solummodo publica so Glanvil but in Bracton Fama apud graves bonos and in Fleta apud bonos graves infamia yet must the Party be Attached vel per Carceris Inclusionem vel per Plegios idoneos so it was in Glanvils time for all but Homicide but in Fleta's Diffamatus vel Accusatus attachiabitur per Corpus Captus Remanebit donec se indè Legitimè acquietaverit That is in him till he have Legally cleared himself from all Seducement of the King Kingdom or Kingdoms Army Omnemque seductionem Regis Regni vel sui exercitus quicquid sit contra Pacem suam which Glanvil expresseth thus Machinatum fuisse vel aliquid fecisse in mortem Regis vel seditionem Regni vel Exercitus vel Consensisse vel Consilium dedisse vel Authoritatem praestitisse In such Cases also they debate who should be Iudge and for this they all agree in that fundamental Principle of right Reason and Nature that Parties may never be Iudges in their own Causes for which besides all others the Mirror is large and clear among all Exceptions to the Iudges Person if he have no Commission or refuse to shew it as he ought or be Party c. of which also Britton in Appeals cap. 22. fol. 41. And for this reason Bracton and Fleta with others agree that in such Causes neither the King who might so they say be Iudex Actor nor the Kings Commissioners should Judge or determine But Curia Pares except only when the Case is not of Life but finable for in such the Kings Commissioners may determine sine Paribus But who are these Peers and what is this Court One of Bractons first Maxims in his second Chap. is that all obscure difficult and new Judgments ought to be suspended Usque ad magnam Curiam ibi per Consilium Curiae terminentur Fleta is somewhat clearer in his second Book and second Chap. Habet enim Rex curiam suam in Concilio suo in Parliamentis suis presentibus Prelatis Com. Baron Proceribus aliis viris Peritis ubi terminatae sunt Dubitationes Iudiciorum Novis injuriis emersis Nova constituuntur Remedia unicuique Iustitia prout meruit Retribuetur Ibidem Unicuique What to every Man in all the Kingdom or how far and how high may this extend or reach Shall we propound this Doubt to the Antient Parliaments who were most like to know their Power and Priviledge The Law was clear enough before but some were pleased not to think it so and therefore in the Statutes of Marlbridge as old as Henry the third in the first place of all it was agreed and enacted That all men Living of this Kingdom as vvell high as lovv tam Majores quam Minores must and ought submit to Judgment Iustitiam habeant Recipiant in Curia Domini Regis That this Expression may go lovver than the Court of Parliament I can not deny nor vvill others I suppose deny but that it may and must be yielded to the highest Court of all One of the Clauses of the Kings duty expressed in the Saxon Lavvs is to do all things rightly by the Judgment of his great Court per Iudicium Procerum Regni and again by that great Council to maintain or do Justice and Judgment Iudicium Rectum Facere Iustitiam tenere per Concilium Procerum Regni All vvhich and much more in those Lavvs must be solemnly Svvorn by the King before the Kingdom and the Clergy in propria persona inspectis tactis Sacrosanctis Evangeliis c. coram Regno Sacerdote Clero This may be considered antequam ab Archiepiscopis Episcopis Regni Coronetur Even before he may he Crowned or should require his Subjects Homage Insomuch that vvhen the Subjects have tendered Homage as some Lords did to King Henry the fifth before the King had done his Homage and Sworn his Fealty to the State and Laws It hath been observed by Historians as some kind of Comet that I say not a Prodigy in State Politicks And besides all the forms of Coronation found in Hoveden Walsingham and other Historians secundum antiqua Statuta as Matthew Paris speaketh it is clear enough in the Records and Rolls of Richard the second before others how the King first did take that Solemn Oath and then the Archbishop went to every side of the Scaffold relating to the Kingdom how the King was Svvorn and then he asked them si ipsi consentire vellent if they would now give consent to take him for their King and Liege Lord and if so they came and did him Homage If they would consent What was it at their Choyce and were our English Kings Elective plain Elective sure it would be duely weighed and I confess some things have made me very much suspect they were Elective And the rather also by considering the great Care and Importunity of some Kings to procure the Crown to be setled by Parliament upon their Heirs Which might intimate that indeed it was not their Inheritance at Common Law for it was seldom seen I suppose that English Men have taken much Pains to obtain an Act of Parliament to settle their Inheritance on their own Heirs except they were Illegitimate or Aliens And upon search I cannot find the old Oaths of Allegiance did relate to the Kings Heirs or Successors either in the Saxon or first Norman times although we find the Oath in old Laws long before Edw. the second and in old Lawyers Bracton Britton Fleta with the Mirror punctual in the Oath of Allegiance but not a Syllable of Heirs or Successors that I can find Yet in the times of Henry the first and Henry the second there was some special Acts of Parliament for setling the Crown on Maud the Emperess or her Issue and King Henry's Son was Crowned in his Fathers Reign and of that time the Salvo in Glanvil Regi Haeredibus which I find not in any other old Lawyer and I believe it not usual till the great Quarrels of York and Lancaster it may be much Later But all such Acts for tying the Crown to such or such a Family do not evince a former Right of Succession any more than the House of Austria doth prove the Empire not to be Elective though it now seem as entailed on that Family I say not how often it hath been adjudged that Affirmative Statutes do not annul the Common Law and that one may Prescribe against a Statute Negative but in Affirmance of the Common Law for which the Comments on Littletons Burgage So that if an English King was Elective by the Common Law the Kingdom might prescribe against late Statutes which might erre much more than they could oblige all future Parliaments but they might still be free and most of all in what was due before by Common Law Let us discuss it then and see what Antient Lawyers and Historians do record about our Kings
suites for them but not to sit as Judges For as the Commentator addeth they could not depute or make Attornies in a place and act judicial I will not I cannot say the Commons of England cannot choose or constitute their Judges but this I say or believe their delegates ought to be exceeding Curious I had almost said exceeding Scrupulous in making Judges and in bounding them to law and Justice both in way as well as End I must again repeat it That it may not seem enough to settle Judges just and wise and good Nor only to provide that they may do what is just I speak of end but men are men and ought in cases of such consequence to have their Way their Rule and Square by which they must proceed to be prescribed in their Patents or Commissions that they may do justly too as well as what is just To me it seemeth to be reason or the law of nature unto men that the Supreme Court should so limit all inferiours that it may not be left at large to their list or pleasure to condemn or sentence without Hearing Accusation Witness or without such Process and Tryal as shall be clear and plain and so prescribed in the Patent or Commission If it be not so done and expressed I know not what appeal can be but from the Court before Judgment For what appeal what writ of Error or what Plea can a man frame upon their Judgment who have no Rule no way of process prescribed and so cannot Err Transgress or Exceed their commission no not if they should without all accusation proof or witnesses condemn one to be sliced and fryed with exquisite tortures They are Judges but unlimited in way of Process infinite and purely Arbitrary No they are Men and so they must be Rational and Iust which was presupposed by them that gave so vast power They may be Iust indeed and so they should but yet no thanks for this to their Commission if it do not bound and limit out their way and manner of Process as it doth their work and Object or their End which was the wont of English Parliaments who were Just and wise themselves that they did see or fear it might be possible for their Committees to be most Unjust and Arbitrary if they were not most exactly limited Of all Commissions none were more curiously drawn and Pointed out by our Ancestors than those of especial Oyer and Terminer because the cases were not only heinous so they ought to be but such as for some extr ordinary cause emergent seemed to be as it were Extra Iudicial and such as could not stay and abide the usual process of the settled Courts of Justice Yet of these also did our Fathers take most especial care that they might be Iust in Way as well as End and that they might not be too High in Iustice for it seems that they had also learned an usual saying of the Antients Summum jus est injuria So that in divers of the Saxons Laws we find High Iustice Summum Ius to be as much forbidden as Injustice And I should tremble at it as an ill Omen to hear Authority commanded the the Kings Bench or any other Court should be now Stiled the Bench of High-Iustice For in Iustice the higher men goe up the worse or so at least it was esteemed by our Ancestors Their constant limitation was in every such Commission Thus and thus you shall proceed but still according to the Laws and Customs of England Secundum Legem Consuetudinem Angliae and no otherwise that is as Fortescu will say you shall be pittiful in Iustice and more merciful then all the world besides this Kingdom And if such a limitation were not expressed this was enough to prove the Commission Unjust and Illegal which is so well known to all Lawyers that I need not cite N. B. or the Register Commissions or Scrogs's case in Dyer or so many elder cases in Edward the 3 d. Henry the 4 th and almost all Kings Reigns Nay in King Iames among the great debates of Uniting Scotland to England when it was driven up so close that instead of Secundum Legem Consuetudinem Angliae it might be Secundum Legem Consuetudinem Brittanniae It was resolved by all Judges that there could not be that little change but of one word that doth so limit such Commissions but by consent of Parliament of both Kingdoms And in divers Parliaments of Ed. 1. Ed. 3. Hen. 4 th there were many Statutes made to limit all Commissions of Oyer and Terminer as that they must never be granted but before and to some of the Iudges of the Benches or of the Grand Eyre Nor those to be named by Parties but by the Court And with this usual Restriction according to the known clause of the Statute of Westminster the 2 d. in the Reign of Edward the 1 st But the Printed Statute must be compared with the Roll and with the 2 d of Ed. the 3 d. for else there may be in this as in other Printed Acts a great mistake by leaving out or changing one particle for that Clause except it be for heinous offence hath such influence into all the words before that by the known Common Law a Supersedeas doth lye to such Commissions quia non enormis Transgressio as the Register may teach us And although by Law there may be granted a Commission of Association with a Writ of Admittance of others to the Iudges assigned for Oyer and Terminer yet in all those Commissions and Writs the Rule must be prescribed quod ad Iustitiam pertinet and that also according to the Law and Custom of the Kingdom which is so much the Law of Nature that I need not wonder at the great Judg who in all his Institutes and so many Reports maketh those words absolutely necessary to the work of a Lawful Commission And for more prevention or Redress of injustice and Arbitrary Process were our Ancestors so punctual in requiring Records of all Proceedings in the Courts of Justice which is so agreable to Reason and the Law of Nature That the whole Parliament of England as I humbly conceive cannot it self proceed in matters of highest concernment but by Record Much less can it Licence other Courts to be without or above Record in such Affairs It is so well known to be the custom of the Kingdom that I shall not need to shew it in the Statute of York in Edw. 2d and many others in affirmance of the great Charter nisi per Legem Terrae But by the Law of the Land And in Edw. 3d. it was in full Parliament declared to be the Law of the Land that none should be put to answer but upon presentment before Iustices or matter of Record And the 2d of Westminster is very punctual in requiring Records for all legal exceptions as well as other matters and provideth that in case an Exception should not
I am now grown wiser and do now see I may absolve my self from that which I would not have taken but by force or fraud But can the World this vain and frail and foolish World command controll and over-awe my Soul to take an Oath the Oath of God to what I think unjust It may be so for I am Man and frail with those that are the weakest for He knoweth my foolishness but it should not be and when it is I must be very tender lest I adde more Sin to Sin as bad or worse to that which is too Bad already For by breaking such an Oath I may do worse much worse than first I did in making it except I Swore to sin and then I may not keep my Oath And I believe the Iews might not have pleaded Force or over-awing Arguments in Swearing Homage to the King of Babylon and yet 't is known how God did charge and chasten that said Perjury nor is it altogether inconsiderable that good Lot's or at least the men of Sodom's freeing themselves from Chedorlaomer is stiled by God himself plain downright Rebellion Yet there was another King of Sodom and Chederlaomer seemeth but a kind of Tyrant that had but little Right but Conquest and his Might The Catholicks may seem too free in dispensing with Oaths to Protestant Kings but some there are with them Sacred Persons And because I now dispute ad Hominem I shall touch on that in which we know them most Religious Their solemn Obligation to the Pope which yet is such they will not deny as doth not secure or free him from being Iudged or Coerced in cases of Distraction Natural in Raving or Moral in Raging so that danger be apparent to those about him or in some Spiritual Frenzie of notorious Heresie Convict the Chair in Conclave not the Person is exempt or much suspected while himself refuseth Legal Tryal by a Council or the like The Case is argued in Occhams Dialogues with others Our Oath of Fealty comes next upon the Test although I might interpose as a Parallel to the Pope the Iewish High Priest a very Sacred Person and the Lords Anointed also but yet such as must still submit to the Sentence of the Great Sanhedrin nay and that for his Life also if they so adjudged him For which of the Sanhedrins Power over the Jewish King in Criminals and in War except only what God had commanded against Amaleck or the seven Nations I might cite several clear passages from the Talmud and those that expound it long before Cochius or Sanhedrin or Schickards Ius Regium Our Land seemeth to Mourn because of Oaths but I must only touch the civil Part or what is Legal and our Law seemeth Deficient in this of Oaths for there is scarcely any Law since the Star Chamber to punish Perjury but only where it is before a Court of Justice and there also the Punishment of Witnesses is very light and exceeding short of Attaint on Jurors by the Common Law Our Customs seem to overgoe our Laws in much of Oaths They were but Attestations though most Solemn in the Name and Presence of God As the Lord doth Live But they are now brought to Imprecations or a kind of Curse So help me God and the Contents of this good Book Yet so it was of old at Combat on Appeal the Appellè did first devote himself Again some force a Kissing of a Book the Law requireth but a Sight and Touch. For ought I find the Saxon Jurors were Sacra Tenentes In the first Norman times it was Sacris Tactis and in later writs Evangelijs Tactis Nay the Priests hand was upon his Breast in Matthew Paris not upon the Book and the Villain seemeth forbidden to touch the Book The Statute saith he shall hold his Hands over it but the Freeman upon it and from this Touch with the Body such an Oath was called Corporal The Iews and eldest Christians in their Swearing Blessing Praying lifted up the Hand and sometimes Bowed the Head or Knee for In his Name shall all Knees bow seemeth but Parallel to that of the Psalmist In thy Name will I lift up my Hand and the Grecian or Trojan Princes lifted up their Scepters in Swearing but others held Earth and Water in Allusion perhaps to the sacred Styx Most if not all publick Officers were tyed to their Dutyes by some Oaths but they were made by Parliament in all Ages This being a Pillar in our Laws that none can make alter or impose an Oath without an Act of Parliament or Custom by the Common Law 'T is strange how much in all we degenerate from our good Ancestors So that with us to break ones Oath even in the greatest Office is but a kind of Petty Aggravation as they call it rather than a Crime because such Oaths be now accounted but meer Forms or Ceremonious Shaddows But it was not so ab initio and among other Precedents I find the old Mirrour speaking of a Chancellour of England charged with Perjury for taking a small Summe of Money half a Mark for Sealing of a Writ which was against his Oath being neither to Deny Delay or Sell Justice or Remedial Writs Yet Six Pence was allowed to the King for Sealing of a Writ How great a Crime they did account such Perjury I need not say to Lawyers or to any that have read the Saxon Parliaments But of all our Oaths those seemed to be most content to be counted Formal That they were imposed on meer Children of a dozen Years old how many such we have or had in great Schools or Universities may be known and felt too much I fear And the Oath of Allegiance was twelve Years old and so pressed at the Leets or Turns but did they mean we should Observe it but as Children not as Men or Christians It is true the Saxons also had a twelve-Year-old Oath but against Theft and how the Laws of Henry the first did Annul the Oaths of Children was observed and the fifty ninth Chapter of those Laws forbiddeth any to Plead or to be Pleaded in Iudicio till the Age of fifteen It was also a Maxim in our Law Books that Minors could not Essoyn because they could not Swear and that Homage might be done in Nonage but not Fealty For although Homage was the more Honourable done upon the Knee yet Fealty was the more Sacred being ever done by Oath and from hence is the usual Phrase in all Lawyers and Historians to Do Homage but to Swear Fealty Must our Allegiance only run before our Reason or Discretion which yet was our great Fealty for it differed little from Homage with the Oath of Fealty to Mean Lords but in the Salvo which I touched before and must again being one good help to explain our Allegiance I shall acknowledge that Allegiance ought to have been kept by all Subjects although they never took that Oath which it may be many did not especially
which was some Repetition of his Coronation Oath Some affirm that he refused to be Crowned by Canterbury but Neubrigensis telleth us that he sought it of him Tyranni nomen exhorrescens legitimi Principis personam induere gestiens but Canterbury denied to lay on his hands Viro Cruento alieni Iuris insavori Then he complyed with York and bound himself Sacris Sacramentis pro Conservanda Republica c. It might also be added that if K. Edward might dispose the Crown as his own Fee yet by the Common-Law or Statute of Calcuth he could not dispose it to a Bastard as K. William is expresly called in the Letters sent to the Pope from the Parliament of Lincoln in Eward the first besides his own Charters and of attempts to Legitimate him that so he might succeed by Common-law See the Comments on Merton in the second Part of Institutes and of the Laws of Norway before But in the Old Book of Caen we may find K. William on his death Bed wishing that his Son might be King of England which he professed he neither found or left as Inheritance Neminem Anglici Regni Constituo Haeredem non enim Tantum Decus Haereditario Iure possedi That K. William the second K. Henry the first and K. Stephen came to the Crown by Election without Right of Succession is so much agreed by all that it were vain to prove it Their Elections and their Oaths are every where among the Monks and good Historians So also of Henry the second and Rich. the first But in K. Iohn's Coronation we are brought beyond dispute in full Parliament of Archshops Earls Barons and all others which were to be present the Arch-bishop stood in the midst and said Audite universi noverit Discretio vestra c. It is well known to you All that no Man hath Right of Succession to this Crown except that by unanimous consent of the Kingdom with Invocation on the Holy Ghost he be Elected from his own Deserts Lectus secundum Morum Eminantiam praeelectus c. But if any of the last Kings Race be more worthy and better than others his Election is more proper or more Reasonable Pronius promptius in Electionem ejus est consentiendum As it now is in Earl John here present Nor was any one found that could dissent or oppose what was so spoken for they all knew it was not without much Reason and good Warrant from their Laws and Customs Scïentes quod sine Causa hoc non sic definiverat For which Matthew Paris or Wendover may be compared with Hoveden Westminster and others of those Times Which seemeth most rightly to state the nature of Succession as it was in this Kingdom So that all did amount but to this That if a King had such Children so qualified and so Educated that they were above others in Vertue Wisdom and true worth or at least Caeteres Pares they were the most likely Candidates for the Crown But as we found before among the Iews in the strictest Succession where the Crown was especially tied to the House of David yet their great Sanhedrin had alwayes the Power and Right to determine of the Claims Interests Deserts and Vertues of Heirs or all Pretenders So if here we allow not such a Legal power of Judging of Claims or Titles to be placed somewhere or other our Ancestors did leave the Crown at a more blind uncertainty than in all other things they were accustomed from the Law of Nature and Right Reason I might add the Formal of Coronation joyned to the Irish Modus of Parliament under the Great Seal of Henry the Fourth where we read Electio à Plebe ad Regem ut consecretur Postquam ad Idem iterum Consenserit and again Electum interroget Metropolitanus c. How our Allegiance was of Old tied to the Kings Person not to his Heirs nor to his Person but together with the Kingdom and the Laws and Rights thereof hath been observed already Much I might add of latter times Nay that very Statute of Henry the Seventh which of late was pressed for the King and his Militia or taking Arms with him as Allegiance required doth expresly declare our Allegiance to be to the Kingdom with the King and that by such Allegiance men are tied to serve the King for defence of him and the Land And for the Kings Heirs I find them not in our Allegiance Yet the Statutes of Edw. 2. are punctual in expressing the Kings Prerogative or Rights of the Crown but where is provision for his Heirs In Eward the Third the Iudges Oaths were made and stand among the Statutes as enacted by Parliament although I do not find it so upon the Rolls And there is a Clause against Consent to the Kings Damage or Disherison So also it is in the Oaths of divers in the Courts of Justice as of Masters of Chnacery with the Kings Serjeants or Councel at Law and others but not so by Parliament See the third Part of Institutes Cap. 101. Yet our Old Allegiance did forbid Disherison or Damage but with Limitation as we shewed before The late Oaths of Allegiance in King Iames and of Supremacy in Q. Elizabeth taken by Parliament-men and divers others are to the Kings Person and his Heirs and Successors with particular Relation to defence of the Crown and Dignities thereof Which is Remarkable and that which may seem to excuse some in not assenting to others which are not so obliged and yet it is thought by some that the main or onely meaning of those Oaths was against Rome or forreign Enemies For which also a Declaration in the Queens Injunctions may be considered But in all Cases of real Scruple I cannot censure any that in a quiet humble manner seeking Peace and Truth followeth his Conscience till it is rightly informed In the Quarrels of York and Lancaster there was an Act in Henry the Fourth to entail the Crown upon the Kings Issue of which four are there named But in Henry the Eighth the Parliament declared the Succession to the Crown not yet settled or cleared enough and then it was entailed again and for lack Heirs Male upon Elizabeth But this again repealed in Mary and again in Elizabeth and Iames. How much or how little these annulled the Common-law I must submit to others lest upon debate I should be forced to yield it might be possible for future Parliaments to reduce Succession to Election as justly as some late Parliaments did turn the Common-law of Election into such or such a Succession which can only stand by Statute if it be true as all tell us that there was no entailed Inheritance but by Statute-law since the Second of Westminster of which before How little Power Kings had over their Crown or Kingdom without consent of Parliament besides all that is said already might be further cleared from the acknowledgments of Kings Themselves below the time of the Conquest
Parliamenti sedebunt nullus stabit sed quando loquitur ut omnes audiantur à Paribus And again Nullus solus potest nec debet recedere à Parliamento sine Licentia Regis omnium Parium Parliamenti hoc in pleno Parliamento Ità quod inde fiat mentio in Rotulis Parliamenti It may be possible That Bracton and Fleta with others may use the Phrase Pares in such a sence when they say That the King or his Commissioners should not judge and determine of Treason but Pares Which may be added to the 25 th of Edw. 3. reserving Treason to Parliament where of Old it seemeth only determinable so that The Mirror would not have it Endicted but by Accusation and in full Parliament as in King Edmund's Time c. Cap. 2. Sect. 11. and in Edw. the 3 d it was enacted That Offences of Peers and great Officers and those who sued against the Laws should be tryed in Parliament And although now the Phrase be given to all the Lords of Parliament yet it was most or only proper to the Earls whom by Law and custom the King styleth Consanguineos and he might style them his Peers or Companions as in Latine Comites So Bracton Comites dicuntur quasi Socii Regis qui habet Socium habet Magistrum and in another place A Societate Reges enim tales sibi Associant ad consulendum regendum Populum Dei and the like is in Fleta Comites à Comitiva dicuntur qui cum viderint Regem sine Freno Frenum sibi apponere tenentur c. which is also in Bracton The Mirror is yet clearer although the King had no Equals yet because himself or his Commissars might not be Judge it was provided by Law that he should have Companions to hear and determine all his Torts c Aux Parliaments and those Companions were called Countees Earls from the Latine Comites So also Sarisberiensis cited before in Hen. 2. Comites à Societatis participatione dici quisquis ignorat ignarus est literarum c. some will have them Comites Socii in Fisca because of old some Earls had a third part of profits accrewing by Pleas and Forfeitures in their Counties as the Laws of the Confessor and Mr. Selden in his Comes but he will also grant their name à Comitiva potestate rather than from such Communion of profits That the old Sheriffs also who were Vice-Comites did come to Parliament appeareth in the Ancient Writs and Histories and yet the Barons seem to be the Kingdoms Iudges and the present Earls may seem to sit in Parliament but onely as Barons who are now all Peers and Lords and Parliament But although the Lords were the great Iudges of the Kingdom and of all Members thereof yet it is well known that in full Parliament as old as Edw. 3. they did not only acknowledge but protest that they were not to Iudge the Commons in Cases of Treason and Felony being not their Peers How it was in Rich. the Second may be seen at large in the Rolls and Records now printed in Edward the Second the Commons proceeded by the Judgment of the Lords for which also the Fructus temporum cited before may be added to all in the Road. Appeals and Writs of Error were from the King to the Lords in Ecclesiasticals that touched the King they were to the Spiritual Prelates Abbots and Priors of the Upper House by Act of Parliament in 24 Hen. 8. till which it may be Temporal Lords had also Cognizance of such as well as Temporals And Writs of Error in the Parliament were Judged by the Lords for they came from the Kings Court his Bench or his Exchequer and if Errors had been in the Common Pleas or below it they should not be brought into Parliament but to the Kings-Bench and from the Kings-Bench as from the King not otherwise they came to the Lords and although there was a formal Petition for removing the Record from the King it was but of Course and the King could not deny it Which we found granted by all the old Lawyers and Historians as I shewed before and by the grand Master and Patron of Law King Edw. 1. in Britton because none may Judge in his own Cause Therefore in Causes where our self shall be Party we do consent que N. Court soit judg Sicome Counts Barons in Temps de Parliament In the Laws of Hen. 1. one of the Chapters beginneth thus Iudices sunt Barones Comitatus qui liberas in eis terras habent for in those times Barons were by Tenure only not by Patent that I know till Beauchamp of Holt in Rich. 2. nor by Writ that I can find till the Barons Wars but K. Johns Charter is to Summon Comites Barones Regni majores sigillatim per literas N. But all that hold in Capitae by general Summons forty days before the Parliament and that Negotium procedat ad diem assignatum secundum consilium eorum qui presentes fuerint quamvis non omnes submoniti venerint and the Summons of Delinquents or Suitors in Parliament was to appear and abide the Judgment of the Court not of the King but of his Court for the King is Father and not Judge of his People in his proper Person as was shewed before and all the Books agree that he must Commit his Jurisdiction unto Judges in the Courts of Justice and when he might assume great Offices into his own Hands by Parliament in Edw. the third all Judges were expresly excepted and the Judges Oaths and several Acts of Parliament require them to proceed according to the Law notwithstanding the Kings Command or Seal against it and the Register affordeth a Writ to Supersede or Revoke any such Seal from the King himself to any of the Judges And the Lord Chief Justices as the Lord Chancellor and Treasurer were Chosen by the Kingdom as we found before in the time of Hen. 3. how much more then should the Lords of Parliament be made by Parliament for else they be the Kings Commissioners So the Roman saith our German Fathers chose their Lords in Common Council to be Judges in iisdem Conciliis Eliguntur Principes qui Jura reddunt De Minoribus consultant Principes de Majoribus Omnes And Caesar also observeth that their Princes or Lords were their great Judges sed Principes Regionem atque Pagorum inter suos jus dicunt Controversiasque minuunt Yet Tacitus will also tell us that with those Princes they did joyn Commons Centeni ex Plebe Comites which were perhaps the Fathers of our County Hundreds And in K. Williams Edition of the Confessor's Laws when he inclined so much to them of Norwey Universi Compatriotae Regni qui Leges Edixerant came and besought him not to change their Old Laws and Customs of their Ancestors because they could not judge from Laws they understood not quia durum valde foret sibi suscipere
a Common Council in his time and before In the same Laws this William whom some call the Conquerour granteth that Cities Burroughs Castles Hundreds and Wapentakes should be so kept and watched as the Sheriffs Aldermen c. should best order for the good of the Kingdom per Commune concilium by such Common Council and a little after giveth this Reason Because they were founded for publick defence of the Kingdom and People thereof idcirco observari debent cum omni libertate integritate ratione a very happy Trinity And for Service with such Arms as were by Common Council assessed The same King called the Conqueror hath indeed such a Law That all Earls Barons Knights c. should have and keep themselves in Arms and Horses as it became and behoved them So much of this Law the King's Declaration cited for the Commission of Array But the following Words of that Law quite dash such Array for the Close of all is according to what they ought to us by their Fees and Tenure to do by Law sicut eis statuimus per commune Concilium Totius Regni Even by Parliament for the Common Council of the whole Kingdom These Laws of King William with the Additions and Emendations of the Confessor's were afterwards confirmed by King Henry the 1 st as appeareth by his Charter not only in the Exchequer but in other Places also besides that we have in Matthew Paris a Copy of which was kept in every County And the same Charter was again confirmed by King Iohn they know it may be proved and again by King Henry the 3 d. and so it came into the great Charter and by Consequence Confirmed in more than thirty Parliaments In which also there hath often been most especial Care of this touching the Militia being one of the main Causes of those Statutes entituled Confirmationes Chartarum and of those De Tallagio non concedendo except by common Consent in Parliament besides many later Statutes in King Edward the 3 d. and Henry the 4 th with other Times I deny not that in Henry the 4 th there did issue out a Commission of Array But it is as true that in the last Parliament of the same King Henry the 4 th it was again declared as the undoubted Right of this Kingdom not to be charged with ought for Defence of the Realm or Safeguard of the Seas but by their own Will and Consent in Parliament By which we may learn how to interpret all the Precedents acted by the King for his Array and by how much the more is it true that some Commissioners of Array have been confirmed by Parliament which is always needful to Confirm any such Array Which yet is not proved ever to be Paralelld in any Parliament for ought I can find For in all yet seen there is no such boundless Authority given to two or three Strangers or others to compel all Men but themselves to provide and bear Arms how and when and where it shall seem good to such Commissioners Which at once seemeth to Dissolve all Laws of Liberty Which by the Mirrour with other old Lawyers is chiefly placed in this not to be tyed to any Man but by ones own Consent In explaining of which they are Large in shewing how the Tenures of the Crown were appointed for Defence of the Kingdom and none tyed to Service but according to this Tenure which was assessed by Common Consent And if such Commissions of Array might be Legal from the King Escuage is so far from the worst or hardest Tenure as it was commonly thought that it would prove the best and easiest in all the Kingdom For if the Escuage be uncertain by Tenure None that hath read so much as Littleton can be Ignorant that by the Commom Law and Custom of the Kingdom it is not to be assessed by the King or any other but by Common assent in Parliament which hath now done much to settle this also And if Certain then is the King as really limited as the Tenant So that the King cannot command or require his Tenant but according to his Tenure expressed Not when he will For it must only be in time of War and this is not to be determined by the King but by the Courts of Iustice. When they are open as appeareth by all the Law-Books in the Case of Roger Mortimer Thomas Earl of Lancaster and divers others Nor in all times of War but only in a Voyage Royal to which Escuage is most properly tyed and this must not be determined by the King who may be a Child Sick Incomposed nor by his Marshal or Constable but by the Courts of Justice Nor in a Voyage Royal as long as the King may please But according to the Tenure usually forty Days for each Knights Fee and it hath been demurred in Law when those forty Days should begin They are Littleton's own Words and very Pregnant as if he thought that by Law the King could have no Host or Muster but by Consent of the Commons and he was as like to know our Laws as most Men living now Nor is the Tenant to serve but according to his Tenure in Gascoyn Wales Ireland Scotland to which Escuage proper but rather from the Scute or Shield and the Books have divers Cases where the King hath required Service denyed by Limits in Tenures which the Courts of Iustice especially Parliament in all Ages did determine Nor is the King to determine how the Knights shall serve him whether in Person or not For this is by Law at the Tenants Choice And if the Knight or his Proxy will not attend or stay out his Time yet cannot the King proceed against him but in a Court of Iustice and not by Marshal Law Yet the Marshal's Certificate is a Legal Evidence that the Tenants did not appear in Service but his Reasons must be heard with all just Pleas. Nor with what Arms or Horses the Tenants may serve all is expresly limited if the Tenure be certain and if not Certain it must as all Lawyers know be assessed by Parliament which did also at first establish that which now is Certain Nor would it be difficult for a mean Historian to shew how in all Ages the Militia was as well disposed and managed as it was Moulded by Common Consent which is very considerable and the rather because all that wrot for the Array did most or only run out in this That the King had the sole disposal of the Militia not attending that if this had been proved which never was that I know yet this was only but half and it may be the least half of the Question For by that strange Commission of Array the King did not only challenge the Right of Disposal of the Legal Militia already setled but also of Moulding and Making a new Militia not yet made or ever thought of that I could learn by any of our Ancestors If I were forced to enter the
Lists which I would avoid as a Purgatory being otherwise I say not better imployed than in such unprofitable Wranglings I should believe it not very difficult much less impossible to maintain That both the Moulding and Manage the Make and the Use of the Kingdoms Militia was ever immediately subject to the Command of the Courts of Iustice especially the Parliaments which may in a large Sense of Law be called the Crown or King's Politick Capacity but never I think to the King's Person alone which in Law is still an Infant as the Mirrour expresly calls him though his common Capacity be ever of age Be the Person a Child an Infant Lunatick Incompos Mentis or a Woman which sure our Ancestors could not but deem a most unlikely Person for a wise and valiant General If I were compelled to argue this it should not be only from right Reason or the Law of Nature which yet to me seemeth much to encline this way The Feet are to bear and the Hands to help to hold to bind and rub the Head in any Distemper or Weakness but if I should hear of any Man born with his Heels in his Neck or his Hands tyed to his Head or immediately under his Chin I should think it a Monster And wherever both Hands and Feet are at their due Distance from the Head with divers Nerves and other Vessels Bones and other parts between them yet I never heard or knew that they did obey the Head till it did command itself and them also by Reason or till it also doth Obey not only its own Eyes and Ears but the Common Sense and Reason of the Soul I must confess I have heard that Ticho-Brah did sometimes imagine that he found Mars below or under the Sun But if it were really so it seems as great a Prodigy in Nature as the new Star and that of Mars rather than a new Star in Cassiopeia might presage those sad Commotions which have since followed in many Places of Europe while Mars hath been so much below or under the Sun For by Nature Mars was said and ever thought to be placed immediately under Iupiter the great Judg or Court of Iustice which should command the Sword And so it doth by Law For in England the Iudgments given in any Court of Record do so command the Militia for Execution for a Writ runs of Course which was made by Common Consent and cannot be denyed Release to all Actions will not hold against Execution except all Suits were also released But this is such a Suit as the Law calls a Demand which may not be denyed And for other Cases of Routs Riots unlawful Assemblies Invasions c. The Posse Comitatus and by Consequence the Posse Regni was Disposed and Commanded by known sworn Officers that acted Virtute Officii by the Law and Custom of the Kingdom For it may be known that the old Iustices or Conservators of the Peace were chosen by the Counties as appeareth by Writs yet to be read from the Rolls of Edward the First And now their Commission and their Power dependeth on Parliament Nor could the Chancery have given such a Power had it not been so Established by Parliament which hath also strictly provided for their Legal Nomination and Election For which the Statutes of Richard the Second Henry the Fifth Henry the Sixth and before them all Edward the third thought it were not printed And it is very well known how by the Common-Law and Custom of the Kingdom all the Sheriffs do command the Posse Regni in their several Counties and that not onely Execution of Writs which may be thought to be Matters of Peace But the Lawyers know that Sheriff is Custos Legis and Reipublicae as well as of Peace of which he is the Principal Conservator in his Shire and County Nor may it be Presumption to say That all these Sheriffs also ought to be and so were chosen by the People as is sufficiently found in Hoveden and in the Laws of the Confessor And in full Parliament of Edward the first it was declared to be the Law and Custom of the Kingdom and therefore so setled in the Choice of the People There was in latter times some Alteration made in Choice of Sheriffs but it was by Parliament However we all know that Headboroughs Constables greater men than themselves know Coroners and divers others are yet still chosen in the Counties and do act by Custom and Common-Law And the Sheriff also however he be chosen yet he stands not by Commission nor ought to fall with Kings death But is a standing Officer by Common-Law Who may command all Lords Knights Gentlemen and others in his County by his Writ of Assistance Which issueth of course to every Sheriff I need not say how little the Kings Personal Command or Warrant can by Law interrupt or hinder the Process of Sheriffs Iustices Constables or others in their legal course for the Publick Peace Yea insomuch that if I should have beaten a Drum or raised Forces to rescue King Henry the Eighth from the Compter for abusing a Petty Watch in a Night-walk I might have been arraigned for it And so I might have been for refusing to fire the Beacons or to have raised the Counties if I had seen a Navie of French or Turks landing in King Iohn's time Although the King had come to me and bid me quiet because they were Friends or such as he invited in for the good of his Kingdom Which from his own Mouth or under his hand would have been no legal Supersedeas to a private man in case of such Danger much less to a Sheriff or other sworn Officer For in such cases of Apparent Danger any man that is next may esteem himself an Officer as in quenching great Fires or damming out the Sea And in such though the King himself should forbid me or get me indicted I may demur and put my self on the Judges of Law especially Parliament the most proper Judges in such Causes And to Lawyers I need not cite Records or Precedents Nor shall I need to adde That in case of Foreign Invasion or Intestine Motions and Breaches of Publick Peace the Common known Laws of the Land will warrant a Sheriff Officer or private man to go over a Pale an Hedge a Ditch or other Bound of a Shire or County In which our Ancestors were not so ceremonious or superstitious in case of hot Pursuit or the like Although they were punctual enough in keeping of Land-marks And in Peace in cases of real Actions and personal Trials They were very tender of those Marks in special that bounded out Shires or Counties The Original of Shires and Sheriffs is generally fixed upon King Alfred But the old Abbot of Crowland whence this arose seemeth to speak of new Names rather than Things for himself hath Provincias Comites Vice Domini though not Vice Comites of Ages before King Alfred And the Monk of
ab omnibus approbetur Which is one clause in the Writ of Summons to Parliament about a War with France in Edward the First Which seemeth to speak a necessity of Parliaments for matters of War Not only for Money as some have pleased to speak or at the Kings choice to call them if he please The Writ speaks an Act of Parliament Lex justissima provida circumspectione stabilita not let at loose to the Kings pleasure but as Fortescue or long before him the old Modus of Parliament maketh it necessary for the King and his Duty to Call a Parliament in all such Cases Nor shall I need to add what Paulus Iovius Froisard Comineus de Serres and the Duke of Rohan with many other strangers have observed of our Parliaments in this which is the Law of Nature rather than of England For as in the Heavens or great World we did before observe Mars or the Genius of War to be there placed immediately under Iupiter the great Councel and not under the Sun So in the Microcosm or little World of Man we find both Spleen and Gall within Hands and Feet without at a good distance from the Head and never joyned to it but in Monsters Yet it is true that some Creatures have Horns on their Heads but they are Beasts and not Men. Much less Kings I hope But did we Labour Toyl and Sweat so much to keep a little River in its bounds that so we might be drowned by the boundless Ocean Or be swept away at once by a destroying and devouring Deluge Did we scruple at a little Gravel or a Pebble that we might be crushed by a Mountain Would we strain at a Gnat that we might be choaked by a Camel or be swallowed whole by Behemoth It may not be at least it may not seem enough to quiet trembling minds to say or prove by arguments there shall be nothing done but what is just except we also see or know the way and means and usual course our Governours will please to take in doing that which may or is and ever shall I hope be just The way must be both Right and Clear as well as is the End And of the two Unjust and Arbitrary Power doth seem to be in Processe or in ways and means much rather than in Ends or Things that be effected by it Sure it was at least it might be good to build a gallant Fleet of Ships and so it might be just that each should contribute a part to such a publick work Nor was it only that which then was taken from us for a Ship that made us sigh and groan and cry or fear our Ruine or a universal deluge of Oppression But it much or mainly was we did not see the way or mean or Legal Process which the Court did take in Taxing or Assessing such a Place a County or a Person And it was but thus in Loans and so in divers if not all the things we so abhorred in the Crown the thing did not so much displease as did the way or means to such or such an End I need not say how curious or how scrupulous and tender still our Laws have been in pointing out the Way as well as End the Process in the Courts of Justice as the Final Iudgements So that indeed the very Form and Life and Power or Substance of the justest Laws doth much consist in Processe which by some may be thought a shadow or a Ceremony left at pleasure for a blustring Wind or any furious hand to shake as much as long as it shall please And then to salve it up by saying to the Root We mean you Good and do but lay you bare that so you may the more behold and more admire our Iustice in the End when all the Boughs and Branches shall be gone that do but hinder all your Prospect I must but Touch and glance There is a Trinity which all our Laws do seem to Worship here on Earth Estate Liberty and Life Of all Estate the Dower of Widows hath the greatest priviledge For which the Comments upon Littletons first and fifth with the Statutes of Merton and some clauses of the great Charter it self for Quarentine and Dower are good glosses on the Saxon Laws or those already touched and I shall not add one syllable All Estates have priviledge in Law and all Amercements must be such as may consist with mens Estate from Alfred Edgar Ethelred Canute or Edward it did come to Henry the first and thence to the Great Charter Where the Law is plain and clear No Free man shall be Amerced but according to his Default and Estate Salvo sibi Contenemento suo Which is so branched that it reacheth to Villains also though it speak at first but of Free-men Hence the Name of Amercement because it was and ought to be an Amerciament or a merciful Fine In which the Saxons went beyond us in their Weregylds and Divers Wytes for which Fleta may be a Comment to the Laws of Ethelstane and others of the Saxons All this for End but what must be the Way How shall it be imposed so that it may as it should be merciful 'T is miserecordiu Regis as the Laws and Books do speak but the King doth not may not Fine or Amerce any but in and by his Courts of Justice So that to render ones self to the Kings Judgment is to no effect and so adjudged For as the Father judgeth no man so the King who is or should be Father of the Country but he hath committed all judgment unto Men that are our Fellows Pares in the Courts of Justice VVhere indeed the King did sometime sit in Person yet the Court did Judge and not the King as Fortescue doth plainly tell us And the Judgment still is entred from and by the Court and not the King Ideo consideratum est per Curiam And so the great Charter saith we will not go upon him nec ibimus nec mittemus but by Legal Judgment of his Peers vel per Legem Terrae and of this last clause I never saw a fuller Comment in a few words than in Mr. Seldens Notes on Attaint in Fortescue But of all Iudgments to be made by Peers somewhat was said before in Henries Laws and more again ere long And for Fines by Courts of Justice not by the King and Amerciaments by Peers besides the Comments on Magna Charta there are divers Book Oases cited from Henry the fourth Henry the sixth Richard the third in the fourth part of Institutes Kings Bench To which may be added Greislies Case in the eighth part of Reports And the first of Westminster doth add to the great Charter or at least explain it in this But the Mirror will tell us it was an abuse not to expound it so largely before And although the VVrit de moderata misericordia in the Register and N. B. be founded on the Statute yet it seemeth clearly but
the Militia For in such a Case the Sheriff or Bayliff shall not only force his Entry by the Posse-Comitatus into such a Castle on the suit of a Subject but it may also come so far that the said Fort or Castle may be beaten down without recovery And although it be said it shall be done by the Kings Command yet it is well known and seen by experience that it is and always was by Order of the Courts of Justice and for this Semain's Case in the fifth part of Reports may be very well added to the Comments on the First of Westminster By which we see how much the very Forts and Castles or Militia must be subject to the Courts of Iustice Not the King only but in and by his Courts especially the Parliament that may Command Controul and Over-rule all other Courts How tender the Law is in Case of Estate Forfeit by Alienation I have touched before much is to be added Nay in the worst and lowest Estates by Tenure of Will of which somewhat also before for a Fine Reasonable c. as by Copy where Alienation and Wast against the Custom with other Cases in the fourth part of Reports may Forfeit to the Lord but he cannot Out his Tenant at pleasure especially him that sweareth Fealty but the said Tenant may sue his Lord or bring his Action of Trespasse For Offices Forfeited by Bargain and Sale or Brocage the Statutes are clear and just To which may be added the Comments of Littletons Estates Conditional as also for Forfeitures of Conditions It is expresly provided by Act of Parliament that no Sheriff or any other Person do take or seize any mans Goods much less may he take his Lands for Treason or Felony until he be duly convicted or Attainted by Trial Confession or Outlawry upon pain to Forfeit double to the party grieved nor is this only in Richard the third but in the first great Charter and before it also as was touched before Among the Saxons none were Outlawed but for Capital crimes we find it often in the Mirror and in such the Out-law might be killed by any that met him as might any man Attainted of Premunire that vast Chaos of confusion till Queen Elizabeths Time I do not find any outlawry below Felony till about the Barons Wars and then it came not below an Action of Forceable Trespass Vi Armis But in the Common Pleas it came to lie upon Account Debt Detinue Covenant and other petty Actions which the Mirrour would pronounce a most great abuse But in Edw the third there was some amends in providing that none should kill an Out-law but a Sheriff only with lawful Authority Yet in inferiour Cases Land Issues might be sequestred in the Kings Hands till Appearance or Reversal Only in Treason and Felony it forfeiteth as much as Attainder by Judgment But it may be Pleades and Reversed divers ways And a Petty Misnomer or a misdate is ground enough to Reverse it by a Writ of Errour And of this the Books are full But Nimin's case is a criticism in Chronology One of the Sheriffs Returns was dated on the 8th of Iuly in the second and third of Phil. and Mary but it was declared there could be no such day but in the 2d and 4th year which was only between the 6th and 25th of Iuly yet this was enough to Reverse an Attainder of Treason by Writ of Errour And in Favour of Life our Law admitteth Pleas to Out-Lawries in Capitals there where in other Cases must be brought a formal Writ of Error I cannot deny but even by the common Law upon Indictment for Treasom or Felony the Goods and Chattels might be Inventored but not seized as Forfeit till Conviction Nor are Lands and Tenements Forfeit till Attainder by Judge And in case of Appeal which related no time that is only Forfeit which is possessed at the Iudgment But upon Indictment dating the crime the Forfeiture will reach to the crime committed although there be Alienation before Judgement But no Forfeiture before Conviction no seizure before Indictment And the Book of Assizes telleth us the Judges took away a Commission from one that under the great Seal had power to arrest and seize on Goods before Indictment And how tender our Law was in this for Estate it may be seen at large in Bracton and Fleta with the old Writ not only in them but in the Register also relating to the great Charter forbidding all Disseisin till Conviction Yet it requireth the Sheriff per visum suum legalium hominem to Apprise and Inventory all the Offenders Chattels but with a double Salvo both for safe keeping them and for this Security was to be given by the Bailiffs or the Township and for maintaining the person in Prison with all his necessary Family Salvo tamen eidem Capto familiae suae necessariae quamdiu fuerit in prisona Rationabili Esto verio suo Which was not only Meat but Cloathing c. as hath often been adjudged in Edward the third Henry the fourth and other Times See the third part of Institutes cap. 103. It will not be long I hope before God stirreth up our Governours to Reform the crying sins of this Kingdom and not only Gaolers in our oppressing grinding Prisons But the Heathen Moralist hath also told us that Divine wheels are also grinding and will grind to powder though they be slow in motion as unwilling to revenge It is true that Prisons should be by Law both safe and strait Custodies nor should they admit such wandring abroad as some mens Mony doth procure But although Recoveries on Record much lesse Discents do not bind men in Prison or conclude them for want of claim yet upon motion Prisoners may and ought to be brought to the Court in Suits or Actions against them in case of Judgement or where ever else they ought to be in person present And for this I may only referre to the Commentator on the continual claim and the Cases by him cited How unwilling our Law was to empair our Liberty was touched before in the Capias on Debt And although some latter Statutes do out-go our Common Law for Imprisonments yet it is still received for a general maxim in Law that Prisons should be Custodiae not Poenae And where ever any man is unjustly in Prison the Law affordeth him more ways of getting out than his Enemies had to get him in He may have an Habeas Corpus and he may have a Writ de Homine Replegiando He may have an Action of False Imprisonment And may found an Action on the Great Charter Or on it may cause his unjust friend to be Endicted And the Writ de Odio Atia was again revived though by Statute once it was forbidden And for these with Bayl by Judges or Justices Replevins by Sheriffs c. We have the Judgement of all the Judges on Articuli Cleri and the Comments on the great
men Trustees to the whole Kingdom and Neighbours to the Fact or Party or both To which also there must be a legal proof by lawful Witnesses or else the Charge will not suffice And in such Indictments from the Commons the Lords are the Tryers and the King may seem as the Iudg but in other Courts also the Judgment goeth of course upon the Verdict and must be entred per Curiam as adjudged by the Court although there be but one Judge or tho' his Mouth pronounce not the Sentence But we are not yet come to debate the King's Consent to the Lords Judgment an Indictment from the Commons It is also to me very considerable how the House of Commons could or ever did Indict I cannot deny them to have been a Court and a Court of Record although some have seemed to question it and their Records are not so ancient as some others But I have not fully understood how they ever did make or receive a Formal Legal Indictment when as they did not give a single Oath much less Empannel a Iury or Enquest Yet some there be that without a Writt or any written Commission did and might do this Virtute Officii But they be known chosen sworn Officers of the Kingdom for such Purposes as the Peeples Bayliffs Coroners Sheriffs Escheators and some Officers about the Forest who by the Common Law did Summon and Empannel Juries But so did not the House of Commons How then did they Indict Of all Crimes committed in the House they are and were so much the sole Iudges that they seldom use to complain much less to Indict any other And for any thing done abroad I hope they do not use to take Rumours and Reports though from their own Members to be sufficient for or equivalent to a legal Indictment on Oath Seeing their scarce is or can be any Case so notorious but it may be pleaded unto by somewhat of Law or Necessity And although I should yield the Commons to be the Masters of the Law in making it yet they pleased to allow others to be Iudges in their Laws And if they reassume this also yet it may be more easie to judge of some Law than of any Fact at least as it may be cloathed so as a curious search or Enquest may be requisite to lay it clear and naked Neither can I see how it may be necessary to proceed against any by force or illegal Process when it is easie as well as just to go rightly as to do right For who can imagine a Case so dark and intricate but it may be contrived so that particular men may be Accusers and others Witnesses with a clear and real distinction between Indictors Tryers and Iudges most of all in Cases notorious and evident For in such there may be less fear of the Iuries Verdict against Evidence or of the Iudges Sentence against the Verdict Or if this should happen in a Tryal is there not a most heavy doom appointed by Law for all Iurors that forswear themselves and goe against their Evidence Is there not a clear way of Relief by Writ of Attaint Is it not worse than Death to forfeit all Estate and be thrown into Prison while both Wife and Children must be turned out of Doors and All For his House must be pulled down his Ground be plowed up and his Trees rooted out with loss of Franchise and with a perpetual Brand of Villany This is the Common Law for a perjured Iuror and that also in Petty Cases how much more might it be just in Case of Life and Death And for Corrupt Iudges our Law is very severe altho' we have much lost the Custom of the Grand Eyres in this also King Alfred be long since dead who hanged 30 or 40 more unjust Judges than Cambyses flead And for that the Mirror may be a good Comment on some Passages in Alfred's Life by Asser And if it be true that Horn lived to the end of K. Edward it is much wonder that on such occasion he did not also mention some of those Judges by him so punished when there was scarce any left but good Iohn of Mettingham and Elias of Bechingham And of this the Dissertations of Fleta may be added to all before as that of Sir William Thorp and the Great Judg in the third Part of Institutes about corrupt Iudges and the Iudge's Oath It is very considerable how curious the Iews were in Creating or rather Ordaining of Judges For indeed the Phrase of Ordination seemed to be first raised from Them For which I have little to add to Mr. Selden on the Eutychian or Alexandrian Antiquities as old as St. Mark the Evangelist Nor can it be denied but the Jewish Judges and Magistrates had a very good Right and so used as we find in the Books of Moses and the Kings and Tirshatha's to Read and Expound the Law Moral as well as Iudicial Nay in this they seemed to have some advantage of the Priests or Levites that had work enough most times in that which was but Ceremonial This may Expound those Pieces of Scripture Old and New where we find some explaining Scripture being neither Priests nor of the Tribe of Levi. And the Iews Punishments of evil Judges are severe and most remarkable nay where all others were again restored to their Offices after Corporal Punishment their Lord Chief Iustice or President of their Sanhedrim or any Chief Iustice could never be restored again after such punishment no not to be as one of his inferour Colleagues So just he ought to be and circumspect by daily experience added to his own wisdom Our Laws are so just and so good in themselves that there could not be be so much cause of complaints in all our Gates for such were the Iews Courts of Iustice if our Judges were such as they should and might be And yet I cannot deny but that there be very great abuses among the Lawyers and Attorneys or Solicitors but if the Judges were as just and wise as they may be inferiour Officers would soon amend or comply for Love or Fear so much as would prevent Complaints and many of their Causes But it is the work of a God and not of a Man to reform abuses in all Courts of Justice Hercules did never cleanse so great so foul a Stable or a Stall yet in this also a wise and just Parliament will do much and will need none of my help or advice How tender all should Delegates be in making Delegates But in nothing should they be more tender or more circumspect then in this of making Judges For in these of all Delegates our law is most scrupulous Before the Statute of Merton those that held by suit Service were bound to appear in Person because the Suitors were Judges in causes not their own but by that Statute they had power given to make Attorneys but it was only ad Sectas faciendas to make or follow
in Parliament Which was the Receiving of Petitions As the Rolls of most times witness It being the old Mode and others accounted it somewhat against Reason that Petitions should be taken and brought into the House by those that were to debate and determine them and so might at pleasure keep them Out or too hastily might press them in Whereas they were to be filled up in course and so to be debated as they were received which was therefore entrusted to the care of known and sworn Officers of the Kingdom Although of late their work in Parliament be so strangely degenerate from that it was of old when also beside Receivers there were some appointed for Tryers of Petitions who as it seemeth were to enquire of matter of Fact expressed in the Petition that it might be cleared and rightly stated before it came to be debated in full Parliament I do not deny but these Triers of Petitions were most frequently some of the Bishops and other Barons But by this I am not convinced that the Lords had by Right and Legislative Power or were the sole Determinors of all Petitions as some would infer or that they were the sole Judges except also the Petty Jury that are Tryers of Fact shall be esteemed the sole Judges of Matters of Law And yet I shall not deny but Petitions concerning abuses or errors in Judicature were often deermined by the Lords as the great Judges but of error in the King's Bench as Judges above the King as was shewed before or from the Exchequer In Queen Ellzabeths Time for the seldom meeting or great Affairs of Parliament the Writs of Error from the King's Bench were by special Act of Parliament to be brought before the Judges of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer and by them to be determined But with these express Limitations as the Law shall require other than for Errors to be assigned or found for or concerning the Iurisdiction of the said Court of Kings Bench or for want of form in any Writ Process Verdict c. and that after all the Records and all concerning them be remanded to the King's Bench as well for execution as otherwise as shall appertain and with this express Proviso That any Party agrieved by such Iudgment in the Exchequer shall and may sue in Parliament for a further and due Examination By which I do not see such Parties agreed were absolutely tied to Petition the Lords onely although it were onely in a Case judicial Yet I deny not but in Edward the 3d. there was a Committee made of a Bishop two Earls and two Barons to hear and determine all Petitions complaining of Delays or Grievances in Courts of Justice But with great Limitations so that they must send for the Records and Judges which were to to be present and be heard and then by good advice of the Chancellor Treasurer Judges and other of the Council to make an Accord yet so that all be remanded to the Judges before whom the Cause did first depend who were then to proceed to Judgment according to the Accord of the said Committee And in Case it seemed to them to be such as might not well be determined but in full Parliament that then the said Records or Tenors should be brought by the said Commitee to the next Parliament it being the Common Law of the Kingdom and so expressed in all the old Books that all new unwonted difficult matters of consequence should still be brought and submitted to the Judgment of full Parliament so that all our Iudges did and ought to respit such Causes till the next Parliament of which there be almost innumerable Precedents in all the Rolls Nay in Richard the 2d there was a Committee of Lords and Commons appointed to hear and determine all Petitions present in that Parliament But afterwards it was adjudged and declared That such a Commission ought not to be given committing or betraying the High Power of Parliament into a few private hands as we may learn out of Henry the 4th beside other times Yet the Modi of Parliament admit that some extraordinary Cases where the Estates could not agree or the greater part of the Knights Proctors Citizens c. There by consent of the whole Parliament the Matter might be compromised to 25. chosen out of all Degrees and to fewer till at length it might come to 3. who might determine the Case except that being written it were corrected by Assent of Parliament and not otherwise And this seemeth to be the Law of Nature and right Reason That Delegates should not delegate others which was one reason why the Commons never made Pracies as the Lords did Nor might any Committee so determine but there might be Appeal from it to the Parliament Nor doth the Parliament it Self conclude so but that there may be Appeal from its self to its self even to its Iustice if it erre or at least to its mercy by some motion or Petition In one Parliament of Richard the 2d it was Enacted that no man condemned by Parliament should move for Pardon but another Parliament 10 years after did annul this Branch as unjust unreasonable and against the Law and Custom of Parliament For from this which is the highest here there still lieth Appeal from its Self to its Self For which also by the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom there were to be frequent Parliaments that so the errors or omissions of one being still human and therefore errable might be corrected and amended in another By express Statutes of Edw. the 3d. we are to have Parliaments once every year and oftner if need be They were of Old three or four times a year as may be found in all the Old Historians speaking of the great Feats in the Militia in King Alfred's Time they were to be twice a year and that at London as the Mirror affirmeth which we compared with the Laws of the Confessor And I speak also of King Edgars and Canutes Laws for the Celeberrimus Conventus ex qualibet Satrapta which the Great Iudg applieth to the Parliament Eternity it self would be a Burthen unto him that is not pleased with his Being so would Omnipotence to him that is unhappy in his acting It was therefore goodness in God to limit man as well in Doing as in Being It was also the Wisdom of our Ancestors to bound and limit out the Being Acting and continuing not onely of other Judges but also of Parliaments Yet the Old Modi of Parliament agree in this That a Parliament should not be Dissolved till all Petitions were discussed and answered and that after all there should be Proclamation made in some open place whether any had a Petition or just Address to the Parliament and if none replied then it was to be Dissolved I need not shew the Care of our Ancestors or former Parliaments for most strict observation of their own good Orders and Customs of Parliament which are such so just and reasonable that they well deserve a peculiar Discourse by themselves and suppose it not impossible to clear them more by the practice and consent of most Ages in this Kingdom which might also be useful for the Times to come And although it might be possible to find some of their old custome fit to be changed yet my hope is they will retain and observe such Rules of right Reason good Orders and Customs as may still make this an Happy Nation and that they will be mindful of their great Trust for which they are accountable And however it may be in this World yet they also must be judged at his coming who shall bring every Work into Iudgment with every secret Thing whether it be good or whether it be evil And I am not ashamed both to long and pray for his coming who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords The Prince of Salem that is Peace as well as King of Righteousness Melchizedek the Lamb upon the white Thone All the Creation groaneth and the Spirit and the Bride saith come Lord Iesus come quickly FINIS
RIGHTS of the KINGDOM OR CUSTOMS Of our ANCESTORS Touching The Duty Power Election or Succession Of our KINGS AND PARLIAMENTS OUR True Liberty due Allegiance three Estates their Legislative Power Original Judicial and Executive with the MILITIA Freely discussed through The British Saxon Norman Laws and Histories WITH An occasional Discourse of GREAT CHANGES yet expected in the World LONDON Printed for I. Kidgell 1682. THE PREFACE TO THE READER READER IF you be wise and good you are above my Epithets and more above my Platteries But yet you may expect a Preface to excuse this unexpected Address The habit is somewhat strange and my self so little acquainted with it that I cannot much wonder if others should gaze upon it but account me a Stranger and you will forgive me It is no matter who but what is here presented to your view I cannot excuse it either for matter or manner It hath much folly to my sight and more I believe than yet I see It may be also somewhat false although I know it not This should not prejudice all for there are Spots above the Clouds and the Kingdom of Heaven it self was like a Field of Wheat with many Tares How much more how much worse must it be with a frail man But why then do I venture to come abroad The Objection was strong enough to keep me silent hitherto and it may be nothing but Duty should have perswaded or prevailed on me to be publick now and yet I do not plead an extraordinary Call which is a close Writ and not a Patent Those who receive and act by such a Warrant should be sure they know the Hand or Seal or Dialect of Heaven But I am an English-man and therefore am obliged to this Country and to these Laws that made me free And this may be some Call that I say nothing of particular Obligations to the State in any Courts of Justice or relation to the highest Court of Parliament And why may not I believe my self as free to think or speak or write as others are to do There is a Night of silence and an evil Day when every prudent man shall hold his peace but also there is a time to speak and a word in season fitly placed like an Apple of gold in a Picture of silver But who knoweth his season for our time is hidden and because man knoweth it not therefore is his labour increased under the Sun This also is vanity and a fore vexation I said there are older and wiser and better than I they shall speak and teach me Wifdom I will hear in silence Nor do I now say They convinced him not lest it should be said We have found out Wisdom God thrasteth him down and not man Nay they have spoken much and little may be left for me but to repeat somewhat already said Be it so then by this I shall be free for if I speak their words I may be pardoned as those that spake before And if I adde a new word shall I be made an Offender for a word However my hope is that the Great Day of Judgment of which we have long heard and now seen so much before us will have such influence upon our Judgement and Affections that we shall all be ready to judge our selves rather than others or if others not with prejudice And with this assurance or with this confidence I now presume upon your goodness knowing well that if you find but one so much as one Cluster you will spare it and be pitiful there may be a Blessing in it RIGHTS OF The Kingdom c. TO see the Kingdoms Rights the Laws and Customs of our Ancestors concerning King and Parliament that we may know their Power and Priviledge their Duty and their Limits c. and how our Fathers did commit the power of making Laws and judging by those Laws and how they made us swear Allegiance to our King what power they gave him over us and what they did not give him over any of his Subjects how we should behave our selves c. He that accounteth these unworthy of enquiry may be thought as the Gretians said to the Persians not to have heard of Liberty Which else would be valued above an Enquiry But alas who is able who will undertake to trace our Laws and Customs thorough the Heights and Depths and dark Abysses and Meanders of the British Saxon and the Norman Nations that have ruled here Yet there are thousands that may do it much better than I and therefore I might justly sit in silence and expect my Antients and my Betters should begin that I might learn from them Nor should I now presume to speak but that I might inform my self from others that by this occasion may reform my Errours and may cleaâ— our Laws and Customs much more fully than I do or can be able who pretend to nothing but desire of Truth and Peace And first to speak of the mutual obligations of Oaths between Prince and People the School-men would be thought most curious or most tender in the point of Oaths They mince them out so fine that a whole million of Oaths may stand as they speak of Angels on the point of a sharp Needle They tell us of the Object and the Subject or the Matter which they say may cease or fail so much that any man may find or make himself absolved from his Oaths But in things of such concernment to ones Soul I love to speak or think in English that I may understand my self and I thought it madness in the man that said his Prayers in two or three Languages adding this in the close Now take thy choice for all are alike to me I know not my meaning in either In plain English I do not see I may absolve my self from an Oath by saying He was not the man I took him to be in some material points at the time of my Oath yet this is much and that which seemeth near to that which the Schools speak of want of Subject or sufficient Matter to be ground of such an Oath I should have looked to that before it may be rash and so must be repented but a River of Tears may never wash me from this Oath of God as the case may stand And so it was I suppose in that of the Gibeonites they were not such as they made themselves nor such as Israel took them for the Oath was rash unjust they ought not to have sworn they should have stayed and sought direction for they were forbidden Leagues with such commanded to destroy and ruine such as those men were and might have been suspected But when it was done we see how strict and solemn God was still in pressing them to keep that Oath Nor may it suffice to say I swear against my will they had advantage of me and I could not but comply either with some Mental Reservation or at least for that is much condem'd by most
Iews in the Laws of the Confessor Some Kingdoms are in Fee to others and must do Homage Swearing Fealty So Scotland unto England so was also our English King but not the Crown or State which hath oft in Parliament been adjudged and declared Imperial Independent when himself did Homage unto France And yet I do not find our English King did ever much Scruple at his waging War with all France and the French King also but did often fight in Person against his Person and he might do so by Law if the King of France did Injure and Oppress him against Law That I say nothing of the Personal Challenges by Rich. the first Edw. the third and Rich. the second Or of King Iohns being cited or Condemned by France for Murther in that Kingdom This might yet be enlarged and further cleared from the good Laws of K. Henry the first which are so strict for Allegiance and due Fealty to every Lord that they seem almost to forget our old English Clemency and yet they speak enough of a Vassals impleading c. his Lord for which divers Chapters from the 40 th to the end are very considerable And the 55 th Chapter limiteth all Homage and Fealty per honestum utile that which is honest and profitable and as Honestum there respecteth God and the common Faith Deum fidem Catholicam so must Utile respect the Kingdom and the Common good it being usual for those times to express the Common Good by such a Phrase of Utile So the Laws of St. Edward for Foromotes Heretokes ad Honorem Coronae ad Utilitatem Regni So King Williams Additions were granted and Confirmed ad utilitatem Anglorum So the Parliament at Merton was to treat de communi utilitate Regni which may be considered in the Writs of those times and the great Charters granted à tout la commune Dengleterre as Articuli super Chartas And the first of Westminster pur le common profit de st esglise de Realm and the Confirmations of the Charters in Edw. the first forbidding all Impositions c. but by Common assent of all the Realm pur le common Profit de ceo which must be determined by Commune Assent and no otherwise So Ethelreds Law Efferatur Concilium quod Populo Utilissimum And Canutes quae ad Reipublicae Utilitatem Commune commodum which there may Paraphrase Regalitas of which before And however the late Oaths of Allegiance are if we consider the old Oaths both in the Saxon and first Norman times we shall find them to respect the Kingdom and its common Good and Profit as well as the Kings Prerogative or private Profit to the Crown By Bracton with others we are led to the Laws of the Confessor for our great Allegiance But in those Laws the Oath is to defend the Kingdom with the King and that by such an Oath we should all be sicut conjurati Fratres ad defendendum Regnum contra Alienigenas contra Inimicos unâ cum Domino Rege c. That it was so also in the Brittish times of K. Arthur whose Parliaments we may assert by more than that in Caius of Cambridge we find in these very Laws and that by Vertue of this Oath King Arthur raised his Subjects and expelled the Saracens and Enemies a Regno from the Kingdom And the same Laws tell us that the same Oath was renewed and Confirmed by K. Edgar whose Laws are severe enough for Treason but against all Lords as well as the King and it is Punished as Theof And the Laws of Canute confirming those of Edgar require Fealty conjoyned with Duty and Virtue and again with Common Justice Iusjurandum datamque fidem Religiosissimè servato injustitiam pro sua quisque virili Parte ditionis nostrae finibus omnem arceto as Lambard translateth the Saxon of those Laws and in another place of them The Leet Oath of Fealty Iure Iurando fidem det omni se in posterum aetate tum furti tum furti Societate Conscientia temperaturum And to this doth King Edwards Oath of Allegiance in Britton seem to allude que ilz nous serrount Feaul Leaux que ilz ne serrount Felons ne a felons assentaunts yet I do not deny but Theof in this Oath might include Treason with other Felony as vvas touched before but however it is as well for the Kingdom or the Common good as for the Kings Prerogative or private Honour o◠the Crown So also the first Norman Laws called the Conquerors require an Oath of Allegiance but for the Publick Peace and common Justice to the Kingdoms good as much as to the Crown for so the words run fint Fratres conjurati ad Regnum N. contra inimicos defendendum Pacem dignitatem N. Coronae N. ad Iudicium rectum Iustitiam constanter modis omnibus pro posse suo as K. Canutes Laws before sine Dolo sine dilatione faciendam This is now continued also through our great Charter and all the Confirmations of K. Edwards and K. Williams Additions in utilitatem Anglorum vvhich may be considered as a good Comment on the usual vvords in Indictments against the Peace and Crown and Dignity vvhich by those Ancient Lavvs vvas to be joyned vvith the publick common good and Justice of the Kingdom So that Allegiance vvas ad Legem to the Laws the Kingdom and the Kingdoms good or Profit together vvith the King And in all the Lavv Books vve may read of Treason done and committed against the Kingdom as against the King So in Hengham Parva cap. 3. If any raise War against the King or against the Kingdom ubi quis movet Guerram contra Regem vel Regnum And his Commentator referreth to several Cases in Edward the third Henry the fourth with Plowden and others which would be considered Nay there are many old Authors and Masters of Law that expresly declare it to be as Real Treason to seduce the King or the Kingdom or an Army for the Kingdoms Safety as to Act against the Kings Life So in Hengham Magna cap. 2. Treason is branched thus de Nece vel Seditione Personae Domini Regis vel Regni vel Exercitus And the very same Division of Treason is in Glanvil both in his first Book and second Chap. and the first Chapter of his 14 th Book To which also may be added Bracton Lib. 3. cap. 3. de Coronâ and Fleta lib. 1. cap. 21. vel ad seductionem ejus vel exercitus sui and Britton cap. 22. disheritur de N. Royalme ou detrahir N Hoste of which also Stanfords Pleas of the Crown lib. 1. cap. 2. and others that Wrote since the Twenty fifth of Edward the third which may seem to limit or to lessen high Treason but not to annul Treason by the Common Law And in Cases of such Treason they declare that although there be no Accuser but only Suspicion sed fama
Leges ignotas Judicare de eis quas Nesciebant How it was in Parliament while there were only Barons by Tenure would be more enquired But of later times Commons have adjudged Commons and have joyned with the Lords in adjudging Lords of which there are divers Cases cited in the Fourth Part of Institutes Cap. 1. pag. 23. It may be considered that many Kingdoms and Common-wealths that were not Kingdoms in all Ages did consist of Three Estates as of Three Principles in Nature or Bodies Natural which might occasion the Phrase of Tribe in many other besides the Romans who in Three Estates were not so Ancient as the Grecians or Aegyptians that I speak not of the Gauls Britans or the Eastern Nations And if any would observe it might be possible to find the Prophets hinting a Trinity in divers Kingdoms or Estates and that not only for moulding but for overthrowing them Besides the Three Captivities or Three overturnings of the Iewish State and the Three blows of the Goat on the Ram in Daniel as alluding to the Three great Battles which did break the Persian Empire And why may not the Sacred Trinity be shadowed out in Bodies Politick as well as in Natural And if so our Three Estates may be branched as our Writs into Original Iudicial and Executive as shadows of the Being Wisdom and Activity Divine If I may not grant yet I cannot deny Original Power to the Commons Iudicial to the Lords Executive to the King as the Spirit to the Body or if you will the Head or Fountain of Sense and Motion But he must see by two Eyes and hear by two Ears as I touched before yet his very pardoning although it be by Law much limited doth seem to speak his Power Executive And so his Writs do speak aright Because my Courts have so and so judged Therefore I do so and so command the Judgment shall be executed And if any will assert the Militia to this Power Executive I shall also grant it to the King So that it may be alwayes under the Power Original and Judicial This might belong to the Lords and that to the Commons And the plain truth is I do not find more Arguments to prove the Judicial Power to belong to the Lords than I do for rhe Legislative in the Commons And as it seemeth to be above so below also it may be much disputed That the Legislative Judicial and Executive power should be in distinct Subjects by the Law of Nature For if Law-makers be Judges of those that break their Laws they seem to Judge in their own Causes which our Law and Nature it self so much avoideth and abhorreth So it seemeth also to forbid both the Law-maker and Iudge to execute And by express Act of Parliament it is provided That Sheriffs be not Justices where they be Sheriffs But if Execution be alwayes consonant to Judgment and This to the Law there is still most sweet Harmony and as I may say a Sacred Unity in Trinity represented That the Commons should have most Right to the Power Original or Legislative in Nature I shall leave to be disputed by others I shall only touch some few Particulars which have made me sometimes to suspect that by our Laws and Model of this Kingdom it both was and should be so How the Roman Historian found the Judicial power given to the Lords by our Old Ancestors I did observe before he is as plain for the Legislative in the Commons Nay to the Lords themselves he saith in Judging was adjoyned a Committee of Commons both for Counsel and Authority Ex plebe Comites consilium simul Authoritas And again he sheweth how the Lords did sit in Council about the less Affairs but of greater all both Lords and Commons So also that those things which the Commons did determine Quorum Arbitrium penes Plebem apud Principes pertractentur they should be debated with the Lords for their Advice but not their Legislative Votes And the Mirror a good Comment on Tacitus in this sheweth how our Lords were raised out of the Commons and giveth them a power Judicial but where is their Ligislative Nay the Modus of Parliament will not only tell us that the Commons have better and stronger Votes than the Lords but that there may be a Parliament without the Lords as well as Prelates For there was a time in which there was neither Bishop nor Earl nec Baro so the Irish Modus and yet there were Parliaments without them but never without the Commons So that if the Commons be not summoned or for Cause Reasonable cannot or will not come for Specialties in which they blame the King Parliamentum tenebitur pro Nullo quamvis omnes Alii status plenarie ibidem interfuerint And the Kings Oath is to confirm the Just Laws which the Commons not the Lords but Commons shall Elect or Choose quas Vulgus Elegerit So in Latine and in French of Edw. 2. and Edw. 3. Les quiels la Communante aur ' eslu And in English of Hen. 8. and other Times which the Commons of the Realm shall choose And if we look into the Old Writs of Summons we shall find the Commons called ad consentiendum faciendum and the Old Writ addeth quod quilibet omnes de Comitatu facerent vel faceret Ii personaliter interessent As it is in the Modus of Parliament with sufficient intimation that without the Commons nothing could be done which the late Writs express thus Ita quod dicta Negotia Infecta non remaneant pro defectu potestatis c. But the Lords are called de quibusdam arduis tractaturi consilium Impensuri only as Counsellors not as Law-makers For the very same words are in the Writs for the Judges and others coming to Parliament although they do not Vote in making Laws This may also shew us how the Lords themselves did Elect the Knights of Shires and by Statute of Rich. 2. are to contribute to the charges of the County Knights who were to sit and Vote in Parliament as Law-makers for the whole County whereas the Lords were there but as Judges and the Kings Counsellors And is it probable they should retain to their own Persons that for which they delegated others who were there to do quod quilibet omnes facerent personaliter even all that all the Lords themselves should do as Freeholders not as Lords or the Kings Patentees who might so be his Councellors or Iudges rather than Law-makers this was more left it seems to the Commons who for this and other Reasons should not be Common Iudges as I think in private Causes or of private Persons but of Iudges or of such as the Mirror speaketh of whom elsewhere there was no Common Justice to be had But if the Lords had not a Legislative Right why did the Commons send up the Bills to them how came the Lords to joyn with the Commons in Passing of Acts
Officer Virtute Officii or if by private Man yet upon some emergent Necessity or such Reason that I or others may not Judg much less Condemn but in Parliament For it may be possible perhaps but I hope not probable that some Parliament-men may design or consent to such a dangerous Treason or Felony that it may be the Duty of Officers or others to detain or secure them till the Cause be heard in Parliament and Resistance of any that detain upon suspicion of Treason hath been adjudged Ground enough to Justifie Detention and Securing till there be a legal acquitting And that species of Treason which is against the Kingdom or the Kingdoms Army may so much concern a General that it cannot be wondered if he should be the Accuser or Attacher who is the Kingdoms Sheriff and intrusted with the Posse Regni which he ought to manage for the best Advantage of the Kingdom prout melius visum est in Honorem Coronae Utilitatem Regni as the Confessor's Laws de Heretochiis and yet he is no Judg of this but must submit it to the Courts of Justice and in special to the Parliament when ever it concerneth any of that Body Representative I say not that the House should not or need not demand their Members and the Cause of any such Detention which still ought to be submitted to the Judgment of Parliament but I think it may be possible to suppose such a Case as cannot soon be heard and adjudged and in such Case I do not know it is absolutely Necessary for the House to sit still and to refuse to act at all till all their Members be restored For by this it might be possible for a few mischievous Persons still to keep the Parliament in such a perpetual Imployment or rather Idleness that they should do nothing but Dispute their own Priviledg and breach thereof Whereas it may be such a Case that should make them that be Free to be more active in the publick Service Ne quid Detrimenti capiat Resp. while some cannot and others will not come to do their Duties Yet if any be Zealous to spend their Time or rather the Kingdoms in Disputing an airie empty Species of Priviledg which themselves may reflect or refract at Pleasure every Moment I may not Condemn or Judg them But when the Sea breaks in I should fear it a Madness in my self to sit and frown with a Spanish Gravity chafing at those that broke down the Banks till the Waves come in and drown me with my Friends and Country I do not deny but that by the Law and Custom of Parliament 40 may be an House of Commons as well as 400. Yet to speak freely I could believe it to be the Duty of such 40 to call in their fellow Members especially when the Work is great and weighty And I must confess I should somewhat wonder to see 40 sit alone about the greatest Matters possible without so much as calling the rest or sending Writs for new Elections The Modus of Parliament telleth us that as the King might not absent himself but in the Case of Sickness and then he must lie in the same City or Mannor without Consent of Parliament so also there was great Caution against the Members absenting themselves so that it was expressed in the old Writ of Election that they should not depart from Parliament without Consent of Parliament But I know not whether the Crime may be so great in those that desert their Trust as it may be in those who permit them so to do But I will suppose the House of Commons is both Full and Free which we may and should for ought I know till they declare it otherwise Yet when they are freest they have Limits for they be not Infinite Nay when they are most Free they are most bound to good Orders and to right Reason They which bring them to this at any time though by any Army of Arguments or any thing else that is Reasonable are so far from enslaving them that indeed they make them Free compleatly Free and when they are set Free they are the more Inexcusable if they be not Rational for when Men are Slaves they may be the more excused for acting without or against Right Reason which to Man is the Natural Law of Liberty Which is not a Power to act quicquid Libet what we list for this may be Licentious and a Lust or Passion may enslave a Man as much as any Chain or Fetter but quod Licet what is Iust and Rational or as some of the Schools express it by the Wills following the Dictates of the Understanding or Right Reason rather than by a blind irrational Indifference or Power to Contradict its own Acts or to suspend its own Acting which is not found in all no not in the best Agents in their best Acts about the chiefest Good most Free and yet most Necessary and wherever such Indifference or such Suspension is it is a Stain or Spot and may be Slavery rather than an Ornament or Badg of Liberty For it ariseth from some Darkness in not discerning what is best or from some Inconstancy or Inability to follow it which without Suspence should be always Embraced and followed by Right Reason But what is this Reason is it only Discourse as the Schools use to express it who yet find somewhat higher in Man even a kind of Intuition which the old Philosopher did make the highest Sphear of all in Man's Soul Concentrical to Good when both Reason and Fancy were Excentrical But to me the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Reason seemeth to be the first used of Proportion in the Mathematicks Mother of all Analogy and of most Learning to the Ancients so that those were called Rational Agents which acted in Proportion So the same old Philosopher that saith God ever acteth in Geometrical Proportion placeth Reason in a Mean between two Ends or Objects and the Master maketh Reason to be Mistress both to Art and Prudence this is Proportion in the Moral that in the Natural Part of Actions and describeth Virtue by a mean Proportion which he calleth Reason as a Wise Man would define it As the Sacred Writer of the Number of a Man that is perhaps Rational a Logarithm or a piece of true Algebra which we may Translate Mans Numbring For of all Visible Creatures Man only was found to use Numbers and Proportion But what is this Proportion which Denominates an Agent to be Rational Is it between the Actor and the Object and do Rationals only observe a Difference of Objects whereas Natural Agents go on alike to all Eodem modo ad Extremum posse But Rationals still do or still should act in Proportion suitable to themselves and to their Objects also which is two or three times observed by the Prophet Esay in describing Reason in that of Ploughing and Threshing and of Punishing with that of the
appear on Record the Party must produce the Iudge's Seal which may be required by Writ and cannot be denied no not in such Exceptions as the present Court do over-rule And for Enrolling Records the same Statute provideth That the King should not Erect Offices or Elect Officers for Enrollment Fot that by the Common Law this did belong to the Courts themselves and Judges therein As to the Sheriff also to Elect the County Clerk for Enrollments so that the King himself could not Elect him as we find in Mitton's Case So punctual is our Law in all concerning Rolls Enrollments and Records Which is also the Law of Nature and for many Reasons As for that of Appeal to which all Courts on Earth must willingly submit Nay Heaven it self admits Appeal from its justice to its mercy so it would to Justice also by some Writ of Error if it could commit an error But however that its Judgments may be cleared to be just it also proceedeth by Record For God hearkeneth as the Prophet saith when ought is good when they meet and speak well together a Record is made and bound up as a Jewel and when evil also some are Watchers to Record it For the Books shall be opened and we shall all be judged by the Record of Heaven and our own Consciences which are now foul Draughts but shall then be as fair and clear as those of Heaven it self But in Courts on Earth if there be no Records there is scarce devisable a legal Traverse or Tryal whether all be right or appeal if any thing be wrong For what Appeal can any man make from that which doth not appear but it is only a Transient Air or Breath which may as soon be denied as it was spoken How can Errors not appearing be corrected or amended by the Parliament it self or any other Court but onely that keepeth Records of all our thoughts as much as of our words or actions I may be tedious in shewing how our Law hath ever allowed Appeals in Ecclesiasticals They were agreed in the Assizes of Clarendon in opposition to Appeals Foreign which were first attempted by Anselm as some affirm but the Date is later And the Lord Dier of Appeals is now printed in the 4th part of Institutes The Judgment of Delegates on such Appeals is called definitive And yet not so but that it may be all redressed by a Court below the Parliament for which we have the Commission of Review granted upon the Delegates nay and upon High Commission it Self as by a Clause in that Commission appeareth To which may be added Killingworth's Case and divers others Of the Court Admiral much I might add from the Laws of Olerom in Richard the 1st and the Rolls of Henry the 3d. and Edward the 1st of which also the Commentator on Littleton's continual Claim and the 22 Chapter of the last part of Institutes How it lieth open to the common Law and to daily Prohibitions may be fully seen in its Complaints to King Iames which were as fully answered by all the Judges It is no Court of Record and so did all the Judges declare in 8 Iacobi yet it must keep Records enough to ground an Appeal which lieth from thence as from Courts Ecclesiastical to Iudges delegate of which the 8th of Elizabeth and other Statutes County Hundred Baron Courts and those of Antient Demesne with all Close Writs are not of Record The Sutors are the Iudges as was said before in Cases not their own And some have thought they did proceed much by fancie without legal Proof and Witnesses till the great Charter commanding all Bayliffs to put no man upon Oath without faithful Witnesses But we have found the Charter long before King Henry the 3d. And in that Phrase of Bayliffs which in France are Governours and Magistrates as in eldest Towns or Cities with us some great Lawyers include all Iudges as Fleta with the Mirror which also calleth Coroners the Peoples Bayliffs and the Sheriffs Returns are de Baliva These inferiour Courts being not of Record held petty Pleas of Debt or Damages under 40 s Antient Demesn had other prviledges but not of forceable Trespass Vi Armis finable to the Crown Yet these also must keep Copies or some such Records as may suffice for Appeals For they may be questioned and their Proceedings being denied shall be Tryed by Iury and upon their judgments lyeth a Writ of false judgment not a Writ of Error But in the Case of Redisseison the Sheriff is Iudg by the Statute of Merton and a Writ of Error lieth on his judgment But in Case of Debt Detinue Trespass or other action above 40 s. where in the County the Sheriff holdeth Plea by force of a Writ or Commission of Iustices the Sutors are still the Iudges and no Writ of Error but false judgment lieth on them Nor doth the Coroner's judgment of Out-Lawry in the County Court forfeit Goods till it be returned and appear on Record Nay the Coroners Certificate on a Certiorari did not disable the Out-Law although the King might seize his Goods till the Return of the Exigent Quinquies Exact But a Writ of Error is proper to Record and from Record and a Plea of Nul tiel Record is not tryable by Witness or Iury but onely by it self in a Court Record Such are the Sheriffs Turns and from them as from Counties Hundreds came the Court Leets which may be held by prescription against the Great Charter In which Leets the Steward is Iudg as in the Turns the Sheriff and Bishop was till the first Norman who by Parliament exempted the Clergy as was touched before But the Laws of Henry I. bring them again into the Seculars So also the 10th of Marlbridg and before it the Laws of Clarenden for all Barons or Tenant in Capite to attend the Great Court till Sentence of Life or Member which continued long in the Parliament also The Turn enquireth of Common Nusance and of Felonies de Furtis medletis whence our Chance or Chaud Medly hot Debate or sudden Fray see the Notes on Hengham but not of Murder or Death of Man which alone of all Felony belongeth to the Coroner He was a very antient Officer and ought to be made a Knight for which the Register and Rolls of Edward the 3d. where a Merchant chosen Coroner was removed quia communis Mercator He must have a good Estate and might receive nothing of Subjects fot doing his Office But by late Statute he hath a Mark on Indictment of Murder yet upon Death by misadventure he must take nothing See the Comments on the 1st of Westminster The Coroner's Court is of Record and he may take Appeals as well as Indictments upon view of the Body and must enter them but cannot proceed but deliver them up to the Iustices which is as antient as the Great Charter for the next Gaol-delivery or the King's Bench sometimes also he is locum