members of Parliament have several Rooms to retire to upon occasion but that in this Case they did go apart to consult and give Advice in this Business seems very unreasonable for any one to believe because they had but immediately before declared that the Consideration of such matters properly belonged not to them to meddle with and accordingly withdrew certainly no considerate Man will think they went to consult about what they in the same Breath said belonged not to them Besides we see the return of the Lords and Commons without any mention of the Bishops and the Advice given by them by the mouth of Sir Henry Beamont their Speaker which Advice was afterwards put into a Law and then the Prelates might be present tho they were not at giving the Advice For the Record saith It was enacted by the King Bishops Lords and Commons which then became a Law to which the Prelates might justly give their Consent in their Legislative Capacity whatever it concerned Where note that Sir Robert Cotton translates Grands Commons I think with good reason though carp't at by Mr. Prin in the Margine for we heard nothing of them before and soon after we find them named and undoubtedly concerned in all Proceedings before See Matth. Paris p. 55. Magnates Grands comprehends Counts Barons Knights or any other considerable Person together with many others which would be endless to quote Having before shewed that what our Author calls negative Precedents were not simply so and that the Author of the Letter had great reason to believe them absent where they were not named and where the Laws forbad their Presence especially having on his side the Authorities of 4 E. 3. Numb 1. of 1 H. 4. Numb 80. where the Temporal Lords assume unto themselves the power of judging Peers which Opinion is also made good by the late Votes of the Lords in Parliament May 15 1679. By the Case of Dr. Leighton in the Star-Chamber 6 Car. 1. It is evident that the Prelates were not look'd upon in the same sort that the Temporal Peers were for the Information against him was for writing a scandalous Book against the King Queen Peers and Prelates where Peers and Prelates are contra-distinguished and not taken synonymously as may be gathered by the Sentence and being another Body were judged as Peers to one another not to the Temporal Lords I come now to the Consideration of what he saith pag. 90. he there alledges that many of those the Author of the Letter calls Negative Precedents if they prove any thing prove too much for some of them admit they were not present

258 to A a 263 wherefore the Point of Conquest examined and what improvement is made of the admittance of it 293 to 300 Constitutions of Clarendon expounded and the Bishops Wings clipt there 144 to 166 Convocation of the Clergy 81 82 127 137 S 290 Corporations an account of them and of their ancient Interest in Parliament 276 to 286 3d part Coventry its first Representation in Parliament B b 279 Crimes some that did laedere Majestatem Regiam not capital 172 in marg Curia Regis of various Acceptation 150 Curia Regis how far Mr. W. and Mr. Hunt agree with the Author against Dr. Brady as to its being distinct from the General Council of the Nation V 204 Objection against them where their Notion of it differs from the Authors 205 particular Objections against Mr. W's Notion of it 209 X 210 Mr. Hunt's mistake about it 231 to Y 235 D. DAnby's Plea O 197 Demeasn the Kings of England never had all the Lands of the Kingdom in demeasn 3d part p. 253 to 255 Dictare Sententiam how understood N 179 Doctor Oates vndicated P 222 Doctor Standish his Case 47 S 291 E. EArls and Barons are the Peers of the Realm 22 23 24 R. 263 Earls and Barons consiliarij nati 138 Earl of Arundel's Case O 208 Earl of Hereford and Glocester their Case T 287 V 189 Earl Godwin his Appeal Q 227 Earl of Northumberland 51 54 R 274 275 Earl of Salisbury Kent Huntington their Case 50 Ellis William's Case 35 Errors none by the Bishops absence 47 Estate Bishops but part of a 3d Estate 80 to 85 Exegetical where words used exegetically 52 X 213 Explication of several words quosque Judicium pervenior 155 156 Exposition of words according to the standing 18 to 25 52 X 212 to Y 226 and Q 233 234 F. FErrer's Sir Ralph's Case 39 Fitstephen's Authority examined 77 Fortescu●… his Authority B b 271 Form of Writs no Proof of Right 86 Franck-pledges at a Great Council of the Kingdom and who within them B b 273 274 275 283 284 G. GEntlemen how became so C c 285 Glocester Earl and Hereford their Case T 287 and V 189 Godwin Earl his Appeal Q 227 Gomentez and Weston their Cases 37 Grants where the Bishops not comprehended under that word itsextent 32 S 278 279 Government the same before 49 H. 3. as since 3d part 271 to 290 Gurney Thomas 26 H. HAxy Thomas his Case 43 Henry Hotspur's Case S 281 282 283 Huntington's Earl Case 50 S 280 Hunt Mr. the Censure of his Book Pref. to the second Treatise His wrong Translation of non licet in mar 157 His Mistakes Y 229 c. Reasons why he might have spared his Censures Y 228 229 I. IMpeachment when by the Commons the Lords obliged to to try a Commoner 14 Interesse ubi judicium sanguinis tractatur vel exercetur prohibited 158 John Imperial's Case 39 R 264 Irregularity P 221 222 223 Judicial Power in Capital Cases denied the Bishops in the Northern Kingdoms 90 Judicial Power denied them here by Canon Common and Statute Law Vid. Bishops Absence not meerly from the Canons Judgments in which the Bishops had share 11 Judicium a word of various Acceptations 155 Judgments alledged to be void for the Absence of the Bishops 11 195 O 196 Judgments in Parliament and the Curia Regis how reconciled General Pref. V fin K. KEnt Earl S 280 King cannot make an Estate 126 127 King Stephen's Grants reversed at Clarendon 141 142 King Rich. II. undecently reflected on O 194 L. LAwyers confessedly differ from the Questionist as to the Trial of Bishops T 277 and V 194 Laws made upon a dubious Title good 45 46 P 209 to 214 Laws concerning the matter and manner of their making 44 45 Lay-men used to meet with the Clergy in their Councils 157 Lee Sir John's Case 35 Legislative Power in capital Matters allowed to Bishops yet no judicial Power inferred Gen. Pref. 87 88 131 132 and even that an Abuse crept in since Hen. VIII 88 London a Corporation at the Common Law B b 282 Lord Latimer Lions Richard c. 35 Lords of Parliament 36 Lords Temporal expresly named in the Record as sole Iudges 40 58 and R 276 S 280 M. MAnucaptors B b 274 March Earl 22 Mautraver's Case 20 51 279 S 280 281 ibid. Modus tenendi Parl. its Antiquity 121 Molross the Abby its Case and the Authority of that Book answered G 206 207 Mortimer Sir Iohn's case whether judg'd by Act of Parliament 56 to 59 R 262 Mortimer Roger's Case 14 and R 262 N. NAmes equivocal no good Argument from thence P 227 Nevel Lord 35 Nobilitas Major how made 113 Bishops no part of such Nobility S 287 Northumberland Earl R 51 54 274 275 O. OAts Dr. vindicated P 222 Objections from Reason against Mr. W. and Mr. Hunt where they differ from the Autthor's Notion of the Curia Regis 3d part 205 206 Ocle William 26 Old-Castle Sir John 55 Old Modus its Antiquity 121 Omnipotency and the Bishop's Affectation of it in what sense understood by Lord H. 152 153 Orlton's Case R 267 P. PArdons made revocable at Pleasure O 195 Parliament when the word first in use 121 Parliament at Clarendon 139 Peace of the Bishops refusing to give Counsel about it 30 31 R 266 269 Percy Henry's Case 53 Peers of the Realm who 20 21 Pessimae Consuetudines what 140 142 Petrus Blessensis his Testimony 97 98 125 167 168 R 261 Plain dealing 147 Plea of the Earl of Danby O 197 Pool William Duke of Suffolk 13 T 286 Pool Michael's Case 33 34 R 272 Presidents urged against Lord Hollis make for him 14 Proctors or Proxies why the Bishops desire to make them 12 concerning their making them 46 162 197 199 B 200 201 204 205 Proprietors of Land as such their Interest in the Great Council of the Kingdom Y 230 231 and B b 273 to 291 Protestations of the Lord Hollis his Sincerity 6 Protestation made by the Bishops 11 R 2 5 6 7 8 41 42 43 and O 185 to 194 Protestations in the names of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal 8 13 Protomartyr 49 Q. QUestion concerning the Bishops stated 10 11 R. REcapitulation of Arguments against the Bishops being Iudges in case of Blood N 184 Again more fully P 223 224. Q 225. S 277 Rickhil Sir William's Case 48 Reflections upon R. the 2d undecent O 194 Regradation of Peers V 190 S. SAlisbury Earl's Case 50 Sautree William's Case 49 Scheme of the Government as it anciently stood and now stands B b 271 to 291 Scripture against the Bishops their medling in Secular Affairs 134 Scroop Lord. 50 Segrave's Case 61 62 and Q 232 233. T 287 Seniores Populi who meant by them 167 170 Sinister ends in the Parliament 21 R. 2. O 195 Spencer's their Case 48 O 197 198. and Q 234 Standish his Case 47 and S 291 Statute 27. Ed. Ist. c. 3.