comprehends them all so that our Question being concerning their Rights in Parliament if this be not meant of one it will neither advantage nor prejudice me but only shew how willing they were to break through all Rubs when they could in those times of their Power and the Blindness of the People The whole Sentence by our Author abridged to his purpose is as followeth Illud coelestem exasperat iram plerisque discrimen aeternae damnationis accumulat quod quidam principes sacerdotum seniores populi licet non dictent judicia sanguinis eadem tamen tractant disputando disceptando de illis seque ideo immunes à culpa reputant quod mortis truncationis Membrorum decernentes à pronunciatione duntaxat executione paenalis sententiae se absentent Sed quid hac simulatione perniciosius est Nunquid definire discutere licitum est quod pronunciare non licet In English This doth exasperate the Wrath of Heaven that certain of the Chief Priests or Bishops and Elders of the People notwithstanding they do not dictate or pronounce Judgments of Death yet they handle them in their Disputations and discussions of the same yet notwithstanding think themselves free from Guilt because though they Decree the Sentence of Death or loss of Members they only absent themselves at the pronunciation of the Penal Sentence But what is more pernicious than this Simulation Is it lawful to discuss and determine what is unlawful to pronounce And in the whole Treatise inveighs against the general neglect of the Bishops in performing their Duty not confining himself to any place and seems a prophetical description of the practise of the Inquisition afterward brought in by S. Dominick But if it were referred to the practise of some of the Bishops and Clergy of England probably it may be meant of such as were made Secular Judges or sate with the Earls in the County Court where they perhaps were present at the discussion though not at the Sentence which was left to be pronounced by the Secular Judge till after the time of Edw. 1. See 28 Edw. 1. c. 3. where it is ordained that the Justices appointed to take Assizes in every County where they do take as they be appointed Assizes shall remain together if they be Lay-men but if one of them be a Clerk then one of the most discreet Knights of the Shire being Associate to him that is a Lay-man by our Writ shall deliver the Goals of our Shires Here we see their Power though Justices to meddle in Capital Cases was prohibited nay some Records are in the Tower that when two have been commissioned as Judges for the same Circuit the Commission of the Clerk has been restrained to common Pleas that to the Lay-man unlimited see Iani Ang. facies nova pag. 209. 210. Shall we now believe that what was prohibited to Clerks in Edward the First his Time was permitted to them in the High Court of Parliament in subsequent times I have given my Reasons why I think Seniores Populi could not comprehend the Abbots Priors Lords and Commons yet if any man will contend this was a Parliament then must Seniores Populi comprehend amongst others the Commons and their Proceedings to be in a legislative way in which the Commons could only meddle and in which we deny not the Clergy to have their part so that this doubty Precedent will no way serve our Author's Turn His second Instance to make good his Assertion is taken from the Authority of Will. Fitz-Stephen a Monk of Canterbury in MSS. in Sir Rob. Cotton's Library and some other private hands in which he relates what happened to Arch-bishop Becket in the Contest between the King and him in the great Council at Northam ton called soon after Becket's obstinate Carriage at Clarendon in which Relation among others that Author hath these Words Secunda die considentibus Episcopis comitibus Barenibus Angliae omnibus Norpluribus Roffensis Episcopus quidam alius nondum venerat Archiep. lesae majestatis coronae regiae Arguitur quia se ut supra narratum est à rege citatus ro causa Johannis to wit Iohn the Marshal neque venerat neque idonee se excusasset Archiepiscopi depulsio nullum locum habuit Allegata tamen Johannis supradicti injuria jurisdictione hujus causae propria curiae suae integritate Rex exigit judicium Archiepiscopi nulla ratio est approbata Then after much debate who should do it Judgment was pronounced by the Bishop of Winchester which ended in the Confilcation of all his personal Estate The Sum of what Fitz-Stephen saith which is cap. 10. col 2. p. 21. in that Copy I have seen is this That when the Bishops and Barons of England and many of Nor. Normandy as Mr. Selden thinks were met together the Arch-bishop is there accused of Treason because having been cited by the King in the Cause of one Iohn he appeared not nor gave in a sufficient Excuse To let pass what is materially replyed by the Author of the Letter to this Authority I shall make some Observations of my own not yet taken Notice of First That this Assembly held at Northampon was not a Parliament but a great Counsel summoned by the King soon after Becket's stubborn carriage to his Prince at Clarendon to be advised by them how to humble that proud Man where it was lawful for him to use the Counfel of any of his Subjects of Normandy or others as he thought good who certainly in an English Parliament could not be admitted amongst the natural English Secondly we hear nothing of the rest of the Clergy nor the commons but of the Bishops Earls and Barons but that the Commons had allways right to appear in Parliament is learnedly made good by Mr. Petit in his Tractate of the ancient Rights of the Commons In the next place the relation of Fitz-Stephens is not only different from the relation of other Historians but in it self is subject to many Exceptions For first it is plain he was not accused of High Treason in the case of John the Marshal as he saith which appears by the Judgment of that Council which upon the whole matter reac'hd only a Confiscation of his personal Estate which shews clearly the Accusation was not in that Case for Treason because they here punished him with a lesser Punishment than was due to Treason now 't was not in their Power to change the nature of the Crime but must have either found him guilty of Treason or have acquitted him But the Truth is there was a second Accusation by the King about the same time and in the same Place concerning Accounts to the King of Receits during the Vacancy of the Sees of some Bishopricks when he was Chancellor to which he refused to give other Answer saying He was not cited in that Cause and over and above that he was fully
when they might have been others that they were present when by his own Rules they should have been excluded either therefore the general words where they are not mentioned do not enforce their Absence or that they oughtto have been excluded at some other Trials where the Author of the Letter admits they were or might have been present The chief Case he instanceth in is that of Michael de la Pool Chancellour of England who was accused of many Misdemeanours by the House of Commons and as I think he would infer such as Thorp Chief Justice was found guilty of being Capital where the Author of the Letter saith the Bishops were not present yet allows them to have been present in the Case of this Chancellour a parallel Case as he saith with that of Thorp either therefore saith our Author they might have been present in the Case of Thorp or they should have been absent in Trial of Pool This is his Argument as near as I can gather out of his Words put together something obscurely I need give no other Answer to this than to lay before you the words of the Record This Accusation was exhibited by the Commons in 10 R. 2. against Michael de la Pool Lord Chancellour in full Parliament before the King Bishops and Lords and six Articles were objected by them against him The first was That he purchased Lands of the King of great value whilst he was Chancellour the other five as the Record saith were only Quarrels and of little concern To the first and most considerable the Chancellour put in a fair Answer the Commons reply and urge things to the utmost and amongst other things say That whereas by the Popes Provisions a Person was recommended to the Priory of St. Anthonies he the said Chancellour would not suffer him to be admitted till the Grantee had contracted to pay to the Chancellor and his Son 100 l. yearly and then parallel this with Thorp's Case and would have had the Chancellor in the same fault with Thorp for Bribery as a Judg and consequently incur the same Judgment The Chancellor replies and shews great difference between the Cases Upon the whole matter Judgment was given against him pursuant to the Accusation for Misdemeanours only in which the Bishops were and might be present and the parallelling it with Thorp's Case was only in the Management of the Cause by the Commons and no part of the Accusation Neither is it reasonable to believe that which our Author asserts in the same Page that the Prelates were free Agents and might withdraw at some times and be present at others as they saw cause For beside that this is contrary to the express Law of Clarendon which expresly declares that 't is their duty to be present in all Proceedings in Curia Regis which in that place must be understood of the Parliament because they were to be present with the other Lords tho I know that Curia Regis is sometimes taken in a more laxe Sense for all the Courts in Westminster are the King's Courts and unto which they were to give Obedience and Attendance in Cases not prohibited I say over and above this Act at Clarendon it seems to me very unreasonable to suppose that such a Body of Men had liberty to give their Attendance when they pleased without leave of the House or cause shewed why 't was fit they should be absent or that the Author of the Letter meant more when he saith they might have been present than that they were not prohibited by the Law of Clarendon which only had Relation to Matters of Blood But these Men had other Canons to go by when they thought fit as well as those of Toledo and 't is probable enough that the rest of the Noble-Men finding them most constant Factors for the Pope were willing enough to let them be absent upon any colourable Pretence when they desired it Is not one clear Precedent against them in point of greater weight than many dubious and equivocal ones which cannot without great Art be wire-drawn to speak to their advantage Let him consult the Discourse of Peerage pag. 17. The Case of the Earl of Northumberland 7 Hen. 4. Rot. processus cor Dom. Rege in Parl. in 5 Hen. 4. This Noble-Man came into Parliament and confessed before the King and Lords that he had done against his Allegiance in gathering Power and giving Liveries this Fact by the Lords was adjudged no Treason for which he gives Thanks to the Lords his Judges and a day after the Commons do the like where the Prelates are named as our Author affirms and to which I shall speak by and by But in 7 Hen. 4 the same Earl was in actual Rebellion in the North and his Forces dispersed by the Earl of Westmarland but he and the Lord Bardolf fled into Scotland the rest were most of them taken Prisoners This Case came into Parliament where the King commands the Lords Temporal Peers of the Realm to advise what Process to make and what Judgment to render against the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolf Nothing can be plainer than that the King look'd upon the Lords Temporal as those Peers who were proper to give Judgment touching their Fellow Peers who had fled from Trial in a case of Blood The Record goes on the said Lords advised thereupon and gave Counsel to the King Then the said Lords Peers of the Realm by assent of the King order summoning the said Lords to appear at a day given or to stand convicted by Award of the Peers in Parliament The King farther demanded the Opinion of the Lords Temporal touching the Arch-bishop of York who was in the same Treason The Lords Temporal by the Assent of the King and by their Authority declared and awarded the said Earl and Lord to stand convict of Treason for not appearing upon Summons 'T is very clear that this whole Business was transacted by the Lords Temporal without the Bishops and with the Concurrence of the King 'T is not to be believed that the Bishops would have sate quiet had they thought themselves wronged in these Proceedings See the Discourse of Peerage pag. 17 18. I think it hardly possible to find a more clear Record in the Point than this is First here were two Noble Lords defeated in actual Rebellion and fled from Justice into Scotland The King upon this would not so much as consult with his Prelates knowing them by Law no proper Counsellours against Peers in matters of Blood applies himself to his Lords Temporal they order Proclamations by order of the King enjoyning the said Lords to appear at a day certain or to stand convict they not appearing are by Award of the Lords Temporal convicted of Treason and a Year after one is slain the other mortally wounded at Bramham-moor in York-shire Can any thing be more agreable to the Practice at this day against Men that fly from Justice and
demand for I do very well know what judgments the Commons did then not intend which were all Judgments in Capital Cases for it is most clear by all Records of Parliament and all the vestigia that remain with us of the usage and proceedings of antient Parliaments that there is not the least colour for so much as a doubt or a suspition that the Prelates or Lords Spiritual could have any part in those Judgments And we know on the other side what judgments they had their shares in which were all Judgments in such Civil Causes as came into the Parliament and in Criminal Causes that were not Capital and the Commons then could intend none but these which was enough to satisfie me that this Petition of theirs at that time was no wayes contrary or repugnant to what I maintained And by the way methinks it is worth observation the reason they give of their desire that the Bishops would make a Proctor not so much for that that their presence there was of so absolute necessity as that what was done without them was in it self null and void but to put an end to all controversies which shews the Prelates had expressed some dissatisfaction and had gotten some things which had been done in their absence to be undone and Repealed which considering their power at that time and how all the Laity was in awe of them would have a great effect upon mens minds and make them do what else they would not have done and perhaps strain a point a little to satisfie them And still it shews that notwithstanding their absence they were good and valid till the same power that had made them did Repeal them And to shew what an ascendant the Prelates had over King and Parliament and the whole Kingdom at that time see what they did but the year before 20 R. 2. They declared unto the King in open Parliament That they were sworn to the Pope and See of Rome and if any thing were in Parliament attempted in restraint of the same they would in no wise assent thereunto but would utterly withstand the same and can we then wonder if the Commons were not very loth to displease them and willing to comply with them much rather than have a controversie with them and perhaps be fain at last to undo what they had done His fourth Postulatum is upon the Protestation of Viscount Beaumont in the name of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Case of William de Pole Duke of Suffolk which hath been touched upon before wherein he now saith I have left out the most material words but what they are he expresseth not nor can I imagine what he means As I have already said I have been very particular in setting down every circumstance of the whole proceeding acknowledged the actings of the Prelates in it thoroughout as far forth as the Temporal Lords and then I say how upon the Kings giving Judgment upon the Duke that Viscount in the name of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal made that Protestation That it should not be nor turn in prejudice nor derogation of them their heirs ne of their Successors in time to come I think this was sufficient to shew that I did acknowledg all that could be pretended to for the Bishops Judicature in that business and what this Assertor would have more and wherein I have failed I can not imagine only I see he is a quick-sighted Gentleman and can see further into a Milstone than another man and spy a fault which another cannot see He hath a fifth Postulatum to whichI can say nothing for I understand not what he would be at he speaks of my accurateness in making a distinction between the Matter andForm of a Law and then saith He observes three things though he expresseth but two which he saith he shall have occasion to make use of hereafter when he comes to speak of the particular Cases and I must refer my Answer to what I shall there find when I believe I shall make it appear that he makes no great use of them nor of any other Argument that he brings And now I come to the particular Cases the first is 4 E. 3. of Roger Mortimer Earl of March being then condemned for Treason Here our Asserter saith That by 28 E 3. upon his Cousin Roger of Wigmore's petitioning to have this Judgment and Attainder reversed I acknowledg it to be an Attainder If I say truth say nothing to the purpose This is gentile language and which discovers my Gentlemans ignorance as well as his rudeness his ignorance in conceiving an Attainder to be only by a Law by an Act of Parliament in which Bishops may be present and if they were not so but did withdraw it was their own voluntary act and no diminution to their Rights I have already upon his second Postulatum handled this point so fully and made I think both his errour and the truth so clear as I need not say any thing more to it here Then it is a pretty Argument he brings against my saying That the Record being Les queur Counts Barons Piers les Articles per eur eramine rebindrent c. Which Earls Barons and Peers having examined the Articles returned c. It must be inferred that the Bishops cannot be comprehended under the word Peers since the Barons are named first To this his Answer is Well but I find the contrary Peers many times put before Barons particularly in Mr. Selden's Baronage p. 12. then he cites a Record of the Judgment against John Mautravers where it is said For which the said Peers of the Land and Judges of Parliament adjudge and award c. Doth this at all contradict my quotation of the Record in Roger of Mortimers Case but that it is as I say That the general word Peers is there put after the Barons and being so cannot comprehend Bishops because in some other Records that word is put before He talks of drawing arguments illogically I am sure this is so I would put him a Case he brings his Action of Slander against one for that at such a time in such a place he had spoken ill of him and said he was a lying Knave and other words that will bear an Action and proves it by witness That man proves by other Witnesses That at another time and in another place he had spoken very well of him and said He was a fine Gentleman I ask now if he would be satisfied with this and not stand upon it that he had proved his Plaint and expects a Verdict and Judgment upon it So may I say that my Precedent stands good and proves what I alledge it for and what he saith is not to the purpose But I will go further and make it appear that even his Precedents that he alledges make all for me and against himself and though he charges me with not being so good as my word saying That I
Coronae tenta coram Domino E. Rege in pleno Parliamento suo c. Mem. Thomas de Berkeley Miles venit coram Rege in pleno Parliamento suo allocutus de hoc c. about the murther of Edward the Second and asked how he would be tryed Ponit se super Patriam So twelve Knights were empannelled who did acquit him I do not look upon this as a Tryal by the House of Peers acting in their ordinary Judicial Capacity There was some other Court in those times in time of Parliament where the Peers probably were the principal Judges but then were added to them some great Officers of the Crown and of the Judges of Westminster-Hall before whom those Pleas of the Crown were held I confess this is to me Terra incognita a thing of which I can give no very good account But I think one may affirm with confidence that no Prelates were amongst them for they would have been mentioned if they had been there as in all Criminal Causes which were Capital or in any thing concerning such Causes I observe they were And even in this Case of Sir Thomas Berckley the next Parliament N. 18. it is said â—…tem en mesme le Parlement si prierent les Prelatz Countes 〈◊〉 Barons pout Mr. Thomas de Berkley a nostre Sur le Roy â—…il lui voustst deliver de meynprise c. Item in the same Parliament the Prelates Earls and Barons besought the King that he would set Sir Thomas Berkley at liberty from his Mainprize I do observe they are always named and never omitted if any else be named which is my Postulatum to our Asserter and not as he injuriously would put it upon me p. 56. of his Pamphlet That I should maintain That the Prelates are in all Cases particularly named or else they cannot be thought to be there and then to disprove it quotes a Bill of Subsidy where the words are Les Seigneurs Communes si sont assentez The Lords and Commons have agreed And Semble as Seigneurs du Parlement It seems to the Lords of Parliament and a hundred such instances more I know he may give And the Trifler could not but know that I could intend it of no other but of the matters in question which were Judgements in Criminal Causes And I shall add but this more to shew the improbability of the Prelates of those times being at all employed in Tryals of that nature and least of all that we should imagine they could be comprized under general expressions which if it were would argue an unquestionable right and title in them to such a Judicature Let us consider the Statute made but two years before it is 2 E. 3. c. 2. which confirms a Statute formerly made 27 E. 1. c. 3. which Enacts That the Justices of Gaol delivery which are sent down into the several Counties when they enquire of Felonies and Murthers if one of them be a Clerk then some discreet Knight of that County shall be associate to him that is the Lay-man and shall deliver the Gaol We see how careful they were then that no Church-man should take Cognizance of Matters of Blood Canon Law Common Law and Statute Law did prohibit it And now to follow my Gentleman to the Parliament 5 E. 3. in which he tells me I have not been fortunate in the choice of my Topick because that Parliament being called for the redress of the Peace and the Bishops saying It did not properly belong to them to give the King counsel for the keeping of the Peace of the Kingdome signified nothing But had they said it did not all belong to them it had been somewhat to the purpose But under this Gentlemans favour I think it is to the purpose to shew that the Bishops did then believe and acknowledge that it did not properly belong to them to look to the keeping of the Peace that it was not their proper work which implies that they conceived their duty and employment to lie another way And it is a strong argument à minore that if they might not do that and advise the King in doing what was necessary for the keeping of the Peace and punishing the breakers of it much less could they be put upon it to judge in Matters of Blood And for them to say that It did not properly belong to them was a little softer and more respectful to the King to excuse themselves from doing what he required of them for giving their advice than if they had bluntly said That it was not at all of their duty to give such advice which had grated a little too much and had been a kind of retorting it upon the King for requiring a thing in it self improper and unreasonable And yet they did as strongly put it off from themselves saying It did not properly belong to them for no prudent and sober man will do a thing that is not proper for him nor can it be required of him that he should So I think my Topick was very good and I may say I am not altogether unfortunate to have to deal with so weak and impertinent an Adversary What he saith in the Case of Sir John Grey and Sir William de la Zouch of Bishops that they are sometimes comprehended under the general word of Les Grantz I never denied it but in that place where the King did charge Toutz les Countes Barons autres Grantz en lour foies ligeances c. All the Earls Barons and other great men c. I say that Bishops cannot be comprehended there because in that place it can be understood but of such great persons whose Rank is after the Barons where I am sure no Clerk of the Parliament durst ever rank the Prelates And another Rule which I stand upon is That if any one Bench of the House of Peers be named and specified as that of Earls or Barons that of the Bishops if the Bishops were present is never left out but always first placed The next scratch he gives me is upon the Case of Sir William Thorp 25 E. 3. upon my inferring that by the General Term of the Grantz in that Parliament who approved of the Judgement of death given upon Thorp it cannot be supposed that the Bishops are understood because they tell the King that if such a Case should happen afterwards the King might call any of those Grantz whom he pleased and by their advice give such a Judgement of himself which I say could not be meant of Bishops because it was no employment for them to assist in Judgements of death Upon this my Gentleman is pleased in good serious earnest as he scoffingly expresses it to ask if this be not petere Principium to beg what I am to prove And I answer in true serious earnest that I do not petere Principium not beg the Question for the Question is first general Whether Bishops in Parliament can be employed in
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
particularly In his Comment upon the 118 Psalm he saith speaking of those who interrupted them in their enquiry into the duty which they owed to the Commandments of God Non solum cum persequuntur aut litigare nobiscum volunt verum etiam cum obsequuntur honorant tamen cum suis vitiosis negotiosis cupiditatibùs adiuvandis ut occupemur eis nostra tempore impendamus efflagitant aut certè infirmos premunt ut causas suas ad nos deferre compellant quibus dicere non audemus dic homo quis me constituit Iudicem aut divisorem inter vos Constituit enim talibus causis Ecclesiasticos Apostolus Cognitores in foro prohibens jurgare Christianos Here is nothing of coercion in all this they acted not as Judges nay he complains that the Clergy-men themselves were persecuted and compelled to go to Law or if they seemed to shew them some respect and would be ruled by them and drew them from their occupations to compose things between them they would not drive them away and say who made me a Judge between you For the Apostle who forbids Christians going to Law makes the Clergy to be Cognitores Referees or Umpires between which is the greatest act of Charity that can be and most befitting the calling of the Ministers of Gods Word But what saith St. Austin a little after Good men he saith will hearken to us and seldome trouble us with their Secular affairs but others qui inter se pertinaciter agunt quando bonos premunt nostra Iudicata contemnunt faciunt que nobis perire tempora rebus eroganda divinis Good men will hearken to him he saith but those who are perverse do Iudicata contemnere despise his award of it which shews he took not upon him any authority of determining any thing And so in his 147th Epistle to Proculianus the Donatist he hath this passage Et homines quidem causas suas Seculares apud nos finire cupientes quando eis necessarii fuerimus sic nos Sanctos Dei servos appellant ut negotia terrae suae peragant aliquando agamus negotium salutis nostrae salutis ipsorum Non de auro non de argento non de fundis pecoribus pro quibus rebus quotidie submisso capite salutamur ut dissentiones hominum terminemus c. Nothing plainer than that all this is purely out of good will a work of Charity to those who desire him to determine their Secular differences in which the Clergy then had meerly an eye upon Gods Glory the good of their own Souls and of the Souls of those for whom they took that pains But all this is Nihil ad rem let the Clergy have right or no right to judge of Secular Causes it will not decide our Controversie Whether Bishops in Parliament can meddle in cases of Blood Hic Rodus Hic Saltus if we do all extravagate I must come back to this His next Chapter will be more to the purpose it is concerning the Constitutions of Clarendon and the Protestation of the Bishops 11 R. 2. These two particulars well cleared and no disguise put upon them will go a great way He begins with the Constitutions of Clarendon which he conceives to be that Bishops are thereby required to be present in the Kings Courts as other Barons are till they come to give Sentence as to dismembring or loss of life and his Method is to judge of them by these three ways 1. The occasion 2. The plain sense of the words according to their true reading 3. By the subsequent Practice upon this constitution in the Parliament at Northampton soon after 1. For the occasion this Author is pleased to say he can hardly believe I should betray so much unskilfulness in the affairs of those times as to say that the Bishops did then affect such a power of Judicature in Secular Causes and I think I have good warrant to be of that opinion Petrus Blesensis whom this Author cites as living in Henry the Second's time and knowing the whole proceedings of those Constitutions complains of it sufficiently In the first and genuine Edition of them Printed at Mentz in Quarto published by Busaeus the Jesuite in 1600 in his Treatise De institutione Episcopi p. 542. he hath this passage Illud coelestem exasperat iram plerisque discrimen damnationis accumulat quod quidam principes Sacerdotum seniores populi licet non dictent Iudicia Sanguinis eadem tamen tractent disputando disceptando de illis seque ideo immunes à culpa reputant quod mortis aut truncationis membrorum Iudicium discernentes à prounciatione duntaxat executione poenalis sententiae se absentant Sed quid hac simulatione perniciosius est Nunquid discutere definire licitum est quod pronunciare non licet This provokes Gods wrath and heaps up upon many a danger of damnation that some of the prime of Church-men and Elders of the People though they do not dictate Iudgements of Blood yet they debate them and dispute of them and therefore repute themselves free from fault in regard they have withdrawn themselves from being present at the pronouncing and giving order for the execution of the penal Iudgement though they had before agreed to the punishment of Death or loss of Limbs But what can be more pernicious than such dissembling Can it be lawful to debate and to determine a thing which it is unlawful to pronounce Then he compares them to King Saul that had resolved upon the destruction of David but would not that his hand should be upon him but that he should fall by the hands of the Philistines or to the Scribes and Pharisees that cryed out against our Saviour Crucifie him Crucifie him but said it was not lawful for them to put any man to death Is not this as good as Chaucer's Fryer that this Author quips me with p. 4. I do not say that Blesensis blamed all the Bishops for evading the Law in that manner he saith they were quidam Principes Sacerdotum some of the great Bishops But the Author would have it to be the Universal Practice and Opinion of all the Bishops and Clergy to understand the Constitution of Clarendon that they might continue to sit in Judgement till the Sentence was to be pronounced and in the Edition of Blesensis Printed at Paris in 1667. instead of quidam it is Printed quidem but by a manifest error which carries no sense with it and the Marginal Notes in both Editions shew it which is Abusus Clericorum qui causas sanguinis discutiunt marking out the abuse of them that did so This was obvious enough to the Author in his quotation of Blesensis therefore he might have spared the censure of my unskilfulness in the affairs of these times since I had such a Leader to follow as Blesensis and more have I cause to complain of his want of Charity to
Times it may appear plainly that their yielding Obedience to the known Laws of the Kingdom in matters of Appeal appearing and answering in the King's Courts though it were the ancient Usage and Custom of the Realm was the thing that most vexed them and not how far their Presence was required in cases of Blood brought into Parliament in which they were contented to be limited by the Usage of that Court and to afford or forbear their Presence according to that Obligation which was incumbent upon them from the Canons of the Church invigorated by the constant Usage of the Nation If therefore I can make it good that the Bishops had no Right to be present in the Debate and handling matters of Blood and that that was the known Law and the Sense of this Act now before us and of the subsequent Protestation in 11. of R. 2. I shall think my self competently safe though some seeming Precedents and Records should be brought against me for it is the Law must be the Measure and Standard of our Actions and not always Records the Reasons whereof are sometimes obscure and the matter it self many times shortly rehearsed and not always legal I must confess this Author hath much laboured to fix a Sense upon this Article subservient to his Purpose but the more he struggles the more he is intangled 'T is worth Observation that four or five I suppose different Persons have written in the Defence of the Bishops Right to vote in Capital Causes in Parliament and having all of them a necessity to say something to this Law of Clarendon do all of them give different Interpretations of the meaning of it a great Argument of a weak Cause The first whose Title is The Honour of the Lords Spiritual c. I presume being satisfied with the general Sense which was put upon these Constitutions from all times from which it is always unsafe to vary and perceiving that those illegal Priviledges granted to them by King Stephen were by the reviving the Laws of Henry the First abolished doth ingeniously confess in three places pag. 26. at the end of the sixth Chapter and in the same page at the beginning of the seventh Chap. That at Clarendon their Wings were indeed much clip'd yet the Priviledge of sitting and voting in Parliament is left intire to them and tho' they never of late voted in Capital Cases yet they have ever made their Proxies as he hopes to make appear In Chapter the seventh he hath these words We confess as before for that they were Spiritual Persons they were not to sit in Capital Causes and loss of Limb but adds that long before they had exercised this Power By which Words it appears that in the Judgment of that Author whatever their Power and Practice was before yet that now by the Laws of Henry the First recognized at this Parliament at Clarendon that Power was taken away and not since practised That they had such Power before he endeavours to prove out of Compton and Spelman neither of which Authors make good any more than that the Bishop was Assessor with the Earl in the County-court which was only to advise him in point of Conscience not much unlike the Offices of our Surrogates who sit in consistory with the Bishops Chancellor in whom we know resides all the Power That this is so appears by the Laws of Edgar put out by Mr. Lambert who in his fifth Chapter hath these Words Centuriâ—… comitâ—…is quisqueâ—…t antea praescribitur interesto Celeberrimus autem ex omni Saâ—…ia bis quotannis conventus agitor cui cuidem illius Diocesis Episcopus senator intersunto quorum alter jura divina alter humana populum edoceto By which we see 't was the Office of the Bishop to direct the People in Divine Laws as it was of the Senator or Earl to teach them Humane of the same Opinion is Sir Edward Coo. 2 Instit. p. 488. Stat circumspecte agatis Lastly Chap. 8. pag. 32. he mentions the Council at Westminster that in regard they might not Agitare judicium sanguinis they had many times forborn to meddle in such Matters The whole Chapter is concerning Bills of Attainder now whether he meant that in such cases they did sometime absent themselves let himself explain This Author not fore-seeing the Advantage would be made of these Constitutions or else hoping to help himself upon the Power they had to make Proxies doth ingeniously confess the Truth but is deserted by all those of his Side who follow him The Author of the Rejoinder p. 5. tells you that the Constitutions of Clarendon permit the Bishops to be present and vote till it comes to loss of Life or Member which is not till the passing of Sentence upon the Prisoner I believed the loss of Life and Member was the Execution and if they may be there and vote till then they may be present as long as any other for when that is given all go away but if his Meaning be that they should go away when the Sentence is to be pronounced the precedent Words will not bear that Construction so that according to him this is rather an imping than clipping the Wings of the Bishops as the former Author affirmeth Beside this Exposition is contrary to the Votes of the Lords who tell you they must go away when their Lordships proceed to voting Guilty or Not Guilty which is before the definitive Sentence which is always given in the Presence of the Prisoner the other not Vide Iournal of Parl. pag. 258. 15 Maii 1679. in which they explained a former Vote made by their Lordships 13 Maii 1679. in which they had voted that the Lords Spiritual had Right to stay in Court in Capital Cases till Sentence or Judgment of Death came to be pronounced by which you see the House of Lords have disowned that Sense our late Interpreters would put upon the Words of this Constitution though themselves before had given colour to that Interpretation Our third Author intituled The Rights of the Bishops fairly passeth over this Law only tells you that a Bishop pronounced Sentence against Becket in case of Treason as Fitztephen a grave Author saith and farther tells you That though the Prince may indulge many Priviledges to his Clergy as this of not compelling them to vote in Parliament in cases of Blood where by the Canon Law they are prohibited yet that Law must yield to the Law of the Land but how if the Canon Law be part of the Law of the Land what 's then to be done which cannot devest the King of his Right of using his Subjects Clerks or not in any Places or Employments he shall think fit to employ them in or in which he may think them capable of doing Him or the Publick any Service This I confess is plain dealing and I wish it were not too much the Sense of some of our greatest Clerks that let the
the Truth but that he confounds the Potential with the Indicative Mood The Words are where Life or Member may be concerned which he reads are concerned and so seems to refer them to the Sentence which ought to be referred to the whole Proceedings In the last place let us hear the Sense his grave Author Fitz-Stephens puts upon this last Clause After the Appeal of the Arch-bishop Becket to Rome the King expostulates the matter with him asketh him why he would break his Oath so lately sworn at Clarendon Amongst which Hec una est ut Episcopi omnibus ejus assint judiciis preterquam judicio sanguinis That is That the Bishops should be present at all Tryals except when the Tryal concerned Blood where you see he renders Duousque by preterquam as indeed â—…sque quo quousque usque dum praeterquam have the same Sense all restrictive Now Fitz-Stephen was undoubtedly at the Parliament at Clarendon which was not above seven months before the Meeting at Northampton Fitz. ca. 10. col 12. Our Author proceeds and tells you there is a great deal of difference between Duousque perveniatur ad judicium mutilationis Membrorum vel Mortis and quousque perveniatur in judicio c. I confess I understand not this Criticism which however is not warranted by the Authority of any Copy neither can it be made capable of any good Sense except one not different to what I have given for if it were quousque perveniatur ad judicium c. I ask to what doth perveniatur refer I think most properly to Curia Regis That is to say 't is their Duty to be present at all Proceedings in Parliament until such a Case may fall out where Life or Member may be concerned For we must not be permitted to fancy a Sense of Words and then contrary to all Rule wrest them to our own Biass and against the Opinion of such as writ before us neither are we to expect from these old Monkish Writers such polite Latin as Tully writ but take their meaning as others who liv'd nearer the time have done before us So that I have done with this Clause when I have first told the Reader that I have translated debent interesse 'T is their Duty to be present because they would often take Liberty to go away or protest or be troublesom upon several Pretences sometime the Canons allowed them not when the Law did sometime the Liberty of the Church was concerned as appears by the Statute de asportatis religiosorum where they absented themselves Co. 2. Inst. pag. 585. All these Subterfuges were obviated by this Statute although perhaps not by them well observed which required their Attendance in Parliament in all Causes where they were not prohibited by the received Laws of the Nation Now our Author acknowledgeth that the Council of Toledo was brought into England by Lanfrank in William the First his time which Council is put out in the second Tome of the English Councils by Sir Will. Dugdale and Mr. Spelman as the Work of Sir Henry his Father That Council forbids their Presence in Cases of Blood which being as he admits received here as low as the Conquest made it a Custom in Henry the First his Time and an ancient Custom in Hen. the Second and now being allowed at the Parliament at Clarendon to which they all swore makes that Custom or Canon as much a part of the Law of England as any affirmative Statute can and so not to be repealed except by as equal Authority as that by which it first became a Law and was now affirmed as such By what hath been hitherto said I think it will appear competently plain to any unbiassed Reader that the word in judicio doth not refer as he supposes to that particular Tryal then in Court as if it had respect to one Period in the Tryal and left them at liberty to be present at all other parts of it but was restrictive to all Tryals whatsoever which might have their Conclusion in Blood and his Allusion in the same Page is as little solid As suppose saith he Charles the Fifth had required the Protestant Princes to attend him to Mass as other Princes did only when the Mass-Bell tinckled they might withdraw would not any reasonable man believe by this that they were obliged to their Attendance till then So here the King commands their Attendance till it comes to such a Point therefore before it comes to such a point their Presence is plainly required by this Constitution This Allusion or Supposition doth no way answer our Case except he had shewed us that there were different sorts of Masses in some whereof the tinckling-Bell sounded in others not and then Charles the Fifth had required their Attendance at all Masses until such a Mass might sall out in which the tinckling-Bell was to sound here their Absence would have been allowed during every part of such a Mass. Our Case is the same some Tryals there are in Parliament which may concern Life or Member others which cannot Now the Statute saith 't is their Duty to be present in all Tryals until such a Tryal happen in which Life or Member may be concerned I hope here this Restriction will have Reference to the whole Tryal and not any particular Period of it I had not said this the matter being sufficienttly cleared before but out of Apprehension that some unwary Reader might be misled by this Author's Subtilty and believe there was weight where indeed there was none But however the Words of Petrus Blesensis will give great light to the whole matter This Petrus Blesensis was Arch-Deacon of Bâ—…th and the place cited is amongst his Oâ—…ula in the Edition I have in Quarto and precedent to that other in Folio 'T is in his Tractate de institutione Episcopali pag. 542. or rather Y y 2 for the Pages are in my Copy falsly numbred dedicated to the then Bishop of Worcester The Design of the whole Tractate is to shew the duty of a Bishop and by the whole Scope seems to be addressed to all Bishops and not to the English only He lived in the time of Hen. 2. for his 136. Epistle is to Pope Alexander the Third from K. Henry about the Rebellion of his Son The Words are not in my Edition as the Author recites them Principes Sacerdotum seniores Populi But Quidam Principes Sacerdotum Seniores Populi Not the chief Priest and Elders but certain of the Chief Priests and Elders of the People By which it seems to me this could not be understood of an English Parliament because all the Bishops had equal right to be present in Parliament and this is restrained to certain of them Secondly I think Seniores Populi never comprehends Abbots Priors with Lords and Commons together I know Baronagium Clearus Populus are sometime so taken but I believe Seniores populi never
which he thinks he demonstrates whereas Mr. W. takes the Curia to have been the only Court where the Tenants could pretend to come ex debito or Ratione Tenurae Mr. Hunt will have it that they and they only came both to the Curia and to Parliament ex debito whatever others might sometimes have been called ex Gratia But then he thinks that he has found a sure means to distinguish which was a Parliament and which was a Curia by the nature of the Summons If it was to all Tenants in Chief by Knights Service generally it made a Curia If the Great Barons had special Summons 't was a Parliament in his Judgment To convince him of his Mistakes in this and other Matters which he might have rectified if he had not undervalued the Study of English Antiquities will not be enough to him unless I likewise shew how convenient it would have been for him to have had more regard to some of those Matters of Fact within that Learning which I conceive I have made good against Dr. Brady and which Mr. Hunt has not yet vouchsafed to confute otherwise than by an ipse dixit First Wherefore I shall first shew him some Mistakes which I am concerned to represent to him And that 1. As to the matter in Issue in relation to what our Government was before the 49th of Hen. 3. 2. As to the manner of summoning the Parliament or General Council of the Kingdom and the Curia whereby he thinks he is able to distinguish the one from the other Secondly I shall shew the Erroniousness of some Suppositions which may have contributed to Mr. Hunt's belief that the Tenants in Chief were the only Members of the Parliament till the 49th Hen. 3. Or that Tenants in Capite only constituted both the Curia and the Parliament according to the fancied different Summons Thirdly I shall shew that he himself in effect grants that more than Tenants in Chief had right to come to the Great Council of the Nation in which the Nation 's Rights were involved Fourthly That even according to his own Notion of Tenure in Capite all Proprietors of Land as such had till the 49th of Hen. 3. right to come to the General Council of the Kingdom Fiftly That whereas he would set aside the Question of what the Government was till the 49th of Hen. 3. as impertinent 1. His own Notion by which he would supplant the Labours of others destroy's it self while mine maintains what he aims at 2. He puts such matter in issue for asserting the present Government as can never be maintained 3. He yields so much of the Fact against me as sets aside the whole Foundation of his Postscript And yet Admit he answers all Objections against his Postscript the Grounds which I go upon are of the most general use 1. The first of his Mistakes which I cannot but animadvert on seems to be wilfull for he renders the matter of late put in Issue as to what our Government was before the 49th of Hen. 3. to be whether the Counties in all this time had their Representatives in Parliament by the Formality of a Choice and as if our Government was according to the Concessions of them who have lately appeared in the defence of it to take it's fate upon this Issue viz. Whether our present House of Commons in the same form as it is now constituted was not in being ever after the Conquest and as if we should yeild that otherwise it were no essential part of our Government I must confess according to his Insinuation that whoever puts it upon this point betrayeth the Cause of the Government but he would do well to name the Man who has done this Disservice This I must confess I have insisted upon that Proprietors of Land as such without consideration of Tenure or collated Dignity have from the time of William the first downwards to the 49th of H. 3. enjoyed a Right of coming to the Great Councils of the Kingdom and could not be bound by any Laws to which they had not consented either in Person or by Representation yielded to sometimes before but not setled till the 49th of Hen. 3. And Mr. Petyt hath satisfied Mr. Hunt himself that the Cities and Boroughs were represented in Parliament from time beyond the account of Records or History But this I desire may be considered that admit there were no Representation of the Free-holders of the Counties settled at any time within the Reign of Hen. III or in any other King's Reignnow appearing and farther that it cannot be shewn that such Free-holders ever came to the General Councils of the Kingdom in their own personal Interest yet however if it appear that such as are now represented by the Knights of the respective Shires gave their Votes to Parliamentary Proceedings by such as they particularly appointed to that end before the 49th of Hen. 3. the present Constitution stands sufficiently established without the least Imputation of Novelty or Usurpation And this were enough for my purpose But since many Arguments induce the belief that before the 49th of Hen. 3. such ordinary Free-holders often came to the General Councils of the Kindom without special Election and Representation I should have given too great Advantage to the Underminers of Common Right if I should have undertaken to prove that the Counties from the time of the reputed Conquest downwards always had their Representatives by the formality of a Choice which Mr. Hunt I thank him would put upon me to prove His second Mistake as to the manner of summoning the Great Council and the Curia wherein he thinks that there lies an essential difference between the two Courts is nearly conjoyned to the first and if it were no mistake would overthrow my Notion for if as he holds only Tenants in Chief made the General Council of the Kingdom as well as the Curia then my belief that others besides such Tenants had right to come to the General Council would be groundless and it might be probable that the different Summons might distinguish the Courts But whereas he fancies it to have been a distinctive Mark or certain Diagnostick of a Parliament where the Summons were personal to the Bishops Earls and the Greater Barons if he had been pleased to have taken the Pains to consult the Records he would have found the Summons to have been as personal to the Wars and consequently to the Curia which besides other Occasions for its sitting was held at the place of Rendezvous to charge Escuage upon the Defaulters as 't was to the General Council which if I prove I hope 't will be yielded that the essential Difference of those two Courts could not arise from the nature of the Summons to the King's Tenants whether all were called in general or some among the rest in particular but from the Persons summoned whether only Tenants in Chief or others
of settled Prerogative were not taken away from the King he not being named in the Statute By that Statute indeed if a Tenant in Capite aliened with Licence the Alience became Tenant in Capite for the Statute divided the Signiory But how it could be at the Common Law in any other Case than that of Copartners who are but as one Heir and plac'd in the same Relation to the Lord I cannot imagine I find in the Statute of Ireland this of Copartners is mentioned as the Law of England In Regno nostro Angliae talis est Lex Consuetudo quod siquis tenuerit de nobis in Capite habuerit Filias heredes ipso patre defuncto antecessores nostri habuerunt semper nos habuimus cepimus homagium de omnibus hujusmodi Filiabus singulae earum tenerent de nobis in Capite in hoc Casu Which shews that the Case of Copartners being a single Instance of the continuance of the same immediate Service notwithstanding the division of the Fee was an Exception out of a general Rule But I dare say no body that understands any thing of the Feudal Law as it has been received in this or other Nations will be of Mr. Hunt's Opinion in this particular 3dly Mr. H. would have done well to have answered the Objections against the supposed Conquest before he concluded for it and I shall take it for granted 't is a Question heartily begg'd 'till I find an Answer to these Arguments in Ius Anglorum ab antiquo 1. That the Histories of those Times prove undeniably that William the first came in upon Terms which he swore to at his Coronation and solemnly confirmed afterwards This indeed was a Conquest in the Language of those times as 't was distinguish'd from an Hereditary Right but no otherwise Thus in King Iohn's time a Man pleads that his Father had such a thing de Conquestâ—… suo viz. by his own Purchase or Acquisition 2. That Dooms-day-Book it self demonstrates that Men enjoyed their Lands under their old Titles And those Laws of St. Edw. which the Histories assure us were confirmed by Compact with William the first without particular Confirmation of their Estates 3. That we have later Records of the allowance of Titles derived from before the Norman Acquisition nay even of the whole Palatinate of Chester the Title to which was laid only in Descent even after King William's Confirmation 4. That ancient Historians and Dooms-day-Book confirm the Opinion of that Judg in Edw. III. time who informs us that William the first disseized only them that were in Arms against him and forfeited by opposing that Title which the Nation received Till Mr. Hunt has answered these Arguments amongst others in Ius Anglorum ab antiquo I hope he will not be angry that some are so critical that they will not call the first William Conqueror especially since Conquestor and Conquestus cannot now be reduced to their old peaceable Signification And therefore are by no means to be admitted unless we take the sense of the Judicious Lord Clarendon who rebukes Mr. Hobbs for insisting upon William the first his Title by Conquest as being what he himself renounced and abdicated if he ever had it If Mr. Hobbs says that unhappy Great Man Had taken the pains and known where to have been informed of the Proceedings and Transactions of William the Conqueror he would have found Cause to believe that that great King did ever dexterously endeavour from the time that he was assured that his Possession would not be disturbed to divest himself of the Title of a Conqueror and made his legal Claim to what he had got by the Will of Edward the Confessor whose Name was precious to the Nation and who was known to have a great Friendship for that Prince who had now recovered what had been his And he knew so well the ill Consequence which must attend the very imagination that the Nation had lost its Propriety that he made haste to grant them an Assurance that they should still enjoy all the Benefits and Priviledges which were due to them by their own Laws and Customs By which they should be still governed as they were during that King's whole Reign who had enough of the unquestionable Demesnes and Lands belonging to the Crown of which he was then possest without a Rival and belonging to those Great Men who had perish'd with their Posterity in the Battel with Harold to distribute to those who had born such Shares and run such Hazards in his prosperous Adventure And those Laws and Customs which were before the Conquest are the same which the Nation and Kingdom have been since governed by to this day with the Addition of those Statutes and Acts of Parliament which are the Laws of the Successive Kings with which they have gratified their Subjects in providing such new Security for them and Advantages to the Publique as upon the Experience and Observation of the Ages and Times when they were made contributed to the Honour and Glory of the King as well as Happiness of the People Many of which are but the Copies and Transcripts of ancient Land-marks making the Characters more plain and legible of what had been practised and understood in the preceding Ages and the Observations thereof are of the same Profit and Convenience to the King and People And upon Mr. Hobbs his Supposition that William the first at his Reception had dispens'd with the Subjection of the Ecclesiasticks by the Oath he took not to infringe the Liberty of the Church The Lord Clarendon has to the same purpose with the former or rather as evidence that there was no colour of a Conquest these words They who know any thing of that time know that the Oath he took was the same and without any Alteration that all the former Kings since the Crown had rested on a single Head had taken which was at his Coronation after the Bishops and the Barons had taken their Oath to be his true and faithful Subjects The Arch-bishop who crowned him presented that Oath to him which he was to take himself which he willingly did to defend the holy Church of God and the Rectors of the same to govern the universal People subject to him justly to establish equal Laws and to see them justly executed Nor was he more wary in any thing than as hath been said before that the People might imagine that he pretended any other Title to the Government than by the Confessor tho it is true that he did by degrees introduce many of the Norman Customs which were found very useful or convenient and agreeable enough if not the same with what had been formerly practised And the common Reproach of the Laws being from time to time put into French carries no weight with it For there was before that time so rude a Collection of the Laws and in Languages so Forriegn to