from me and hath much more of reason and something though not much more of civility and fairness in the maintaining of it so as whether or no his reasons will convince me I know not but if they do I will certainly grant it for my Maxime is still Amicus Plato amicus Socrates sed magis amica Veritas The Writer of this Treatise intituled The Grand Question concerning the Bishops right to vote in Parliament in Cases Capital Stated and Argued doth state the Question right that is Whether the Bishops may be present and vote Judicially in Capital Cases which come to be judged in Parliament either in giving the Judgement it self or in resolving and determining any circumstance preparatory and leading to that Judgement Then he sets down some things granted on both sides as 1. That Bishops do sit in Parliament by vertue of their Baronies and are bound to serve the King there From this he infers they have a Right of Judicature which is not denied but the question is as he saith himself what this Judicature is 2 That they sit by the same kind of Writ that other Barons do Upon which he would infer that they are impowered and required to confer and treat of all the weighty affairs that shall be brought before them the King having not limited nor restrained the one more than the other But it follows not because all are called together by the same authority that therefore the same duty is incumbent upon all if there be a higher power that directs what every ones duty is to do when they are come together Now the King acts in a higher Sphere by the Law of the Land and the law and practice of Parliament which prohibits Bishops from meddling with judging of Capital Causes in Parliament nor did they ever do it but in one extravagant proceeding in 28 H. 6. where nothing was regular nor Parliamentary from the beginning to the end which I look upon as altogether insignificant to alter what is so setled by Law and constant Custome therefore the Kings Writ of Summons cannot dispence with that to make that lawful which in it self is unlawful as I have sufficiently proved it And I will now go a little further in it than I did before for hitherto I have only insisted upon the Law of Parliaments as a thing setled in Parliament by the Constituons of Clarendon in Henry the Second's time and the Protestation of the Bishops enrolled in Parliament by the King Lords and Commons 11 R. 2. but now I will deliver my opinion which I submit to better Judgements that they lye still under a Restraint by the Canon Law which by the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 12. which was repealed 1 and 2 Phil. and Mar. but revived 1 Eliz. is still of force where it is not repugnant to the Laws of the Realm which we are sure this branch of it restraining Bishops from judging Capitally is not so far from it that it is confirmed and strengthened by the Law of the Land 3. The third Particular in which he saith all agree is That they have their Votes in Bills of Attainder acting in their Legislative capacity which is as much a Case of Blood as the other and perhaps as much forbidden by the Canon But I desire this worthy Person to consider that the Practice of Parliament is the Law of Parliament and is the commanding Law for regulating the Proceedings of Parliament and that hath over-ruled this Point that in the making of a Law every Free-man of the Kingdom doth give his consent either explicitly if he be a Member of either House or implicitly by his Representative for every Free-man of the Kingdome is there present or represented And it is the Fundamental Constitution of our English Freedome that no man can be bound by any Law but what himself hath consented to now a Bill of Attainder is as much a Law as any Statute Law of the Kingdom Therefore Bishops have acted in a Legislative capacity to judge and condemn Capitally as several Precedents we have of it in Henry the Eight's time but not in a judicial capacity And to say the Canon Law prohibits one as much as the other the Statute of 25 H. 8. clears that point which takes away the force of the Canon in the one not to abridge Members of Parliament from voting in the Legislative way and strengthens it in the other forbidding Bishops to vote Judicially in Cases of Blood Yet if you will have me deliver you freely my opinion in it I think it is an abuse crept in since Henry the Eight's time for before none were judged by Bill but such as had been slain in open War or Tryed Condemned and Executed by Commission and then the proceedings brought into Parliament and there approved of and the Attainder confirmed but under Henry the Eighth several persons were condemned by Bill and the Earl of Strafford lately in our memories which seems now to be authorized by the Practice of Parliament Sir Edw. Cooke tells a story which he had from Sir Thomas Gaudy one of the Judges of the Kings-bench how the King had commanded Cromwel and the Earl of Essex to attend the Justices and know of them if a man who was forth coming should be condemned by Act of Parliament without being heard who after some fencing answered if it were so it could not be afterwards called into question and Cromwel himself was not long after so served but this is by the way Multa quae fieri non debent facta valent I have been a little the longer in these particulars because it will much smooth our way in the following discourse And this worthy Gentleman must give me leave to say That he needed not have put himself to all that trouble of his first Chapter in telling us of the mighty power the Clergy had in the Primitive times in the ordering of Secular affairs which certainly was more by way of Counsel than any thing of Authority by way of Judgement and in a Judicial way And he will avow to me I doubt not that the ministery of the word was a full employment for the Apostles and so for Bishops who call themselves their Successors as well as serving of Tables and other ministerial duties was a full employment for those whom he calls the Treasurers of the Church and therefore they said it for themselves and left it as a Rule for their Successors even to Bishops and all other dispencers of the Word and Sacraments that it was not reason they should leave the Word of God and serve Tables Which it seems was a Non est Consonum by the Law of God just as by the Common Law of the Kingdom a Writ was provided declaring it to be likewise a Non est Consonum and to be Contra morem Consuetudinem Regni that Clergy-men should be employed in Secular affairs This indeed I hinted at then as I gave also some little touch at
for he cannot but know out late King chose rather to loose his Life than resign his Power that he never had quiet Possession but a Prince always strugling against him nor had he the acceptance of the People or any thing but force to buoy him up which after his Death fail'd in his next Descendent By what I have said it may appear to any equal Judge that the Laws made 1 Henry 4. were good notwithstanding his pretended Usurpation And as to the thing it self that the Bishops Absence in cases of Blood doth not make a Judgment given void appears plainly by the Case of the Earl of Salisbury in 2 H. 5. who petitions that a Judgment given against the Father might be reversed and assigns for Error that the Bishops who were Peers of the Realm were not present and upon full hearing and debate it was adjudged no Error Now I appeal to this Author whither he can think that my Lord and his Counsel were so stupid as not to urge what they could think of for the advantage of the Earl and the Clergy for whatsoever other faults might be laid to the charge of his Parent the cause appears to be turn'd upon that hinge by all this we may well conclude that the Lords in that Parliament did not hold the Bishops such Peers as ought to be allowed Judges concerning the Life and Death of Noble-men This Judgment our Author hath not thought fit to take notice of which might be equivalent to error temporis for it was either ignorantia or neglectus rei But he tells you Edward the fourth repealed all again in which he is mistaken for Edward the fourth repealed nothing but what concerned the Title between York and Lancaster with some Charters to others I come now to his third head or point Whether supposing that the Bishops absented as he contends only upon the account of the canon-Canon-Law in the times of Popery whether those Laws do continue in force now since the Reformation he thinks they do not In this I shall be very short and against his Reasons which are rather Surmises than other I shall return direct Authorities of Judges and Lawyers in point First he saith the canon-Canon-Law was grounded upon a superstitious fancy that to be present in Cases of Blood brought upon them Irregularity and hath there a large Digression upon the Unreasonableness of the Canon-Law in many particulars I shall easily yield that many of the Rules brought upon the Church by the Papacy are full of Hypocrisie and self-ends but do not think that our Bishops did first forbear from bloody Tryals about Lanfranks time as if this Canon had been unknown in England till then almost 700 years after the first Council of Toledo for Sir Henry Spelman reckons that Canon to be Anno Christi 400. and William the first came in Anno 1066. And in this first Council this Canon is cited but it is more reasonably referred to the eleventh Council of Toledo and the sixth Canon which expresly forbids their medling in Blood 't will yet be about 500 years before Williams Time It is therefore more probable that their forbearance in those Cases proceeded not from any thing brought in by Laufrank but was received here long before from their obedience to the Apostolick Canons which did not only forbid their medling in Blood but in all secular Employments and were carefully observed till Constantine's time who flourished in the year of Christ 323. 'T is likely enough that the Liberty then taken by the Clergy was restrained in Spain by that Council And if our Author please to observe it till they came to be corrupted by Covetousness and Ambition their chiefest Employment was to make Peace between their Neighbours as Chancellors and Arbitrators rather than as Lawyers and Judges In earnest whoever shall consider the intricacy of the Laws of England as they are called the Common-Law will rather believe when they sate as Chief Justices if ever they did so their Seats were among others better versed in the Common Laws than themselves and they sate rather to direct what was equal according to the rules of Mercy than according to the rigorous balance of Justice This certainly was their Office when they sate with the Earl in the County-Court Mr. Lambert in his Laws of Edgar cap. 5. hath these words Celeberrimus autem ex omni satrapiâ conventus bis quotannis agitor cui quidem illius diocesis Episcopus Aldermannus intersunto quorum alter jura divina alter jura humana populum edoceto Here you see the Bishops Office was only to teach the People the Divine Law as the Earl or Alderman did those of the Land His next Suggestion is rather a Conjecture than a Proof to wit that this Canon was never received contrary to himself before or that if it were received it was in diminution of the King's Prerogative and so repealed by the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. He might as well have said That all the Ecclesiastical Laws as of Tithes Marriages probate of Wills and other Faculties now exercised in the Ecclesiastical Courts are against the King's Prerogative and therefore void What Success an Attempt of that Nature lately had he may easily call to mind But let me bring into his Remembrance what the Statute made in the same Parliament 25 H. 8. cap. 21. hath in the Preamble of it Whereas his Majesties Realm recognizeth no Superiour under God but only his Majesty hath been and is free from Subjection to any mans Laws but only such as have been devised made and ordained within this Realm for the Weal of the same or to such others as by the Sufferance of the King and his Progenitors the People of this Realm have taken at their free Liberty by their own Consent to be used among them and have bound themselves by long Custom to the observance of the same not as to the observance of the Laws of any foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as the ancient and accustomed Laws of the same by the said Sufference Consents and Customs and none otherwise We see here the Sense of the whole Parliament That such Laws as had been used and accustomed should be look'd upon as the Laws of the Kingdom and not of any foreign Prince or Prelate Now let him tell me what Laws were common to us with any foreign Prelate except the Ecclesiastical and Canon-Law which having been here used are acknowledged a part of the Laws of the Land by Usage and Sufferance of the People So that we have now a whole Parliament that they did not look upon these as against the Kings Prerogative and so null as this Author would have it but fully confirmed as part of the English Law Agreeable with this is my Lord Coke in Cawdrey's Case lib. 5. 32. b. It is says he Resolved and enacted by authority of Parliament that all Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals
be a Peer os the Realm and his Blood enobled which otherwise would have descended from him to his Posterity and to this present Baron who is since enobled by a later Creation but takes nothing from that Ancestor So then it is clear that sitting in the House of Peers and having a parity of Vote and enjoying many of the same priviledges with the Peers doth not in true and proper speaking make the Bishops Peers no more than 21 R. 2. Sir Thomas Percy sitting with the Peers and Voting with them as Procurator for the Bishops was thereby a Peer His next Argument is That in several Rolls of Parliament they are expressly called Peers which cannot be denied nor doth that make them Peers if the essential parts of Peerage be wanting to them We know that denominations are many times taken up in a large and improper sense for some circumstances some similitudes something which is extraneous unto them yet wherein they agree with things of another nature And so Bishops having place and vote in the House of Peers and joyning with the Peers of the Realm sitting in Parliament in all things with equal power uno excepto saving only in cases of Blood it is no wonder if they are often stiled Peers of Parliament But the Precedents he cites are falsly recited both in the Case of Mautravers and that of Gomenitz and Weston as I have shewed before His third Argument is That they have judged as Peers upon Peers of Parliament But I deny that they judge there as Peers but as called to the Parliament to be Members of the House of Lords as Bannerets were formerly and many principal Gentlemen who were still Commoners and some Officers as the Warden of the Cinque-Ports who was no Peer sometimes and yet summoned up to the House of Lords and all these judged such Peers as were tryed in those Parliaments in which they sate However that Bishops are not Peers of the Realm and so consequently not properly and truly Peers of Parliament though often called so I think will be clearly made out First I must as I have formerly done insist upon the Great Charter which Sir Edward Cooke saith is declaratory of the Principal grounds of the Fundamental Laws of England and which the Statute made 25 E. 3. Confirmatio Chartarum will have to be observed as the Common Law and all Judgements given against it to be undone and holden for nought this Law is certainly to be obeyed and what is done in observance of this Law is most legal And it enjoyning every man to be tryed by his Peers and Bishops being tryed by a Jury of Commoners Commoners are their Peers and they are Peers to Commoners and not Peers of the Realm Peers per eminentiam as I may call them or else Magna Charta is broken and made a Law of no authority 2. To be a Peer of the Realm their Blood must be enobled and their Persons dignified nor can they otherwise be put into the same rank with those who are so which would make but an ill accouplement and they would never draw well together Now Bishops do not sit in Parliament ratione Nobilitatis but ratione Officii as Stamford saith in his Pleas of the Crown p. 153. En respect de lour possession se launcient Baronies anneres a lour dignitées In respect of their possessions viz. the ancient Baronies annexed to their dignities 3. If they were Peers and their Persons enobled their Wives would be noble and have the priviledges of Peeresses being Married or Widows for Husband and Wife are one person in Law but we know they have no such priviledge which shews their Husbands to be no Peers 4. If Bishops were Peers of the Realm and any of them questioned for a Capital Crime in Parliament time they could be tryed and judged only by the House of Peers and by no other Court of Judicature The Lords could not avoid the trying of them themselves indeed any but Peers they may refuse except it be upon an Impeachment by the House of Commons for then they must retain it and proceed in it but not otherwise except they see some great cause for it Pro bono Publico as it is 1 R. 2. when the Commons desired that no suit between Party and Party should be undertaken and determined by the Lords or the Officers of the Council but that the Common Law might have its course except it be in such a business and against so great a person as one cannot else hope to have right done in it The same is confirmed 1 H. 4. which I alledge to justifie the Judicature of the House of Lords upon those who are not their Peers upon special occasion But for trying of their Peers is a duty incumbent upon them which they must perform and any Peer who is questioned may challenge it as his right and it cannot be denied him And therefore 4 E. 3. when they had upon the Kings earnest pressing them Tryed and Condemned Sir Simon de Bereford Sir Iohn Mautravers and other Commoners they make a Protestation that they nor their Successors Ne seroient mes tenus ne charges a rendre Iugements sur autres que sur lur Piers Should not be bound nor charged to give Iudgement upon any but their Peers But we know that they have sometimes turned off Bishops to Inferiour Courts as appears by the Record of it in the Exchequer the same 4 E. 3. Stephen Gravesend Bishop of London was complained of in Parliament by one Iohn de Wymburne for saying That if Edward the Second was yet living as he was informed he was in Corf-Castle he would assist him with all his power to re-establish him in his Throne Sir Edward Cooke saith that by order of Parliament the matter was referred to be tryed in the Kings-bench but the Record saith that the Parliament referred it to the Kings Council and appointed him to appear before them at Woodstock upon Sunday fortnight after Easter and that they turned him over to the Kings-bench to be Tryed by the Chief Justice Scroope and his fellow Judges Whereas had this Bishop been then accounted a Peer of the Realm he must have been Tryed in Parliament the Parliament being once possessed of his Cause and they could not have referred him to any other Judicature So here you have four Essential parts of Peerage all of them wanting in Bishops and the want but of one Essential part is enough to destroy the whole He can be no Peer of the Realm who is at the Kings sute Capitally Tryed by a Jury of Commoners if Magna Charta be good Law which is our All as we are Free-men Secondly He who is not himself enobled cannot be a Peer in equal rank to one that is For all Peers are equally Peers as we may say Peerage doth not recipere magis minus The meanest Baron is as much a Peer as the greatest Duke else they were not Peers it would 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
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 Chimaeâ—…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
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
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
the Government of the Church by the Imperial Law but not that I put any stress upon it but meerly to circumscribe the Question and keeping it within limits by a Negative declaring what it was not and an Affirmative expressing what it was how Bishops in Parliament could not Judicially act in Capital Cases Therefore were it all so as this learned Gentleman seems to infer that in France Spain Germany and those Northern Kingdoms which he mentions that Bishops were joyned with the Civil Magistrates in ordering the Publick Affairs of those Nations and that they had a share not only in the Legislative but in the Judiciary part as he alledgeth two Authors to prove it to have been in France it would not be of any signification to decide our Controversie for what is this to us to regulate our Parliaments and to operate on our Laws But first for matter of Fact as to France to which I can speak a little having spent many years in that Kingdom and I have by way of discourse informed my self from the Ambassadour who is here from that Crown who doth assure me that the Judges whom they call Counsellors and not Judges as we do who are Clergy-men as many there are joyned with the others of the Laity never sit in that Chamber of Parliament which trys Capital Causes which they call the Tournelle I believe the same may be observed in those other Countries which our Author mentions and I do not see how it could be otherwise the severity of the Canon Law being so strict in the prohibition of it But as I said before the Primitive Christians had that veneration for the Clergy and especially for the Bishops that they were still joyned with the Civil Magistrate in ordering the affairs both in Church and State The matters of the Church they determined Judicially in Secular affairs whether Criminal or other only by way of Counsel if the Civil Magistrate to whose Province they belonged did not do his part I am sure it was so in England Brompton in his Chronicle recites the Laws of King Athelstane in this particular I cited his very words in the original in my former Letter I shall now repeat them very faithfully in English He saith It appertains of right to a Bishop to promote that which is right both concerning God and the World A little after he addeth He ought likewise diligently together with the Secular Judges to promote Peace and Concord And soon upon it he hath this passage The Bishop ought to be present in Judgement with the Secular Judges not to suffer any buds of wickedness to sprout if he can hinder it His Presence and his Counsel was rather a check upon the Judge than to determine any thing in Secular affairs Sir Henry Spelman is a little more particular in delivering unto us the nature of that mixt Court it is in his Glossary upon the word Comes The Earl he saith did preside in that County Court not alone but joyned with the Bishop he to deliver what was Gods Law the other what was Mans Law and that the one should help and counsel the other Especially the Bishop to do it to the Earl for it was lawful for him sometimes to reprove the other and to reduce him bring him into order if he went astray Then he tells us what the work of that Court was that it had cognizance but of petty matters That the Earl had not cognizance of great mens businesses for such matters are to be brought into the Kings Courts he only judges poor mens Causes Hence it is that by our Law Actions for Debts and Trespasscs are not to be commenced in the County Court if it be for above the value of 40s It seems that in ancient times it was but one Court but each Judge had his proper work the Ecclesiastical Judge to distribute and deliver to them what was Gods Law the Secular Judge Mans Law And so it continued till William the First 's time who first separated the two Courts as appears by his Charter to Bishop Remigius which Mr. Selden relates in his Comment upon Eadmerus p. 167. which he saith the King did Communi Concilio Archiepiscoporum suorum raeterorum Episcoporum Abbatum omnium Principum regni sui In a Common Council by the advice of his Arch bishops and the rest of the Bishops and Abbots and all the great men of the Kingdom The words are Wherefore I command you and enjoyn you by my Royal authority that no Bishop nor Arch deacon presume to hold Plea in the Hundred Court any more upon the Episcopal Laws nor bring any Cause that pertains to the rule of Souls before the Judgement of Secular persons but that whoever is questioned according to the Episcopal Laws for any misdemeanour or fault shall come to that place which the Bishop shall chuse and nominate for that purpose and there shall make answer for himself and not in the Hundred Court but shall according to the Canons and the Episcopal Laws do that which is just and right both to God and to his Bishop This was again confirmed 2 R. 2. and so the Courts came to be divided as they continue to this day But nothing can be concluded out of that large Enumeration of the Bishops being admitted in those ancient times to Publick Councils which was more for their Advice and Counsel and Direction than to act any thing at all Authoritatively and Juridically and least of all to have any vote to determine any thing in Cases of Blood which the Canon Law made a Noli me tangere to them I deny not but before there were Christian Magistrates even in the Apostles times the Ministers of the Gospel did many times interpose and reconcile differences and sutes which many times happened amongst believers as St. Paul saith Is there not a wise man among you no not one that shall be able to judge between his Brethren Nor doth he exclude the Bishops that they may not come in as one of those wise men Yet 1 Cor. 6. 4. he seems to exclude them For he saith If then ye have judgement of things pertaining to this life set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church Which doth seem to intimate as if he meant not the Bishops for sure they are not least esteemed But doth any man think that they were by this authorized to compel men to submit to their Judgement to punish or imprison or lay any corporal punishment upon them if they would not Indeed I cannot think so Nor do I find that St. Augustine was of that opinion the term he gives to those whom the Author of that Treatise will have to be Ecclesiastical Judges doth not imply so much rather the contrary methinks He calls them Cognitores which denotes rather one that took notice of such differences and would endeavour to compose them than a Judge to determine them which hath made me examine that passage more
with an evil Eye with much other such Language throughout his Book which the Reader may observe if he pleases He ought with more Reason to have considered the Age the Quality the Place this Octavo Gentleman beld at Court the Service he had done his Country both at home and abroad rather than to have loaden the Ashes of a dead Noble-Man with Revilings railing Language and Reproaches who was known to be a Person of so great Worth and Experience The Reader will pardon this Warmth in me when I hear a Person now at rest so slighted who had he been alive this little Gown-man durst not have approached without marks of Reverence and Submission But let us allow him to make up the shortness of his Reasoning by the length of his Railing Thirdly His Extravagancies are so numerous that nigh every Leaf hath somewhat or other of that Nature Conjectures and Surmises without any manner of Proof must pass for Demonstrations One while the Bishops are Spiritual Barons a Title I never remember given to them nay not so much as Lords Spiritual till the time of Rich. II. Another time Feudal Barons and that there was no other than Feudal Nobility Sometimes they are Barones Majores yet not enobled in Blood nor their Honour conferred upon them by any actual Ceremony or otherwise esteemed than Barons by Tenure and that William the Conqueror intended that as an Honour which themselves and all other Historians complain of as a Burthen That the Bishops in Parliament are a full third Estate and yet we know Acts are good when they are either excluded absent or oppose the passing them and yet they never represented any but themselves Sometime he is troubled that the Nomination of the Bishops is in the King These things cursorily observed by me makes his whole Book appear an indigested Lump fit to be lick'd over if so it may be brought into any form 'T is not unlike a Lottery where after a hundred Blanks you may chance get a Prize But I shall leave a further Examination of his crude Notions to another Hand who may be more concerned to detect his Errors than I am However I cannot omit the taking notice of his pompous Title â—…tis indeed a Titulus Sesquipetulcus Their Right unalterable in that place in the Government they now enjoy which Fancy is confirmed by a Consequence of his own making Page 122 That the Bishops cannot be detruded from that Place they bear in the Constitution of the Government for that no Government can legally or by any lawful Power be changed but must remain for ever once established and it cannot be less then Treason of State to attempt a Change No Authority in the World is competent to make any Alteration How false this Position is he will find if he consult the frequent Change of Governments since the Creation in the Jewish Grecian Roman nay in our Britannick State with many others in all parts of the World Neither can I imagine this Maxime can serve him to any other end than to arraign those Parliaments who have made Laws without them or that in 17 Car. 1. Anno 1642 which by Act took away their Seats in that House And lastly to accuse those as Traitours to the State if any hereafter shall attempt it I am confident no Parliament will endeavour to take from them their just Right but to say they cannot and that the Government cannot then subsist is as absurd as the other is unlikely I must further observe that this Author doth upon all Occasions blame those Persons who deny the Prelates that judicial Power in Capital Cases he would place in them as Enemies to the Government whereas he ought to know that Exceptio probat regulam in non exceptis He that gives them Authority in all things that are clear and denies it them in dubious doth more asserttheir Right then he that by giving it them in all things doth rather perplex it I have now done with this unwary Writer who whilst he seems so zealous for the Government doth himself in the main part of it unhinge and destroy it Doth he not Pag. 144. endeavour to destroy the most ancient Court of Chancery which he calls both a Reproach and Grievance to the Nation Doth he not spend some Leaves to shew how this may be effected by setting up as many Chancellours as there shall be Judges in Courts which must in the end be either wholly useless or run us upon an Arbitrary way of proceeding and put an end to all our ancient way of Trials by Iuries and leave all in the Breast of the Iudg to determine Let him not now think to take off the Envy of this by a fawning commendation of our present Lord Chancellour I am so well acquainted with the great Abilities and large Endowments of that Noble Person that I doubt not but his just Decrees in that Court will remain as perpetual Testimonies of his Conscientious Iustice and Equitable Distribution of it in that place in which he is now settled Nor can I believe he will be pleased with any tho never so due Commendations to the Disparagement of his worthy Predecessors or such as hereafter may succeed him in the most Honourable Station in which he now is worthily placed DId the Author of this Treatise believe that the Lord Bishops voting as Judges in Parliament in Cases of Life and Member could any way conduce either to their Honour or Greatness or the Good of the Church and Nation he would never have entred the List in this Quarrel being himself wholly conformable and in his Judgment fully approving the Polity of the Church of England as the best reformed of any other he knows having cleared herself from the Superstitious Formalities of the Church of Rome on the one hand and on the other not requiring from her Children under Terms of Communion any thing in which she may not lawfully as he thinks be obeyed But being fully convinced that their asserting this Right in themselves will bring forth no other Fruit except Envy to their Persons and perhaps sometime or other through the unequal Affections of a head-strong People Prejudice to their Functions I have been the more easily induced to make known my Thoughts herein I observe there have already been made publick six elaborate Treatises upon this Subject four asserting a Right in them to vote in Parliament in matters of Blood and two against it But because the last and most learned Tractate which goes under the name of the Grand Question c. is look'd upon and indeed is the most material I shall apply my self chiefly to the Examination of his Arguments and I hope discover the Errors Fallacies or Inconsequences of them He tells us at first that 't is granted on both sides that the Bishops sit in Parliament by virtue of their Baronies This I must take Liberty to question as doubtful still premising that Truth doth not lye in
what Men may say of themselves or passeth under common Estimation of Men but what upon serious Examinition of the Question shall be found to be true I shall endeavour to make it appear that many who held Lands in Cap per Baroniam or per servitium Baroniae were not enobled in Blood nor had Right to demand their Writ of Summons as the Noble Barons had but were to expect the King's Will and Pleasure and were often left out These were secundae Dignitatis Barones or Barons by Tenure only of which some might probably be adopted into the Nobilitas Major afterwards as Barones adscriptij yet at first were not so and this was to them an Honour but to the Bishops a Burthen who held their Lands free before and had no Honour conferred upon them as the rest had For tho it be true that all the great Noble-Men held per Baroniam yet was it not their Tenure which gave them that Right as I shall shew by and by These second sort of Barons were called Barons Peers because they held of the King in Capite as his immediate Free-holders and were stiled Barones Regis for the Word imported then no more but Men holding of the King's Person in Capite These subdivided their Lands to others under the like Military Service these were likewise called Barons from their appearing at their Lord's Court called the Court Baron and Baronagium became a Word of general Signification comprehending those liberè Tenentes or Sutors to the Court Baron who together with the King 's immediate Tenants who were the Barones Regis that is the Kings immediate Free-holders made up the Communitas Angliae and comprehended all Persons except such as held in Villenage Besides these thus made by the King there were others some found here some brought out of Normandy of great Nobility and Extraction who had of their own great Possessions as Earldoms and Counties in this Country and others brought over with the Conquerour out of Normandy of an Inferiour Rank to whom he gave the like Honour out of the Lands of those adhered to Harold which all held of him per Baroniam but by Creation were many of them afterwards made of a higher Rank and were called Comites Regis and Majores Barones Regni they being possessed of the like Honours in their several Countries before The Bishops I conceive were not under any of these Ranks but were called to Parliaments ratione Episcopalis Dignitatis not ratione Tenurae only of which they complained as a Burthen Creation they had none to any higher Honour than Episcopal their Tenure could not give them a greater Honour than to be Barones minores or Barons Peers Neither can I find in any Act of Parliament or Record that they were called Lords before the time of Rich. II. and then first called Lords Spiritual to shew their Honour arose from their Spiritual Function and not from any Temporal Possessions nor the name of Barons applied to them except by themselves who perhaps finding the Burthen of their Service which before was free were willing that others should give them the Title tho there was no more reason that their Tenure by Baron Service should make them Barons than that Knight Service should make the Tenant a Knight Having thus cleared my way I shall in the next place shew that these Barones Minores or Barons Peers were sometimes summoned by Writs to Parliament and sometimes left out The Abbot of Feversham one under the same Rule with the Bishops was summoned to 12 Consecutive Parliaments as Tenant in capite per Baroniam and then left out 19 Edw. 2. Rot. penes remem Dom. Regis in Scall Thomas de Furnival had been sumoned to 30 Parliaments and yet upon an Amerciment in the Exchequer pleads he was no Baron now except he had held in Cap. per Baroniam or part of a Barony he could not have been summoned at all as a Member of Parliament Whether his Plea were allowed doth not appear upon the Record but by this and some other Records in my hand to the same purpose it seems to me that many that held per Baroniam were not Barons but at the best Bannerets or Barons Peers I cannot find by my utmost search that any thing hitherto hath madeit apparent that Baronies were ever annexed to the Possessions of the Bishops but Men have generally taken it for granted that they were so They say that William the first soon after his Reception to the Crown of England did introduce new Tenures and established Counties and Baronies and did then order that Bishops and the Parliamentary Clergy should hold per Baroniam or sicut Baroniam which the Learned Mr. Selden saith in the language of those Times signified the same thing For he saith that tenere de Rege in capite and habere possessiones sicut Baroniam and to be a Baron according to the Laws of those Times are synonimous Seld. Tit. Hon. part 2. pag. 704 Cook Hakewell and others say they hold per Baroniam But the Proofs any that I have met with offer to make good this Division by William or that Tenure per Baroniam did infer more when a minor Baron in my Judgment are not cogent What they urge is taken out of Wendover and from him transcribed by Matth. Paris He first greatly blaming the Act of William hath these Words Episcopatus Abbatias omnes quae Baronias tenebant catenus ab omni servitute saeculari libertatem habuerant sub servitute statuit militars irrotulans singulos Episcopatus Abbatias pro voluntate suâ quot Milites sibi successoribus suis Hostilitatis tempore voluit a singulis exhiberi That is He established under Military Service all Bishopricks and Abbeys which held Baronies and at that time had freedom from all Secular Service inrolling them all and appointing according to his Pleasure what Souldiers in time of War they should severally find unto him and his Successors Mr. Selden finding the contradiction in these Words that their Baronies which should have kept them as he thought free from Secular Service as the words import were the only thing that bound them to it thinks there ought to be a Parenthesis after Baronias in purâ perpetuâ eleemosina eatenus ab omni servitio saeculari c. and makes the words run thus All Bishops and Abbeys that held Baronies in Frankalmoign and in that respect freed from all Secular Service c. And backs this Conjecture by the Authority of Mr. Cambden who he conceives might have seen some Copy where those words were But he need not have put himself to the trouble of that Conjecture had he translated eatenus at that time as the word signifies and never that I know in that respect However finding further that this would not take away all doubt because the words refer not to all Bishopricks and Abbeys but to such only as then possessed
but of the better Opinion of such as were the Judges The Records of the Court were not to be denyed to any man others it seems might by understanding men concerned in the Cause The meaning of the Law I take to be that Cases of Right might be tryed here of any Value but criminal Cases were not medled withall I remember not to have read any where that Capitalia placita had that Signification our Author suggests Placita Coronae Placita Parliamentaria and Placita Communia I have met with but Capitalia Placita for Placita Capitalium criminum is new to me However the meaning of that be yet the Manuscript Life of Saint Cuthbert as to the thing it self will help us out He tells you it may be with as much Truth as Brompton that one Hamel the Son of Earl Godwin being imprisoned by the Earl of Northumberland his Friends earnestly interceded with the Earl that he might not loose his Head Here indeed we find a man imprisoned by an Earl Application made to the Earl in his behalf no mention of any Bishop any Tryal or any farther Proceeding in the business but the Tryal and the Bishops Presence at it are both supplyed by our Author who hath proved neither or produced greater Proof than the Authority of a loose Legend and that lame too and yet upon this he triumphs as if the Point were clearly gained when there is nothing of what he would have made good by him Is it not now a thousand Pities that so well sounding Words so well put together should signifie nothing The next Precedent our Author takes into Consideration is that of Nicholas Segrave cited by the Author of the Letter pag. 55. by this Author pag. 76. which he would evade by supposing the Bishops might be comprehended under the Name of Magnates or Counsellors and shews that some of the Bishops were probably then of his Counsel For a clear Answer to these Surmises I shall give you shortly the whole Case as you shall find it at large inter placita Parlam 33 Ed. 1. Riley pag. 266. Nicholas Segrave had Summons by the Sheriff and the Command of the King to answer to such things as should be objected against him and to hear and stand to what the Curia Domini Regis to wit the Parliament consideraret in praemissis Segrave upon this Summons Venit in pleno Parliamento in praesentiâ ipsius Domini Regis Arch. Cantuariensis plurimorum Episcopor Comitum Baronum aliorum de Consilio Regis tunc ibidem existentium Nicholas de Warwick perhaps the King's Atturney accuseth him of many and great Crimes which he offers to prove Segrave confesseth all submits to the King de alto basso Et super hoc Dom. Rex volens habere avisamentum Comitum Baronem Magnatum aliorum de consilio suo injunxit eisdem in Homagio fidelitate ligeantia quibus ei tenentur quod ipsum fideliter consulerent qualis poena pro tali facto sic cognito fueri infligenda The Comites Barones Magnates c. adjudge him worthy of Death After this the King pardons him and orders him to put in seven Sureties and to render himself a Prisoner at the King's Command and to be accountable to the King for the Issues of his Land held in his own or his Wifes Name This in short is the Case of Segrave in which it is very clear that at the Accusation the Bishops were present as of Right they might be but at the Tryal they are omitted Now to suppose them comprehended under a general Name and out of Order who were particularly expressed when their Presence was lawful is both unusual and unreasonable unusual because it is against the Rule of Law to comprehend the greater after the Nomination of the lesser and so to take the Bishops under the name of great Men who are constantly first named and were so here at the Beginning Secondly 't is unreasonable to make a different Construction of the same Words in different Cases or Laws now we know that in the Statute de Asportatis Religiosorum the Words are Comites Barones Magnates where we know the Bishops were not comprehended under the Name Magnates nor ought to be here and to suppose the contrary is against the Current of all Acts of Parliament and Records By the Magnates and alii de Consilio were meant the Judges and other Counsellors at Law whose Advice the King required as was very just and usual in those times 'T is likewise observable that the Word Consilio is written with an s which shews those Counsellors he advised with were not necessarily Members of Parliament for then the Word would have been written with a c Concilio His remarkable Precedent of the D'Spencers will stand him in as little stead in the Reign of Edward the Second they were both condemned and the Exilium Hugonis D'Spencer is to be seen in the old Natura brevium Those Judgments were afterward reversed at York in 15 Edward the Second but in 1 Edward the Third the first Judgments were affirmed and so they were look'd upon as condemned Persons which continued though themselves were dead for above seventy years til by the prevailing Party in 21 Richard the Second that Act was again called in question as void in regard the Bishops were absent and the Bishops desired to make a Proctor by the Commons which they accordingly did but at last through their exorbitant Proceedings that whole Parliament was repealed in 1 Henry the Fourth To this I have largely spoken before to which I shall refer the Reader with this farther Advertisement that in troublesome times things are not always carryed as they ought to be wherefore we are not always to look at what was but what ought to have been done neither are we to be governed by seeming Precedents such as sometimes as in the Case of Ship-money may be produced against Law I have before made it manifest that the Canons of the Church long before Lanfrank's time forbad Clergy-men to meddle either in Blood or secular Employments neither is it reasonable to believe the Laws of this Land were different from the general Rule incumbent upon all Clergy-men to observe especially when we see the Immunities granted them by King Stephen were so early recalled by Henry the Second and the Constitutions then made at Clarendon look'd upon as the ancient Customs of the Nation insomuch that the Discourser had very good reason to say 't was the common Usage which is the common Law of England Pag. 88. Our Author comes to the Examination of those Records urged against him and his Exceptions in general are First That they are Negative the Bishops were not present at Tryals of Blood therefore they had no Right to be present Secondly They were sometimes absent when they were not prohibited therefore their Absence was voluntary Thirdly they are sometimes comprehended under the
and Royalties and themselves Barons both blaming and threating them from God for so doing and involving themselves in Secular Matters This Author flourished in the time of Hen. II. ancient enough to know the truth and how they were look't upon in those days Moreover I do not find it can be made appear except conjecturally that they were ever present where they were not first named The Honour of their Function makes them be called before Dukes and Earls and being by that reason Pralati leâ—… no Man deprive them of their Right and by Post-Position make them post Lati. Lastly This Person being executed in 4 Edw. 3. as appears by the Record in 28 E. 3. Cot. p. 85. without any Accusation or Answer makes me believe the Bishops being Men of Piety would not by their Prefence countenance so illegal a thing tho they had had Right without entring their Protestation manifesting their dislike of it neither do I believe their Spirits so humble to suffer a Post-Position of their Titles But this whole matter will I conceive be better cleared if I shall acquaint the Reader with something more concerning this Roger Earl of March than hath yet come to this learned Person 's Knowledg In 5 Edw. 3. the very next Year after the summary Judgment was given against Mortimer and Matrevers a Commoner at the Complaint of the King we find inter Brevia Baronibus direct 5 E. 3. m. 33. penes rememorat Dom. Regis in Sâ—…cio that those Judgments were per Comites Barones alios Pares Regni not a Syllable of the Prelates nor can the word alios take them in since in the whole current of Records the Prelates were never placed after Earls and Barons And the alij Pares were either such as might be extraordinarily summoned an usual Practice at that time or they were the Barons Peers viz. Barones Minores besides the succeeding words clear the Point For there was in 4 E. 3. an Agreement and Concordia made by the Lords and Commons that such Proceedings should not for the future be drawn into Example to judg Commoners to death upon Summary Articles without any Concurrence from them Now this Concord was made by the Temporal Lords not by the Prelates but per nos Pares praedictos nec non Communitatem Regni in eodem Parliamento Now in 4 E. 3. the Reference was made to the Earls and Barons the Peers to whom of right such Judgments belonged and no Prelates comprehended and here they are called Pares praedicti Add to this Rot. Parl. 13 E. 3. Numb 8. Le grant des Graunts where an Aid was granted to the King then in war with France The Record saith Les Countes Barouns esteantzen dit Parlement Granteront pour eiix pour leur Peers de la terre qui teignent per Baronie la desme garb la disme tuzon la disme Aignel de touts leur demaignes Terres Now if the Prelates were understood by the word Peers in this place then it must be granted that the Earls and Barons taxed the Prelates who always taxed themselves and the inferiour Clergy in Convocation But the succeeding words will clear the matter which run thus in the same Record Et pour ceo quil fu aviis as Prelatez Countes Barouns autres Graunts que pour les ploite des besognes c. the Record is touching a speedy Supply to the King Here we see where the Bishops were concerned they were named which shews they were no more comprehended under Peers before than under the word Magnates in this Clause I could multiply Records to this purpose and am confident no clear Example can be given where they were necessarily comprehended after Counts and Barons The next Authority he quotes to weaken the Authority of those he calls Negative Precedents is the case of the Murther of Iohn Imperiall a publick Minister sent from Genoa This Case I conceive is not truly stated by the Author of the Letter and misapplied by the Grand Questionist The Point in question in the Record was what Offence the Murther of this publick Minister was which matter was referred to the Judges for their Advice who agreed that it was Treason within the Statute of 25 E. 3. This their Judgment was confirmed in Parliament whilst the Doubt was in Agitation among the Judges 't was not material who was there But after they had given their Sense what was meant by this Confirmation in Parliament is the next Question Whether more were meant than an approving of the Opinion given by the Judges by them drawn up in form and this may well be the meaning of that whole Proceeding which Practice is usual in our days but cannot be called a Judgment in Parliament tho it might be their Opinion But if you will rather believe it to be by Act of Parliament then must the Commons be Parties of whom we hear no mention nor any Statute to that purpose extant that I can find and in that Case the Bishops might have been present if they would and whether they were or not is not material Vid. Cot. 3. R. 2. N. 38. p. 183. Yea in Acts of Parliament when the Sentence comes to be given they are to withdraw as it was held by Mr. Edward Bagshaw a learned Reader of the middle Temple who for some Opinions by him held touching the Bishops was by the Power of Arch-bishop Laud suspended from proceeding in his reading Rushw. Hist. Coll. Tom. 2. p. 990. The next Precedent is in 5 E. 3. Which in conclusion will do him as little Service as the former The Author of the Letter pag. 7 8. tells us that that Parliament was summoned for redress of the Breach of the Law and the Peace of the Kingdom and the Record saith further that 't was to consult touching Lands in Guienne and the Marriage of the King in which the Bishops went away and returned no more I confess I know no reason but they might have staid it seems they thought otherwise being in all likelihood privy to some Actions to be treated there wherein Sentence of Blood might be pronounced But be their reason what you will their words are these Et pour ceo que avisefust a les dits Prelates qu'il nattient proprement a eux de Counseiller de la gard de la paix de chastiment de tels malvois s'allerent mesmes les Prelates Which words do not only import that they voluntarily went away but that it did properly behove them not to be present in such matters or to give Counsel for the Punishment of such Crimes The same word is used in 1 Hen. 4. Cot. p. 392. where the King by the mouth of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury declares that the Commons in that Case were only Petitioners and that all Judgments belonged to him and the Lords belonged that is the Commons had no Right thereto so here nattient proprement is that
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 Consâ—…l Prelatez Countes Barons del ' sa terre the Petition was brought into full Parliament and debated habito diligeâ—…i tractatu in pleno Parliamento tam per Prâ—…latos quam per Comites Barones totam Communitatem Regni Concordaâ—… Consideratum 't was ordained considered and agreed per Praelatos Comites Barones totâ—…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 Cancellariâ—… exinde â—…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
must now meet under such Qualifications and no other as were by him allowed them which by all Men is agreed to be as Tenants to the King in Capite for their Possessions which they held in the Nature and by the Service of Baronies This being so I see not what use he can make of the Distinction made in Parliament between the several Estates of the Clergy and Laity The Question is not Whether the Clergy and Laity are distinct Estates which no Man ever denied but whether the Bishops distinct from the other Clergy in Convocation be an entire third Estate in the Lord's House that they are so no Man hath yet proved His Authority out of Eadmerus speaking of what was done in Parliament in 3 Hen. 1. saith it was done Utriusque ordinis concordi Curâ sollicitudine by the unanimous care and trouble of both Orders Ranks or Degrees Why must Ordo signify an Estate rather than a Degree or Rank Now I hope Men of different Degrees may sit together without being different Estates Dukes Earls Marquesses Viscounts Barons now sit together yet may make but one Estate But let Ordo signify that Estate as he would have it and as he thinks it doth why must it signify an intire Estate or what doth it more import than that it was done by the Joint-Consent of the Lords and Commons who might then sit together and were not at any time left out as is sufficiently proved by Mr. Petyt Matth. Paris his Clerus and Populus and the other Cases by him there mentioned comprehended the whole Body of the Clergy and Laity met together in Parliament including as well the Inferiour Clergy as the Superiour sitting in their due Ranks All the rest of his Precedents made use of by him seem rather to enforce that the King is not a third Estate than that the Bishops are more than a part of a third Estate among the Lords But this Point whether the King be one Estate or not in Parliament and how an Head can be considered as no part of the Body I leave to others to dispute but must rest in this undeniable Conclusion that there can be no legal co-ordinate Power however the case stands for as in the Body natural nothing can be done without the concurrence of the Head So in the Body Politick nothing can justly be done without the concurrence of the King in matters of publick concern in Parliament except their Proceedings deviate from the ordinary Rules of the known Laws of England I have put off the Examination of the first part of his fourth Chapter that I might conclude this Discourse with an Answer to the Matters he there alledgeth He finds himself pressed with that strong Argument drawn as well from Magna Charta as from divers Precedents that the Bishops were not Peers to Noble-Men but were themselves tried by a common Jury in Matters Capital and therefore were not of Condition to try Noble-Men who had in themselves Inheritable Noble Blood To this Argument he opposes two things First That the matter of Fact cannot be made out that a Bishop hath always been tried by Commoners Secondly That if it could it doth not overthrow their Peerage in Parliament This second Assertion I will easily grant if by Peerage in Parliament be no more meant than a Community of Appellation by reason of their sitting amongst the Lords and their Precedence in place with some other Priviledges as to Amerciaments days of Grace and the like But certainly if it can be cleared that they have of right been tried by common Juries and that as well before as after the time of Henry the 8th Nay that they have not look'd upon the Lords in Parliament as their Peers and proper Judges I may then rationally conclude that they are not Peers in Parliament to that end to try or be tried by Noble-Men there It is plain by all our Law-books that out of Parliament no such Priviledg belongs to them For first out of Parliament over and above the express Authority of Stanford a Judg in Queen Mary's time Sir Edward Coke a great Judg in our time Mr. Selden a great Lawyer and Antiquary Mr. Cambden an Herauld great Scholar and Historian all agree that Bishops shall not be tried by Noble-Men and that manner of Triall hath never been put in use as to them Now if this be confessed to be the Law out of Parliament let the Author give me one Example that a Man of right ought for a like Offence to be tried by one sort of Jury out of Parliament and another in it The Case of Appeals under which Covert he endeavours to hide himself I shall discuss anon The Priviledg they claimed as Clerks was common to all other Clerks as well as to them but there are many Cases of Clerks tried in Secular Courts and the Trial allowed to be good to which purpose see Cook 's second Instit. 638 but never any Exception of theirs allowed of as if those Trials were illegal As to the Case of Bishops and their Trials by common Juries Mr. Selden is very clear and gives many Examples both before and after Hen. 8th's time which are not so to be slighted as this Author seems to do That of John de Isle the Bishop of Ely's Brother is full to the point where the Bishop was arraigned and upon Question how he would be tried stood upon his Priviledg as Clerk that he was a Member of the Pope's and therefore ought to be brought to his Answer before his Ordinary the Arch-bishop of Canterbury who was there ready to demand him affirming that he ought not to answer before a Lay-Judg this Plea was rejected and a day given to the Bishop and a Jury impannelled sworn and tried which shews he had his Challenge The Jury bring in their Verdict and find that the Bishop was not guilty of the Fellony laid to the Charge of John de Isle his Brother and his Companions but they find that after the Felony committed the said Bishop knowing that these Persons had committed Felony did receive and harbour them upon which a Writ was directed to enquire what Goods and Chattels he had and his Person upon request of the Arch-bishop delivered him to be kept as it behoved him to do Now let any Man judg whether here were not in every respect a legal proceeding The matter of Fact tried by the Verdict of twelve Men Inquisition made concerning his Goods Lands and Chattels himself the Crime being only receiving of Felons delivered to the Arch-bishop either to make his Purgation or to be kept in due manner Was here now any Willingness in the Court to break the Law as our Author saith pag. 146. or not rather a perfect Observation of it Is not this perfectly agreeable to what Dr. Ridley in his view of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws saith pag. 86. If a Clerk be first arrested by a Spiritual Judg and found
guilty he shall be degraded and delivered over to the Temporal Power But if he be first arrested by 〈◊〉 Secular Magistrate and tried and found guilty he shall be delivered to the Bishop to be deprived and then delivered back to Punishment The Precedent of Thomas Merks Bishop of Carlisle our Author allows to be against him but asks whether one Precedent before the time of Hen. 8th be sufficient to expound Magna Charta for in this Case the Immunities of the Church were considered and a Declaration by them that their Priviledges extended not to Treason But for a full Answer I say first that there are more Precedents than one but if there were not would not one with the constant Opinion of all Lawyers and Judges be enough to prevail with a dis-interested Man to believe that the Peers in Magna Charta and the Lex Terrae do not intend Bishops to be such Peers as are to receive their Trial by Noble-men But what Exception can be taken to those Cases after and in the time of Hen. 8th Did he not continue the Roman Religion all his time was it more against his Prerogative than of any of his Predecessors 'T is clear enough that the Proceedings before as well as after were according to Law notwithstanding the Clamour of the Clergy as is plain by Mr. Selden I shall now consider the Case of Adam de Orlton alias Tarlton Bishop of Hereford All Historians of those times as well as other later ones set sorth the violent Proceedings of the Clergy in that matter who took him twice out of the Hands of Justice But it appears by Mr. Selden by the Record Hill 17. E. 2. Rot. 87. Dors coram Rege that he was arraigned in the King's Bench and upon question how he would be tried refuseth to answer there Day is given and the Indictment brought into the Parliament where he makes the same Plea that he is by the Will of God and the Pope Bishop of Hereford and that he ought not to answer before that Court. Here you see whatever the Carriage of the Clergy was and what-ever Judgment was given against him His Exceptions were as much against any Trial in Parliament by the Lay-Lords as else-where And that consequently the Injury they conceived done to them was that they should be tried in any Secular Court whatsoever This you may see in Du Fresnes Glossary Verbo Par. The Trial he required was per Episcopos Pares suos By the Bishops his Peers This appears also by the Complaint of the Bishop of Ely that he was brought to be tried coram Laico Iudice before a Secular Judg. By this our Author's Mistake may appear who saith pag. 144. That they look'd upon themselves out of Parliament as having no Peers in Judgment but Bishops when it is evident by the Case of these Bishops that they made the same Exception as to their Trials before the Lords in Parliament that they did before the Secular Judges out of it and pretended they ought not to be tried before any Lay-Judges whatsoever Neither did they look upon themselves under the same Condition that Lay-Men were but being a distinct Body among themselves thought it reasonable to be judged by themselves only and in their own Courts an Innovation the Law never allowed or gave any Countenance unto I confess I cannot but wonder that any one Person of how great Parts soever should go about to contradict the Opinion of very many learned Judges who have all asserted the contrary to wit that Bishops ought to be tried by Commoners and no one Lawyer of any note that I know of hath hitherto maintained the contrary Methinks those of the Long-Robe should be tender in opposing the Judgments of Stanford Cook Doddridg and Selden except their Opinions were back'd by the Authority of Judges equal in Ability and Learning to those before named Having thus cleared the Precedents urged by Mr. Selden and others from the Exceptions of this Author let us now see what is alledged by him to prove that it was not always so but that sometimes they were tried by the Noble-Men as their Peers in Parliament And to that purpose he propounds the Case of Stratford Arch-bishop of Canterbury out of Arch-bishop Parker's Antiq. Ecclesiae Britan. who tells you that Stratford was at the King's Suit accused of Capital Crimes in the Exchequer that he put himself upon his Trial in Parliament that a Parliament was called and he after some Opposition admitted into the House and there as our Author saith put himself upon the Trial of his Peers this it seems is the Relation of Matth. Parker By the way whom he meant by his Peers doth not yet appear whether the Clergy only or the Lay-Lords But let us have recourse to the Record as it is abridged by Sir Robert Cotton 15 E. 3. Numb 8. The same day the King came into St. Edward's Chamber commonly called the Chamber de Pinct the painted Chamber before whom all the Lords and Commons the Arch-bishop of Canterbury humbled himself and required his Favour which he granted Afterwards the Arch-bishop desired that where he was defamed through the Realm he might be arraigned in open Parliament before his Peers probably by his Peers he understood the Bishops as others had done and not the Lay-Lords Besides this seems to be a Desire of his at a Conference before the King and Lords for it was in the painted Chamber whereas the Commons usually sate in the great Refectory now called Westminster-Hall Let us observe the King's Answer which was that he would attend the common Affairs and after hear others where we see the King did not grant his Desire but gave only a Dilatory Answer Lastly it doth not appear that he was ever arraigned in Parliament for the Record saith Numb 49. And it is to be remembred that all things touching the Arraignment of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury should remain with Sir William de Kedelsby Keeper of the Privy-Seal By which it is evident that these things were not then put into the Hands of Sir William de Kedelsby but to remain there where probably they were before and were only some Papers relating to what was before done in the Chequer for I find no Arraignment recorded about that time Two Yearsafter viz. 17 Edw. 3. Numb 22. All the Proceedings against the Arch-bishop were cancelled by order from the King so that nothing appears to have been done against him to any purpose either in Parliament or else-where 'T is true there was a continuance of the Parliament in 15 o from day to day for a Week about the Trial of Noble-Men that they should not be put to answer but in open Parliament by their Peers to which purpose there are named four Bishops four Earls and four Barons as a Committee to draw up the Plot. These Persons being in their Device assigned as hereafter doth ensue Under the Name of which Peers they
other Cases Now this very Question seems to me an over-ruling ours for if it were then a Question whether they might be of a Committee in Cases of Blood where the Judges were often joyned with the Lords it can be no doubt but that they ought not to be admitted to give their Votes as Judges in the like Cases in their Persons REFLECTIONS UPON Antidotum Britannicum AND Mr. Hunt's late Book and Post-script As far as concerns the Controversy between Doctor Brady and the Authorof Jani Anglorum facies nova and of Jus Anglorum ab Antiquo London Printed Anno 1682. CHAP. I. The true and essential Difference between the General Council of the Kingdom and the Curia Regis maintained against Dr. Brady Mr. W. and Mr. Hunt with a short Account of some Reasons why Mr. Hunt might have spared his Censures upon them who apply themselves to the Study of Antiquities SInce Dr. Brady received a Reply two of my Brethren of the Gown Mr. W. and Mr. Hunt both of Greys-Inn have appeared in print in behalf of the King's Tenants in Capite and will needs have it that these ingrost the Right of coming to Parliament as one calls it or the Magnum Concilium as the other till 49 of Hen. 3. One professes that he never read what has been wrote upon this Subject either by Mr. Petyt or me The other slights it all as a Dispute not worth the Cost and Pains spent about it and grants many of Dr. Brady's Hypotheses but denies his Consequences and so allows him to be a good Antiquary but an ill Logician That there was a Curia Regis or Common Council of the Tenants in Chief such especially as held of the King by Knights Service distinct from the Great Council of the Nation or Parliament In which Curia the King's Tenants granted to the King Auxilia Aids and did act many things in relation to their Tenures Both agree with me directly against Dr. Brady who will have it that all the King's Tenants by Knights Service never met in any Council or Court but thereby it became the General Council of the Nation or Parliament In which since he is opposed by these two learned Authors agreeing with me they have given so much Credit to my Notion that they have prevented that further trouble which I might have given the inquisitive World upon that point If I can free my self from the force of these Gentlemens Arguments or Objections upon those things wherein I differ from them I think I need not fear the empty Thunder of Men of other Professions but may look upon my Notions as sufficiently established Both Mr. W. and Mr. Hunt are Men of much longer standing and greater natural and acquired Parts then I can pretend to yet if I have the good fortune to fall into the Paths of ancient Truth no modern Authorities ought to beat me out of them They both will have it that the Tenants in Chief were the only Members of the Curia Regis which was held for Matters within the King 's ordinary Power and of the Magnum Concilium or Parliament where the extraordinary Power was exercised Against them both before I examine their supposed grounds from Authority this obvious Objection in reason may be urged If all the Tenants in Capite by Knights Service were obliged to attend in the Curiâ either by virtue of their Tenure as one takes it or of general Summons as the other and the consent of none but such Tenants were requisite for passing of Laws in Parliament what reason can be assigned why Laws might not have been made in the Curia and so that have become a Parliament when ever the King pleased to declare it so Can a more particular Summons and notice of Arduous Affairs which is Mr. Hunt's Notion lay a greater Obligation upon them to be present who however were bound to come And if they were bound to come can Absence be reasonably pleaded to free any from the Obligation of what was then agreed on Indeed Dr. Brady who will have it that every full Confluence of the Tenants in Chief by Knights Service to Counsel was a General Council of the Nation supposes that even before King John's Charter and while he thinks that they were to come to Parliament ex More without Summons if but a few appeared it was no General Council which is an absurd Supposal unless there was before that a Law in being that they should not act without a certain number as supposing that forty were to make a full House as now 't is said to be with the Commons for otherwise they who did appear did according to the general Rule of making Laws bind them who were absent through their own default But if we consider how contrary it was to the Usage of those Times to make Laws or insert Clauses or Words idle or unnecessary we shall not easily believe that they would according to Mr. Hunt's Supposal have made Provision for the particular summoning of those for arduous Affairs who were obliged to attend at the Council without such Summons Indeed I am aware that Dr. Brady hath charged me with putting such a sense upon King John's Charter as would imply a needless Provision The Doctor tells us that by King John's Charter the Cause of Summons was to be exprest and from thence he would infer that it was a Great Council there intended for saith he such Provision were needless if there had been but one Cause for which they were to be summoned which he urges as the Consequence of my interpreting that Summons there provided for to have been only for raising such Aids in the Curia as could be imposed upon the King 's immediate Tenants and none else Now admit that this had been to a Parliament and had taken in all manner of Charges to be laid upon the Subject if the raising of Taxes were the only work of a Parliament the providing that they should have notice when a Tax had been required would have been as impertinent and if the Parliament had any other Power this Provision had been as defective as he supposes 't was according to my rendring superfluous For that Summons mentioned in King John's Charter is restrained and limited to the granting of Aids but there is not one word or syllable of making or enacting Laws which is the main business of Parliaments and therefore this must be intended of some Inferiour Counsel and not of the General Council of the Kingdom But if the Charter be taken to be meant only of raising such Aids as lay upon none but the King's Tenants if those Aids branch themselves into Escuage and Tallage here were two Causes of Summons as the one or the other was required or if only such Aid as Escuage was within the Provision still the Cause or the Occasion of raising the Escuage might be different and therefore the cause of Summons more than
one nay some might have been obliged to attend upon one Cause of Summons exprest which were not upon another for if the King had an Occasion of transporting an Army beyond Sea in that case only they that held by the Service of going into forreign Parts together with such as were tied to general Service were obliged to attend and liable to pay Escuage upon their default to be taxed by them who were present according to the Obligation of their Tenure If the Tenure were to go into Scotland or Wales they could not by reason of their Tenure be compelled to go else-where whereas the Attendance at the King's Court ex more was what I take it lay upon every Tenant in Chief holding by Knights Service Ratione Tenurae and was not superseded by King Iohn's Charter but still they that were not present were concluded as to all Acts of the King's Court Baron either in Criminal or Civil Causes as much as in the Court-Baron of an Inferiour Lord the Suitors present may proceed to all Judgments within the Cognizance of their respective Courts where through the common neglect of the Suitors the Steward for the most part gives Judgment by himself Mr. W. who was the first Author of a Lawyer that ran Counter to me makes a distinction between a Parliament and a Curia Regis which I conceive to be without any difference in Relation to the several Powers of the Curia and the Great Council of the Nation except that 't was less in that which is now called the Parliament than 't was in the Curia for he says that to the Curia the Tenants were obliged to come Ratione Tenurae but to the other they could not come but ex Gratia Regis Upon which 't is further observable 1st That he yields that the Commons others beside the Tenants in Chief had as much right as the Tenants in Chief to come to the Parliament before the 49th Hen. 3. for he grants that they too came sometimes before that time ex Gratia 2dly Whereas he supposes that King Iohn's Charter of Resignation was void not being in Magno Concilio though 't was in Communi Concilio Faronum he assignes no reason in the World for it's being void for admit that to the Commune Concilium Faronum or Curia the Tenants in Capite came Ratione Tenurae and to the General Council of the Kingdom ex Gratia which he subjoyns as the Ground for avoiding that ignominious Resignation which he agrees with me contrary to Dr. Brady to have been made in the Curia Regis and not in the General Council of the Kingdom does it follow that because they had no Right to come to the General Council though they had to the Curia that therefore a Resignation in the Curia was not good nay does it not follow that because they had no Right to come to the General Council therefore the King might exercise his absolute Power in such a Counsel as he should think fit to call and might oblige the Nation in any Act of his done by such Advice or Consent Nay rather if there were a Counsel where they might ex 〈◊〉 be present which Mr. W. makes the same with Ratione Tenurae does it not follow that there would be less Obligation upon them from any Act done in the General Council of the Kingdom where they had no Right to be present and so no consent of theirs could be urged to inforce the Obligation than from the Determinations of that Counsel where they were necessary Members But Mr. W. his Grounds for his Belief that the Commons had no Right to come to the General Council of the Kingdom before the 49th of Hen. 3. are two 1st That in the 45th of Hen. 3. only three were ordered to be Representatives for every County the Year I take to have been mistaken by the Printer for the Settlement and Reformation of the Government which he mentions was in the 48th and that he means that Settlement and not one before in the 42d is evident by his citing Si videatur Communitati Praelatorum â—…ronum which is in the Record of the 48th and not in any of the 42d that I have seen But 't is evident by the Record that the three he mentions were assigned for the Electors of a standing Counsel to the King which was to act out of Parliament as well as in but with no Authority in Legislation besides admit that they were intrusted with all the Power of the Counties I cannot find any force in the Argument that because a Representative was then agreed on therefore they had no Right to come before that time in their own Persons But indeed in the 42d of that King there was a Representive of the Commons who were in those times accounted only the Citizens and Burgesses this was pur espargner les Costs des Communs to spare the Charges of the Commous which I use not to shew that all such came any otherwise than two for a place But that the settling a Representative is an Argument that before that time they came in greater Numbers 2dly His second Argument is the Authority of Pollidore Virgil which proves wholly against him for it says that the Populus rarely were consulted with before the time of Hen. I. Adeo ut ab Henrico primo id Institutum Iure Manasse diâ—…i possit Even he allows the Right of the Commons to be a constituent part of Parliament to have been an Institution or a settled Right long before the 49th of Hen. 3. no less than one hundred forty nine Years And in the Case of Godsoll and others against Sir Christopher Heydon my Lord Cook affirmed that he had seen a Record in the time of Hen. I. of the Commons Degrees and Seats in Parliament his words are these En Ancient temps tout le Parliament sea insimul le Separation fuit Par le desire del Commons mes â—…ent obstant ils font forsque un mese ieo aie veiw un Record 30 H. 1. de lour Degrees Seats That the Commons were Members of the General Councils of the Kingdom in the time of Hen. I I think is very plain when we find even at Synods Assemblies for Ecclesiastical Affairs Nobilitas Populusque minor and Laici tam divices quam mediocres But that they then had any Order and certain Seats there I cannot readily believe And indeed we find that in the Reign of King Stephen who immediately succeed Hen. I. 't is spoke of as customary for the Uulgus or Commons which were Infinita Multituto Plebis to come as Members of the Great Council and to intermix themselves with Men of the greatest Quality as 't is usual in Crouds Uulgo etiam confusè permixtum ut solct se ingerente 3dly Mr. W. his third Argument is that where a Record makes mention of Arch-bishops Bishops Abbots Priors