by Advice of all his Faithful Counsellors in England to gratify the Irish says Pryn for their eminent Loyalty to his Father and Him he granted them out of his Special Grace that they and their Heirs for ever should enjoy the Liberties granted by his Father and Himself to the Realm of England which he Reduced into Writing and sent Seal'd thither under the Seal of the Popes Legat and W. Earl Marshal his Governour because he had then no Seal of his own This as I conceive Refers to the foremention'd Magna Charta Hiberniae The Record as Recited by Mr. Pryn here follows Rex Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus Militibus Libere Tenentibus omnibus Fidelibus suis per Hiberniam Constitutis Salutem Fidelitatem vestram in Domino Commendantes quam Domino Patri nostro semper Exhibuistis nobis estis diebus nostris Exhibituri Volumus quod in signum Fidelitatis vestrae tam praeclarae tam Insignis Libertatibus Regno nostro Angliae a Patre nostro nobis Concessis de gratia nostra Dono in Regno nostro Hiberniae guadeatis vos vestri Haeredes in perpetuum Quas Distincte in Scriptum Reductas de Communi Consilio omnium Fidelium nostrorum vobis Mittimus Signatas Sigillis Domini nostri G. Apostolicae Sedis Legati Fidelis nostri Com. W. Maresc Rectoris nostri Regni nostri quia Sigillum nondum habuimus easdem processu temporis de Majori Consilio proprio Sigillo Signaturi Teste apud Glouc. 6 Februar Here we have a free Grant of all the Liberties of England to the People of Ireland But we know the Liberties of Englishmen are Founded on that Universal Law of Nature that ought to prevail throughout the whole World of being Govern'd only by such Laws to which they give their own Consent by their Representatives in Parliament And here before I proceed farther I shall take Notice That in the late Raised Controversie Whether the House of Commons were an Essential part of Parliament before the 49th year of Henry the Third The Learned Mr. Petyt Keeper of the Records in the Tower in his Book on that Subject pag. 71. Deduces his 9th Argument From the Comparison of the Antient Generale Concilium or Parliament of Ireland instanced An. 38 Hen. III. with the Parliament in England wherein the Citizens and Burgesses were which was Eleven years before the pretended beginning of the Commons in England For thus we find it in that Author As great a Right and Privilege surely was and ought to be allow'd to the English Subjects as to the Irish before the 49th of Hen. III. And if that be admitted and that their the Irish Commune Concilium or Parliament had its Platform from ours the English as I think will not be Deny'd by any that have consider'd the History and Records touching that Land Ireland we shall find the ensuing Records Ann. 38 Hen. III. clearly evince that the Citizens and Burgesses were then a part of their the Irish Great Council or Parliament That King being in partibus Transmarinis and the Queen being left Regent she sends Writs or a Letter in the Kings Name directed Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus Baronibus Militibus Liberis Hominibus Civibus Burgensibus Terrae suae Hiberniae telling them that Mittimus Fratrem Nicholaum de Sancto Neoto Fratrem Hospitii Sancti Iohannis Ierusalem in Anglia ad partes Hiberniae ad exponendum vobis together with I. Fitz-Geoffery the Kings Justice the State of his Land of Vascony endanger'd by the Hostile Invasion of the King of Castile qui nullo Iure sed potentia sua Confisus Terram nostram Vasconiae per ipsius Fortitudinem a manibus nostris Auferre a Dominio Regni Angliae segregare Proponit And therefore universitatem Vestram Quanta possumus Affectione Rogantes quatenus noâ—… jura nostra totaliter indefensâ—… non deserentes nobis in tanto periculo quantumcunque poteritis dâ—… Gente Pecunia subveniatis which would turn to their Everlasting Honour concluding His nostris Augustiis taliter Compâ—…tientes quod nos Heraedes nostri vobis Haeredibus vestris sumus non immerito Obligati Teste Regina R. Comite Cornubiae apud Windesor 17 die Februar Per Reginam Thus far Mr. Petyt Here we have a Letter from the Queen Regent to the Parliament in Ireland in an humble manner beseeching them for an Aid of Men and Money against the King of Castiles Hostile Invasion of Gascony from whence we may perceive that in those days no more than at present Men and Money could not be Rais'd but by Consent of Parliament I have been the more particular in Transcribing this Passage out of Mr. Petyt to shew that we have as Antient and Express an Authority for our present Constitution of Parliaments in Ireland as can be shewn in England And I believe it will not be thought Adviseable in these latter Days to break in upon Old Settled Constitutions No one knows how fatal the Consequents of that may be To return therefore where we Digress'd Henry the Third about the Twelfth year of his Reign did specially Impower Richard de Burgh then Iustice of Ireland at a certain day and place to summon all the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons Knights Freeholders and Sheriffs of each County and before them to cause to be Read the Charter of his Father King Iohn whereunto his Seal was Appendant whereby he had granted unto them the Laws and Customs of England and unto which they swore Obedience And that he should cause the same Laws to be observed and Proclaimed in the several Counties of Ireland that so none presume to do contrary to the Kings Command The Record I have taken out of Mr. a Pryn in these words Rex Dilecto Fideli suo Richardo de Burgo Justie ' suo Hibern Salutem Mandamus vobis firmiter praecipientes quatenus certo die Loco faciatis venire coram vobis Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Priores Comites Barones Milites libere Tenentes Ballivos singulorum Comitatum coram eis Publice legi faciatis Chartam Domini J. Regis Patris nostri cui Sigillum suum appensum est quam fieri fecit jurari a Magnatibus Hibern de Legibus Consuetudinis Angliae Observandis in Hibernia Et praecipiatis eis ex parte nostra quod Leges illas Consuctudines in Charta praedicta contentas de caetero firmiter teneant observent hoc idem per singulos Commitatus Hiberniae clamari faciatis teneri prohibentes firmiter ex parte nostra super foris facturam nostram nequis contra hoc Mandatum nostrum venire praesumat c. Teste Me ipso Apud Westm ' 8 die Maii An. Reg. nostri 12. By what foregoes I presume it plainly appears that by three several Establishments
Bench of Ireland to the Kings Bench of England But to this I answer 1. That 't is the Opinion of several Learned in the Laws of Ireland That this Removal of a Judgment from the Kings Bench of Ireland by Writ of Error into the Kings Bench of England is founded on an Act of Parliament in Ireland which is lost amongst a great number of other Acts which we want for the space of 130 years at one time and of 120 at another time as we have noted before pag. 65. But it being only a General Tradition that there was such an Act of our Parliament we only offer it as a Surmise the Statute it self does not appear 2. Where a Judgment in Ireland is Removed to be Revers'd in England the Judges in England ought and always do judge according to the Laws and Customs of Ireland and not according to the Laws and Customs of England any otherwise than as these may be of Force in Ireland but if in any thing the two Laws differ the Law of Ireland must prevail and guide their Judgment And therefore in the Case of one Kelly Removed to the Kings Bench in England in the beginning of King Charles the First one Error was assigned that the Praecipe was of Woods and Underwoods which is a manifest Error if brought in England but the Judges finding the Use to be Otherwise in Ireland judged it No Error So in Crook Charles fol. 511. Mulcarry vers Eyres Error was assigned for that the Declaration was of one hundred Acres of Bogg which is a word not known in England but 't was said It was well enough understood in Ireland and so adjudged No Error From whence I conceive 't is manifest that the Jurisdiction of the Kings Bench in England over a Judgment in the Kings Bench of Ireland does not proceed from any Subordination of one Kingdom to the other but from some other Reason which we shall endeavour to make out 3. We have before observed That in the Reign of K. Henry the Third Gerald Fitz-Maurice Lord Justice of Ireland sent four Knights to know what was held for Law in England in the Case of Coparceners The Occasion of which Message as before we have noted out of the Kings Rescript was because the Kings Justice of Ireland was ignorant what the Law was We may reasonably imagine that there were many Messages of this kind for in the Infancy of the English Government it may well be supposed that the Judges in Ireland were not so deeply versed in the Laws of England This occasioned Messages to England Before Judgment given in Ireland to be inform'd of the Law And After Decrees made Persons who thought themselves aggrieved by Erroneous Judgments apply'd themselves to the King in England for Redress Thus it must be that Writs of Error unless they had their Sanction in Parliament became in use Complaints to the King by those that thought themselves injur'd increased and at last grew into Custom and obtain'd the Force of Law Perhaps it may be Objected That if the Judges of the Kings Bench in England ought to Regulate their Judgment by the Customs of Ireland and not of England it will follow that this Original which we assign of Writs of Error to England is not right I Answer That this may be the Primary Original and yet consist well enough with what we have before laid down For tho' the Common Law of England was to be the Common Law of Ireland and Ireland at the beginning of its English Government might frequently send into England to be inform'd about it yet this does not hinder but Ireland in a long Process of Time may have some smaller Customs and Laws of its own gradually but insensibly crept into Practice that may in some measure differ from the Customs and Practice of England and where there is any such the Judges of England must regulate their Sentence accordingly tho' the first Rise of Writs of Error to England may be as we have here suggested In like manner where the Statute-Law of Ireland differs from that of England the Judges of England will regulate their Judgments by the Statute-law of Ireland This is the constant Practice and notoriously known in Westminster-Hall From which it appears that removing a Judgment from the Kings Bench of Ireland to the Kings Bench of England is but an Appeal to the King in his Bench of England for his Sense Judgement or Exposition of the Laws of Ireland But of this more hereafter 4. When a Writ of Error is Returned into the Kings Bench of England Suit is made to the King only The Matter lies altogether before Him and the Party complaining applies to No Part of the Political Government of England for Redress but to the King of Ireland only who is in England That the King only is sued to our Law-Books make Plain This Court is call'd Curia Domini Regis and Aula Regia because the King used to sit there in Person as Lambard tells us And every Cause brought there is said to be coram Domino Rege even at this very day Cooke 4 Inst. p. 72. Therefore if a Writ be returnable coram nobis ubicunque fuerimus 't is to be Return'd to the Kings Bench. But if it be Returnable coram Iusticiariis nostris apud Westm. 't is to be Return'd into the Common Pleas. This Court as Glavnil and other Antients tells us used to Travel with the King where-ever he went And Fleta in describing this Court says Habet Rex Curiam suam Iusticiarios suos coram quibus non alibi nisi coram semet ipso c. falsa Iudicia Errores revertuntur Corriguntur The King then as Britton says having Supream Jurisdiction in his Realm to judge in all Causes whatsoever therefore it is that Erroneous Iudgments were brought to him out of Ireland But this does not argue that Ireland is therefore Subordinate to England for the People of Ireland are the Subjects of the King to whom they Appeal And 't is not from the Country where the Court is held but from the Presence and Authority of the King to whom the People of Ireland have as good a Title as the People of England that the Praeeminence of the Iurisdiction does flow And I question not but in former times when these Courts were first Erected and when the King Exerted a greater Power in Judicature than he does now and he used to sit in his own Court that if he had Travell'd into Ireland and the Court had follow'd him thither Erroncous Judgments might have been removed from England before him into his Court in Ireland for so certainly it must be since the Court Travell'd with the King From hence it appears that all the Jurisdiction that the Kings Bench in England has over the Kings Bench in Ireland arises only from the Kings Presence in the former And the same may be said of the Chancery in England if it will assume
by consulting the Statute Books And in the First year of William and Mary Ses. 2. c. 9. an Act passed in England declaring all Attainders and other Acts made in the late pretended Parliament under King James at Dublin void But was not Enacted here in Ireland till the 7th year of K. William c. 3. And this was thought requisite to be done upon mature consideration thereon before the King and Council of England notwithstanding that the English Act does particularly name Ireland and was wholly design'd for and relates thereto The like may we find in several other Statutes of England passed since his present Majesties Accession to the Throne which have afterwards been passed here in Ireland with such Alterations as make them practicable and agreeable to this Kingdom Such as are amongst others the Act for Disarming Papists The Act of Recognition The Act for taking away Clergie from some Offenders The Act for taking Special Bail in the Country c. The Act against Clandestine Mortgages The Act against Cursing and Swearing These with many more are to to be found in our Statute Books in the several Reigns of Henry the 8th Edward the 6th Queen Elizabeth King Iames King Charles the 1st and 2d and King William But it is not to be found in any Records in Ireland that ever any Act of Parliament introductive of a new Law made in England since the time of King Iohn was by the judgment of any Court received for Law or put in Execution in the Realm of Ireland before the same was Confirmed and Assented to by Parliament in Ireland And thus I presume we have pretty clearly made out our Fourth Enquiry forementioned and shewn plainly the several steps by which the English form of Government and the English Statute Laws were received in this Kingdom and that this was wholly by the Peoples consent in Parliament to which we have had a very antient Right and as full a Right as our next Neighbours can pretend to or challenge I shall now consider the Objections and Difficulties that are moved on this Head drawn from Precedents and Passages in our Law-Books that may seem to prove the contrary First 't is urg'd That in the Irish Act concerning Rape passed anno 8 Edward 4 c. 1. 't is expressed That a Doubt was conceiv'd whether the English Statute of the 6th of Richard the 2d c. 6. ought to be of force in Ireland without a Confirmation thereof in the Parliament of Ireland Which shews as some alledg that even in those days it was held by some That an Act of of Parliament in England might bind Ireland before it be consented to in Parliament here But I concieve this Gloss is rais'd meerly for want of Expressing the Reason of the said Doubt in the Irish Statute of the 8th of Edward the 4th c. 1. which we may reasonably judge was this By the Statute of Westminster the 2d c. 34. a Woman that eloped from her Husband and lived with the Adulterer or a Wife that being first Ravish'd did afterwards consent and lived with the Ravisher she should loose her Dower This Statute of Westminster the 2d was made of force in Ireland by an Act passed here the 13th of Edward the 2d as we have seen before pag. 68 69. Afterwards by the English Statute of the 6th of Rich. the 2d c. 6. there was a farther addition made to the said Statute of Westminster the 2d to this effect That a Maiden or Wife being Ravished and afterwards consenting to the Ravishers as well the Ravisher as she that was Ravished shall be disabled to claim all Inheritance or Dower after the death of her Husband or Ancestor On this account the Doubt was here raised in Ireland in the 8th of Edward the 4th c. 1. Whether this latter English Statute of the 6th of Richard the 2d c. 6. were not in force in Ireland by virtue of the Irish Statute of the 13th of Edward the 2d which confirmed the Statute of Westminster the 2d c. 34. And for setling this Doubt the said Statute of the 8th of Edward the 4th c. 1. was passed in Ireland and we find very good reason for the said Doubt For the English Statute of the 6th of Richard the 2d c. 6. contained but a small addition to the Statute of Westminster the 2d c. 34. and we see that even this ad dition it self was judged not to be of force in Ireland till Enacted here For the said Irish Statute of the 8th of Edward the 4th c. 1. makes the said Statute of the 6th of Rich. 2d c. 6. of Force in Ireland only from the 6th of March then last past 'T is urg'd secondly That tho' perhaps such Acts of Parliament in England which do not Name Ireland shall not be construed to Bind Ireland yet all such English Statutes as mention Ireland either by the General Words of all his Majesty's Dominions or by particularly Naming of Ireland are and shall be of Force in this Kingdom This being a Doctrine first broach'd Directly as I conceive by Will. Hussey Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench in England in the first year of Henry the Seventh and of late Revived by the Lord Chief Justice Cook and strongly urged and much rely'd upon iâ—… these latter Days I shall take thâ—… Liberty of Enlarging thereon tho I venture thereby to swell this Pamphlet to a size greater than I desire or design'd First therefore As to such English Statutes as seem to comprehend Ireland and to Bind it under the General Words of all his Majesty's Dominions or Subjects whatever has been the Opinion of Private and Particular Lawyers in this Point I am sure the Opinions of the Kings of England and their Privy Council have been otherwise 'T is well known since Poyning's Act in Ireland the 10th of Henry the Seventh no Act can pass in our Parliament here till it be first Assented to by the King and Privy Council of England and Transmitted hither under the Broad Seal of England Now the King and his Privy Council there have been so far from surmising that an Act of Parliament of England mentioning only in General All the Kings Dominions or Subjects should Bind Ireland that they have clearly shewn the contrary by frequently Transmitting to Ireland to be pass'd into Laws here English Statutes wherein the General Words of all the Kings Dominions or Subjects were contain'd which would have been to no purpose but meerly Actum Agere had Ireland been Bound before by those English Statutes Of this I shall give the following Examples amongst many others The Act of Parliament in England against Appeals to Rome 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. by express words extends to all his Majesties Dominions yet the same was not in force nor receiv'd in Ireland till it was Enacted by Parliament there the 28th of Hen. 8. c. 6. In like manner the Statutes made in England concerning First Fruits
26 Hen. 8. c. 3. and the Act of Faculties 25 Hen. 8. c. 21. though each of them by express words comprize All his Majesties Subjects and Dominions were not receiv'd as Laws in Ireland till the former was Enacted there 28 H. 8. c. 4. and the latter the 28 Hen. 8. c. 19. and so the Stature Restoring to the Crown all Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical made in England Anno 1 Eliz. c. 1. and therein giving Power to Erect an Ecclesiastical High-Commission-Court in England and Ireland yet was not of Force in Ireland till Enacted there Anno 2 Eliz. c. 1. And tho the said English Act in relation to Erecting such an High-Commission Court was Repeal'd 17 Car. 1. c. 11 and the Repeal confirm'd the 13 Car. 2. c. 12 And the late Bill of Rights 1 W. and M. Ses. 2. c. 2. in England has damn'd all such Courts Yet the Act in Ireland 2 Eliz. c. 1. remains still in force here and so it was lately declar'd here by the Lord High-Chancellour Porter Lord Chief Justice Reynel Lord Chief Baron Hely Mr. Justice Cox Mr. Justice Ieffreyson in the Case of Dr. Thomas Hacket late Bishop of Down who was depriv'd of the said Bishoprick by such a Commission for great Enormities the Commissioners being Dr. Dopping late Bishop of Meath Dr. King the present Bishop of London-Derry and Dr. Wiseman late Bishop of Dromore And truly I see no more Reason for Binding Ireland by the English Laws under the General Words of all his Majesties Dominions or Subjects than there is for Binding Scotland by the same for Scotland is as much his Dominion and Scots-men as much his Subjects as Ireland and Irish-men If it be said That Scotland is an Antient Separate and Distinct Kingdom from England I say So is Ireland The Difference is Scotland continued separate from the Kings of England till of late years and Ireland continued separate from England but a very little while in the Person of King Iohn before the Death of his Father and of his Brother Richard the First without issue But then 't is to be considered that there was a Possibility or even a Probability that Ireland might have continued separate from the Crown of England even to this very day if Richard the First had left behind him a Numerous Progeny Secondly As to such English Statutes as particularly Name Ireland and are therefore said to be of Force in this Kingdom tho' never Enacted here I shall consider only the more Antient Precedents that are offered in Confirmation of this Doctrine For as to those of later Date 't is these we complain of as bearing hard on the Liberties of this Country and the Rights of our Parliaments and therefore these ought not to be produced as Arguments against us I presume if I can shew that the Antient Precedents that are produced do not conclude against us it will follow that the Modern Instances given ought not to conclude against us that is to say plainly These ought not to have been made as they are as wanting Foundation both from Authority and Reason The Antient Precedents of English Statutes particularly Naming Ireland and said to be made in England with a Design of Binding Ireland are chiefly these three 1. Statutum Hiberniae 14 H. 3. 2. Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae 17 Edw. 1. 3. And the Act that all Staple Commodities passing out of England or Ireland shall be carried to Callis as long as the Staple is at Callis 2 Hen. 6. c. 4. on which Hussey delivered his Opinion as we shall see more fully hereafter These Statutes especially the two first being made for Ireland as their Titles import have given occasion to think that the Parliament of England have a Right to make Laws for Ireland without the Consent of their Chosen Representatives But if we Enquire farther into this matter we shall find this Conclusion not fairly Deduced First The Statutum Hiberniae 14 Hen. 3. as 't is to be found in the Collection of English Statutes is plainly thus The Judges in Ireland conceiving a Doubt concerning Inheritances devolved to Sisters or Coheirs viz. Whether the younger Sisters ought to hold of the Eldest Sister and do Homage unto her for their Portions or of the Chief Lord and do Homage unto him therefore Girald Fitz Maurice the then Lord Justice of Ireland dispatcht four Knights to the King in England to bring a Certificate from thence of the Practice there used and what was the common-Common-Law of England in that Case Whereupon Hen. 3. in this his Certificate or Rescript which is called Statutum Hiberniae meerly informs the Justice what the Law and Custom was in England viz. That the Sisters ought to hold of the Chief Lord and not of the Eldest Sister And the close of it commands that the foresaid Customs that be used within our Realm of England in this Case be Proclaimed throughout our Dominion of Ireland and be there observ'd Teste meipso apud Westminst 9. Feb. An. Reg. 14. From whence 't is manifest that this Statutum Hiberniae was no more than a Certificate of what the common Law of England was in that Case which Ireland by the Original Compact was to be governed by And shews no more that therefore the Parliament of England may bind Ireland than it would have proved that the Common Wealth of Rome was subject to Greece if after Rome had received the Law of the Twelve Tables they had sent to Greece to know what the Law was in some Special Case The Statute call'd Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae made at Notingham the 17th of Edward the First and to be found in Pultons Collection pag. 76. Edit Lond. 1670. was certainly never Received or of Force in Ireland This is Manifest from the very first Article of that Ordnance which Prohibits the Iustice of Ireland or others the Kings Officers there to Purchase Land in that Kingdom or within their respective Balliwicks without the Kings Licence on pain of Forfeitures But that this has ever been Otherwise and that the Lords Justices and other Officers here have Purchas'd Lands in Ireland at their own Will and Pleasure needs no Proof to those who have the least knowledge of this Country Nor does it appear by any Inquisition Office or other Record that any one ever Forfeited on that Account Moreover this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae is really in it self No Act of Parliament but meerly an Ordinance of the King and his Privy Council in England which appears as well from the Preamble to the said Ordinance as from this Observation likewise That King Edward the First held no Parliament in the 17th year of his Reign Or if this were a Parliament this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae is the only Act thereof that is Extant But 't is very improbable that only this single Ordinance should Appear if any such Parliament were call'd together Thirdly As to the Staple-Act 2
is the Brutal Force the Aggressor has used that gives his Adversary a Right to take away his Life as a noxious Creature But 't is only Damage sustain'd that gives Title to another Mans Goods It must be confess'd that the Practice of the World is otherwise and we commonly see the Conqueror whether Iust or Unjust by the Force he has over the Conquer'd compels them with a Sword at their Brest to stoop to his Conditions and submit to such a Government as he pleases to Afford them But we Enquire not now what is the Practice but what Right there is to do so If it be said the Conquer'd submit by their own Consent Then this allows Consent necessary to give the Conquerour a Title to Rule over them But then we may Enquire whether Promises Extorted by Force without Right can be thought Consent and how far they are Obligatory And I humbly conceive they Bind not at all He that forces my Horse from me ought presently to Restore him and I have still a Right to retake him So he that has forced a Promise from me ought presently to Restore it that is quit me of the Obligation of it or I may chuse whether I will perform it or not For the Law of Nature obliges us only by the Rules she prescribes and therefore cannot oblige me by the Violation of her Rules such is the Extorting any thing from me by Force From what has been said I presume it pretty clearly appears that an Unjust Conquest gives no Title at all That a Iust Conquest gives Power only over the Lives and Liberties of the Actual Opposers but not over their Posterity or Estates otherwise than as before is mentioned and not at all over those that did not Concur in the Opposition They that desire a more full Disquisition of this Matter may find it at large in an Incomparable Treatise concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government Chap. 16. This Discourse is said to be written by my Excellent Friend IOHN LOCKE Esq Whether it be so or not I know not This I am sure whoever is the Author the Greatest Genius in Christendom need not disown it But granting that all we have said in this Matter is Wrong and granting that a Conquerour whether Iust or Unjust obtains an Absolute Arbitrary Dominion over the Persons Estates Lives Liberties and Fortunes of all those whom he finds in the Nation their Wives Posterity c. so as to make perpetual Slaves of them and their Generations to come Let us next Enquire whether Concessions granted by such a Victorious Hero do not bound the Exorbitancy of his Power and whether he be not Obliged strictly to Observe these Grants And here I believe no Man of Common Sense or Justice will Deny it None that has ever Consider'd the Law of Nature and Nations can possibly hesitate on this matter the very Proposing it strikes the Sense and Common Notions of all Men so forcibly that it needs no farther proof I shall therefore insist no longer on it but hasten to consider how far this is the Case of Ireland And that brings me naturally to the fourth Particular propos'd vizt To shew by Precedents Records and History what Concessions and Grants have been made from time to time to the People of Ireland and by what steps the Laws of England came to be introduced into this Kingdom We are told by Matth. Paris Historiographer to Hen. III. that Henry the Second a little before he left Ireland in a Publick Assembly and Council of the Irish at Lismore did cause the Irish to Receive and swear to be Govern'd by the Laws of England Rex Henricus saith he antequam ex Hibernia Rediret apud Lismore Concilium Congregavit ubi Leges Angliae sunt ab omnibus gratanter receptae Iuratoriâ cautione prestitâ Confirmatae Vid. Matth. Paris ad An. 1172. Vit. H. 2. And not only thus but if we may give Credit to Sir Edward Cook in the 4th Instit. Cap. 1. and 76. and to the Inscription to the Irish Modus Tenendi Parliamentum it will clearly Appear that Henry the Second did not only settle the the Laws of England in Ireland and the Jurisdiction Eclesiastical there by the Voluntary Acceptance and Allowance of the Nobility and Clergy but did likewise Allow them the Freedom of Holding of Parliaments in Ireland as a separate and distinct Kingdom from England and did then send them a Modus to Direct them how to Hold their Parliaments there The Title of which Modus runs thus Henricus Rex Angliae Conquestor Dominus Hiberniae c. Mittit hanc formam Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus Baronibus Iusticiariis Vicecomitibus Majoribus Praepositis Ministris omnibus Fidelibus suis Terrae Hiberniae Tenendi Parliamentum In primis Summonitio Parliamenti praecedere debet per Quadraginta Dies And so forth This Modus is said to have been sent into Ireland by Hen. II. for a Direction to Hold their Parliaments there And the sense of it agrees for the most part with the Modus Tenendi Parl. in England said to have been Allowed by William the Conquerour when he obtain'd that Kingdom where 't is alter'd 't is only to fit it the better for the Kingdom of Ireland I know very well the Antiquity of this Modus so said to be Transmitted for Ireland by Hen. II. is question'd by some Learned Antiquaries particularly by Mr. Selden and Mr. Pryn who deny also the English Modus as well as this But on the other hand my Lord Chief Justice Cook in the 4th Instit. pag. 12. and 349. does strenuously Assert them both And the late Reverend and Learned Dr. Dopping Bishop of Meath has Published the Irish Modus with a Vindication of its Antiquity and Authority in the Preface There seems to me but two Objections of any Moment raised by Mr. Pryn against these Modi The One relates both to the English and Irish Modus the other chiefly strikes at the Irish. He says the Name Parliament so often found in these Modi was not a name for the great Council of England known so early as these Modi Pretend to I confess I am not prepared to Disprove this Antiquary in this Particular But to me it seems reasonable enough to Imagine that the Name Parliament came in with William the Conqueror 'T is a Word perfectly French and I see no reason to doubt it's Coming in with the Normans The other Objection affects our Irish Modus for he tells us That Sheriffs were not establish'd in Ireland in Henry II's time when this Modus was pretended to be sent hither yet we find the Word Vicecomes therein To this I can only Answer That Hen. II. intending to Establish in Ireland the English form of Government as the first and Chief step thereto he sent them Directions for Holding of Parliaments Designing afterwards by degrees and in
under the three first Kings of Ireland of the Norman Race the Laws and Liberties of the People of England were granted to the People of Ireland And that neither of these three Kings Established those Laws in Ireland by any Power of the Parliament of England but by the free Consent Allowance and Acceptance of the People of Ireland Hen. II. first introduced the Laws of England into Ireland in a Publick Assembly of the Irish at Lismore and Allowed them the Freedom of Parliaments to be held in Ireland as they were held in England King John at the Request and by the Consent of the Irish did appoint the Laws of England to be of Force in Ireland and tho' he did not this till the Twelfth year of his Reign of England yet he did it not as King of England but as Lord of Ireland For the Crown of England came to him by Descent from his Brother Richard who had no Regal Power in Ireland and what his Brother had not could not descend to him Henry the Third in the first year of his Reign gave Ireland a Magna Charta and in the Twelfth year of his Reign did provide That all the Laws of England should be observ'd in Ireland and that the Charter granted to the Irish by his Father King Iohn under his Seal when he was in that Kingdom should be kept inviolably And from the Days of these Three Kings have England and Ireland been both Govern'd by the like Forms of Government under one and the same Supreme Head the King of England yet so as both Kingdoms remain'd Separate and Distinct in their several Jurisdictions under that One Head as are the Kingdoms of England and Scotland at this day without any Subordination of the One to the Other It were endless to mention all Records and Precedents that might be quoted for the Establishment of the Laws of England in Ireland I shall therefore enter no farther into that Matter but therein refer to Lord Chief Justice Cook Pryn Reyly c. If now we Enquire What were those Laws of England that became thus Established in Ireland Surely we must first reckon the Great Law of Parliaments which England so justly Challenges and all Mankind have a Right to By the Law of Parliament I mean that Law where by all Laws receive their Sanction The Free Debates and Consent of the People by Themselves or their Chosen Representatives That this was a main Branch of the English Law Established in this Kingdom and the very Foundation of our Future Legislature appears manifest from Parliaments being so early convok'd in Ireland as the fore-mention'd Precedents express Mr. Pryn acknowledges one in Hen. II's time pag. 259. against the 4th Instit. but makes a very false Conclusion that there appears no Footsteps of a Parliament afterwards till the third year of Edward the Second because the Acts of that Parliament are the first that are Printed in our Irish Statute-Book For so we may argue the Parliaments of England to be of later Date than pretended when we find the first Printed Acts in Keeble to be no older than the 9th of Hen. III. Whereas 't is most certain that Parliaments have been held in England some Ages before that After this Great Law of Parliaments we may reckon the Common Law of England whether it relates to Regulating and Setling of Property and Estates in Goods or Land or to the Iudiciary and Executive parts of the Law and the Ministers and Process thereof or to Criminal Cases These surely were all Establish'd in this Country by the three first Kings of Ireland of the Norman Race Let us now consider the state of the Statute Laws of England under these three Kings and their Predecessors For by the Irish Voluntary Submission to and Acceptance of the Laws and Government of England we must repute them to have submitted themselves to these likewise till a Regular Legislature was Establish'd amongst them in pursuance of that Submismission and Voluntary Acceptance And here we shall find that in those Times viz. from the Norman Conquest to Henry the Third's time inclusive the Statute-Laws of England were very few and slender 'T is true that before the 12th of Hen. III. we find amongst the English Historians frequent mention of the Laws of Edward the Confessor William the Conquerour Hen. I. Hen. II. King Iohn and Hen. III. All which are only Charters or several Grants of Liberties from the King which nevertheless had the force of Acts of Parliament and laid as great Obligations both upon Prince and People as Acts of Parliament do at this day Whereof we may read several Proofs in the Princes Case Cook 's 8th Report But these were only so many Confirmations of each other and all of them Sanctions of the Common Laws and Liberties of the People of England ab Antiquo Usitatae comprohatae per totam terram in quibus ipsi eorum Patres nati nutriti sunt as the words of the Manuscript Chronicle of Litchfield express it The Laws of Edward the Confessor held in so great Veneration in Antient Times per universum Regnum corroboratae confirmatae prius inventae Constitutae fuerunt Tempore Regis Edgari Avi sui Verum tamen post mortem ipsius Regis Edgari usque ad Coronationem Sancti Regis Edwardi which was 67 years praedictae Leges Sopitae sunt penitus intermissae Sed postquam Rex Edwardus in Regno sublimatus fuit Consilio Baronum Angliae Legem illam sopitam Excitavit Excitam Reparavit Reparatam Decoravit Decoratam Confirmavit confirmatae vocantur Lex Sancti Regis Edwardi non quod ipse primus eam ad invenisset sed quod Reparavit Restituitque as the said Litchfield Chronicle has it These Laws of Edward the Confessor were transcribed by Ingulphus Abbot of Croy land under William the Conqueror and are annexed to his History The Laws of William the Conqueror are but a Confirmation of the Laws of Edward the Confessor with some small alterations as the very Letter of those Laws themselves express it Hoc quoque praecipimus ut omnes habeant teneant Leges Edwardi Regis in omnibus Rebus adauctis his quas constituimus ad Utilitatem Anglorum The Laws of Henry I. which are in the Red Book of the Exchequer in the custody of the Kings Remembrancer in England are but a summary confirmation both of the Laws of Edward the Confessor and William the First as the Charter it self expresses it Lagam Regis Edwardi vobis Reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus Pater meus emendavit Consilio Baronum suorum The Laws of Henry II. called Constitutiones Clarendoniae and the Assize of Clarendon in the 2d part of Cooks Inst. p. 6. are all but confirmations and vindications of the King 's just Prerogative against the Usurpations of the Pope and
Iudgment of Law Whether he means the Law of Nature and Reason or of Nations or the Civil Laws of our Commonwealths in none of which Senses I conceive will he or any Man be ever able to make out his Position Is the Reason of England's Parliament not Binding Ireland Because we do not send thither Representatives And is the Efficacy of this Reason taken off by our being Named in an English Act Why should sending Representatives to Parliament Bind those that send them Meerly because thereby the Consent of those that are Bound is obtain'd as far as those sort of Meetings can possibly permit which is the very Foundation of the Obligation of all Laws And is Ireland's being Named in an English Act of Parliament the least step towards obtaining the Consent of the People of Ireland If it be not then certainly my Lord Cook 's Parenthesis is to no purpose And 't is a wonder to me that so many Men have run upon this vain Imagination meerly from the Assertion of this Judge For I challenge any Man to shew me that any one before him or any one since but from him has vended this Doctrine And if the bare Assertion of a Judge shall Bind a whole Nation and Dissolve the Rights and Liberties thereof We shall make their Tongues very powerful and constitute them greater Lawgivers than the greatest Senates I do not see why my Denying it should not be as Authentick as his Affirming it 'T is true He was a great Lawyer and a powerful Judge but had no more Authority to make a Law than I or any Man else But some will say He was a Learned Judge and may be supposed to have Reason for his Position Why then does he not give it us And then what he Asserts would Prevail not from the Authority of the Person but from the Force of the Reason The most Learned in the Laws have no more power to make or alter a Constitution than any other Man And their Decisions shall no farther prevail than supported by Reason and Equity I conceive my Ld. Ch. Justice Cooke apply'd himself so wholly to the Study of the Common Laws of England that he did not enquire far into the Laws of Nature and Nations if he had certainly he could never have been Guilty of such an Erroneous Slip He would have seen demonstrably that Consent only gives Humane Laws their Force and that therefore the Reason in the Case he quotes is unanswerable Quia non mittunt Milites ad Parliamentum Moreover the Assertion of Cooke in this point is directly contrary to the whole tenour of the Case which he cites For the very Act of Parliament on which the Debate of the Judges did arise and which they deemed not to be of Force in Ireland particularly names Ireland So that here again Ld. Cooke's Error appears most plainly For this I refer to the Report as I have exactly delivered it before pag. 90 91. By which it appears clearly to be the unanimous Opinion of all the Judges then in the Exchequer Chamber That within the Land of Ireland the Parliaments of England have no Jurisdiction whatever they may have over the Subjects of Ireland on the open Seas And the reason is given Quia Hibernia non mittit Milites ad Parliamentum in Angliâ This Assertion likewise is inconsistent with himself in other parts of his Works He tells us in his 4th Inst. pag. 349. That 't is plain that not only King John as all Men allow but Henry the Second also the Father of King John did Ordain and Command at the Instance of the Irish That such Laws as had been in England should be Observ'd and of Force in Ireland Hereby Ireland being of it self a distinct Dominion and no part of the Kingdom of England was to have Parliaments holden there as in England And in pag. 12. he tells us That Henry the Second sent a Modus into Ireland directing them how to hold their Parliaments But to what end was all this if Ireland nevertheless were subject to the Parliament of England The King and Parliaments of these Kingdoms are the supream Legislators If Ireland be subject to Two its Own and that of England it has Two Supreams 't is not impossible but they may Enact different or contrary Sanctions which of these shall the People Obey He tells us in Calvin's Case fol. 17. b. That if a King hath a Christian Kingdom by Conquest as Henry the Second had Ireland after King John had given to them being under his Obedience and Subjection the Laws of England for the Government of that Country no succeeding King could alter the same without Parliament Which by the way seems directly contradictory to what he says concerning Ireland six lines below this last cited passage So that we may observe my Lord Cook enormously stumbling at every turn in this Point Thus I have done with this Reverend Judge and in him with the only Positive Opinion against us I shall now consider what our Law-Books offer in our Favour on this Point To this purpose we meet a Case fully apposite reported in the Year-Book of the 20th of Henry the 6th fol. 8. between one Iohn Pilkington and one A. Pilkington brought a Scire Facias against A. to shew Cause why Letters Patents whereby the King had granted an Office in Ireland to the said A. should not be repeal'd since the said Pilkington had the same Office granted to him by former Letters Patents of the same King to be occupied by himself or his Deputy Whereupon A. pleaded That the Land of Ireland time out of Memory hath been a Land separated and distinct from the Land of England and Ruled and Governed by the Customs of the same Land of Ireland That the Lords of the same Land which are of the King's Council have used from time to time in the absence of the King to Elect a Iustice who hath Power to Pardon and Punish all Felons c. and to call a Parliament and by the Advice of the Lords and Commonalty to make Statutes He alledged further That a Parliament was Assembled and that it was Ordain'd by the said Parliament That every Man who had an Office within the said Land before a certain day shall occupy the said Office by himself otherwise he should forfeit He shew'd that Pilkington Occupied by a Deputy and that therefore his Office was void and that the King had granted the said Office to him the said A. Hereupon Pilkington Demurr'd in Law and it was debated by the Judges Yelverton Fortescue Portington Markham and Ascough whether the said Prescription in relation to the State and Government of Ireland be good oâ—… void in Law Yelverton and Portington held the Prescription void But Fortescue Markham and Ascough held the Prescription good and that the Letters Patents made to A were good and ought not to be Repeal'd And in this it was agreed by Fortescue and Portington That if
a Tenth or Fifteenth be granted by Parliament in England that shall not Bind Ireland although the King should send the same Statute into Ireland under his Great Seal Except they in Ireland will in their Parliament Approve it Because they have not any Commandment by Writ to come to the Parliament of England And this was not Denied by Markham Yelverton or Ascough The Merchants of Waterford's Case which I have observed before pag. 90. as Reported in the Year Book of the 2d of Richard the 3d. fol. 11 12 is notorious on our behalf but needs not be here repeated The Case of the Prior of Lanthony in Wales mentioned by Mr. Pryn against the 4th Inst. ch 76. p. 313. is usually cited against us But I conceive 't is so far from proving this that 't is very much in our Behalf The Case was briefly thus The Prior of Lanthony brought an Action in the Com. Pleas of Ireland against the of Prior Mollingar for an Arrear of an Annuity and Judgment went against the Prior of Mollingar hereon the Prior of Mollingar brought a Writ of Error in the King's Bench of Ireland and the Judgment was affirmed Then the Prior of Mollingar Appeal'd to the Parliament in Ireland held 5 Hen. 6. before Iames Butler Earl of Ormond and the Parliament Revers'd both Judgments The Prior of Lanthony removed all into the King's Bench in England but the King's Bench refused to intermeddle as having no Power over what had pass'd in the Parliament of Ireland Hereupon the Prior of Lanthony Appeal'd to the Parliament of England And it does not appear by the Parliament Roll that any thing was done on this Appeal all that is Entred being only the Petition it self at the end of the Roll. Vid. Pryn against the 4th Instit. chap. 76. p. 313. Now whether this be a Precedent proving the Subordination of our Irish Parliament to that of England I leave the Reader to judge To me it seems the clear contrary For first we may observe the King's Bench in England absolutely disclaiming any Cognisance of what had passed in the Parliament of Ireland And next we may observe That nothing at all was done therein upon the Appeal to the Parliament of England Certainly if the Parliament of England had thought themselves to have a Right to Enquire into this Matter they had so done one way or t'other and not left the Matter Undetermin'd It has ever been acknowledged that the Kingdom of Ireland is inseparably annex'd to the Imperial Crown of England The Obligation that our Legislature lies under by Poyning's Act 10 H. 7. c. 4. makes this Tye between the two Kingdoms indissoluble And we must ever own it our Happiness to be thus Annex'd to England And that the Kings and Queens of England are by undoubted Right ipso facto Kings and Queens of Ireland And from hence we may reasonably conclude that if any Acts of Parliament made in England should be of force in Ireland before they are Received there in Parliament they should be more especially such Acts as relate to the Succession and Settlement of the Crown and Recognition of the Kings Title thereto and the Power and Iurisdiction of the King And yet we find in the Irish Statutes 28 Hen. VIII c. 2. An Act for the Succession of the King and Queen Ann and another Chap. 5. declaring the King to be Supream Head of the Church of Ireland both which Acts had formerly pass'd in the Parliament of England So likewise we find amongst the Irish Statutes Acts of Recognition of the Kings Title to Ireland in the Reigns of Henry the Eighth Queen Elizabeth King Iames King Charles the Second King William and Queen Mary By which it appears that Ireland tho' Annex'd to the Crown of England has always been look'd upon to be a Kingdom Compleat within it self and to have all Jurisdiction to an Absolute Kingdom belonging and Subordinate to no Legislative Authority on Earth Tho' 't is to be Noted these English Acts relating to the Succession and Recognition of the Kings Title do particularly Name Ireland As the Civil State of Ireland is thus Absolute within it self so likewise is our State Ecclesiastical This is manifest by the Canons and Constitutions and even by the Articles of the Church of Ireland which differ in some things from those of the Church of England And in all the Charters and Grant of Liberties and Immunities to Ireland we still find this That Holy Church shall be Free c. I would fain know what is meant here by the word Free Certainly if our Church be Free and Absolute within it self our State must be so likewise for how our Civil and Ecclesiastical Government is now interwoven every body knows But I will not enlarge on this head it suffices only to hint it I shall detain my self to our Civil Government Another Argument against the Parliament of England's Jurisdiction over Ireland I take from a Record in Reyley's Placita Parliamentaria pag. 569. to this effect In the 14th of Edward the Second the King sent his Letters Patents to the Lord Justice of Ireland leting him know That he had been moved by his Parliament at Westminster that he would give Order that the Irish Natives of Ireland might enjoy the Laws of England concerning Life and Member in as large and ample manner as the English of Ireland enjoy'd the same This therefore the King gives in Commandment and orders accordingly by these his Letters Patents From hence I say we may gather That the Parliament of England did not then take upon them to have any Iurisdiction in Ireland for then they would have made a Law for Ireland to this Effect but instead thereof they Apply to the King that he would interpose his Commands and give Directions that this great Branch of the Common Law of England should be put in Execution in Ireland indifferently to all the Kings Subjects there pursuant to the Original Compact made with them on their first Submission to the Crown of England Let us now consider the great Objection drawn from a Writ of Error 's lying from the Kings Bench of England on a Judgment given in the Kings Bench in Ireland which proves as 't is insisted on that there is a Subordination of Ireland to England and that if an Inferiour Court of Judicature in England can thus take cognizance of and over-rule the Proceedings in the like Court of Ireland it will follow that the Supream Court of Parliament in England may do the same in relation to the Proceedings of the Court of Parliament in Ireland It must be confess'd that this has been the constant Practice and it seems to be the great thing that induced my Lord Cook to believe that an Act of Parliament in England and mentioning or Including Ireland should Bind here The Subordination of Ireland to England he seems to infer from the Subordination of the Kings