THE PROCEEDINGS AND TRYAL IN THE CASE OF The Most Reverend Father in GOD WILLIAM Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY And the Right Reverend Fathers in God WILLIAM Lord Bishop of St. Asaph FRANCIS Lord Bishop of Ely IOHN Lord Bishop of Chichester THOMAS Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells THOMAS Lord Bishop of Peterborough And IONATHAN Lord Bishop of Bristol In the Court of Kings-Bench at Westminster in Trinity-Term in the Fourth Year of the Reign of King Iames the Second Annoque Dom. 1688. Licensed and Entred according to Act of Parliament LONDON Printed for Thomas Basset at the George in Fleet street and Thomas Fox at the Angel in Westminster-Hall 1689. TO HIS Most Illustrious HIGHNESS WILLIAM HENRY Prince of Orange May it please Your Highness HOW deeply the Design was laid and with what Violence carry'd on by those who lately Steer'd the Helm of this State for the Subversion of the Establish'd Religion and Government of these Three Kingdoms is already sufficiently well known to Your Highness Among the rest one of their Chiefest Contrivances was by a Malicious and Illegal Prosecution to have extinguish'd the Brigthest Luminaries of the English Church to the end that the benighted People might the more easily after that have been misled into the Pitfals of Superstition and Slavery But as Heaven began their Disappointment in eluding both at once there Subtilty and Malice by the speedy Deliverance of the Seven Renowned Sufferers from the Jaws of their Oppressors So the utter Dissolution of their Arbitrary Command and Domineering Power under the Conduct of the same Providence was fully Compleated Great SIR by Your Deliberative Prudence and Undaunted Courage To Your Illustrious Highness therefore the Oblation of these Sheets containing an exact Accompt of the Prosecution and Tryal of those Heroick Prelates is most justly due as being That wherein Your Higness may in part discern the Justice of the Cause You have so Generously undertaken and that it was not without Reason that the English Nation so loudly Implor'd Your timely Assistance A clear convincement that it was not Ambition nor the desire of spacious Rule but a Noble and Ardent Zeal for the most Sacred Worship of God which rows'd Your Courage to rescue a Distressed Land whose Religion Laws and Liberties were just ready to have been overwhelm'd with French Tyranny and Romish Idolatry Therefore that the Nation may long continue under the Protection of Your Glorious Administration is the Prayer of Great SIR Your Highnesses most Humble Most Faithful and most Obedient Servants Tho. Basset Tho. Fox December 13. 1688. NOT long after the Tryal of his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Six Bishops and while the Passages thereof were fresh in my Memory I perused that Copy of this Proceeding and Tryal which Mr. Ince their Lordships Attorney had caused to be taken for their Use And I have also lately read over the same again as intended to be printed by Mr. Basset and Mr. Fox And I do think it to be a very Exact and True Copy of the said Proceeding and Tryal according to the best of my Judgment having been very careful in perusing thereof Ioh. Powel These Peers were present on the 15th Day of Iune 1688. when the Lords the Archbishop and Bishops were brought into Court from the Tower upon the Habeas Corpus VIZ. Lord Marquis of Hallifax Lord Marquis of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Burlington Earl of Carlisle Earl of Danby Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Lord Viscount Fauconberge Lord Grey of Ruthyn Lord Paget Lord Chandoys Lord Vaughan Carbery These Peers were present on the Day of the Tryal being the 29th of Iune 1688. and the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul. VIZ. Lord Marquis of Hallifax Lord Marquis of Worcester Earl of Shrewsbury Earl of Kent Earl of Bedford Earl of Pembrook Earl of Dorset Earl of Bullingbrook Earl of Manchester Earl of Rivers Earl of Stamford Earl of Carnarvon Earl of Chesterfield Earl of Scarsdale Earl of Clarendon Earl of Danby Earl of Sussex Earl of Radnor Earl of Nottingham Earl of Abington Lord Viscount Fauconberge Lord Newport Lord Grey of Ruthyn Lord Paget Lord Chandoys Lord Vaughan Carbery Lord Lumley Lord Carteret Lord Ossulston 'T is possible more of the Peers might be present both Days whose Names by reason of the Croud could not be taken De Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno Regni Jacobi Secundi Regis Quarto In Banco Regis Die Veneris Decimo Quinto Die Junii 1688. Dominus Rex versus Archiep. Cantuar. al. Sir Robert Wright Lord Chief Justice Mr. Justice Holloway Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Allybone Judges THIS being the first day of the Term His Majesties Attorney General as soon as the Court of Kings Bench was sat moved on the behalf of the King for a Habeas Corpus returnable immediate directed to the Lieutenant of the Tower to bring up his Grace the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of St. Asaph Ely Chichester Bath and Wells Peterborough and Bristol which was granted And with great dispatch about eleven a Clock the very same day the Lieutenant returned his Writ and brought the said Lord Arch-Bishop and Bishops into Court where being set down in Chairs set for that purpose Mr. Attorney-General moved the Court. Viz. Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I pray that the Writ and Retorn may be read by which my Lords the Bishops are brought hither Lo. Ch. Iust. Read the Retorn Clerk reads the Retorn which in English is as follows viz. I Sir Edward Hales Baronet Lieutenant of the Tower of London named in the Writ to this Schedule annext To Our Mâ—… Serene Lord the King do most humbly certifie That before the coming of the said Writ to wit the Eighth day of June in the Fourth Year of the Reign of our Lord James the Second King of England c. William Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Lord Bishop of Ely John Lord Bishop of Chichester Thomas Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Lord Bishop of Peterborough and Jonathan Lord Bishop of Bristol mentioned in the aforesaid Writ were committed and delivered to and are retained in my Custody by Vertue of a certain Warrant under the Hands and Seals of George Lord Jeffries Baron of Wem Lord High Chancellor of England Robert Earl of Sunderland Lord President of the Privy Council of our Lord the King Henry Lord Arundel of Warder Keeper of the Pivy Seal of our said Lord the King William Marquess of Powis John Earl of Mulgrave Lord Great Chamberlain of England Theophilus Earl of Huntingtou Henry Earl of Peterborough William Earl of Craven Alexander Earl of Moray Charles Earl of Middleton John Earl of Melfort Roger Earl of Castlemain Richard Viscount Preston George Lord Dartmouth Sidney Lord Godolphin Henry Lord Dover Sir John Earnly Knight Chancellor of the
better look another way and look towards the Court for there your business lies L. Ch. Iust. Well Mr. Sollicitor What say you Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord it appears plainly that the King is in possession of this Priviledge and has been so for these dozen Years for so long the Justice of the Kingdom towards all the Subjects hath run in all the instances of it in this Channel and tho' it has been contested as often as Mr. Pollixfen has been of Counsel for the Defendant in such Cases it has always been ruled against him he indeed has made his continual Claims Sir Samuel Astry saies he has raised the Dust and made a Hue and Cry but it has always gone against him And I would ask the rest of you Gentlemen that are of Council for my Lords the Bishops for some or one of you I am sure has been concerned in every Information that has been exhibited in this Court for this nine or ten Years last past I would ask you whether in any Information that you have been concerned in if the Party being brought in by Process insisted to have time and an Imparlance it was ever granted him I know you will not say it ever was why then should there be more done in this Case than has been done in all other Cases this ten Years 'T is not sufficient to make Declarations against the unreasonableness of the Practice for it is but what you have done your selves and insisted upon for Law and all those men that upon Informations have been compelled to plead have had Injury done them or else these Lords will have no Injury by the Court 's taking the same Course It is true my Lords the Bishops are Peers and here are Seven of them and Seven Lords go a great way they make a Committee I think in the House of Peers and a mighty matter is made of it that this is the Case of so many Lords But will you alter the Course of the Court because Seven of my Lords the Bishops are concerned in it and they make a mighty stir about the Reasonableness of the thing How can it be believed that the Law will not give a man time to make his Defence They agree themselves that if it were in the Case of Life and Death they must plead presently and doth not the same Reason hold and may not an Argument be drawn à fortiori in the Case of a Misdemeanour If I am not to have time when I plead for my Life there is less Reason I should have time to answer a Trespass But my Lord 't is not Reason that weighs in the Case 't is the Course of the Court which is the Law of the Court that we are contending for and what is there in the Case that should require so much time for my Lords the Bishops to plead to it It is charged in the Information that these Noble Prelates did make a Libel which was produced by them and published in the Kings presence they can easily tell whether thâ—… have done this or not done it what can they plead but the general Issue They talk of special matter to be pleaded but can they shew any more that they can say than what any poor ordinary Countryman if he were here to plead to an Information could say that is whether he was Guilty or not Guilty These Lords can tell whether it be true that they did publish the Paper laid in the Information and then your Lordship will tell them what will be the Consequences of that Publication in point of Law. We say all this was done at Westminster there the Scene is laid and it is not an Information for an old stale thing done a great while ago but a thing that was done yesterday and a thing notorious enough their contesting with the King about his Declaration of Indulgence And as to what Mr. Finch has said That this is a Novel Invention and a Trick to rob a man of his just Defence sure he forgets who it is that taught us the Trick if it be a Trick we have learnt it from those that trick'd before us and what is it that these Lords do desire they would have an Impaâ—… till Michaelmas Term does or can your Lordship think they ask than which is reasonable to have six Months time to plead not Guilty to an Information for a Libel and when so many men have been denyed it formerly upon the instigation of those very Gentlemen that now press so very hard to have it granted sure they must expect to be denyed it too and all this while these Lords lye under this accusation which is not so trivial a matter as some would make it I believe my Lords the Bishops have a desire to be cleared I suppose it is only their Council that desire to delay it upon what ground I know not I believe they themselves would be glad to remove the imputation which would be best done by a Tryal and the sooner the better If they have a mind to justifie themselves this is the readiest course for it and they may do it presently by Pleading Not Guilty My Lord I know I am in a great Auditory and abundance of your Lordships time has been taken up already I press it therefore for the sake of the King and for the sake of my Lords the Bishops we shall else have all â—…ang in suspence and hang in the Air for six Months longer therefore let the matter be put upon a fair Issue so as it may come to a speedy Determination I am sure is these Lords be innocent to day they will be innocent to morrow and if it were my own case I would desire to have it Tryed as speedily as I could and therefore I pray they may plead immediately Mr. I. Powel Mr. Soll. What do you say to the Difference that was taken between a person that was brought in Custody at the first instance where there is no contempt to the Process of the Court and one that comes in here by Capias upon default of appearing at the Summons Mr. Finch My Lord If I apprehend them aright they give us more than we did ask for Mr. Sollicitor has laid it down as a Rule that if a Man is taken upon a Capias in a Mean Process he shall have no Imparlance Mr. Soll. Gen. No you are greatly mistaken Sir and I pray don't lay down Rules for me Mr. Finch If I am Sir I beg your pardon but this I am sure of if a Venire Fac. goes out which is in the nature of a Subpoena and the party appear to it that being the first time he could come into Court you cannot force him to plead to an Information but he has an Imparlance of Course Mr. I. Powell Methinks it seems very reasonable that this forcing a Man to plead presently should be only a punishment for a Contempt of the Court and pray were my Lords the Bishops in contempt to
some slight Answer but then here are these two persons Mr. Harcourt and Mr. Sillyard and the one has been a Clerk these sixteen or seventeen years and the other has known the Office thirty years though there were not heretofore so many Informations of this Nature and Kind as now of late but still they say that a person that comes in upon a Commitment or a Recognizance shall never have any Imparlance Mr. Sol. Gen. Can they give any one Instance that has any the least shaddow to the contrary Mr. Pollixfen My Lord if we had time we hope we should be able to satisfie you in this Matter Mr. Sol. Gen. You have had time enough to prepare your selves for this Question if you had thought you could do any good in it L. C. I. Would the Course of the Court be otherwise to Morrow then it is to Day we have taken all the Care we can to be satisfied in this Matter and we will take care that the Lords the Bishops shall have all Justice done them nay they shall have all the Favour by my consent that can be shewn them without doing wrong to my Master the King but truly I cannot depart from the Course of the Court in this Matter if the King's Council press it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord we must pray your Judgment in it and your Direction that they may plead L. C. I. Truly I think they must Plead to the Information Mr. Att. Gen. Sir Samuel Astry pray ask My Lords whether they be Guilty or Not Guilty Then his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury stood up and offered a Paper to the Court. Archbish. of Cant. My Lord I tender here a short Plea a very short one on behalf of my self and my Brethren the other Defendants and I humbly desire the Court will admit of this Plea. L. C. I. If it please your Grace it should have been in Parchment Mr. Sol. Gen. What is that my Lord offers to the Court L. C. I. We will see what it is presently Mr. Sollicitor Bish. of Peter I pray My Lord that the Plea may be Read. M. Sol. Gen. But not received Mr. Att. Gen. No we desire to know what it is first Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Attorney if they will Plead the Court sure is obliged to receive it L. C. I. If it is a Plea your Grace will stand by it L. Archbish. of Cant. We will all stand by it my Lord it is subscribed by our Council and we pray it may be admitted by the Court. Mr. S. Pemb. I hope the Court will not deny to receive a special Plea if we offer one L. C. I. Brother let us hear what it is Mr. Sol. Gen. Read it if you please but not receive it Clerk Reads the Plea which in English is thus The BISHOPS PLEA AND the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely John Bishop of Chicester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Jonathan Bishop of Bristol being present here in Court in their own Persons pray Oyer of the Information aforesaid and it is Read to them which being Read and heard by them the said Archbishop and Bishops The said Archbishop and Bishops say that they are Peers of this Kingdom of England and Lords of Parliament and each of them is one of the Peers of this Kingdom of England and a Lord of the Parliament and that they being as before is manifest Peers of this Kingdom of England and Lords of Parliament ought not to be compelled to answer instantly for the Misdemeanour aforesaid mentioned in the said Information exhibited here against them in this Court but they ought to be required to appear by due Process in Law issuing out of this Court hâ—…e upon the Information aforesaid and upon their Appearance to have a Copy of the said Information exhibited against them and reasonable time to imparl thereupon and to advise with Council Learned in the Law concerning their Defence in that behalf before they be compelled to answer the said Information Whereupon for that the said Archbishop and Bishops were Imprisoned and by Writ of our Lord the King of Habeas Corpus directed to the Lieutenant of the Tower of London are now brought here in Custody without any Process upon the Information aforesaid issued against them and without having any Copy of the said Information or any time given them to imparl or be advised They pray Judgment and the Priviledge of Peers of this Kingdom in this Case to be allowed them and that They the said Archbishop and Bishops may not be compelled instantly to answer the Information aforesaid c. Rob. Sawyer Hen. Finch Hen. Pollixfen Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord with your Lordship's favour this in an ordinary Person 's Case would perhaps be thought not fair dealing or that which it being in the Case of these Reverend Prelates I shall not now name to make all this Debate and Stir in a Point of this nature to take the Judgment of the Court after three or four hours arguing and when the Opinion of the Court has been delivered then to put in a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court Sir Rob. Sawyer It is no such Plea. Mr. Att. Gen. It is so in effect but certainly it is such an Irregularity and such an unfair way of Proceeding as would not be endured in an ordinary Case and I hope you will give so little countenance to it as to reject it and make them Plead according to the usual course and way of proceedings certainly a Plea of this nature after so long an Argument would be reckoned nothing but a trick Mr. Serj. Pemb. We hope the Court and you are not of one mind Mr. Attorney in this matter we desire the Court to receive the Plea. Mr. Att. Gen. With submission the Court is not bound to receive Pleas that are put in purely for delay as this is for the Judgment of the Court has been already given in the very matter of this Plea and for rejecting a Plea it is done every day if a Man puts in a mere trifling dilatory Plea the Court may reject it Does this Plea contain any thing in it but what has been argued and debated pro con and setled by the Court already If they will put in any Plea in chief they may but such a Plea as this I hope shall not have so much countenance as to be receiv'd by the Court. Mr. Pollixfen Do you Demur to it if you please Mr. Attorney we will joyn in Demurrer with you Mr. Att. Gen. No there will be no need of that Mr. Sol. Gen. Surely the Court will never give so much Countenance to it as to receive it Mr. Finch If you will please either to Reply or Demur Mr. Sollicitor we are here to maintain the Plea. Mr. Soll. Gen. If you were here you would say the same thing that we do My Lord this Plea is That
say it shall be this day fortnight and let there be a Jury according to the usual course Sir Rob. Sawyer We pray it may be in the presence of the Attorneys or Sollicitors on both sides L. C. I. What is the usual coâ—…se Sir Samuel Astry Do you use to return twenty four or forty eight and then strike out twelve a piece which I perceive they desire for the Defendants Sir Sam. Astry My Lord the course is both ways and then it may be as your Lordship and the Court will please to order it L. C. I. Then take forty eight that is the fairest Mr. Att. Gen. We agree to it we desire nothing but a fair Jury Sir Rob. Sawyer Nor we neither try it when you will. L. C. I. Take a Recognizance of his Grace my Lord of Canterbury in 200 l. and the rest of my Lords in 100 l. a piece Mr. Att. Gen. What your Lordship pleases for that we submit to it Clerk. My Lord of Canterbury your Grace acknowledges to owe unto our Soveraign Lord the King the sum of 200 l. upon condition that your Grace shall appear in this Court on this day fortnight and so from day to day till you shall be discharged by the Court and not to depart without leave of the Court. Is your Grace contented A. B. C. I do acknowledge it Clerk. My Lord Bishop of St. Asaph you acknowledge to owe unto our Soveraign Lord the King the sum of 100 l. upon condition that your Lordship shall appear in this Court on this day fortnight and so from day to day until you shall be discharged by the Court and not to depart without leave of the Court. Is your Lordship contented Bish. of St. Asaph I do acknowledge it The like Recognizances were taken of all the rest of the Bishops and then the Court arose De Termino Sanctae Trinitatis Anno Regni Jacobi Secandi Regis Quarto In Banco Regis Die Veneris vicesimo nono die Junii 1688. in eod ' Term. Being the Feast of St. PETER and St. PAUL Dominus Rex versus Archiep. Cantuar. al. Sir Robert Wright Lord Chief Justice Mr. Justice Holloway Mr. Justice Powell Mr. Justice Allybone Judges Clerk. CRyer make Proclamation thrice Cryer Oyes Oyes Oyes Our Sovereign Lord the King streightly charges and commands every one to keep silence upon pain of Imprisonment Cl. of the Cr. Call the Defendents Cryer William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Archbish. Here. Cryer William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Bish. St. Asaph Here. And so the rest of the Bishops were called and answered severally Clerk. Gardez votres Challenges Swear Sir Roger Langley Cryer Take the Book Sir Roger. You shall well and truly try this Issue between our Sovereign Lord the King and William Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and others according to your Evidence So help you God. The same Oath was administred to all the Jury whose Names follow viz. Sir Roger Langley Barr. Sir William Hill Knt. Roger Iennings Esq Thomas Harriot Esq Ieoffery Nightingale Esq William Withers Esq William Avery Esq Thomas Austin Esq Nicholas Grice Esq Michael Arnold Esq Thomas Done Esq Richard Shoreditch Esq Clerk. You Gentlemen of the Jury who are sworn hearken to the Record Sir Thomas Powis Knight His Majesty's Attorney-General has exhibited an Information which does set forth as followeth ff MEmorandum That Sir Thomas Powys Knt. Attorney-General of our Lord the King who for our said Lord the King in this behalf prosecutes came here in his own person into the Court of our said Lord the King before the King himself at Westminster on Friday next after the morrow of the Holy Trinity in this Term and on the behalf of our said Lord the King giveth the Court here to understand and be informed That our said Lord the King out of his signal Clemency and gracious intention towards his Subjects of his Kingdom of England by his Royal Prerogative on the fourth day of April in the third year of the Reign of our said Lord the King at Westminster in the Country of Middlesex did publish his Royal Declaration entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience bearing date the same day and year sealed with the Great Seal of England in which Declaration is contained JAMES R. proâ—…t in the first Declaration before recited And the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King further giveth the Court here to understand and be informed That afterwards to wit on the twenty-seventh day of April in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid our-said Lord the King out of his like Clemency and gracious intention towards his Subjects of his Kingdom of England by his Royal Prerogative did publish his other Royal Declaration entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration bearing date the same day and year last mentioned sealed with his Great Seal of England in which Declaration is contained JAMES R. Our Conduct has been such c. prout in the second Declaration before recited Which said Royal Declaration of our said Lord the King last mentioned our said Lord the King afterwards to wit on the thirtieth day of April in the fourth year of his Reign aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid did cause to be printed and published throughout all England and for the more solemn Declaring Notification and Manifestation of his Royal Grace Favour and Bounty towards all his Leige-people specified in the Declaration last mentioned afterwards to wit on the fourth day of May in the fourth year of his Reign at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid our said Lord the King in due manner did Order as followeth At the Court at Whitehall the Fourth of May 1688. By the King 's most Excellent Majesty and the Lords of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy-Council IT is this day Ordered by His Majesty in Council That His Majesties late Gracious Declaration bearing date the Twenty Seventh of April last be read at the usual time of Divine Service upon the Twentieth and Twenty Seventh of this Month in all Churches and Chappels within the Cities of London and Westminster and Ten Miles thereabout And upon the Third and Tenth of Iune next in all other Churches and Chappels throughout this Kingdom And it is hereby further Ordered That the Right Reverend the Bishops cause the said Declaration to be sent and distributed throughout their several and respective Diocesses to be read accordingly W m. Bridgeman And further the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King giveth the Court here to understand and be informed That after the making of the said Order to wit on the eighteenth day of May in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex
own Act and Dead It is true if my Lords had published a Paper that was contrived by some of their Council it had been some Excuse and they must have only suffered for that Publication in the place where it was done but they are here for Writing this they have owned in this County and therefore iâ—…â—…es upon them to prove it done elsewhere There is another Objection my Lord made That here is no Evidence of a Publicationâ—… my Lord I take it to be a Publication in it self Is it possible for a man to write a Libell to set his Name and part with it and it coming to the hands of the King that this is not a Publication It is not their saying we did not publish it that will excuse them for can there be a greater Publication in it self than this when men have set their Hands to it and owned their Names what makes the Fact in this Case If a Deed he denied to be factum of such a one what is the proof of it but setting the Hand and Seal and the Delivery There is owning the Paper and setting their Hands is a Publication in it self and therefore they cannot make any such Objection My Lord if there were occasion we have Authorities enough to this purpose and we will give them scope enough if they will argue this matter and if they have any Evidence we desire to hear what they can say to it Mr. Att. Gen. As for this matter of Fact my Lord if I take it right they do not Controvert the Publishing but say they pray make it out where it was written or composed I confess this would be a business worth the while for all persons that act in this manner and are concerned in making of Libels to understand for their advantage no man doubts in the matter of Treason but it is local then put the Case a man is found in Middlesex with a treasonable Paper in his Pocket I do not make a Comparison as if this was such a Paper I hope I am not so understood but I only put it as a Case and that the Law is so is beyond all Controversie then the man is indicted here in Midds for framing and composing such a Treasonable Libell and he comes to be tryed and says he Pray prove where I made and composed it for though you found it in my Pocket in the County of Midds yet I might doe it in the County of York upon my word this had been a very good Defence for Mr. Sidney who was indicted convicted and attainted for making a Treasonable Paper which was found in his Study might not he have put the same Objection might not Mr. Sidney have said it was great pity he did not understand it pray prove where I did it for I did it elsewhere than in this County Mr. Sol. Gen. He did say it I remember Mr. Att. Gen. Truly my Lord I would not hear any Answer given to this for it would make the King in a very woful Case Here is a Paper that is found in the County of Midds and this is there owned by you to be written and subscribed by you pray do you prove it that it was written elsewhere Mr. Serj. Pemb. My Lord we will doe it we will be governed by Mr. Attorney for once Mr. Serj. Levinz We will prove that my Lord Archbishop was not in Middlesex in seven Months before and truly I think Mr. Attorney's Case of a Paper found about a man or in his Custody will not come up to our Case for was this Paper found about us surely that is not pretended Mr. Serj. Pemb. Your Lordship sees by the very frame of the Petition that this Petition which they call a Libell was made after the King's Order concerning reading this Declaration Now we shall prove that my Lord Archbishop whose hand-writing they prove this to be was not out from Lambeth-House in two Months before nor till he was before the Council Sr. Rob. Sawyer Which was long after that time when it was made Mr. Serj. Pemb. So that this cannot be written in the County of Middlesex Call Francis Nicholls Mr. Nicholls was sworn Sir R. Sawyer Do you remember the 18th of May last Mr. Nicholls Yes Sir. Sir. R. Sawyer Pray how was it with my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury at that time and before that did he go abroad Mr. Nicholls My Lord I am very sure that my Lord his Grace of Cant. whom I have served in his Bed Chamber this seven years never stirred out of the Gate of Lambeth House since Michaelmas last Sir R. Sawyer Till when Mr. Nicholls Mr. Nicholls Not till the time he was summoned before the Councill Mr. Serj. Pemb. Now I hope we have given them a full proof that it could not be in Middles Call Thomas Smith Mr. Smith was not examined Mr. Finch Truly my Lord I think that what we have proved or what Proof we further offer of my Lord of Canterburies not being in Middlesex for so long a time is ex abundanti and we need it not for with humble submission in point of Law it is incumbent upon them that are to prove the Charge in the Information to prove where it was done because the Locality of it is part of the thing they ought to prove it in it's nature it is local there is a Place assigned in the Informâ—…ion and unless they prove it was done in the Place that they have laid they have not proved the Charge in the Information Now my Lord they have not made any Proof of that and for proof of Publication I think they have offered none to your Lordship they never did call it so yet and truly I never did hear or know that the owning of their Hands at the Council-Table was a Publication of a Libel it is owning the Writing but it is not an owning where the Writing was made but where it was written and where it was made is of necessity to be proved before the Charge upon a Record in a Court of Justice can be said to be made out it is a Local Charge and in Justice the locality must be proved or the Information fails my Lord they have offered no Proof to it and they have not yet gone to the second part of the Information for as to the Publication of it there is not a tittle of Proof offered but only the owning of their Hands upon their Examination at the Council and no Man did ever yet think that the answering a Question and owning a Paper at the Council-Table upon a Question put by the King himself was a Publication of a Libel Mr. Serjeant Baldock Pray my Lord hear me a Word to that Though the thing be never so local yet there must be some place where a thing that was done was done Then if nothing else appears but what was done in Westminster in the County of Middlesex unless they shew the contrary that must be the very
and an Affront put upon the Bishops they ought to make it out for their own Vindication and to prove themselves Innocent If they do that they do well and they ought to have Satisfaction â—…de them by those that have so highly injured them and the King cannot be better pleased I am sure than to find them so But if Men will look one way and act another they must expect to be dealt with accordingly Will any Man that has heard this Evidence and sees that these Gentlemen will not go the right way to work to prove their own Innocence believe them to be not Guilty 'T is plain they contrived it and signed it for can any one imagine that they set their Hands to a Paper that was not formed and contrived by themselves then let it go That this was done in another County and we cannot punish the Writing of it in this County yet still they are Guilty of causing it to be published in this County and for that we may punish them here We will be content with having that found that we have proved which certainly is an Offence Sir Rob. Sawyer We oppose that Sir. Mr. Sol. Gen. You oppose it I know you 'l oppose common Sense we don't speak to you we speak to the Court we are content with what is plain and do not desire to insist upon any strained Construction we say this is Natural Evidence for us If this thing be a Libel as we say it is then the causing it to be published is an Offence The Publication we â—…ay was here in Middlesex and of that there is Clear Evidence because it was found there and came from the King's Hand to whom it was directed and it could not come to the King's Hand out of their Custody without their Consent This we say is a clear Evidence of causing it to be published let the rest go as it will because we will take the easiest part of the Case and not go upon Strains Mr. Serj. Trinder The greatest Question is I think now come to the Publishing L. Ch. Iust. The Court is of Opinion that its coming to the King is a publishing Mr. Justice Powel Ay my Lord if it be proved to be done by them Mr. Serjeant Pemberton Before the Court deliver their Opinion we desire to be heard L. Ch. Iust. Brother you shall be heard in good time but let them make an end on the other side and when the King's Counsel have done we 'l hear you Mr. Serjeant Trinder My Lord upon the Question of Publishing it has been insisted upon and the Court seems to be very much of the same Opinion That the Writing of it is a Publishing That it is without Controversie if the Writing of it fell out to be in Middlesex where the Information is laid but that they would not have to be so by Argument because the Archbishop had kept in at Lambeth so long But suppose that it were so as they would have it that is only as to the Archbishop he being the Writer of it but yet notwithstanding that the other six might subscribe it in Middlesex taking it that there is such a Face in their Argument as they would have it Mr. Sol. Gen. We will lay no greater load on the other six than we do upon my Lord Archbishop and we say they are all Guilty of the Publication in Middlesex Mr. Serjeant Trinder Pray Sir spare me this Paper was in the Archbishops Custody and Power he making of it himself and regularly it could not have come out of his Custody in common Supposition but it must come with his Consent It was afterwards in the Power of the other six they had it to subscribe where the Subscription was non constâ—… they it may â—…e can prove it themselves but I will only deduce this Argument That if it after comes into Middlesex it must be taken by presumption to be subscribed by them there and published it must taken by Presumption so to be Lord Ch. Iust. No Brother we ought not to do any thing by presumption here Mr. Just. Powel No no by no means we must not go upon Presumptions but Proofs L. Ch. Iust. I will not presume it to be made in Middlesex Mr. Serj. Trinder But it is proved to be published in Middlesex Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord with submission there is no Evidence of the Publication Mr. Attor Gen. That the Court is to judge of Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray good my Lord what Instance of a Publication have they given Mr. Sol. Gen. The Court has heard â—…he Evidence we leave it there Sir Rob. Sawyer Was it their owning and acknowledging it was their Hands when the King asked them the Question at the Council-Table Surely the King's Counsel won't pretend that was a Publication when it was done at the King's Command it was certainly the King that published it then and not my Lords the Bishops Mr. Attor Gen. Well said Sir Rob. Sawyer Don't you remember that when Sir Blathwayt said the King gave it to be read and it was shewed to the Bishops L. Ch. Iust. I remember what Evidence Mr. Blathwayt gave of the Passages at the Council-Board very well and I know what Mr. Attorney did press about the Kings promising to take no advantage Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord Mr. Attorney is on the other side he did not press it L. Ch. Iust. Sir Robert Sawyer I mean I beg both your Pardons Gentlemen I think I have done Injury to you both Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we say there is no Evidence at all that ever this was sent to the King by the Archbishop or any of my Lords the Bishops And as for the Cases that they have put they might have put five hundred Cases and all nothing to the purpose Mr. Sol. Gen. So they might and done just as others had done before them Sir Rob. Sawyer And so are these for here is the Question We are in a Case where the Publication is that which makes it a Crime Now I would have them if they can put me any such Case and then apply it to this in William's Case the Question is quite otherwise and so in any Case of Treason it must be where-ever there is an Overt Act proved it is the Treasonable Intention and the ill Mind of the Traytor that is the Crime and the Treason the Overt Act is only to be the Evidence of it In that Case of Williams with submission my Lord the Publication was not at all necessary but the very secretest Act that could be done by him if it were an Act is an evidence of the Mind and so the sending of the Book to the King himself though no body else did see it was an Evidence of the Crime of Treason yet it could not be called a Pâ—…blication But in the other Case of Sir Baptist Hicks which was in the Star-Chamber about sending a Letter of Challenge it was plainly resolved that it was no Publication
Chancellor used Mr. S. Levinz Pray do not twist a man so Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. And you are not to untwist a man neither Mr. Serjeant Mr. Att. Gen. Do you remember that the King said any thing of the paper being delivered to him Mr. Blathwait The King has said it several times I believe I have heard him say it ten times at least Mr. Att. Gen. Did he say it at that time Mr. Blathwait I cannot positively say that he did Sir. Mr. S. Pemb. He cannot answer it why will you press it Mr. Blathwait My Lord here is the Clerk of the Counsel that was then in waiting he took minutes and perhaps can remember more than I. Mr. Sol. Gen. Here they cry he cannot answer it as if they could tell what he can answer better than himself pray Mr. Bridgman was there any question to this purpose either from my Lord Chancellor or from the King whether that was the Paper that was presented by my Lords the Bishops or delivered by the King for I see you are very nice as to words and you do very well but was there not a question to that purpose Mr. Bridgm. Sir I do not remember for I speak to the best of my remembrance in all this matter I say I do not remember that that question was asked in those very words but I do remember something was said to that purpose but by whom I cannot particularly say Sir Rob. Sawyer To what purpose Mr. Sol. Gen. It is very strange that they wont let the witness speak but are continually interrupting him Sir Rob. Sawyer Mr. Solicitor no body interrupts him L. C. I. Why do not I behave my self between you all as I ought to do pray Sir Rob. Sawyer sit down you cannot be contented when the man does you no harm Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray consider did my Lords the Bishops say any thing or was there any discourse concerning the Paper whether it was delivered to the King or no Mr. Bridgm. Mr. Solicitor I have told you as near as I can what I do remember I know not by whom it was said but that question or to that purpose was asked whether that was the Petition they delivered but I do not remember whether the question was directly asked or answered there was something about it and several passages there were but whether spoken by my Lord Chancellor or who I cannot remember Mr. Sol. Gen. You say there was that which sufficiently denoted a question to that purpose and they said nothing against it Mr. Bridgm. No there was no denial of it Mr. S. G. I see you do not remember the particular words nor do we desire it of you Mr. Bridgm. They did not deny it nor confess it Mr. Sol. Gen. Then in your apprehension did they own that they delivered that Paper to the King L. C. I. You must not ask that Mr. Solicitor it is not a fair question to ask him what he apprehended Mr. Sol. Gen. He said it before himself L. C. I. But his apprehensions are no Evidence and it is a sort of a leading question which we must not allow of Mr. Sol. Gen. Then if your Lordship do not like it I will not ask it but I will ask him another question L. C. I. Ay ten if you will so they be fair ones Mr. Sol. Gen. Was it upon the first or second time of their being examined Mr. Bridgm. I cannot tell it was not the first time all of it I believe for at the first time my Lords the Bishops made some scruple of answering or owning any thing and whatsoever they owned they said they hoped it should not be made use of to their prejudice I remember no reply that was made nor any thing farther onely my Lord Chancellor said they were not to capitulate with their Prince but they were required to answer the questions that were asked them Mr. Sol. Gen. What were those questions Mr. Bridgm. I have told you already as well as I can remember Mr. Sol. Gen. But did you take it upon the main that they owned the delivery of that paper to the King Mr. Iust. Pow. Mr. Solicitor you have been told you are to ask no such questions S. R. Saw. Nor never was there such wire-drawing of a Witness in this world before L. Ch. Iust. Pray sit still Sir Rob. Sawyer you are not to teach us what we are to do Mr. Solicitor must ask questions that are proper for him and not such as these but the Court must correct him and not you Mr. Sol. Gen. Mr. Bridgman is very cautious and he is to be commended for it but we would get the truth out of him if we could pray Sir if you can remember recollect your self whether by any question to that purpose it was believed that they did own the delivery of the paper to the King. Mr. Bridgm. I told you Mr. Solicitor as to that at first that I do not remember the very words of the question but I believe there was no body doubted that that was not the paper Mr. Sol. Gen. You speak well in your way but these Gentlemen are very unwilling you should tell your opinion L. Ch. Iust. His opinion is no Evidence therefore you must not ask any such questions Mr. Solicitor Mr. Bridgm. Assoon as the Petition was delivered within a few hours after I saw it the King shewed it to several people and he said it was the Petition the Bishops had delivered he took it into his own custody and afterwards commanded me to write a Copy of it and there was no Copy made of it but that one but notwithstanding that I do remember I did see a Copy of the Petition within a day or two after it was presented about the Town Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray how many days was this before the discourse in Counsel upon their Examination Mr. Bridgm. How many days was what Sir Mr. Sol. Gen. When the King gave the paper to be copied Mr. Bridgm. It was upon the Sunday Mr. Sol. Gen. But you say as you believe it was in a few hours after the paper was delivered to the King that you did see it Mr. Iust. Powel But what makes him say that this was delivered to the King but only hear-say Lord Ch. Iust. Pray Mr. Solicitor will you produce that which is Evidence and not spend our time in that which is not Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I would make no more of it than it is Mr. S Levinz 'T is a shamefull thing to offer such things in a Court of Justice Mr. S. Pemberton 'T is a practice that ought not to be endured Lord Ch. Iust. Pray Brothers be quiet or I 'le turn him loose upon you again if you 'l not be quiet what is the matter cannot you let us alone we shall do every body right come to shorten this matter I ask you but this one question and that may satisfie any one that has honesty about him do you
that these Gentlemen have spent all this time to no purpose Lord Ch. Iust. Yes Mr. Attorney I 'le tell you what they offer which it will lie upon you to give an Answer to They would have you shew how this has disturbed the Government or diminished the Kings Authority Mr. Att. Gen. Whether a Libel be true or not as to the matter of Fact was it ever yet in any Court of Justice permitted to be made a question whether it be a Libel or not Or whether the Party be punishable for it And therefore I wonder to hear these Gentlemen to say that because it is not a false one therefore 't is not a Libel Suppose a Man should speak scandalous Matter of any Noble Lord here or of any of my Lords the Bishops and a Scandalum Magnatum be brought for it though that which is spoken has been true yet it has been the Opinion of the Courts of Law that the Party cannot justifie it by reason it tends to the disturbing of the Peace to publish any thing that is matter of Scandal The only thing that is to be lookt into is whether there be any thing in this Paper that is Reflecting and Scandalous and not whether it be true or no for if any Man shall Extra-Iudicially and out of a Legal Course and way reflect upon any of the great Officers of the Kingdom nay if it be but upon any Inferior Magistrate he is to be punished and is not to make his Complaint against them unless he do it in a proper way A Man may Petition a Judge but if any Man in that Petition shall come and tell the Judge Sir you have given an Illegal Judgment against me and I cannot in Honour Prudence or Conscience obey it I do not doubt nor will any Man but that he that should so say would be laid by the Heels though the Judgment perhaps might be illegal If a Man shall come to Petition the King as we all know the Council Doors are thronged with Petitioners every day and Access to the King by Petition is open to every body the most Inferior Person is allowed to Petition the King but because he may do so may he therefore suggest what he pleases in his Petition shall he come and tell the King to his Face what he does is Illegal I only speak this because they say in this Case his Majesty gave them leave to come to him to deliver their Petition but the King did not understand the Nature of their Petition I suppose when he said he gave them leave to come to him My Lord for this Matter we have Authority enough in our Books particularly there is the Case of Wrenham in my Lord Hobart the Lord Chancellor had made a Decree against him and he Petitioned the King that the Cause might be re-heard and in that Petition he Complains of Injustice done him by my Lord Chancellor and he put into his Petition many reflecting things this my Lord was punished as a Libel in the Star Chamber and in that Book it was said that though it be lawful for the Subject to Petition the King against any Proceedings by the Judges yet it must not be done with Reflections nor with Words that turn to the Accusation or Scandal of any of the Kings Magistrates or Officers and the Justice of the Decree is not to be questioned in the Case for there Wrenham in his Defence would have opened the particulars wherein he thought the Decree was unjust but that the Court would not meddle with nor would allow him to justifie for such Illegality in the Decree so in this Case you are not to draw in question the truth or falsehood of the Matter complained against for you must take the way the Law has prescribed and prosecute your Right in a Legal Course and not by Scandal and Libelling My Lord there is a great deal of difference between not doing a thing that is Commanded if one be of Opinion that it is unlawful and coming to the King with a Petition highly reflecting upon the Government and with Scandalous Expressions telling him Sir you Act illegally you require of us that which is against Prudence Honour or Conscience as my Lords the Bishops are pleased to do in this Petition of theirs I appeal to any Lord here that if any Man should give him such Language either by Word of Mouth or Petition whether he would bear it without seeking satisfaction and reparation by the Law My Lord there is no greater proof of the Influence of this Matter than the Croud of this day and the Haâ—…angue that hath been made is it not apparent that the taking this Liberty to Canvas and dispute the Kings Power and Authority and to Censure â—…s Actions possess the People with strange Opinions and raises Discontents and Jealousies as if the free Course of Law were restrained and Arbitrary Will and Pleasure set up instead of it My Lord there is one thing that appears upon the Face of the Information which shews this not to be the right Course and if my Lords the Bishops had given themselves the opportunity of reading the Declaration seriously they would have found in the end of the Declaration that the Ring was resolved to call a Parliament in November might not my Lords the Bishops have acquiesced under their passive Obedience till the Parliament met But nothing would serve them but this and this must be done out of Parliament for which there is no President can be shewn and this must be done in such a manner as your Lordship sees the Consequence of by your Trouble of this Day There is one thing I forgot to speak to they tell us that it is laid Malicious and Seditious and there is no Malice or Sedition found we know very well that that follows the Fact those things arise by Construction of Law out of the Fact. If the thing be illegal the Law says it is Seditious a Man shall not come and say he meant no harm in it That was the Case of Williams in his treasonable Book says he I only intended to warn the King of the Danger approaching and concludes his Book with God save the King but no Man will say that a good Preface at the beginning or a good Prayer at the end should excuse Treason of Sedition in the Body of a Book if I meet another Man in the Street and kill him though I never saw him in my Life the Indictment is that it was ex Malitia Praecogitata as it often happens that a Person kills one he never had acquaintance with before and in favorem vitae if the Nature of the Fact be so the Jury are permitted to find according to the Nature of the Case but in strictness of Law there is Malice implyed But my Lord I think these Matters are so Common and that is a Point that has been so often setled that the form of the Indictment and Information must
follow the Nature of the Fact that I need not insist upon it if the Act be unlawful the Law supplies the Malice and evil Intentions Mr. Solicit Gen. My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury I am of Counsel in this Case for the King and I shall take leave to proceed in this Method First I shall put the Case of my Lords the Bishops and then consider the Arguments that have been used in their Defence and answer them as much as is material to be answered and then leave it to your Lordship and the Juries Consideration whether what has been said by these Gentlemen weigh any thing in this Case First my Lord I take it for granted and I think the Matter is pretty plain by this time by my Lord Presidents Evidence and their own Confession that it is not to be disputed but that this Paper was presented by these Lords to the King I think there is no great difficulty in that Matter at all but I just touch upon it because I would follow them in their own Method Then my Lord let us take this Case as it is upon the Nature of the Petition and the Evidence that they have given and then let us see whether that will justifie the thing that is done For the business of Petitioning I would distinguish and enquire Whether my Lords the Bishops out of Parliament can present any Petition to the King I do agree that in Parliament the Lords and Commons may make Addresses to the King and signifie their Desires and make known their Grievances there and there is no doubt but that is a natural and proper way of Application For in the beginning of the Parliament there are Receivers of Petitions appointed and upon Debates there are Committees appointed to draw up Petitions and Addresses but to come and deduce an Argument that because the Lords in Parliament have done thus there being such Methods of Proceedings usual in Parliaments therefore my Lords the Bishops may do it out of Parliament that is certainly a Non sequitur no such Conclusion can be drawn from those Premises My Lord I shall endeavour to lay the Fact before you as it really is and then Consider what is proper for the Court to take notice of as Legal Proof or Evidence And I take it all those Presidents that they have produced of what the Lords did and what the Commons did in Parliament is no Warrant for them to shelter themselves under against the Information here in Question Here Mr. Iust. Powel spake aside to the Lord Chief Iustice thus Mr. Iust. Powel My Lord this is strange Doctrine shall not the Subject have Liberty to Petition the King but in Parliament If that be Law the Subject is in a miserable Case Ld. Ch. Iust. Brother let him go on we will hear him out tho' I approve not of his Position Mr. Solicit General The Lords may Address to the King in Parliament and the Commons may do it but therefore that the Bishops may do it out of Parliament does not follow I heard nothing said that could have given Colour to such a thing but the Curse that has been read in 1 Elizabeth But pray my Lord let us consider that Evidence they have given they have begun with that Record in Richard the Seconds time and what is that That the King may dispeâ—…se with the Statute of Provisors till the meeting of the next Parliament and a Protestation of the Commons at the end of it whether that be an Act of Parliament that is Declaratory of the Common Law or Introductory of a new Law Non Constat and for ought appears it might be a Declaratory Act And if so it is a Proof of the Kings Prerogative of Dispensing It might be an Act in Affirmance of the Kings Prerogative as there are a great many such we very well know and generally most of the Laws in that kind are in Affirmance of the Kings power so that the Law turns as an Argument for the King Prerogative and they have given him that which will turn upon themselves so it stood in Richard the Seconds time but whether that be an Argument one way or other Conclusive is lest to your Lordship and the Jury Ay but say they there is no Execution of such a Power till very lately and the first Instance that they produce is that in the Year 1662. But your Lordship knows that before the Râ—…ign of Henry the Fourth there was great Jurisdiction assumed by the Lords in Original Causes then comes the Statute of Appeals 1 Hen. 4. which takes notice that before that time the Lords had assumed an Original Jurisdiction in all Causes and would proceed and determine them in Parliament and out of Parliament and it fell out to be so great a Grievance that it was thought necessary to make a Law against it that Appeals in Parliament should be abolished and destroyed and then comes that Law in favour of the Subject of England and that settles the bounds between the King and the Lords in a great measure before that time the Lords were grown very powerful and where there is a Power there always will be Applications and what is the effect of that Statute 1 Hen. 4. for all that we endeavour is to make things as plain can be that no further Applications no Accusations no Proceedings in any Case whatsoever be before the Lords in Parliament unless it be by Impeachment of the Commons so that there is the Salvo and the use that I make of it is this The Commons by that very Statute did abolish the Power that the Lords had arrogated to themselves and Ordered that they should not meddle with any Cause but upon the Impeachment of the House of Commons and establish the Impeachment of the Commons which is as ancient as the Parliament for that was never yet spoken against the Power of the Commons Impeaching any Person under the degree of the Prince and that is the regular legal way and so the Commons asserted their Ancient Right and whatsoever the Lords took notice of must come by Application of the Commons then Conferences were to pass between the Houses and both Houses by Address apply to the King this is the proper way and course of Parliament of which thy Lord Cook says It is known to few and practised by fewer but it is a Venareble Honourable way and this is the Course that should have been taken by my Lords here and they should have stayed till the Complaint had come from the Commons in Parliament and then it had been Regular for them to Address to the King but they were too Quick too Nimble And whereas the Statute of Hen. 4. says That no Lord whatsoever shall intermeddle with any Cause but by the Impeachment of the Commons they interpose and give their advice before their time if there be any Irregularity in Parliament or out of Parliament the Commons are to make their Complaint of it
they are not Evidence L. Ch. Iust. No I don't intend they shall Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we pray they may have the whole Petition Mr. Iust. Holloway That is with the Direction and Prayer you mean. Mr. Attorn Gen. Yes with all our Hearts Then the Court arose and the Iury went together to Consider of their Verdict and stayed together all Night without Fire or Candle On Saturday the 30th Day of June Anno Dom. 1688. about Ten of the Clock in the Morning the Archbishop and the rest of the Bishops came again into the Court and immediately after the Iury were brought to the Bar. Sir Sam. Astry Cryer Take the Appearance of the Jury Sir Roger Langley Sir Rog. Langley Here. Cryer Vous avez c. And so all the rest were called and answered Then Proclamation for Silence was made Sir. Sam. Astry Gentlemen are you agreed on your Verdict Iury. Yes Sir Sam. Astry Who shall say for you Iury. Foreman Sir Sam. Astry Do you find the Defendants or any of them Guilty of the Misdemeanour whereof they are Impeached or not Guilty Foreman NOT GUILTY Sir Sam. Astry Then hearken to your Verdict as the Court hath Recorded it You say the Defendants and every of them are NOT GUILTY of the Misdemeanour whereof they are Impeached and so you say all Iury. Yes At which there were several great Shouts in the Court and throughout the Hall. Mr. Sollicitor General taking Notice of some Persons in Court that Shouted moved very earnestly that they might be committed whereupon a Gentleman of Grays Inn was laid hold on but was soon after Discharged And after the Shouting was over the Lord Chief Iustice reproving the Gentleman said L. Ch. Iust. Sir I am as glad as you can be that my Lords the Bishops are acquitted but your Manner of rejoycing here in Court is Indecent you might rejoyce in your Chamber or elsewhere and not here Then speaking to Mr. Attorney he said Have you any thing more to say to my Lords the Bishops Mr. Attorney Mr. Attorn Gen. No my Lord. Then the Court arose and the Bishops went away FINIS ADVERTISEMENT There will be shortly Published Poems on several Occasions By Charles Cotton Esq Printed for T. Basset W. Hensman and T. Fox Here the Lord Chief Justice speaking aside said L. C. Just. I must not suffer this they intend to dispute the King's Power of suspending Laws Mr. Just. Powel My Lord they must necessarily fall upon that Point for if the King hath no such Power as clearly 〈◊〉 hath not in my Iudgment the natural Consequence will be that this Petition is no diminution of the King 's Regal Power and so not seditious or libellous L. C. Just. Brother I know you are full of that Doctrine but however my Lords the Bishops shall have no occasion to say that I deny to hear their Counsel Brother you shall have your Will for once I will hear them let them talk till they are weary Mr. Just. Powel I desire no greater liberty to be granted them than what in Iustice the Court ought to grant that is to hear them in defence of their Clients * Here Mr. Iust. Powel speaking to the Lord Chief Iustice Mr. I. Pow. My Lord this is wide Mr. Sollicitor would impose upon us let him make out if he can that the King has such a Power and Answer the Objections made by the Defendants Councel L. Ch. Iust. Brother impose upon us he shall not impose upon me I know not what he may upon you for my part I do not believe one word he sayâ—… * Here there was a great Hissing
Exchequer of our said Lord the King Sir Edward Herbert Knight Chief Iustice of the Common Bench of our Lord the King and Sir Nicholas Butler Knight Lords of his Majesties Most Honourable Privy Council to me directed the Tenor of which Warrant follows in these Words viz. THESE are in his Majesties Name and by his Command to require you to take into your Custody the Persons of William Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Lord Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Lord Bishop of Ely Iohn Lord Bishop of Chichester Thomas Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Lord Bishop of Peterborough and Ionathan Lord Bishop of Bristol For Contriving Making and Publishing a Seditious Libel in Writing against his Majesty and his Government and them safely to keep in your Custody until they shall be delivered by due Course of Law For which this shall be your sufficient Warrant At the Council Chamber in White-Hall this Eighth day of Iune 1688. And this is the Cause of the taking and detaining c. Lord Ch. Iust. Well What do you desire Mr. Attorney Mr. Att. Gen. We pray for the King that the Return may be filed L. Ch. Iust. Let it be filed Mr. Att. Gen. By this Retorn your Lordship observes what it is my Lords the Bishops were committed to the Tower for it is by Warrant from the Council Board where when their Lordships appeared they were not pleased to give their Recognizances to appear here as they were required by the King to do and there upon they were committed to the Tower and now come before the Court upon this Retorn of the King 's Writ of Habeas Corpus and by the Retorn it does appear it was for Contriving Writing Framing and Publishing a Seditious Libell against His Majesty and the Government My Lord it is our Duty who are the King's Councel pursuant to our Orders to prosecute such kind of Offences and when the proper time shall come for us to open the nature of the Offence your Lordships will then judge what reason there is for this Prosecution but in the mean time what we are now to offer to your Lordship is The Officer of this Court has an Information against his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of my Lords the Bishops which we desire may be read to them and pray that they may plead to it according to the Course of the Court. Sir Rob. Sawyer If it please your Lordship to spare us a word for my Lords the Bishops Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord We pray for the King the Information may be read Sir Rob. Sawyer We define to be heard a word first Mr. Soll. Gen. We oppose your speaking any thing till the Information hath been read Sir Rob. Sawyer But what we have to offer is proper before it be read Mr. Att. Gen. Your time is not yet come Sir Robert. Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes this is our proper time for what we have to say and therefore we move it now before there be any other proceedings in this matter Mr. Soll. Gen. It is irregular to move any thing yet pray let the Information be read first Mr. S. Pemberton If your Lordship please to spare us we will offer nothing but what is fit for us to do Sir Rob. Sawyer And now is our proper time for it Mr. Soll. Gen. Gentlemen You do know the way of Proceeding in such Cases better than so I am sure as for you Sir Robert Sawyer you have often oppos'd any such Motion as irregular and I hope the Case is not alter'd however you may be the course of the Court is the same Sir Rob. Sawyer With submission if your Lordship please to spare me a word that which I would move is to discharge my Lords the Bishops upon this Return and from their Commitment upon this Warrant Mr. Att. Gen. Surely these Gentlemen think to have a Liberty above all other People here is an Information which we pray my Lords the Bishops may hear read and plead to Mr. Soll. Gen. Certainly Sir Rob. Sawyer you would not have done thus half a year ago Sir Rob. Sawyer What would not I have done I move regularly with Submission to discharge my Lords the Bishops from their Commitment If they are not here legally Imprisoned now they are before your Lordships upon this Writ then you will give us leave to move for their Discharge before any thing else be said to them and that is it we have to say to demand the Judgment of the Court upon this Return whether we are legally Imprisoned Mr. Att. Gen. Under Favour my Lord neither the Court nor they are ripe for any Motion of this Nature yet Mr. S. Pemberton If we do not move it now it will afterwards I fear be too late Mr. Soll. Gen. These Gentlemen are very forward but certainly they mistake their time this is a Habeas Corpus that 's brought by the King and not by the Prisoners and therefore they are too soon till they see what the King has to say to them Mr. Att. Gen. Your Lordship cannot as yet be moved for your Judgment about the Legality of this Commitment because this Writ was granted upon our Motion who are of Councel for the King and upon this Writ they are brought here and what is it we desire for the King Certainly nothing but what is Regular we have here an Information for the King against my Lords and we desire they may plead to it Mr. S. Pemberton Good my Lord will you please to hear us a little to this Matter L. C. Iust. Brother Pemberton we will not refuse to hear you by no means when you speak in your proper time but it is not so now for the King is pleased by his Attorney and Sollicitor to Charge these Noble Persons my Lords the Bishops with an Information and the Kings Councel call to have that Information read but you will not permit it to be read Mr. S. Pemberton Pray my Lord spare us a word if we are not here as Prisoners regularly before your Lordship and are not brought in by the due Proâ—… of the Court then certainly the Kings Councel or the Court have no Power to charge us with an Information therefore we beg that you will hear us to that in the first place whether we are Legally here before you Mr. Soll. Gen. These Gentlemen will have their proper time for such a Motion hereafter Mr. Pollexfen No Mr. Soll. this is without all Question our only time for it we shall have no time afterwards Mr. Att. Gen. Yes you will for what do we who are of Councel for the King now ask of the Court but that this Information may be read when that is done if we move to have my Lords the Bishops plead then they may move what they will but before we make that Motion they cannot break in upon us with their Motion and with Submission to your Lordship whether my Lords the Bishops were duely Committed
go a great way with the Court. Sir Ro. Sawyer Such a practice as this has been always very rare in Informations for Misdemeanours and they bring you nothing of any President older then Sir Samuel Astry's time Mr. Finch Pray My Lord give me leave to very the Question I do not now make it a Question whether your Lordships should grant My Lords the Bishops an Imparlance but whether you would think fit to look into the Course of the Court before that time that Sir Samuel Astry speakâ—… of and take time to consider and search into Presidents Mr. I. Allybone Do you Mr. Finch give us any one Reason or President that may make us doubt whether this be the Course of the Court or no à And you could not but be aware of this before and therefore should have come prepared to make out your Objection Mr. Finch Mr. Pollixfen and the rest of the Practicers in My Lord Hales's time will tell you that the Course was otherwise in his time Sir Samuel Astry indeed tells you it has been so since his time but this was one of the Points it seems that he was ignorant of which made him inquire of Mr. Waterhouse so doubtful was this Practice Sir Samuel Astry I was an Attender upon this Court before I came into this Office but it was in another place on the other side of the Court and therefore was not concerned so much to know what was the Course on this side till I came into this Office. Mr. Sol. Gen. These Gentlemen differ among themselves one would have an Imparlance the other only time to plead I believe truly they cannot tell well what they would have I pray the Rules of the Court may be kept to Sir Sam. Astry Here are two Clerks that sit by me that have been a long time in the Office Mr. Harcourt my Secondary and the Clerk of the Rules I pray they may be asked their knowledge of this matter Mr. Soll. Gen. Certainly these Gentlemen think they have a Priviledge above all other people that they must not be subject to the same Rules as others are we on our 〈◊〉 have taken all the Methods that we could to make this matter manifest and what is it that these Gentlemen now propose They pray you to take time to consider but have they used the right means of creating a jealousie or suspicion in the Court that the Course is otherwise they can give no instance of it and all they say is 't is a Negative that this is not the Course of the Court but the Imparlance that they beg is in the Affirmative surely that they can find proof of if it be so As for my Lord Holly's Case that is with us and not against us let Mr. Pollixfen shew that ever any one of the Men that were brought into Court in Custody either had time to Plead or an Imparlance L. C. I. Sir Samuel Astry says he has given you his Opinion and here are two other Clerks of the Office that he refers himself to are you willing that they should be asked Mr. Ser. Pemberton Yes my Lord with all our hearts L. C. I. Mr. Harcourt How long have you been a Clerk in the Crown-Office Mr. Harcourt About seventeen or eighteen years my Lord. L. C. I. How long have you known the practice of the Court in this matter and what is it Mr. Harcourt I cannot charge my self so with Particulars from the time of my coming into the Office but for these ten or twelve years past I remember it has been as the King's Council pressed and as Sir Samuel Astry has declared L. C. I. What say you Mr. Sillyard How long have you known the Crown-Office Mr. Sillyard I have been a Clerk here about thirty years L. C. I. Well and how has the practice been all your time Mr. Sillyard I have not sat here as Clerk of the Rules but a little while but since I have sat here I have always observed it to be the Practice that one that comes in Custody should Plead immediately it was a thing heretofore that did not so often happen asit hath done here of late therefore I cannot so well speak to it but it hath fallen out frequently within some years last past and that hath been the constant Course Sir. Samuel Astry When you first came to be Attorney General Sir Robert Sawyer I am sure it was so Mr. Att. Gen. Pray let me ask you Mr. Sillyard you say you have known the Office thirty years When you first came to the Office were Informatitions as frequent as they are now and have been of late Mr. Sol. Gen. It was so in the Case of Mr. Hampden when you were Attorney General Sir Robert Sawyer he was forced to Plead immediately to an Indictment for a Crime that perhaps you will say was near upon Treason Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes truly it wanted but one Witness that was all Mr. Sol. Gen. But yet the Indictment was only for a Misdemeanour and there we strugled and debated the Matter but were forced to give it over because the course of the Court was against us so it has been by the unquestionable Testimony of Sir Samuel Astry for these twelve years last past and in those twelve years we have had many changes perhaps there may have been twelve Chief Justices and they have all affirmed it and if I then make it out that in all these Judges times that are within our Remembrance it has gone thus then there are enough of Precedents in the Matter Sir Rob. Sawyer But my Lord I desire to know whether that were the Ancient Course Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. They that make the Objection ought to prove it but I will name Sir Robert Sawyer another Case and that is the Case of Sir Samuel Barnardiston which was the Case of a Libel too he was forced to plead immediately and it cost him 10000 l. Fine L. C. I. Well Gentlemen have you done on either side Mr. S. Pemberton If your Lordship will please to give us time till to morrow Morning we will come hither by Rule of Court and bring you some Certificates and Assidavits or else some Precedents that we hope will satisfie your Lordship in this Matter L. C. I. No Brother we cannot do that the Question is what the Course of the Court is we have had an Account of that from Sir Samuel Astry for twelve years of his own Knowledge and from Mr. Waterhouse by him for sixty years but for Mr. Waterhouse they except against him and say he was a person that was always Lazy and did not foâ—…well understand his business and now is superannuated that is said but is but â—…is dictum perhaps it may be so perhaps not and they have offered to Examine Mr. Ince about some Opinion that he has had from this Mr. Waterhouse it may be he may have asked him some Question that may lead to it and he may have given
Case nor on the other side would I be wanting to Advise and do for my Client what I am able and lawfully may we have laboured all we could to get time for my Lords the Bishops to Imparle to this Information and we have been the more earnest in it because it concerns us who attends this Bar to take what Care we can that the Course of the Court may be observed but as for this Matter we suppose this Practice of the Court is not in Law a good Practice Now what way in the World has any man to bring this so in question as to have a Judicial Resolution of the Court about it but by such a Plea We take it that it is usual and legal for us to have an Imparlance and a man would Imparle but the Court upon Motion refused to give him an Imparlance Is it not think you very fit for the party to have this Judicially entered upon Record where all this Matter will appear and the party may be relieved by writ of Error if the Judgment of the Court should be wrong but truly I cannot see how the Court can refuse the Plea for if so be a Plea be pleaded they have their liberty to Answer it on the other side by a Replication or else to Demur and the Judgment of the Court may be had upon it one way or other but the Court will never go about to hinder any man from pleading where he may plead by Law here is a Plea put in and the Court sure will take no notice what is the Matter of the Plea till the other party have either replied or demurred the same thing may happen in any other Plea that is pleaded and the party will-be without Remedy upon a writ of Error because the Plea being Rejected there does nothing appear upon Record truly for the Court to reject and refuse this Plea would be as hard as the refusing of the Imparlance and we know no way we have to help our selves Mr. Sol. Gen. You might have entered your Suggestion for an Imparlance upon the Roll and then it would have appeared upon Record and if the Court had unjustly denied it you you would have had the benefit of that Suggestion elsewhere Truly My Lord I think if any thing be tricking this is for it is plainly ill pleading Mr. Finch Then pray demur to it Mr. Sol. Gen. No Sir 't is Fencing with the Court and that the Court won't suffer it is only to delay and if we should demur then there must be time for Arguing and what is the Question after all but whether you would be of the same Opinion to Morrow that you are to Day Sir Rob. Sawyer I would put Mr. Sollicitor in mind of Fitz Harris's Case which he knows very well he put it in a Plea and we for the King desired it might not be received but the Court gave him time to put it into Form and I was fain to joyn in Demurrer presently and so may these Gentlemen do if they please Mr. Soll. Gen. Yes Sir Robert Sawyer I do know the Case of Fitz Harris very well I was assigned of Councel by the Court for him we were four of us and there was a Plea put in but no such Plea as this there was an Indictment of High Treason against him in which Case it is agreed on all hands that the party must answer presently but because he suggested here at the Bar says he I have Matter to plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court and shewed what it was I was Impeached before the Lords in Parliament for Treason for the same Matter of which I am here Accused The Court did give him time to put this into Form and we were assigned his Council to draw it up for him and accordingly we did put that Matter into a Plea that we were here Indicted for one and the same Treason for which we were Impeached in Parliament and that that Impeachment was still depending and so we rested in the Judgment of the Court whether we should be put to Answer it here this was a Plea that carried something of weight in it and not such a trifling one as this It is true Sir Robert Sawyer who was then Attorney General did press the Court to over-rule it immediately but it being a matter of some Importance the Court would not do that but had it argued solemnly by Council on both sides and at last there was the Opinion of three Judges against one that the Plea was no good Plea But what is that to such a trifling Plea as this Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord favour me a few words about that Case of Mr. Fitz Harris it is true there was a Plea put in and it is true also that that which brought that Plea to be argued was the Demurrer that was put in by Sir Robert Sawyer who was so zealous and hasty in the matter that because the Court did not presently over-rule the Plea as he desired he immediately Demurred before the rest of the King's Council could offer at any thing about it and thereupon it was put to the Judgment of the Court and no doubt must be argued and spoke to on both sides but where Pleas are really in abuse of the Court the Court never gives any Countenance to them Nay truly I have known another Course taken I am unwilling to mention a Case that hapned much about that time too in this Court because of that regard I have to my Lords the Bishops but Sir Robert Sawyer remembers it very well I am sure it was the Case of one Whitaker who for a thing like this putting in a trifling Plea not only had his Plea rejected but something else was ordered I could shew the Precedent but that I am more tender than to press it in this Case because there the Court ordered an Attachment to go against him but I will put these Gentlemen in mind of another Case and that is the Case of a Peer too it is the Case of my Lord Delameere which they cannot but remember it being in the highest Case a Case of Treason when my Lord Delameere was Arraigned and to be Tryed for High Treason he put in a Plea before my Lord Chancellor who was then High Steward and Sir Robert Sawyer who was then Attorney General prayed the Lord Steward and the Peers to reject it and the Court did reject it as we hope the Court will do this and would never so far delay Justice as to admit of a Plea that carried no Colour in it and there was no Demurrer put into the Plea but it was absolutely refused My Lord in this Case we have had the Judgment of the Court already and therefore we must now desire that this Plea may be rejected Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord we have now gone out of the way far enough already it is time for us to return and bring the Case into its due methods We pray
spoke Brother Pemberton and I would willingly hear you what you have to say but we must not have vying and revying for then we shall have no end Mr. Serj. Levinz I would offer your Lordship some new matter which has not been touched upon yet why it is not to be Read. L. C. I. What 's that Brother Mr. Serj. Levinz All the proof that has been given whatsoever it amounts to has been only of its being Written but no proof has been given of its being Written in the County of Middlesex where the Information is laid and the matter is Local Mr. Sol. Gen. First Read it and then make your Objection Mr. Recorder My Lord as to the Evidence that has been given I would only put your Lordship in mind of one Case and that was the Case of Sir Samuel Barnardiston and the great Evidence there was the proof of its being his Hand-writing and that being proved was sufficient to Convict him of a Libel for they could not believe Sir Samuel Barnardiston was Guilty of making Libels unless they were proved to be his Hand-writing Sir Robert Sawyer He owned them to be his Hand-writing L. C. I. If you do expect my Opinion in it whether this be good Evidence and whether this Paper be proved or no I am ready to give it Mr. Finch My Lord I desire to be heard before the Opinion of the Court be given Mr. Sol. Gen. If there be not proof enough to induce the Jury to believe this is their Paper yet sure there is enough to Read it Sir Robert Sawyer My Lord we have not been heard to this yet Mr. Sol. Gen. Why is this fit to be suffered L. C. I. Mr. Sol. I am always willing to hear Mr. Finch Mr. Sol. Gen. But I hope your Lordship and the Court are not to be Complemented into an unusual thing Mr. Serj. Pemberton It is not a Complement but Right and Justice Mr. Sol. Gen. Certainly it is Right and Justice that there should be some limits put to Men's speaking that we may know when to have an end Sir Robert Sawyer Mr. Sollicitor does mistake the right my Lord for we desire to be heard to this Point as not having spoke to it yet Mr. Sol. Gen. Pray Sir let me make my Objection to your being heard for I believe you and I have been chid several times for speaking over and over the same thing Sir R. Sawyer This that we now offer iâ—… not to the same Point that we have spoken to already Mr. Sol. Gen. We are now speaking to the Reading of the Paper and you have spoken to it already Sir R. Sawyer If the Court will please to hear us we have that to offer against the Reading of that Paper which has not been offered yet L. C. I. Sir Robert Sawyer I take it it is in the Breast of the Court â—…o heâ—… when they will and as much as they will and whom they will for if Three or Four have been heard of a side to speak what they will the Court may very well depend upon the Learning of those Three or Four that they say what can be said upon the Point and that 's enough but if Six or Seven desire to be heard over and over to the same thing certainly the Court may stop at Three or Four if they will. Sir R. Sawyer This is a new Objection that none of us have been heard to yet Mr. Finch My Lord that which I offer is not contrary to the Rules of Law nor contrary to the Practice of the Court nor was I going any way to invade that Priviledge which Mr. Sollicitor claims of making Objections and not receiving an Answer Mr. Sol. Gen. What a fine Declamation you have now made I never claimed any such right but I oppose your being heard over and over to the same thing Mr. Att. Gen. Pray my Lord let 's come to some Issue in this matter L. C. I. I will hear you but I would not have you introduce it with a reflection upon the King's Council Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord if you impose that upon him you stop his Mouth for some Men cannot speak without reflection L. C. I. On the other side pray Mr. Sollicitor give us leave to hear fairly what they have to say for I perceive he cannot offer to speak but you presently stop his Mouth Mr. Finch My Lord that which I was going to say is another matter than any thing that has been yet offered We say that this Paper ought not to be Read for that they are obliged by Law to prove their Information and consequently having laid a particular place where the thing was done in the Information they ought to prove that this was done in that place The Evidence that they have given is of my Lords the Bishops Writing this Paper and they have laid it to be done in Middlesex and this with submission to your Lordship is local and they must prove it to be Written in Middlesex where they have laid it or else they fail in their proof This is another Objection which as yet hath not been spoken to That if there be a proof of their Hand-writing yet there is no proof where that Hand was Written and therefore they are not yet got so far as to have it Read against my Lords Mr. Att. Gen. For that Point my Lord we say This would have been as properly said after the Paper had been Read when they come to make Objections against our Proof by way of Defence and with submission it had been more proper then than it is now For what are we now doing My Lord we are Proving that such a Paper was Subscribed by my Lords the Bishops and Sir Iohn Nicholas gives you an Account that he had it from his Majesty at the Council and that certainly is in the County of Middlesex and iâ—… will concern you to Prove that it was Written elsewhere Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's very well Mr. Attorney sure you do not think as you speak Mr. Att. Gen. Here is a Paper Composed and Written by you that Sir Iohn Nicholas says he had from his Majesty how he came by it I suppose you will tell us by and by this is your Hand-writing that I think we have proved sufficiently this is found in the County of Middlesex and you come and tell us that we must Prove that it was Written in the County of Middlesex and it is taken to be Written where it was found unless you Prove the contrary Mr. Serj. Pemberton That 's pretty Doctrine indeed and very new Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord here 's an Objection made too timely we are now upon Reading of this Paper and the Question is Whether it shall be Read or not be Read. Surely we have given Evidence enough to induce the Court to Read it and it is another Question that will come time enough afterwards Where it was Writen L. C. I. Truly I do not think it
giving Reasons for the Disobedience in a Libellous Petition and I am going on to that The Declaration is said in the Petition to be Illegal which is a Charge upon the King That he has done an Illegal Act. They say they cannot in Honor Conscience or Prudence do it which is a Reflection upon the Prudence Justice and Honour of the King in Commanding them to do such a thing And this appearing to have been delivered to the King by my Lords the Bishops Persons to whom certainly we all owe a Deference as our Spiritual Masters to believe what things they say as most likely to be true and therefore it having an Universal Influence upon all the People I shall leave it here to your Lordship and the Jury whether they ought not to Answer for it Mr. Recorder Will your Lordship please to spare me one Word L. Ch. Iust. I hope we shall have done by and by Mr. Recorder If your Lordship don't think fit I can sit down L. Ch. Iust. No no go on Sir Barth Shore you 'll say I have spoiled a good Speech Mr. Recorder I have no good one to make my Lord I have but a very few Words to say L. Ch. Iust. Well go on Sir. Mr. Recorder That which I would urge my Lord is only this I think my Lord we have Proved one Information and that they have made no Answer to it for the Answer they have made is but Argumentative and taken either from the Persons of the Defendants as Peers or from the Form of its being a Petition As Peers it is said they have a Right to Petition to and Advise the King but that is no Excuse at all for if it contains Matter Reproachful or Scandalous it is a Libel in Them as well as in any other Subject and they have no more Right to Libel the King than His Majesties other Subjects have nor will the Priviledge of their Peerage exempt them from being Punished And for the Form of this Paper as being a Petition there is no more Excuse in that neither For every Man has as much Right to Publish a Book or Pamphlet as they had to Present their Petition And as it would be Punishable in that Man to Write a Scandalous Book so it would be Punishable in them to make a Scandalous and a Libellous Petition And the Author of Iulian the Apostate because he was a Clergy Man and a Learned Man too had as much Right to Publish his Book as my Lords the Bishops had to Deliver this Libel to the King. And if the City of London were so severely Punished as to lose their Charter for Petitioning for the Sitting of a Parliament in which there were Reflecting Words but more Soft Mr. Iust. Holloway Pray good Mr. Recorder don't compair the Writing of a Book to the Making of a Petition for it 's the Birth-right of the Subject to Petition Mr. Recorder My Lord it was as Lawful for the City of London to Petition for the Sitting of a Parliament as it was for my Lords the Bishops to give Reasons for their Disobedience to the King's Command And if the Matter of the City of Londons Petition was reckoned to be Libellous in saying that what the King had done in Dissolving the Parliament was an Obstruction of Justice what other Construction can be made of my Lords the Bishops saying that the King's Declaration is Illegal And if the Matter of this Petition be of the same Nature with that of the City of London your Lordship can make no other Judgment of it but that it ought to have the same Condemnation Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Recorder you will as soon bring the Two Poles together as make this Petition to agree with Iohnson's Book they are no more alike than the most different things you can name Mr. Serj. Trinder My Lord I have but one Word L. Ch. Iust. How unreasonable is this now that we must have so many Speeches at this time of Day But we must hear it go on Brother Mr. Serj. Trinder My Lord if your Lordship pleases That which they seem most to insist upon on the other side and which has not been much spoken to on our side is That this Power which His Majesty has Exerted in setting forth His Declaration was Illegal and their Arguments were Hypothetical If it were Illegal they had not Offended and they offered at some Arguments to prove it Illegal But as to that my Lord we need not go much further than a Case that is very well known here which I crave leave to mention only because the Jury perhaps have not heard of it and that was the Case of Sir Edward Hales where after a long Debate it was Resolved That the King had a Power to Dispense with Penal Laws But my Lord if I should go higher into our Books of Law that which they seem to make so strange of might easily be made appear to have been a frequent and constant practice L. Ch. Iust. That is quite out of the Case Brother Mr. Serj. Trinder I beg your Lorships Favour for a Word or two if your Lordship please to Consider the Power the King has as Supreme Ordinary we say he has a Power to Dispense with these Statutes as he is King and to give Ease to his Subjects as Supreme Ordinary of the whole Kingdom and as having Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority throughout the Kingdom There might be abundance of Cases cited for this if there were need the Statute of primo Eliz. doubtless is in Force at this time and a great many of the Statutes that have been made since that time have express Savings of the King's Supremacy so that the King's Power is Unquestionable And if they have come and Questioned this Power in this manner by referring themselves to the Declarations in Parliament they have done that which of late Days has been always look'd upon as an Ill thing as if the King's Authority was under the Suffrages of a Parliament But when they come to make out their Parliament Declarations there was never a one unless it be first in Richard the Seconds time that can properly be called a Parliament Declaration so that that of the several Parliaments is a Matter perfectly mistaken and if they have mistaken it it is in the Nature of false News which is a Crime for which the Law will Punish them More things might be added but I consider your Lordship has had a great deal of Patience already and much time has been spent and therefore I shall conclude begging your Lordships Pardon for what I have said L. Ch. Iust. I do assure you if it had not been a Case of great Concern I would not have heard you so long It is a Case of very great Concern to the King and the Government on the one side and to my Lords the Bishops on the other and I have taken all the Care I can to observe what has been said on both sides 'T
not at all to the purpose That is but what was offered in another Case that may be remembred and offered by way of Plea and pressed with a great deal of Earnestness but Rejected by the Court and now what could not be receiv'd then by way of Plea these Gentlemen would by their Importunity have you receive by way of Parole at the Bar I suppose the Design is to entertain this great Auditory with an Haraâ—…gue and think to perswade the weak men of the World for the wise are not to be imposed upon that they are in the Right and we in the wrong under Favour my Lord we are in the Right for the King we desire this Information may be read and let them plead what by Law they can to it according to the Course of the Court but that which they now urge is untimely and out of Course Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we offer this to your Lordship Mr. Att. Gen. Why Gentlemen you have been heard before your time already Mr. S. Pemberton Pray my Lord give us leave to answer what the Kings Counsel have objected L. C. I. The Kings Counsel have answered your Objections and we must not permit Vying and Re-vying upon one another if you have no more to say but only as to the Matters that have been urged you have been heard to it on both sides already Mr. S. Pemberton I would if you please answer what has been objected by the Kings Counsel and state the Case aright Mr. Iust. Allybone Brother Pemberton I do not apprehend that the Objection you make against this Commitment has any weight in it The Objection as I take it is this that these Lords were not legally committed because they were committed says the Return by such and such Lords of the Council particularly named and it does not specifie them to be united in the Privy Council now truly with me that seems to have no weight at all and I will tell you why If my Lord Chief Iustice do commit any Person and set his Name to the Warrant he does not use to add to his Name Lord Chief Iustice but he is known to be so without that Addition and would you have a different Return from the Lieutenant of the Tower to a Habeas Corpus than the Warrant it self will justifie the Lords do not use to write themselves Privy Counsellors they are known to be so as well as a Judge who only writes his Name and does not use to make the addition of his Office. Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray my Lord give me leave to be heard to this I think truly it is a weighty Objection for under Favour we say it must upon the Return here appear that they were legally committed before you can charge them with an Information I do not take Exceptions to the Warrant because it is subscribed by such Lords and they do not write themselves Lords of the Council they need not do that and the Return has averred that they are so But the Return ought to have been that it was by Order of the Privy Council and so it must be if they would shew my Lords to be legally committed that they were committed by Order of the Privy Council and not by such and such particular Persons Lords of the Privy Council so in the Case put by Mr. Iustice Allybone of a Commitment by your Lordship or any of the Judges it must be returned to be by such a Warrant by such a One Chief Iustice for that shews the Authority of the Person committing and then your Lordships Name to it indeed is enough without the Addition But if it does not appear by the Return that there was sufficient Authority in the Person to commit your Lordship cannot take it to be a Legal Commitment But now in this Case they could have no Authority to commit but in Council and this Return seems to make it done by them as particular Persons and that 's not a good Return with your Lordships favour upon which these Reverend and Noble Lords can be detained in Prison But what do they on the other side say to this Why we shall be heard to it anon but my Lord they very well know it would be too late for that Effect which we desire of our Motion and therefore we lay the Objections before you now in its proper time say we you ought not to read any Information against us because we are not legally here before the Court and sure that which was said by the Kings Councel that your Lordship may charge any One that you find here in Court which way soever he comes in cannot be legal Mr. Att. Gen. Who ever said so Sir Robert Sawyer I apprehended you said so Mr. Attorney or else you said nothing Mr. Att. Gen. Sir Robert Sawyer You of that side have a way of letting your selves in to say the same things over and over again and of making us to say what you please Sir Rob. Sawyer Truly I did apprehend you laid down that for Doctrine which I thought a very strange One for we say with your Lordships favour he that is in Court without a Legal process is not in Court so as to be charged with an Information S. Pemberton My Lord It is not the Body being found here that intitles the Court to proceed upon it but the person accused is to be brought in by Legal Process Then if we be not here by Legal Process the Information cannot be charged upon us and if we suffer it to be read it will be too late for us to make this Objection L. C. I. That you have all said over and over and they have given it an Answer Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Serjeant will you make an end you have repeated your Objection over and over I know not how often and will never be contented with our Answer Mr. I. Allyb. Sir Rob. Sawyer That which you said in Answer to the Case I put methinks does not answer it For if the Return be as good that it was by a Warrant from such an one Lord Chief Iustice as if my Lord Chief Iustice had added the Title of his Office to his own Name when he subscribed the Warrant Then this Return That this was done by such and such Lords of the Council must be as good as if they had added that to their own Names Sir Rob. Sawyer That is not our Objection Mr. Att. Gen. Your Objection has been heard and answered we pray the Information may be read Mr. Serj. Pemberton No we are not come to that yet Mr. I. Allyb. Pray would you have an Averment by the Lieutenant of the Tower in his Return to an Habeas Corpus that it was done by them in the Council-Chamber Mr. Finch My Lord The Difference is this with Submission a Commitment by Sir Rob. Wright Ch Justice is a good Commitment and a Return of that Nature were a good Return because he is Chief Justice all over
England and hath Authority to commit wherever he is but a Commitment by such an one or such and such Lords of the Privy-Council cannot be a good Return of a Commitment because though they be Lords of the Council yet neither single or apart nor all together have Authority to do such an Act unless they be assembled in the Privy-Council there their Authority is circumscribed so that that must needs be a great difference between a Commitment made by a Judge who is always so and a Commitment by a Lord or so many Lords by the Name of Lords of the Privy-Council who carry not their Authority about with them but are limited to their Assembly in Council Mr. I. Allyb. Mr. Finch Indeed your Objection is worth something if my Lord Chief Justice could not act but as under the character of Chief Justice for you are now arguing that these Lords could not do this Act but as Lords of the Council in Council the same say I may be said of a Commitment by the Lord Chief Justice he cannot do it but under the formality of his Authority as he is Chief Justice unless you will make it impossible for him to do any thing but as Chief Justice or unless you make it impossible to separate his Person from his Authority Mr. Finch But Sir the difference lies here the Authority of the one is general and universal and goeth with him wherever he goes the other's Authority is limited to a particular sphere Mr I. Allyb. Why would you have it averred That they did it being assembled in Council Mr. Finch Under favour they cannot justifie any thing that was done by them as Lords of the Council but in the Privy-Council Mr. I. Powel Truly my Lord for my part I think there is no such great necessity of haste in this matter Here are Exceptions taken to this Return and the matter transacted now before us appears to me to be of very great weight peradventure a greater or a weightier has not been agitated in this place in any Age it concerns these Noble and Reverend Lords in point of Liberty it comes suddenly upon us and therefore my Lord I think it very fit we should consider a little of this matter and consult the Precedents of Returns how they are for there are multitudes of Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus in this Court therefore it were requisite that we did consult the Forms of other Returns and how the Precedents as to this matter have always been if they are according as this is then all is well but if they be otherwise it is fit we should keep to the usual Forms L. C. I. What 's your Opinion of it Brother Allybone Mr. I. Allyb. I am still of the same mind I was my Lord That he could make no Return but this Return he has made and if his Warrant was insufficient upon this Account that these particular persons Lords of the Privy-Council did this Act without saying that they did it in Privy-Council then 't is not his Return that could mend it and truly I do not know that there does need any Precedent for this for every one knows where the Lords of the Council are and 't is a sufficient Averment this that is in the Return Mr. Pollexfen They are Lords of the Council every where but they do not act as Lords of the Council any where but in Council Mr. I. Allyb. So my Lord Chief Justice is Chief Justice every where Mr. Finch And he can do Judicial Acts as such every where but the Lords of the Council cannot act but in the Council Mr. I. Allyb. Nor is it to be presumed that they did do it Mr. Finch It is not a presumption that is to make any thing in this case but the Question is whether here be a legal Return of a legal Commitment Mr. I. Allyb. Such publick Persons in such publick Acts can never be presumed to act in their separate private capacities Mr. Finch But with submission your Lordships can judge only what is before you in this Return whether it be a good Return and whether here be a good Authority asserted in the persons that did commit my Lords the Bishops L. C. I. Truly as to this Objection and Exception that has been made by them I have considered of it and what has been said on all sides and I think 't is the usual way of Commitment I never saw any other all the Warrants that ever I saw are of this Form if there were any Precedents they should be shewn of that side Sir Robert Sawyer There are multitudes of Precedents otherwise and none of this Form. L. I. C. I confess 't is a Case of great Weight and the Persons concerned are of great Honour and Value and I would be as willing as any body to testifie my Respects and Regards to my Lords the Bishops if I could see any thing in it worth considering of Mr. Sol. Gen. There 's no colour for it if they do but look upon the Statute of the 16th and 17th of the late King which arraigns the Proceedings of his Privy-Council that tells you what things belong to the cognizance of the Privy-Council and what not and there you have all the Distinctions about Commitments by the King and Council and by the Lords of the Council And that Act will shew that this is a Commitment according to the usual Form They know very well what the common Style of the Orders and Commitments of Council is as in other places and other Commitments By such an one Chief Iustice that is the Style that is very well known for such Warrants So a Commitment by such and such naming them particularly Lords of the Council that 's an Order made by the Lords in Council and that Statute distinguishes between Commitments of one sort and the other and it does it because sometimes Warrants run in one form and sometimes in another but they all come within the Direction of that Statute My Lord we are in a plain Case my Lords the Bishops come Regularly before you upon a Commitment by the Council and therefore we pray they may be charged with this Information Sir Robert Sawyer Pray will your Lordship give us leave to have that Statute lookt into which Mr. Sollicitor speaks of and then we shall see whether it be to his purpose L. C. I. Let the Statute be read Mr. Sol. Gen. If it be Keeble's Book it is the 16th of Charles the First if it be the Old Book it is the 16th and 17th of Car towards the end Clerk reads Provided always and be it enacted that this Act and the several Clauses therein contained shall be taken and expounded to extend onely to the Court of Star-Chamber and to the said Court holden before the President and Council in the Marches of Wales and before the President and Council in the Northern parts Mr. Soll. Gen. It is the Paragraph before that Clerk reads And be
it also provided and enacted That if any person shall hereafter be Committed Restrained of his Liberty or suffer Imprisonment by the Order and Decree of any such Court of Star-Chamber or other Court aforesaid now or at any time hereafter having or pretending to have the same or like Iurisdiction Power or Authority to commit or imprison as aforesaid or by the Command or Warrant of the King's Majesty his heirs or Successors in their own Persons or by the Command or Warrant of the Council-Board or of any of the Lords or others of his Majesties Privy-Council that in every such Case every person so Committed Restrained of his Liberty or suffering Imprisonment upon demand Mr. Soll. Gen. That is all Your Lordship sees these several Distiâ—…ctions of the Style of Commitment Mr. Att. Gen. Now pray favour us a little My Lord I think these Gentlemen will not deny but that the Lords of the Council can commit I must confess they ask that which was pretty reasonable if the Case was as they would make it They would have my Lords the Bishops discharged because there is not a Return of a good Commitment and that stands upon this presumption that what is here said to be done by all these Lords at the end of whose Names this is added Lords of the Privy-Council was done by them out of Council which I suppose your Lordship will not presume but will take it that they did this as Lords of the Council in Council And no man can say but the Lords in Council can commit Mr. Soll. Gen. You may as well presume upon a Warrant made by my Lord Chief Iustice because it is not said where he did it and therefore he did it in Scotland Mr. Att. Gen. I say again unless your Lordship will presume that which is not to be presumed this must needs be a very good Return Mr. I. Allyb. Truly as Mr. Sollicitor says you may as well desire us to presume that my Lord Chief Iustice would commit a man in Ireland or Scotland I can see no imaginable difference Mr. Finch My Lord That which we pray is not that your Lordship would presume but that you would not presume but take the Return as 't is before you and then see whether it can be thought to be a Commitment by the Lords in Council Mr. S. Pemberton Pray my Lord spare us a little in this matter Here has been the Clause of a Statute read to you from whence Mr. Sollicitor would conclude that all Commitments by several sorts of persons there named are legal or else the Enumeration of the several sorts of Commitments signifies nothing to this purpose But I pray your Lordship would consider this that the very scope and end of that Act of Parliament is to relieve against illegal Commitments and Oppressions then the several Commitments therein named can never all be called legal so that that signifies nothing to our purpose My Lord they tell us we stand upon Presumption no we do not so we say your Lordship ought not to presume the One or the other but to judge upon what is before you but here is nothing before you but this Return of a Commitment of these Noble Persons my Lord the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops which is said to be by these particular Lords Now if your Lordship will please to give us time to look into it for this is an Exception we take at the Bar upon hearing the Return read we would shew the constant way has been quite otherwise than this Return makes it therefore we desire leave to satisfie your Lordship concerning the usual Form of Precedents and thereby it will appear that it ought to have been that they were committed by Order of the Privy Council and then he should have set forth the Warrant it self which would have shewn the Names of the Privy Councellors and he needed not to have put their Names in the Return as the particular Persons that committed them but now my Lord this does not appear to be an Order made in Council as it ought to be and the Return is that which is before you and you are to judge only upon what is before you L. C. Iust. So we do Mr. Iustice Allybone Pray Sir Robert Sawyer would the Saying of a Governour of the Tower in his Return to a Writ of Habeas Corpus alter the Nature of the Commitment Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord We are in your Lordships Judgment Mr. Iust. Allybone I say Brother Pemberton would any collateral Saying of the Lieutenant of the Tower alter the Nature of the thing his Return in this Case is onely an Inducement to the Warrant of Commitment and his Saying one way or t'other would neither vitiate nor mend the Commitment Mr Soll. Gen. Your Lordship cannot take notice of the Commitment but from the Warrant Mr. Pollexfen The Return is the Fact upon which you are to judge Mr. Iust. Powel Certainly we must judge of the Record and nothing else and the Return is the Record now being filed L. Ch. Iust. The Return is as certain I think as can be Mr. Soll. Gen. By the Return it appears the Bishops were committed by the Warrant of such and such Lords of the Council and that which is before you now is whether you will not intend it to be done by them in Council Mr. Iust. Powel We can intend nothing but must take the Return as ' t is Lord Chief Iust. The Warrant is good enough I think truly and so is the Return Mr. Pollexfen I think in all the Habeas Corpus's that have been since the King's return of Persons committed by the Council the Returns have been quite otherwise than this Return is We do all pretty well agree for ought I can perceive in these two things We do not deny but the Council Board has Power to commit they on the other side do not affirm that the Lords of the Council can commit out of Council Mr. Att. Gen. Yes they may as Justices of the Peace Mr. Pollexfen That is not pretended to be so here L. Ch. Iust. No no that is not the Case Mr. Pollexfen Then my Lord with submission I will compare it to any thing else of this nature I deny not but that the Council may commit but the Question is whether this Return of their Commitment be right Suppose there should be a Return to a Habeas Corpus that such a one was committed by Sir Robert Wright and three others by Name Justices of this Court for a Contempt without saying that it was done in Court this would be an ill Return although they had power in Court to commit for a Contempt yet it must appear that it was done in Court or it cannot be a good Return If I had thought or foreseen that such a Return would have been made I could easily have made out our Objection but we could not foretell what they would return and therefore
we can only make this Objection now upon the hearing of it read In all the Debates that have been heretofore in the Great Case of the Habeas Corpus concerning my Lord Hollis and those other Gentlemen who were in Prison upon Commitments by the Privy Council the Returns are that they were committed by Order of the Privy Council as near as I can remember I will not take it upon me to be positive in it but I believe if your Lordships thought fit to give us a short time to look into it we should be plainly able to shew you that all the Returns of Commitments of this nature are said to be by Order of the Council-Board and never any of them naming the Lords for that may be true and yet not a Legal Commitment Lord Ch. Iustice. I have seen several Precedents of Commitments in this Form and if you make no Exception to the Warrant you can make no Exception to the Return because that only sets forth the Warrant Mr. Pollexfen The Commitment you are to judge of is upon the Return with submission and supposing the Warrant to be right and good yet the Return is not Legal Mr. Attorn Gen. We say in common Understanding it cannot be but a Commitment in Council Mr. S. Pemberton But common Understanding and legal Understanding are two things and we pray the Judgment of the Court. Mr. Soll. Gen. And so do we my Lord and pray your Rule in it Mr. Iustice Allybone You may by the same reason say that upon all Commitments by Warrant from Justices of the Peace that the Commitment was out of the County if the Party does not alledge in the Warrant or Return that the Commitment was in the County 'T is an Objection that would put us upon presuming what we have no reason to presume L. Ch. Iustice. If you would have our Opinions let my Brothers declare theirs I will soon tell you my mind Mr. Iustice Holloway Pray let the Return be read again which was done Mr. Attorn Gen. So that the Return says they were committed by vertue of a Warrant of such and such by Name Lords of the Council and whether this be a Warrant of the Council is the Question and we think it is plain enough that 't is a good Return Mr. Iustice Powell I have given you my thoughts already I think we ought to consult Precedents in a Case of this Weight and Nature and truly I will not take upon me to say whether it be a good Return or not a good Return without looking into Precedents Mr. Iust. Allybone For my own part it does not stick at all with me for the Reasons I gave before when any man that has an Authority to commit does commit a Person to an Inferiour Officer and that Officer has an Habeas Corpus brought to him it is enough for him to return his Warrant by which the Party was committed and whatsoever he sayes by the bye cannot have any Influence one way or other to alter the nature of the thing Now unless you would make every man that is a Justice of the Peace write his Name and stile himself Justice of the Peace this must be a good Commitment Every Commitment shall be presumed to be pursuant to the power of the Person committing and I am sure take these Lords separately and they had no power to commit and consequently such a Warrant would be no Authority to the Lieutenant of the Tower to receive them But when they send such a Warrant as this we shall presume it to be according to the Power they have and not according to the Power they have not this Warrant is returned by the Officer and I cannot but presume that it is all very well Mr. Iustice Holloway My Lords I am very desirous and willing your Lordships should have all the Right and Justice done you that can be and by the Grace of God I will endeavour it all I can I see in this Case it is agreed on both sides that the Council have a power to commit and the Commitment is here certified in the words of the Warrant and the Lieutenant has made his Return that they were committed by vertue of this Warrant If the Lieutenant of the Tower had returned any other Commitment you would have blamed him for a false Return but now you find fault with his Return because he does not say the Warrant was made by the Lords of the Council and in Council That is a thing so notoriously known to all the Kingdom that my Lords were sent to the Tower by the Council that no body doubts it and being thus sent by this Warrant I do not see but that this is a very good Return and my Judgment is that the Information ought to be read Lord Ch. Iust. I told you in the beginning after you had made your Objections that I thought it was as all other Returns are and I am of the same Opinion still I find no fault with the Warrant nor with the Return Mr. Serj. Pemberton There is no Objection to the Warrant at present upon this Question L. Ch. Iust. Neither do I take upon me to say any thing nor is there any thing now to be spoken of touching the Fact for which these Noble Lords were committed Mr. Att. Gen. We pray my Lord the Information may be read Mr. Iust. Holloway There is no question about the Fact but whether this be a good Return which is here made that they were committed by such and such Lords of the Council L. Ch. Iust. I would do as much to give my Lords the Bishops case and set them at liberty as I could possibly by Law but we must not break the Rules of Law for any one Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray read the Information Mr. Finch No my Lord we oppose the reading of it Mr. Sollicitor Gen. Why will not you be satisfied with the Opinion of the Court Mr. Finch We have another thing to offer which we must have the Opinion of the Court in before this Information can be Read. Mr. Att. Gen. Pray let us hear it what it is Mr. Finch My Lord we did humbly offer one Objection more to your Lordship against the reading of the Information the former objection was concerning the Persons Committing in that it does not sufficiently appear upon the Return that they were committed by the Lords in Council the Court have given their opinion in that But the other objection still remains whether they ought to have been committed at all and therefore when they now appear upon this Habeas Corpus we say they were not legally committed to Prison because a Peer ought not to be committed to Prison in the first instance for Misdemeanour Mr. Sollicit Gen. If you please you may speak to that by and by but that is not proper now for you to offer or for the Court to determine whether a Peer may be committed upon an Accusation for a Misdemeanour Mr. Finch
Court was and he told us that the Course of the Court of his own knowledge for all the time that he had sat as Clerk of the Crown in this Court was that when any one was brought in Custody or upon a Recognizance they were to plead presently Mr. Finch Sir Samuel Astry has not been here so very long as to make the Practice of his time the Course of the Court. L. C. Iust. But I will tell you what he said further if you will hear me he said he had enquired of Mr. Waterhouse whom we all know to have been an old Clerk in the Crown Office and he told him that that had been the practice all his time Mr. Serj. Pemb. My Lord I hope the course of the Courts of Westminster-Hall shall not depend upon the Certificate of such a one as Mr. Waterhouse who is a Man we all know is superannuated and very defective in his Memory Mr. Iust. Powel Certainly what they desire for the Defendant is very reasonable for I take the Point to be only this whether a Man may be compelled being in Custody to Plead to an Information presently Mr. Iust. Allibone Pray Brother Powell spare me a word in this matter Mr. Finch I suppose you labour that the Court will not deny you that you may have time to plead according to the course of the Court We are not making new Courses for particular Facts that by my consent we will never do but if you say such a thing is not the course of the Court and the King's Counsel affirm it is how shall this be determined and from whom can we take our Information to determine what is the course I am sure there is none of us that are here now can pretend to tell what the Ancient course was for my part I declare it I cannot and I know no reason there should be any Novelty introduced into the Court upon any ground or reason whatsoever nor will I consent to any while I sit here Therefore I desire to know what is the Ancient Course and how we shall come to the knowledge of that Course if not by the Certificate of those who have been Ancient Officers of the Court L. C. Iust. Nay that is certain the Court will bring in nothing new in any such Case as this Mr. Iust. Allibone If that hath not been the Antient Course without exception I am against it I know no Reason my Lords the Bishops should have any thing new put upon them on the other side they must not expect to have the Ancient Course of the Court declined in their Case Mr. Pollixf Pray my Lord hear me a little in this matter 't is not my desire that any Law should be altered for any particular Case and the Course of the Court I know is the Law of the Court but I humbly crave leave to say That I take the Ancient Course of the Court to be quite otherwise than what the King's Counsel would have it there may be particular things done now and then perhaps in particular Cases and upon particular Occasions which will not make what is so done to be the Course of the Court nor be a binding Rule to you Now as to this matter of time oâ—… no time to plead to an Information I remember the time very well when I and some others that stood at the Bar and wondred when we saw this practice coming in and thought it a very hard and mischievous thing for in truth the several Plots that have been and the heats of men about those things have brought in this Course for certain I am and I dare affirm there never was any such Course here before neither upon Warrant from the Chief Justice nor upon Recognizance or any other Process was a Man compelled to plead instantly without having a Capias in the regular form after a Contempt for not appearing upon Summons Truly my Lord we had no Interest in the matter one way or other to make us scruple it any otherwise than as we were concerned that the Law and Justice of the Nation should have its true and ancient Current And this I can assure your Lordships that here was both my Lord Chief Justice Saunders and Mr. Serj. Hâ—…lt and my self who take notice when this was first offered at to make a man plead immediately without giving him time to consider what he should plead could not but say among our selves that it was an unreasonable thing and we were inclined to speak to the Court to inform them of the Consequence of it which needs must be very mischievous Sir Samuel Astry we know came to be Clerk of the Crown in my Lord Scroggs's time we know 't is usual and customary for the Court to ask what is the Course of the Court in doubtful Cases and to receive the Information from the Officers of the Court on both sides If it be on the Plea side from Mr. Aston if on the Crown side from Sir Samuel Astry concerning things of Practice but I did never think that what they reported was final and conclusive to the Court But to make this matter clear I humbly pray that you would please to give order for the search of old Precedents how the old Practice really hath been every thing that has been done in hot times is not to be made a standing Rule If there do any such thing appear to have been done and practised antiently truly my Lord I will submit and say I am under a mighty mistake but if this which is now urged for the Course of the Court is nothing but what the Zeal of the Times and Heat of Persecutions hath introduced surely that is not fit to be a constant Rule for the Court to go by for every one knows that the Zeal of one time may bring in that by surprize upon one Man which when things are cooll or at another time will appear to be plain Injustice We have indeed seen strange things of this kind done before but I hope to God they are now at an end and we shall never see any such thing done hereafter and as for this particular Point I think it is a wonderful thing in the Consequence of it if the Law should be as they would have it Here is a long Information just read over to a Man but whether long or short as to the main Point 't is the same and you say the Course of the Court is he must plead to it immediately surely matters of Crime that require Punishment to be inflicted on men are of as much consequence and concern as any Civil matter whatsoever and Men are to have their Rights in those matters preserved as well as in other matters which is all I press for suppose a man has a special matter to plead as particularly suppose it be the King's Pardon I cannot give this in Evidence upon a Trial after not guilty pleaded then I ought to plead it but what if I
the Court when they came here to day Certainly they were not for no man is in contempt but he that being served with Process disobeys that Process and if my Lords the Bishops had been served with a Subpoena and had not appeared then there would have gone out a Capias to bring them in and so they would have come in upon a Contempt and then they would have come within the Rule Mr. Soll. Gen. If you have a mind to it you may ask Sir Samuel Astry again Mr. Att. Gen. If they come in upon Bail they ought to plead presently Mr. I. Allybone Mr. Finch I 'le tell you what sticks with me truly you could not but be aware that this would be required of you for this very thing was in debate last Term and you know what Rules the Officer said was the Course of the Court why did you not therefore come prepared with some Presidents to shew us what the course of the Court is Mr. Att. Gen. Truly my Lord at this rate we shall keep your Lordship here all this Afternoon if these Gentlemen will not be satisfyed with the Rule of the Court and for an Answer to what Mr. Justice Powel says if any Ryotbâ—… committed in the Countrey and the Parties are bound by Recognizance to appear here that is no process of this Court and so consequently there can be no contempt and yet they must Plead presently Mr. I. Powell There is a particular reason for that because they are bound by Recognizance Sir Samuel Astry and others say that if they come in by Recognizance they must plead presently Mr. Soll. Gen. But for the thing it self that the people that hear us may not imagine that this Court puts a hardship upon my Lords the Bishops more than is done in other Cases it is best to keep the same Rule as is in all other Cases for when all is done when Justice goes with an Equal Current without any regard to one person or other then every body is safe and all persons concerned do their duty so in this case here be no Presidents produced wherein it has been otherwise then can no person complain but that things go in this Case as they do in all other Cases perhaps such a Case as to the Fact of it never hapned before but for the Law of it that is plain and the same as in all other Cases for that there may be an Information against my Lords the Bishops as well as other people If they make Libels sure it is no doubt at all and if an Information lies against them for it they are under the same Rules as others are but these Gentlemen talk of being surprized and that this is the first time they have heard of this Information but have we told any news in this Information Was not all that is contained in it notoriously enough known before Was not the Kings first Declaration very well known Was not his second Declaration very well known Was not his Order of Councel for the Reading of the Declaration very well known Is not your own Petition a thing very well known to yourselves and all the world Then these being the particular Facts of which this Information is made up and we only say you did do this Fact and we ask you did you do it or did you not Can there be any great surprize in this My Lord I cannot see any thing that alters this from the common Case but only their being Peers and since this question has been heretofore under contest these Gentlemen have had time enough to have prepared Precedents to differ this from the common Rule if they could but since they cannot we desire they may have the same Rule that is in all other Cases and then to be sure all will go right L. C. I. Sir Samuel Astry pray will you tell us whether ever the Court used to grant an Imparlance where a person comes in in Custody or did you ever know when a person comes in upon a Commitment time was given him to Plead Mr. Ser. Pemberton Have you ever known it disputed and denyed Sir S. Astry My Lord I have known that 't is in the discretion of the Court to grant what time they please L. C. I. Is it the course of the Court to give an Imparlance Sir S. Astry No 't is the favour of the Court and if the Defendants have at any time shewed a reasonable Cause that they have special Matter to plead or any other cause allowed by the Court the Court has sometimes Indulged them so far as to give them time L. C. I. But how is the ordinary course Sir Samuel Astry Mr. I. Allybone Ay for as I said before things done in particular Cases in favour are not Precedents Sir S. Astry I have told your Lordship the Course is this that any person that appears upon a Recognizance or is taken up by your Lordships Warrant or by a Warrant from a Justice of Peace or any other way in Custody or any Officer of the Court that is a Priviledged person and that must appear in propria personâ must plead presently if the Court upon particular Reasons do not give him time and this I received Information of as the practice of the Court from Mr. Waterhouse who had been a Clerk in the Office sixty years Mr. Soll. Gen. He said so before but these Gentlemen will never be contented unless they have a new Law made for them Mr. Pollixfen My Lord I would not unnecessarily trouble your Lordship but truly this is a case of great Concern And first of all I think we shall all agree that what has been used for ten or twelve years past will not make the Course of the Court and next I perceive they do not bring any one Instance for any proceeding of this sort above ten or twelve years old but then say they on the other side Why do not you bring Presidents that it has gone otherwise hretofore My Lord that cannot be done for it is a Negative on our side that this which they desire is not the Course of the Court but then as it is impossible to prove a Negative so the Proofs should come on the other side that this has been done they ought to shew it if there has been any such thing as a standing Rule or else it shall be presumed an Innovation as being contrary to all Reason But My Lord because they put it upon us there is this Proof on our side as much as a Negative can afford In those proceedings that were in the great Case of the Habeas Corpus there was an Information against Elliot and others they had time given them to Plead over and over so that there is one Precedent And as many as these Cases in former times as can be found will show that this was always the Course but pray say they produce us one Instance that ever there was a man that came in upon a
my Lord the Bishops are not bound to Plead instantly so that 't is not a Question Whether they ought to Answer or not to Answer but whether they ought to Answer immediately and what do they say more They would have an Imparlance and time to consult with their Councel what they shall Plead which is all but one and the same thing and what is the reason they give for this They induce it thus These Noble Persons are Peers of the Realm and so ought not to be compelled to Plead immediately this if I mistake not is the sum of their Plea. Now pray my Lord what sort of Plea is this It is not a Plea to the Jurisdiction of the Court tho' it do in a sort decline the Justice of the Court Is it a Plea in Abatement No it is not for it is only to gain time and do they now offer any thing more for themselves than what was said by their Council before Only That we are Peers of the Realm and that such is the Priviledge of Peers that they ought to have an Imparlance and time to Plead and that they ought not to answer presently My Lord this Matter hath been long agitated in the Court already your Lordship and the Court have given your Judgments and we know your Lordship and the Court will not admit of Tricks to delay the Kings Causes we all know the Term is a short Term and what I said in the beginning upon this matter I say again it is the Interest and for the Honour of my Lords the Bishops if they understand their own Interest and value their Honour to have this Cause tryed as soon as may be but this trifling and tricking is only for delay For what issue can be taken upon this Plea Certainly none And if we should Demurr what will be the end of that But only to get time to slip over the Term. If there were any thing worth the considering in this Plea and that had not been already debated and setled then it might concern us to give some Answer to it but we have spent three hours by my Watch in the Dispute and the Matter having been over-ruled already it is time to have an end of it sure the Court will never be so treated by these Persons that are of Councel for my Lords the Bishops for it cannot be thought that my Lords the Bishops do it of themselves and whether the Court will be so served we submit to your Lordship Certainly you will not receive such a Plea as this especially it being in Paper you will never countenance such a Practice so far as to give these Lords time to trifle with the Court if any such thing as a Plea be tender'd to the Court it ought to be in Parchment and if they would have an Imparlance there ought to have been an entry of a Petit Licentiam inter loquendi upon the Roll but not such a Plea as this for this in effect is no more then desiring an Imparlance which if it be granted of course upon such a Prayer entred upon the Roll you take it of course but if it be not of course you cannot come in by way of Plea it must be by suggestion upon the Roll and a Conceditur entred if this be admitted as a Precedent every Man hereafter that comes in upon an Information will take advantage of it and plead such a Plea as this and if you grant an Imparlance in this Case upon this Plea you must grant an Imparlance in every Case certainly the Law is not to be altered the Methods of Proceedings ought to be the same in every Case And I hope you will not make a particular Rule in the Case of my Lords the Bishops without a special Reason for it Mr. Serj. Pemb. We put in this Plea my Lord and are ready to abide by it and we say that according to the course of the Court it ought to be received Mr. Att. Gen. No but good Mr. Serjeant 't is in the discretion of the Court whether they will receive it or not for the matter has been in debate already and has receiv'd a determination the Court has over-ruled them in this very Point already and there is no more in this Plea than was in the Argument before and therefore it ought to be rejected as a frivolous Plea. Mr. Soll. Gen. Here is a Plea offered in Writing and in Paper the Court sees what it is and I hope you will give no countenance to it Mr. Pollixfen I do hope my Lord you will not judge this as a frivolous Plea I think our Case is such that you will not do that if you think fit you may over-rule it but I hope you will not refuse it Mr. Soll. Gen. The Court will certainly reject a frivolous Plea and they may do it Mr. Pollixfen But Mr. Solliciter I hope the Court will consider of it whether it be a frivolous Plea or not it is true there has been a Debate about the course of the Court and there has been an Examination of the Clerk of the Office and the Court has gone upon his Certificate but yet still perhaps it may remain in doubt and it being a Question of such a consequence as this it may very well deserve the Court's Consideration there never was a Judicial Settlement of it that I know of yet nor do I know any way of having it satisfactorily setled but by the Judgment of the Court entred upon Record here we offer a Plea that contains the matter in debate and this Plea will appear upon Record and if upon consideration of the Plea your Lordship shall think fit to over-rule it and be of Opinion against the Plea then will you by your Resolution in a Judicial way settle the Question that has hitherto been in Controversy L. C. I. Mr. Pollixfen I would ask you whether the Council have dealt ingeniously with the Court or no in this matter after four hours debate and the Opinion of the Court delivered to come and sum up all the Arguments in such a Plea as this and so put us upon debating it over again Mr. Pollixfen My Lord certainly this has been done before without Offence after we had moved for a thing which was denied upon Motion it is no such great dis-respect to the Court with submission to put the same Matter into a Plea for the Judicial Opinion of the Court. Sir Ro. Sawyer That without all Question has been done a great many times Mr. Sol. Gen. How many times have you been accused of playing Tricks Sir Robert Sawyer Sir Rob. Sawyer Not so many as you Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. I don't ask it as if I questioned it for I assure you I don't doubt it of your part at all L. C. I. Pray Gentlemen don't fall out with one another at the Bar we have had time enough spent already Mr. Pollixfen Truly My Lord I would not trick with the Court in any
never published for the Question was before the Court whether this Sealing of it up and not delivering it to any other body were a Publication the Court was of Opinion that the very Writing of it was a Publication they did not value the delivery of it to the Prince but it was proved he Writ it and that made it Treason My Lord we have Cases enough in my Lord Hobart for this Matter Sir Baptist Hick's Case and my Lady Hattâ—…n's Case there was only a Letter sealed up and delivered to the Party L. C. I. You need not trouble your self about that Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. If the Case then be thus I take it it will turn upon this Fact they have given your Lordship no Proof where this Paper was Signed by them here are seven Persons that had a hand in it and here is only one Person whom they have insisted to be infirm and kept his House for a great while together We say the Publishing follows the Libel where-ever it goes the Libel is in the County of Middlesex they have confessed it in the County of Middlesex and they did not distinguish where it was done Then if they will not distinguish upon the Evidence no Man ought to distinguish but ought to presume it was done in that place where they owned it Mr. Attor Gen. I did not apprehend we were got so far that they Opposed us in the Publication Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes we did for you have given no Evidence of it Mr. Attor Gen. Surely my Lord for that we have give a sufficient Evidence and they have given some Proof of it as to my Lord Archbishop that because he had not been from Lambeth therefore he did not publish nor could cause it to be published for your Lordship sees by this Information they are not only to answer the Publicavit but also the Publicari causavit for do you doubt Gentlemen of the Law in this Case that if I compose a Libel in Surrey for Example and send a Person over into Middlesex I am not Guilty of the Publishing Sir Rob. Sawyer That is not your Case Mr. Attorney Mr. Finch That were clear if it were so but it is not so Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord Archbishop's Case signifies nothing if we shew it was published in Middlesex and you give no Evidence to the contrary but it might be there and I am sure as to the rest of my Lords the Bishops there is no Evidence at all given Here is a Petition that we say is a Libel they it may be will make that a Question this is delivered to the King 's own Hand in the County of Middlesex and there are as many Cases as any one Man can name that this amounts to a Publication by the Party for if I send a Letter by the Post sealed that no body can see but the Party himself and he that writ it it is adjudged over and over again it is a Libel Mr. Justice Powel That you need not labour Mr. Attorney for that 's the Case of Williams of Essex but how do you apply it to the Case now before us Mr. Attor Gen. That 's an Answer to their Objection as to the Publication Mr. Justice Powel But what say you to the first part you have not proved that it was written in Middlesex Mr. Attor Gen. There is the Case of Barrow and Lewellin in Hobart and likewise the Case of Sir Baptist Hicks which is reported both in Hobart and in Popham and in Popham towards the end of the Case there is a remarkable Passage Says that Case If it should not be punishable at the Suit of the King there would be no Remedy for the Party cannot bring an Action because he can be no Witness for himself and it is only known betwixt them two but a Witness for the King he may be to prove his own Receipt of the Letter and the Party's Hand Mr. Justice Powel You need not labour that Point I 'll tell you Mr. Attorney for the Law is very clear in that Point I think if you bring it home to your Case Mr. Attor Gen. Then here 's the Case in short my Lord That my Lords the Bishops have caused to be made and written this Petition they are made Parties to it by setting their Names and this is a continued Act whatsoever is written there is my Lord Archbishop's Writing where-ever it goes as I 'll put you a Case that 's very well known If I take away Goods from a Man in the County of Cumberland and I am found with them in the County of Middlesex it is a continued Act and makes all but one Felony and I shall be Tried here in Middlesex for it If a Man write a thing in one County and it is sent and dispersed in another County that still continues to be his Fact though it may be the first part was not in the same County with the other but suppose all this while that part should not affect my Lord of Canterbury the causing it to be Published does Mr. Justice Powel Do you think Mr. Attorney that writing in one County is such a continued Act that he may be said to write it in another County Mr. Attor Gen. Sir I take it where there is a complicated Crime of Writing and Publishing a Libel and the beginning of it is in one County and the carrying it on is in another that is a continued Act and may be Tried in either County L. C. I. It is all one Act of Libelling as they say Mr. Iust. Holloway In Cases of Felony 't is so taking in one County and being found with the Goods in another it is Felony in either County Mr. Iust. Powel But in that Case they are two Felonies for it is Robbery in the one County and but bare Felony in the other Mr. Sol. Gen. Suppose that my Lords the Bishops Signed this Paper in another County and my Lord Archbishop consents to have it sent into Middlesex is not this a causing it to be published in another County Mr. Iust. Powel Yes it may be if you prove his Consent Mr. Sol. Gen. Then suppose further which may very well consiâ—…t with my Lord Archbishop's Evidence of his not being out of Lambeth in so long time the rest of the Bishops might sign it in Middlesex or it may be in that Place and then they carry it by my Lords consent over hither into this County is not this a causing it to be published the Delivery with his Consent certainly is a Proof of that for our Information goes two ways For Making Contriving Writing and Publishing that 's one And then For causing it to be Made Contrived and Published that 's the other And if I prove that he caused it to be published he may be found Guilty as to that part and not Guilty as to the other for the Information is not so intire but that the King has his choice if the Archbishop had
and a Man must not be his own Judg nor his own Carver nor must every Man create Difficulties of his own nor set upon Petitioning in this sort But there I lay my Foundation That in such a matter as this there ought to have been the Impeachment of the Commons in Parliament before these Lords could do any thing and I know nothing can be said for the Bishops more than this That they were under an Anathema under the Curse that Sir Robert Sawyer speaks of and for fear of that they took this Irregular Course But some would say Better fall into the hands of God than of Men some would say so I say I know not what they would say but these being the Methods that these Lords should have taken they should have pursued that Method the Law should have carved out their Relief and Remedy for them but they were for going by a new Fancy of their Own. My Lord the Law continued thus and was practised so till the 3. Hen. 7. where the Grievance was found that Offences in the Intervals of Parliament could not be well punished and then comes the Statute that sets up the Court of Star-Chamber and there Men were often brought to Judgment and Punishment for their Sins and though very great Power was given them yet they arrogated to themselves a greater and therefore that Court is abolished by the Statute of the 15th Car. 1. and what is the reason of abolishing that Statute Because the Star-Chamber did not keep within their bounds that the Law set them but assumed to themselves a larger Power than the Law would allow and grew very Exorbitant and very Grievous to the Subject And another reason was which the Statute of 15th Car. 1. founded it self upon because there was nothing that was brought in Judgment before that Court but might be relieved and remedied in the oridinary methods of Justice in the Courts of Westminster Hall So that upon those two Considerations because that Course was exorbitant and because all the Sins and Misdemeanours that were punished there might be punished in an ordinary way of Law in another Court and therefore there was no need of that Court and so it was abolished and the Subject was pretty safe If there was a Crime committed here a Man might come properly before your Lordship into this Court and have it punished My Lord they find fault with the Words in the Information and they say why are these Words put in Seditious Malicious If the matter be Libellous and Seditious we may Lawfully say it and it is no more than the Law speaks it results out of the Matter it self and if it be a Libellous Paper the Law says it is Maliciously and Seditiously done and these Gentlemen need not quarrel with us for so are all the Informations in all times past and 't is no more than the Vi Armis which is Common Form. It may be said How can the publishing of a Libel be said to be done Vi Armis That is only a Supposition of Law and they may as well Object to the conclusion of the Information that it was Contra Coronam Dignitatem Domini Regis if it be an Illegal thing or a Libel these are necessary Consequences it is no more than the speaking of the Law upon the Fact. But my Lord let us a little consider whether this Matter were Warrantable and whether they had any Warrant to do what was done they pretend it was done upon this Account That the King had set forth a Declaration and had Ordered them to Read it which to excuse themselves from they make this Petition or this Libel call it what you will and they use this as the main Argument That they say the King has done Illegally and they tell the King plainly so that it is Illegal for they take notice of this Declaration and say it is Illegal because it is contrary to the Declarations of Parliament in 1662 1672 and 1685. Pray my Lord let us consider a little whether there be any Declaration in Parliament that they have given Evidence of Have they read any Declaration of the Parliament in 1662 What is a Declaration in Parliament but a Bill that is passed by the King Lords and Commons That we know to be the meaning and no other if it pass the Commons it is no Declaration in Parliament nay if it pass the Lords and Commons it is not a Declaration in Parliament except it also pass the King all these things are Nullities and the Law takes no notice of them we have it in our Books over and over and no Court ought to suffer such Evidence to be given I know these Gentlemen are very well acquainted with the Authority in Fitz-Herbert's Title Parliament there was an Act that was said to be by the King and the Lords but because the Commons did not agree to it it is declared and adjudged to be a Nullity and the Court would take no notice of it and how can any Man call that a Declaration in Parliament which is only a Vote of the House of Commons or of the Lords No sure that is one of the Heads I go upon It 's not a Declaration in Parliament unless it be by Act of Parliament Indeed my Lord there is another sort of a Declaration in Parliament before the Lords as they are a Court of Judicature and that is a fair Declaration too for if any thing comes Judicially before the Lords either by Writ of Error or by natural Appeal from any of the other Courts or by Adjournment and there be any Judgment given That is a Declaration in Parliament and may be fairly so called So likewise there is another Judicial Declaration which is when any thing comes before the Lords Judicially upon an Impeachment of the Commons and they give Judgment upon that Impeachment That is a Declaration in Parliament But to say that there is any other Declaration in Parliament is to say more than these Gentlemen can make out if they will shew me any such I will submit to them and not speak a Word against my Lords the Bishops but if these Learned Gentlemen cannot shew me any such then they have not said that was true in this Petition that it was so and so declared in Parliament For let us consider what there is in this Case upon this Evidence for that in 1662. is only a Vote and an Opinion of the House of Commons and I always understood and have been told so by some of the Gentlemen of the other side that such a Vote signifies nothing But besides it seems to be a mistaken Address for they say in it That the Declaration in 1662. which they Address against was the first Declaration of that sort to suspend Laws without Act of Parliament and yet in the same breath they do take notice of the King's Declaration from Breda But here is a mighty Argument used from the King's Speech That
is always for the Good of the People but I say those Concessions must not be made Law for that is reserved in the King's Breast to do what he pleases in it at any time The truth of it is the Dispensing Power is out of the Case it is only a Word used in the Petition but truly I will not take upon me to give my Opinion in the Question to determine that now for it is not before me The only Question before me is and so it is before you Gentlemen it being a Question of Fact Whether here be a certain Proof of a Publication And then the next Question is a Question of Law indeed Whether if there be a Publication proved it be a Libel Gentlemen upon the point of the Publication I have summed up all the Evidence to you and if you believe that the Petition which these Lords presented to the King was this Petition truly I think that is a Publication sufficient if you do not believe it was this Petition then my Lords the Bishops are not Guilty of what is laid to their Charge in this Information and consequently there needs no Inquiry whether they are Guilty of a Libel But if you do believe that this was the Petition they presented to the King then we must come to Inquire whether this be a Libel Now Gentlemen any thing that shall disturb the Government or make Mischief and a Stir among the People is certainly within the Case of Libellis Famosis and I must in short give you my Opinion I do take it to be a Libel Now this being a point of Law if my Brothers have any thing to say to it I suppose they will deliver their Opinions Mr. Iust. Holloway Look you Gentlemen it is not usual for any Person to say any thing after the Chief Justice has summed up the Evidence it is not according to the Course of the Court but this is a Case of an Extraordinary Nature and there being a point of Law in it it is fit every body should deliver their own Opinion The Question is whether this Petition of my Lords the Bishops be a Libel or no Gentlemen the End and Intention of every Action is to be Considered and likewise in this Case we are to Consider the Nature of the Offence that these Noble Persons are Charged with it is for delivering a Petition which according as they have made their Defence was with all the Humility and Decency that could be So that if there was ill Intent and they were not as it is nor can be pretended they were Men of Evil Lives or the like to deliver a Petition cannot be a Fault it being the Right of every Subject to Petition If you are satisfied there was an ill Intention of Sedition or the like you ought to find them Guilty but if there be nothing in the Case that you find but only that they did deliver a Petition to save themselves harmless and to free themselves from blame by shewing the Reason of their Disobedience to the King's Command which they apprehended to be a Grievance to them and which they could not in Conscience give Obedience to I cannot think it is a Libel It is left to you Gentlemen but that is my Opinion L. Oh. Iust. Look you by the way Brother I did not ask you to sum up the Evidence for that is not usual but only to deliver your Opinion whether it be a Libel or no. Mr. Iust. Powel Truly I cannot see for my part any thing of Sedition or any other Crime fixed upon these Reverend Fathers my Lords the Bishops For Gentlemen to make it a Libel it must be False it must be Malicious and it must tend to Sedition as to the Falshood I see nothing that is offered by the King's Councel nor any thing as to the Malice It was preferred with all the Humility and Decency that became the King's Subjects to approach their Prince with Now Gentlemen the Matter of it is before you you are to Consider of it and it is worth your Consideration they tell his Majesty It is not out of aversness to pay all due Obedience to the King nor out of a want of tenderness to their dissenting Fellow Subjects that made them not perform the Command imposed upon them but they say That because they do conceive that the thing that was Commanded them was against the Law of the Land therefore they do desire his Majesty that he would be pleased to forbear to insist upon it that they should perforâ—…â—…hat Command which they take to be Illegal Gentlemen we must Consider what they say is Illegall in it they say they apprehend the Declaration is Illegal because it is founded upon a Dispensing Power which the King claims to Dispense with the Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs Gentlemen I do not remember in any Case in all our Law and I have taken some Pains upon this Occasion to look into it that there is any such Power in the King and the Case must turn upon that in short If there be no such Dispensing Power in the King then that can be no Libel which they presented to the King which says that the Declaration being founded upon such a pretended Power is Illegal Now Gentlemen this is a Dispensation with a Witness it amounts to an Abrogation and utter Repeal of all the Laws for I can see no difference nor know of none iâ—… Law between the King's Power to Dispense with Laws Ecclesiastical and his Power to Dispense with any other Laws whatsoever If this be once allowed of there will need no Parliament all the Legislature will be in the King which is a thing worth Considering and I leave the Issue to God and your Consciences Mr. Iust. Allybone The single Question that falls to my share is to give my Sense of this Petition whether it shall be in Construction of Law a Libel in it self or a thing of great Innocence I shall endeavour to express my self in as plain Terms as I can and as much as I can by way of Proposition And I think in the first place That no Man can take upon him to write against the actual Exercise of the Government unless he have leave from the Government but he makes a Libel be what he writes true or false for if once we come to impeach the Government by way of Argument 't is the Argument that makes it the Government or not the Government So that I lay down that in the first place That the Government ought not to be impeached by Argument nor the Exercise of the Government shaken by Argument because I can manage a Proposition in it self doubtful with a better Pen than another Man This say I is a Libel Then I lay down this for my next Position That no private Man can take upon him to write concerning the Government at all for what has any private Man to do with the Government if his Interest be not stirred or
remember whether or no they were asked if that was the Petition that they delivered to the King Mr. Bridgm. My Lord I have answered that question as directly as I can I do not positively remember that that was the question Lord Ch. Iust. Mr. Solicitor General you must be satisfied when proper questions are fairly answered and therefore pray be quiet Mr. Att. Gen. However we pray we may ask the rest of the Clerks of the Counsel it may be they may remember more Sir Iohn Nicholas you were at the Council-Table that day my Lords the Bishops were examined about this Paper Sir Iohn Nicholas Yes Sir I was Mr. Att. Gen. Pray did you observe that the King produced the Petition Sir Iohn Nicholas No indeed I did not see it Mr. Att. Gen. Did you observe any thing that passed there in discourse Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you observe any questions that were asked the Bishops either by the King or by my Lord Chancellor Sir Iohn Nich. I think my Lord Chancellor did ask them if that was their hands to the Petition and they owned it Mr. Sol. Gen. Do you remember whether they owned that they delivered that Paper to the King Lord Ch. Iust. I 'le ask you Sir Iohn Nicholas did my Lord Chancellor ask them this question is this the Petition you delivered to the King Sir Iohn Nicholas I do not remember that Then there was a great shout Mr. Sol. Gen. Here 's wonderfull great rejoycing that truth cannot prevail Mr. S. Pemberton No Mr. Solicitor truth does prevail Mr. Sol. Gen. You are all very glad that truth is stifled Mr. Serjeant Mr. S. Trinder Pray Sir Iohn Nicholas let me ask you one question was there any discourse about delivering that Petition to the King Sir Iohn Nicholas Indeed I do not remember it Mr. Sol. Gen. There is Mr. Pepy's wee 'll examine him Mr. Pepy's sworn Lord Ch. Iust. Come I 'le ask the questions were you bye at the Council-Board when my Lords the Bishops were committed Mr. Pepy's Yes I was Lord Ch. Iust. What were the questions that were asked either by the King or by my Lord Chancellor Mr. Pepy's My Lord I would remember as well as I could the very words and the very words of the question were I think My Lords do you own this Paper I do not remember any thing was spoken about the delivering but I believe it was understood by every body at the Table that that was the Paper that they had delivered Lord Ch. Iust. Well have you done now But to satisfie you I 'le ask this question was this question asked my Lords was this the Paper you delivered to the King Mr. Pepy's No my Lord. Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Sir do you remember whether the King himself asked the question Mr. Pepy's You mean I suppose Mr. Attorney that these were the words or something that imported their delivering it to the King. Mr. Att. Gen. Yes Sir. Mr. Pepy's Truly I remember nothing of that Mr. Sol. Gen. Did you observe any discourse concerning their delivery of it to the King. Mr. Pepy's Indeed Mr. Solicitor I do not Mr. Att. Gen. Swear Mr. Musgrave Mr. Musgrave Sworn Lord Ch. Iust. You hear the question Sir what say you to it Mr. Musg My Lord I will give as short an acount of it as I can the first time after his Majesty had produced the Petition and it was read at the Board his Grace my Lord Arch Bishop of Canterbury and the other six Reverend Lords Bishops were called in and it were asked of them if they owned that or if it was their hands my Lord Archbishop in the name of the rest did decline answering upon the account that they were there as Criminals and were not obliged to say any thing to their own prejudice or that might hurt them hereafter but if his Majesty would command them and if he would promise that no advantage should be made of whatsoever they confessed then they would answer the question his Majesty made no answer to that but only said he would do nothing but what was according to Law whereupon the Bishops were ordered to withdraw and being called in a second time the Petition was shewn to them and they were asked if they did own it or if it was their hands and I think my Lord Archbishop did say then we will rely upon your Majesty or some such general thing was said and then they did all own it that it was their hands I cannot say the Petition was read to them Mr. Iust. Pow. Mr. Blathwait as I remember it was the third time Mr. Musgrave It was the second time to the best of my remembrance Lord Ch. Iust. Pray Sir was there any question to this purpose is this the Paper you delivered to the King Mr. Musg I do not remember that ever any such direct question was asked Mr. Iust. Allybone But as my Brother Pemberton did very well before distinguish there is a great deal of difference between the owning the subscription of a Paper and between the owning of that Paper Mr. Pepy's did say that they did own the Paper and upon my word that will look very like a Publication Mr. Musg I remember my Lord there was at the same time a question asked because several Copies had gone about the Town whether they had published it and my Lord Archbishop did say he had been so cautious that he had not admitted his own Secretary but writ it all himself and the rest of the Bishops did say they did not publish it nor never gave any Copies of it Mr. Att. Gen. My Lord I confess now it is to be left to the Jury upon this point whether there not being a positive Witness that was by when the thing was done yet upon this Evidence the Jury can't find any otherwise than that the thing was done truly I think we must leave it as a strong case for the King I could have wished indeed for the satisfaction of every body that the proof would have come up to that but we must make it as strong for the King upon the Evidence given as it will bear now my Lord take all this whole matter together here is a Paper composed framed and written by seven learned Men and this must be written by such persons sure for some purpose it is directed as a Petition to the King and this Petition did come to the hands of the King for the King produces it in Counsel and my Lord Archbishop and the rest of the Bishops owned their hands to it then the question is my Lord whether or no there be any room for any body living to doubt in this case that this was not delivered by my Lords the Bishops to the King though it be not a conclusive Evidence of a positive Fact yet unless they shew something on the other side that may give way for a supposition to the contrary that it came out of their hands by surprize or