4. c. 1. and 8 H. 6. c. 7. and 23 H. 6. c. 15. These are the Laws for regulating Elections and pursuant to them Queen Elizabeth in whose time the Commons busi'd themselves too much in that matter sent a notable check to the House in the 28 year of her Reign for their medling with choosing and returning Knights of the Shire for Norfolk a thing said she impertinent for the House to deal withall and only belonging to the Office and charge of the Lord Chancellor from whom the Writs Issue and are return'd D'ewes Journal p. 393. Which Message wrought then so far upon the House that for some years after they forbore to medle much in any thing of that nature but apply'd themselves when occasion requir'd to the Lord Chancellor or Keeper who proceeded therein as the Law directed without taking any great notice of the Commons Votes or Resolves as we find by a remarkable Instance in the 35 of this Queen when Sir Edward Coke then Speaker was order'd by the House to attend upon my Lord Keeper to move his Lordship to direct a New Writ for choosing a Burgess for Southwark instead of Richard Hutton suppos'd to have been unduly elected and another for allowing Sir George Carew who was duely elected but not return'd to be Burgess for Camelsford in Cornwall and a third for changing the name of John Dudley return'd Burgess for New-Town in the County of Southampton into the Name of Thomas Dudley alleadg'd to be the same person but his Name mistaken My Lord Keeper answer'd that the Returns for Southwark and Camelsford shou'd stand good but as for the said John Dudley he wou'd direct a new Writ for choosing another Burgess in his stead for Newtown D'ewes Journals p. 494. Now if this was the legal way of Proceeding in Queen Elizabeth's Reign warranted by the Statutes lately quoted and allow'd by the great Lawyer Sir Edward Coke and the whole House of Commons at that time by what Authority cou'd it be alter'd in succeeding Parliaments or is it just that the Ancient Precedents of former Ages shou'd be avoided by unwarrantable new-ones of later times Without question had the House of Commons then known they had any Power to mend the said Returns or punish the Offendors they wou'd never have sent their Speaker to wait on the Lord Keeper's pleasure about it and if that House had no such Authority 't is strange how can their Successors pretend to have any Thus we see the House of Commons was not in former times allow'd to regulate the Election of their own Members nor to Imprison any for undue Elections or Returns nor yet for a breach of Priviledge much less for any other Crime or Misdemeanor Nothing was heard in those better days of that terrible Sentence Take him Topham not a word of the Subjects Imprisonment during the Will and Pleasure of the House of Commons The sitting of Parliaments then was short and sweet dispatching more business in three days than of late they have done in so many months Their Study was to Redress not Create Grievances and preserve or procure a good understanding betwixt the King and His People and not like Banbury-Tinkers instead of mending one hole make a great many Oh! but say some the Connivance of King and Lords is a strong Argument that the Commons have done nothing herein contrary to Law I Answer 't is rather a very weak and frivolous Plea first because tho the King be oblig'd by His Coronation-Oath to govern by Law yet all knowing men will allow He has a Prudential Power to suspend the Execution of such Laws as he thinks prejudicial to the publick Interest and consequently may when he sees occasion wink at some illegal attempts of His Subjects to avoid a great Inconvenience If thefore of late times the King and if you will the House of Lords did connive at some unwarrantable resolutions of the Commons rather than exasperate the whole House too Jealous of their own Priviledges and thereby frustrate the chief end of Calling His Parliament the Security of the Publick it was Policy and great Prudence to wave it at that time tho now 't is the height of Folly to make this a warrant for doing the like again contrary to so many legal Presidents and express Acts of Parliament Secondly because the gathering of Peter-pence in this Kingdom has been conniv'd at by King Lords and Commons for divers Centuries of years yet it was an Illegal Tax upon the Subject contrary to Magna Charta and the Fundamental Laws of the Nation 25 H. 8. c. 21. Likewise the Clergy made divers Canons and Constitutions which have been conniv'd at for several Ages both by King and Parliament yet are declar'd by 25 H. 8. c. 19 To be much prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative Royal and repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm The same may be said of the Ancient Custom of Archbishops and Bishops declar'd by 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. to be contrary to the Common-Law of of the Land tho practic'd and conniv'd at time out of mind And to omit several other Instances Cardinal Wolsey for exercising his Legantine Power and the whole Clergy for receiving it tho conniv'd at for many years as well in as out of Parliament were nevertheless found guilty in a Premunire in His Majesties Court of Kings-Bench Connivance therefore is no good Argument of any things being legal and the tolerating of a Custom tho never so long cannot warrant its continuance while the Law is against it Presidents indeed of former Ages when legal and just from the beginning are of great force in Judicial Proceedings but no new President of late days can have that weight in any Court of Justice and to be sure will never be allow'd if contrary to Law and the Authentick Records of Antiquity But the House of Lords say they use to punish the Breaches of their Priviledges and several other Misdemeanors why then may not the House of Commons do the like A most ridiculous parity for they might argue as well the Court of Kings-Bench Fines and Imprisons Delinquents therefore the Grand-Jury may do the like when they please For the Commons in Parliament are really the Grand-Jury of the Nation appointed to enquire after Briberyes Extortions Monopolies and other publick Oppressions and complain thereof to the King and Lords and humbly pray redress yet they are no Judges in any Case themselves but are Parties as being the Attorneys and Representatives of those that are injur'd So far they are from having any Judicial Power that they cannot as much as administer an Oath upon any occasion whatsoever which undoubtedly the Law wou'd not have deny'd them but that they were never design'd for Judges or punishers of any Criminal because qui negat Medium negat finem But the House of Lords is not only a Court of Judicature but the Supream Court of the whole Kingdom they are
any person or persons or body-politick for any Manors Lands Tenements Hereditaments or things above-specified contrary to the words sentences and meaning of this Act shall incur the danger of the Act of Praemunire ib. § 41. What cou'd the wit of man contrive or devise more firm in Law or more satisfactory to all parties concern'd in Church or Abbey-Lands than these and several other paragraphs provided in the same Act of Parliament Why then are people by groundless and imaginary fears discompos'd or frightn'd out of their wits and made tools to drive on the Designs of some ill men against the Monarchy and the Church who will have nothing sufficient to secure them in the Religion they have not but what will unavoidably shake the very foundation of the Government 'T is true our State-Mountebanks in their Address presented in the Name of the House of Commons are so dutiful to their Sovereign as humbly to threaten this may possibly happen if the Duke succeeds We further humbly beseech Your Majesty say they in Your great Wisdom to consider whether in case the Imperial Crown of this Protestant Kingdom should descend to the Duke of York the opposition which may possibly be made to his possessing it may not only endanger the farther descent in the Royal Line but even Monarchy it self 21 Dec. 1680. But that season I hope is over and the Nation now thorowly sensible of the fatal consequences of such resolutions and can never forget the unparallell'd Tyranny of the Rump nor the doleful Tragedies that ensu'd the Quarrel between York and Lancaster which made England a Field of Blood But what has this great Prince once the peoples darling done to deserve so severe a treatment or be thought so dangerous a person to the Publick Has he defrauded any of an Ox or an Ass or was he ever found worse than his word or unjust in his dealings If he has chang'd his opinion which yet is improbable about the modes and circumstances of Religion 't is plain he has not chang'd his moral Principles nor his natural affection to his Countrey I need not instance how often he expos'd his Person to danger like a common Sea-man to fight our Battles nor how zealously he always studied the true Interest of the English Nation in opposition to French Designs a truth too well known even to his most inveterate Enemies but ill rewarded with ingratitude 'T is prodigious what tricks and arts have been us'd of late to incense the unthinking multitude against His Highness and set them a-madding with the apprehension of Stakes and Faggots and all the Chymoera's of a crack-brain'd fancy when 't is palpably evident it is not in the power of any Prince tho' the greatest Bigot of Papists to force this Nation in point of Conscience or alter the establish'd Religion since the Laws de Haeretico combâ—rendo which in Queen Maries time were in force and warranted the Cruelties then committed upon the Protestants as the Statutes made by Queen Elizabeth do the executing of Priests and Jesuits as Traytors both uncharitable and ill-becoming a Christian-Magistrate are now happily repeal'd and abolish'd Why then shou'd people be bugbear'd out of their senses with imaginary fears of Smithfield-Faggots or think that the Duke who never advis'd his own Children to become Papists wou'd offer tho' able to compel any other to renounce his Religion If He has express'd some kindness for such Romanists as had signaliz'd their Loyalty to His FATHER here or to His BROTHER Abroad when those that now call themselves true Protestants openly absur'd his Title 't is an instance of his gratitude and good nature but no Argument of his approving the Opinions of that Party And yet we have no better proof than such groundless whispers and surmises unless we believe the ridiculous Salamunca Doctor 's peeping through the Key-hole of his being a Papist or any way inclin'd to the Popish Communion How false then is the Preamble and therefore justly rejected had there been no other reason by the House of Lords of the intended Bill of Exclusion That the Duke of York is notoriously known to have been perverted from the Protestant to the Popish Religion Or the extravagant Vote whereon they grounded this Abortive Bill Resolved That the Duke of York's being a Papist and the hopes of his coming such to the Crown hath given the greatest countenance and encouragement to the present designs and conspiracies against the King and the Protestant Religion 2 Nov. 1680. Whereas it might with greater Truth and Justice be Resolved That the late endeavours of some Leading men in the House of Commons in favour of the Fanaticks and their declaring That if His Majesty should come by any Violent Death they would revenge it to the utmost upon the Papists has given the greatest countenance and encouragement to Colledge and his Accomplices to conspire against the King and the Church and has openly expos'd His Majesties sacred Life to the blind zeal of the Faction to whom besides the prospect of destroying their enemies it was a great temptation to commit the villany that they cou'd safely leave it at anothers door Thus Sir I have given you in short my Opinion on Mr. Hunts Defence of the Charter and for your further satisfaction have added some Remarks on the Proceedings of our worthy Patriots so much commended by that Gentleman in the last Parliament at Westminster There remains a great deal more to be said as well of this as of the other that follow'd at Oxford but some earnest business requiring my attendance I will at present give you no further trouble only speak a word or two to the general Calumny cast by the Factions on all that dare oppose their Designs and which I cannot well expect to escape viz. That we are no Friends to Parliaments But I appeal to any man of Sense whether I who wou'd have the Commons freely enjoy their Priviledges yet confin'd within their Ancient and Legal bounds or the Fanatick that labours to make their Power absolute and uncontroulable be a greater friend to that Honourable Assembly And whether they can possibly have more pernicious enemies than such as make them Controullers instead of Councellors to their Soveraign and Competitors with him in the Government when their Being wholly depends on his Will and Pleasure and can expect to fit no longer than during their good Behaviour How Fatal the Insolencies of the 3d. Estate in France Anno 1614. prov'd to that Nation in general who never since had the like Assembly is particularly observ'd by several Historians 'T is true we have no reason to mistrust any such thing having so good and so gracious a Prince as has solemnly engag'd His Royal word That no Irregularities in Parliament shall ever make Him out of Love with Parliaments Declar. p. 9. Besides that our Constitution is such that we cannot reasonably fear it Nevertheless Policy as well as Duty requires that the Commons give no such distast for the future as will justly occasion even any long intermission of their meeting since Parliaments provided they behave themselves with Prudence and Moderation Are the best method as His Majesty says for healing the Distempers of the Kingdom and the only means to preserve the Monarchy in that due credit and respect which it ought to have both at hom and abroad Ibid. FINIS * In making our ancient Laws saith the great Antiquary Mr Selden the Commons did petere the Lords assentire the King concludere in his Judicature in Parliament pag. 132. pag. 27. * 4 Ed. 3. 14. 36 Ed. 3. 10. * 16 Car. 2. 1. * Ne frena animo permitte calenti da spacium tenuemque moram male cuncta ministrat impetus * You all know that Rex è Lex loquens and you often heard me say that the King's will and intention being the speaking Law ought to be Luce clarius And again In any Case wherein no positive Law is resolute Rex e Judex for he is Lex loquens and is to supply the Law where the Law wants * Ib. f. 60. Beechers Case The like he hath fol. 120. Bonham's Case and lib. 11. f. 43. Godfrey's Case and in several other places * Dyer f. 60. a. says the Parliament consists of three parts viz. the KING as chief Head the LORDS the chief and principal Members of the Body and the COMMONS the inferiour Members * Coke 4. Inst. p. 25. 31 H. 6. n. 26 27. * Mich. 12. Ed. 4. Rot. 20. in the Exchequer * Hill 14 E. 4. Rot. 7. * Dyer fol. 59. * 8 H. 6. Rot. Parl. n. 57. * 39 H. 6. n. 9. * 14 Ed. 4. n. 55. * The Lords themselves cannot by Priviledge of Parliament set any at Liberty by their immediate Orders to the Gentleman vsher or Serjeant at Arms but only by a Writ of Priviledge from the Lord Keeper as appears 43 Elizab. D'ewes Journals p. 608. * See Prynn's Remarks on Coke's 4 Inst. p. 42. * None can be Judge and Party Coke's 8 Reports Dr. Bouham's Case f. 118. b. * The constant Custom of the Commons even to this day to stand bare with their Hats in their hands while the Lords sit cover'd at all Conferences and Tryals is a plain Argument they are not Fellows or Colleagues in Judgment * 10 Jan. 1681 80 * 7 Jan. 1680. * 2 R. 2. 5. 11 R. 2. 11. c. de Scandalis Magnatum * 25 Ed. 3. Statute of Provisors * 38 Ed. 3. Stat. 2. c. 1. 2 H. c. 4. 7. H. 4. c. 6. 3 H. 5. c. 4. * The same is resolved 12 H. 4. f. 16. 14 H. 4. f. 14. 8 H. 6. f. 3. 20 H. 6. 1. 35 H. 6. 42. 7 E. 4. 14. 12 E. 4. 16. * 1 2 Phil. Mar. c. 8. num 32. * Volentes ac decernentes quod dictorum bonorum Ecclesiasticorum ram mobilium quam immobilium possessores praefati non possiut in praesenti nec in posterum seu per Conciliorum Generalium vel Provincialium dispositiones seu Decretales Rom. Pontificum Epistolas seu aliam quamconque censuram Ecclesiasticam in dictis bonis seu eorundem possessione molestari vel inquietari 1 2 Phil. Mar. c. 8. num 33.
Franchise Priviledges or Customs And this Ordinance shall extend to all Cities and Boroughs of the Realm where such Defaults or Misprisions be used and not duly corrected nor redressed saving that the Enquests shall be taken by Foreign people of the same County where such Cities or Boroughs be And that the pain of those of the said Boroughs and Tolws which shall be thereof Attainted shall be judged by the Discretion of the Justices which shall be thereto assigned This Act was a great Curb to the people of London and kept them for many years after very obsequious and dutiful to their Sovereign but in process of time finding it was not duly put in execution they began to forget it at last and wou'd now and then break out into some extravagance which afterwards cost them very dear Finding therefore themselves very uneasie under this restraint tho' neither in Edward III. nor his Successor's Reign they durst motion to have that Statute repeal d yet when the Vsurper Henry IV. came to the Crown they labour'd hard to get themselves rid of it but cou'd gain no more than the following Clause which many in London who always think ill of the King and His Ministers will think of no great advantage to the Defence of the Charter OUR Lord the king considering the good and lawful Behaviour of the Mayor Sheriffs and Aldermen and of all the Commonalty of the same City of London towards him and therefore willing to ease and mitigate the Penalty aforesaid by the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons aforesaid hath Ordained and Established That the Penalty aforesaid as well of the Thousand Marks and of the two Thousand Marks and of the seizure of the Franchise comprized in the said Statute shall not be limited in a certainty but that the Penalties in this case be by the advice and discretion of the Justices thereto assigned as other Cities and Boroughs be within the Realm And that the Remnant of the same Statute and the Process thereof stand in their force 1 H. 4. cap. 15. Now I appeal to Mr. Hunt's own Judgment provided he has so much moral honesty to speak nothing of his skill in the Laws as will qualifie him for an Irish Chief-Baron Whether or no these two Statutes be not as plain against the Charter supposing the Mayor Sheriffs and Aldermen to have been negligent in their duty and a fortiori if they and the Common-Council be found guilty of the Crimes laid to their charge as Magna Charta or the Petition of Right is for the Liberty and Property of the Subject For that 't is neither Treason nor Felony nor yet the Subversion of the Government but Crimes of a far inferiour nature that are meant by the Errors and Misdemeanors mentioned in the said Acts is apparent by another Statute made some three years after by the same King Edward III. where it is Enacted That the Mayor and Aldermen of London shall rule and redress the defaults of Fishers Butchers and Poulters and put the same in execution upon the pain late ordained touching the City of London 31 Ed. 3. cap. 10. Now if the whole City for a bare neglect of duty in their Officers as for omitting to punish the Misdemeanors of silly Trades-men were by these Acts of Edward III. so grievously punishable as for the first Offence to forfeit a Thousand 〈…〉 no less in the 〈◊〉 value than 2000 l of our now 〈…〉 so much in the 〈◊〉 use and price of things 〈…〉 for the second offence and for the third to forfeit their Franchise and Liberties to the King what shall be thought of others if they are found not only to have laid an Illegal Arbitrary Tax upon their fellow-Subjects and in a tumultuous manner invaded their Properties but wink'd at if not encourag'd the publishing of Treasonable Papers and Pamphlets and instead of suppressing others presented their Prince with a most Scurrilous one of their own by way of Petition to tax His Majesty with misgovernment and endeavour to bring Him into hatred and contempt with his People As for the aforesaid Clause of 1 H. 4. tho' intended for as really it was a great favour to the City that they shou'd not for every trisling fault be oblig'd to pay such a vast Fine as a Thousand Marks twenty times greater than that sum now yet if their Crimes had been found of a transcendent nature striking at the very Root and Life of the Government we may be sure the Justices by vertue of this very Clause wou'd have immediately seiz'd their Charter without bringing them to any further Tryal So that this Clause tho' in small inferiour misdemeanors it be a great advantage to the City yet in Crimes of State where the Crown and the Monarchy are concern'd 't is no less an advantage to the King Thus Sir you have seen how well Mr. Hunt has defended the Charter against all the Power both of Law and Reason and you will find him altogether as happy in the rest of his undertakings I omit his impertinence on the Play call'd The Duke of Guise his unmannerly application of the Characters and his framing of Parallels where little or no similitude can be found Yet en passent I cannot but pity the condition our Lawyers INNOCENT and GENTLE PRINCE is reduc'd to by the slie insinuations and bewitching flatteries of this and such other Sycophants of the Faction who puff'd him up and possess'd him with such chymerical hopes of a Crown as made him forget his Obedidence to his Princes will and the positive command of his Natural Father Natural I say because in our Laws the Maxim is Qui ex damnato coitu nascuntur inter liberos non computantur i.e. Bastards are not counted amongst Sons Coke 1 Instit. f. 3. or as Littleton says A Bastard is quasi nullius filius because he cannot be Heir to any apud Coke 2 Instit. § 188. Now if by Law this Prince can be Heir to none what a madness it was to advise him to aspire to Three Hereditary Kingdoms or think to carry them tamely by Popular Applause when nothing but the Sword can establish a crack'd Title But the best people of England says this non-sensical Scribler have no other way left to shew their Loyalty to the King and love to their Religion and Government in the long intervals of Parliament than by Prosecuting His Son for the sake of the King and his own Merit with all the demonstrations of the highest esteem p. 28. They are certainly very hard put to it if this not to PROSECUTE his silly Latinism be the only shift they can make to express their Loyalty when Children can tell they might if they had any better shew it by prostrating themselves at His Majesty's feet and declaring their readiness to venture their Lives and Fortunes in defence of His Sacred Person and the Rights of His Crown against all the attempts of the
at Foot-ball and of equal Authority in point of Judicature The Lords saith he in their House have Power of Judicature and the Commons in their House have Power of Judicature and both together have Power of Judicature p 23 But I wish since the Lords Judicial Power as well with as without the Commons is beyond all dispute this great Lawyer had so far oblig'd Posterity as to have left us some convincing Argument to make the World believe the like of the House of Commons or at least given us some Instances of their using this Power in former Ages as the Lords have done time out of mind In the mean time 't is a shrewd Argument against his Assertion that in H. 4. time the Commons themselves in their Petition to the King declar'd That the Judgments of Parliament appertained only to the King and Lords and not to the Commons and therefore they prayed the King out of his special Grace to shew unto them the said Judgments and the cause of them that so no Record might be made in Parliament against the said Commons without their privity To which the Bishop of Canterbury answer'd by the Kings command That the Commons are Petitioners and Demanders and that the King and Lords always had and of right shall have the Judgments in Parliament even as the Commons themselves have shewed saving that in Statutes to be made or Grants and Subsidies or such things as are to be done for the publick profit of the Realm the King will have especially their advice and assent 1 H. 4. Rol. Parl n. 79. Who now is to be believ'd Sir Edward Coke attributing to the Commons or the Commons themselves wholly disclaiming all Power of Judicature Or shall a single Lawyers Ipse dixit or proofless assertion be of greater weight than so solemn a Declaration upon Record approv'd off by King Lords and Commons But to be short and to argue ad hominem against our late Demagogues at Wesminster if they thought themselves a Court of Judicature and Record as Sir Edward Coke is pleas'd to make them 't is strange what cou'd be their motive unless to shew their Arbitrary Power to the World to Imprison so many of His Majesties Loyal Subjects and after a long and chargeable Confinement release them without offering to bring them to any legal Tryal For if these Gentlemen were reputed Criminal they ought to have been try'd according to Law if Innocent they shou'd not have been Imprison'd And to say their Confinement was by the House design'd for a punishment of their suppos'd Misdemeanors 't is contrary to common sense and to all Laws both humane and divine For at this rate people will be condemnâ—d before they are heard and punish'd before they are convicted nay which is worse than Abington-Law to hang a man first and try him after they shall be punish'd at will and never brought to a tryal What can be safe if this be admitted or who can be secure either of Life or Liberty if a prevailing Faction in the House of Commons may toss him thus in a Blanket without any Rhime or Reason contrary to the undoubted Right of the Subject and the Fundamental Laws of the Nation But we are told the Commons have often Imprison'd people for misdemeanors and releas'd them again at their own Discretion I wish they had shew'd us withal by what Authority or Law they committed them for a facto ad jus is no good argument with any man of sense or judgment How many Appeals have been made to Rome and provisions of Benefices procur'd from thence during the Papal Usurpation Yet these being contrary to Law the Authors were still punishable and it was no excuse for any that others had done the like before The Commons have been a constituent part of the Great Council of the Kingdom either since the 16th of Henry I. as some Historians write or since the 49th of H. 3. in the year 1364. as most Authors agree and yet all this while we cannot find that by their own Authority they imprison'd any Criminal till in the 4th of Ed. 6. about the year 1550 they committed Criketost to the Tower when the King was an Infant and all govern'd by the ambitious Duke of Somerset who to be sure wou'd not expostulate with the House of Commons about such a trifle as he thought it whilst they forbore to question him for his more illegal and arbitrary Proceedings Now if there be no other argument to justifie the Commons imprisoning Delinquents but the practice of their House since the 4th of Ed. 6. 't is plain the commitment of Criketost was illegal because not justifiable by any former practice of that House and consequently cou'd be no fit Precedent to be imitated in succeeding Parliaments And if their first Essays of this kind were unwarrantable by Law their subsequent Commitments cou'd be no better for Quod ab initio non valuit tractu temporis non convalescit To what purpose then are such unwarrantable Examples alledg'd to justifie the late proceedings of the Commons if not to prove one absurdity by another since they can hardly think of any thing how wild and unreasonable soever but they may find one instance or another to offer as a Precedent in some of our former Parliaments For experience tells us this Great Council much less the meanest of the three Estates tho' our modern Republicans wou'd fain snatch the great Priviledge of Infallibility from the Pope's Cushion and place it in the Speakers Chair has not been always free from mistakes but is found to have often deviated from Justice Truth and Loyalty We must therefore with Seneca look non quaâ—itur sed qua eundum not what is but what ought to be done and consider that 't is not the example of frail men impos'd upon through ignorance or led by passion or private interest but the approv'd Laws of the Land ought to be the Rule both of the Magistrates Government and of the Subjects Obedience What! says a factious Petitioner cannot the House of Commons imprison any Criminal Have they no authority to chastise their own Members or punish the Invaders of their Priviledges Have they not often exerciz'd this Power and is it possible the King and Lords wou'd have so long conniv'd at their proceedings had they been illegal or unjust Does not the House of Peers punish the Breakers of their Priviledges why then may not the House of Commons be allow'd to do the like These are the mighty arguments our great Champions for the House of Commons always insist upon but how weak and insignificant they are is very obvious to any tho' but meanly vers'd in our Laws and the constitution of our Government For my part I have always been and still am as much for maintaining the just Priviledges of that House as any man whatsoever 't is my interest to do it and nothing but Truth and Loyalty shall ever induce me to speak
look'd upon by our Laws as persons of no less Integrity than Honour in the distribution of Justice and besides are assisted by all the Judges of England by the 12 Masters of Chancery by the Kings Learned Council and by His Attorney and Solicitor General in consideration whereof the same Laws have repos'd that extraordinary trust in this August Assembly that to them alone it belongs to redress delays and reform the erroneous Judgments of other Courts of Justice and give a final decision to all manner of Appeals Now by the Laws of other Nations as well as ours 't is the nature of Superior Courts that they may determine matters tryable by an Inferior and therefore it must be allow'd that tho the House of Commons cannot because no Court of Judicature yet the House of Lords the dernier resort of all Suits and Actions may if they please punish the Invaders of their Priviledges notwithstanding that the Law directs them to be try'd in Inferiour Courts Having thus sufficiently demonstrated that the House of Commons have neither Common nor Statute-Law nor yet any legal Precedents to warrant their Fining or Imprisoning the meanest of their Fellow-subjects 't is high time I think tho a great deal more might be said on this subject very useful to be known to give you a brief account of other Particulars and examine whether the Remedies propos'd in Parliament by our late Mountebanks of State be not equally dangerous if not really worse than our Disease But to expose the designs of some ill men there and the unwarrantable Votes and Resolves they got pass'd in the Lower House is a task no less tedious than difficult for me to undertake I will therefore tell you in short that notwithstanding all the noise and clamour they made about the Protestant Religion and the Liberty of the Subject the Nation had too much reason to believe they minded more their own ends than the common good of the People The Kings best Subjects who having so many years experience of His Majesties most happy Government declar'd themselves satisfi'd with His prudent management of Affairs and in Obedience to His Royal Proclamation express'd their aversion to all Tumultuous Petitions were no more run down on the one side than the Factious Fanaticks even such as signaliz'd themselves in the late Rebellion were countenanc'd and favour'd on the other insomuch that many were of opinion people had no surer way to ingratiate themselves with some of the Leading Memberr than openly to asperse the Government and reflect upon the King and His Ministers as Favorers of Popery and Designers of Arbitrary Power 'T is almost incredible what pains they took to get the Notorious Anabaptist Ben. Harris discharg'd out of Prison for no other reason that I find but because a Dissenter who with a great deal of favour was condemn'd only to the Pillory instead of Tyburn for publishing that Treasonable Pamphlet The Appeal Neither is this all the main Bulwark of our Church must be broke down the Penal Laws against the Non-conformists Repeal'd to let in a Deluge of Sectaries the scandal of the Reformation who have nothing of Christianity but the Name to Profane the Temple of God And because this Project luckily miscarry'd their Friends in the House endeavour'd to leave them a new kind of Dispensation and the very last day of their sitting that with their dying breath they might testify to the World their great zeal for the Dissenters in general of what sect or perswasion soever to the admiration of most men they pass'd the following Vote Resolved That it is the Opinion of this House that the Prosecution of Protestant Dissenters upon the Penal Laws is at this time grievous to the Subject a weakening of the Protestant Interest an encouragement to Popery and dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom I need not comment upon this unwarrantable Resolve by which our worthy Patriots even without the King and House of Lords once more were pleas'd to assume to themselves a Power of suspending and consequently of making Acts of Parliament The encouragement this gave to the Republicans to pursue their wicked Designs against the Crown and the Church like to have prov'd fatal to both is enough to convince the World they cou'd hardly do the Nation a greater mischief and that their confining several Gentlemen tho contrary to Law and Reason was not near so dangerous to the Government as their breaking down the Rails of the Church to let a swarm of Sectaries creep in at the Windows It was observ'd with some admiration how during this Session of Parliament there was not one Fanatick Imprison'd nor so much as question'd by the Commons for any Crime or Insolence whatsoever very few Papists molested but the true Sons of the Church of England daily Prosecuted in vast numbers to their great loss and vexation tho it prov'd at last the eternal shame and confusion of the Authors I cou'd not but smile to see the perplexity they were in when one of the Judges to his never-dying fame for giving the first Precedent of that kind made application to the House of Commons about the Execution of his Trust and desir'd their Opinion whether he shou'd do Justice to one of their Prisoners by granting the Writ of Habeas Corpus to Mr. Sheridan then in the Custody of Serjeant Topham Three several days the Case was stifly debated in the House the Act read twice or thrice over and yet no resolution taken The Warrant of Committment which order'd the Gentleman to be confin'd without any Cause shown During the Will and Pleasure of the House of Commons was look'd upon so Illegal and Arbitrary a Procedure even by several Members of the House that Serjeant M. till he heard it was already made publick wou'd have them immediately recal the Old and grant a New Warrant more conformable to Law Besides the words of the Statute were so full as admitted of no Comment and so plain for the Liberty of the Subject as made it undenyable that Prisoners unless for Treason or Felony were still Bailable by what Person or Persons soever Committed not excepting the King and Council much less the House of Commons who had no Legal Power to Commit any Criminal But still the point was very nice and the Leading Members no less uncertain what resolution to take for if they openly declar'd against the Habeas Corpus the Nation wou'd be much alarm'd and suspect these Gentleman instead of securing intended to invade the Subjects Liberty but if they allow'd the Writ the delicious power of Imprisoning such as they had a picque to was utterly lost and all persons referr'd to the ordinary Courts of Justice or upon their failure to the House of Lords the suprem Tribunal of England At last Sir William Jones like an Imperious Dictator starts up to decide the matter and having made a bawling Harangue concerning the Power of the House and their Intention of not