Ralph de Diceto (c) An. 1175. Col. 597.21 observes that our Kings did in such sort follow the Ecclesiastical Canons as they had a care to Conserve their own Rights hence it is that in the Saxon Laws we find the Kings extending their Commands to the enjoyning of those things in Ecclesiastical matters which by Canons of Councils were agreed to as Sir Roger (a) Cap. 5. N. 6. Twisden hath summed up in Ten particulars ☞ In one of which King Alfred (b) L. L. Aluredi C. 8. pa. 25. Jourval c. 9. Coll. 823. The Decrees of such Councils must be well obeyed when Kings were present reserves to himself the liberty of dispensing event with the Marriage of Nuns In another it appears that the Kings caused the Clergy of their Kingdom to meet in Council and sometimes presided themselves in them tho' the Popes Legat were present as may be seen in Sir Henry Spelmans Councils Page 292.293.189 pasim Ibid. vita Lanfranci C. 6. Col. 1. pa. 7. Florent Wigorn. 1070. p. 434. ☞ It is likewise certain that before (c) Twisden Vindica c. 5. N. 7. p. 99. William the Conquerors time the English Bishops had no Ordinary Courts distinguished from the Lay but both Secular and Ecclesiastical Magistrates sat and Judged together but he finding these proceedings (d) Non bene neque secundum Sanctorum Canonum praeceta not good nor according to the precept of the Holy Canons did by his Charter make a distinction of the Courts that such as were Convented by the Bishop should not Answer according (e) Non secundum hundred sed secundum Canones Episcopales Leges c. to the Hundred but according to the Canons and Episcopal Laws So that in this appears the Foundation of the Tryals in Ecclesiastical Courts according to the Ecclesiastical Laws which yet by our Lawyers are called the Kings Laws §. 11. The Kings Secular Courts determined what matters were to be tryed in Ecclesiastical Courts And it further appears that in Controversies betwixt parties where it hath been disputable whether the Tryal of them appertained to the Kings Ecclesiastical or Secular Courts The Kings Secular Courts have ever been Judges to which Court the cause did belong therefore Bracton (f) Lib. 5. de exceptionib cap. 15. sect 3. fol. 412. a. saith Judex Ecclesiasticus cum prohibitionem a Rege susceperit supersedere debet in omni casu saltem donec constiterit in Curia Regis ad quam pertineat Jurisdictio quia si Judex Ecclesiasticus aestimare possit an sua essec Jurisdictio in omni casu indifferenter procederet non obstunte Regiâ prohibitione Which is agreeable to what we find King William the First did in a Council at Illibon in Normandy Anno 1080. when by the advice of both the States Ecclesiastic and Secular he did settle many particulars to belong to the Cognizance of the Spiritual Judges and concludes that if any thing were further claimed by them they should not enter upon it (a) Donec in Curia Regis monstrent quod Episcopi inde habere debeant till they had shewed in the Court of the King that the Bishops thereupon ought to have it belong to them Whoever desires to be satisfied in the Jurisdiction of the Kings of England in Ecclesiastical matters may sind an Abridgment of them in Sir Roger Twisden (b) Vindicat. c. 5. N. 17. enforced with sufficient Testimonies out of our most Authentic Historians in Eighteen particulars §. 12. The application of these Historical Collections ☞ Upon the whole matter we may conclude that what was done by Archiepiscopal or Episcopal Visitation of the University was by the Kings Authority so that tho' we find not that by Immediate Commission the Kings of England Visited before King Henry the Eighth's time yet we have sufficient grounds to Judge that whatever was done was by the Kings power and Authority Therefore Sir Edward (c) Cawdryes Case 5 Reports p. 8. b. How the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts were subordinate to the King according to the Opinion of our Modern Lawyers Cooke lays it down for a Rule that as in Temporal Causes the King by the Mouth of the Judges in his Courts of Justice doth Judge and determin the same by the Temporal Laws of England so in Causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual by his Ecclesiastical Judges according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Realm and that so many of the Ecclesiastical Laws as were proved approved and allowed here by and with General Consent are aptly and rightly called the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of England and whosoever denyeth this denyeth the King to have full and plenary power to deliver Justice in all Cases to all his Subjects without which he were not a compleat Monarch or head of the whole and entire Body of the Realm according to the words of the Statute (d) Stat. 24 H. 8. c. 12. The King the Fountain of Justice that the Kingly Head of this Body Politic is Instituted and furnished with plenary whole and intire Power Preheminence Authority Prerogative and Jurisidiction to render and yield Justice and final determination to all manner of Folke Resiants or Subjects within the Realm in all causes matters debates and contentions happening to occur insurge or begin within the limits thereof c. §. 13. In what particulars our Kings claimed not Ecclesiastical Administration It must be likewise considered that whatever power our Kings Exercised in Ecclesiastical Affairs they never claimed any in those things the School men call Ordinis as the Administration of Sacraments Celebrating Divine Offices c. but in that which is called Jurisdictionis and that being either Internal where the Divine by persuasion wholsom Instructions Ghostly Counsel and the like convinceth the Conscience This is Sir Roger Twisdens observation whereby it is obedient or External where the Church in Foro exteriori compels the Christians obedience As to the first and second none of our Kings either before or since the Reformation took upon them at all to medle either by assuming to themselves a power of Preaching Teaching Binding or loosing in foro Animae Administring the Holy Sacraments Conferring Orders c. But they took upon them the Ordering of such things as were of outward Policy of the Church as what Men were fit to Exercise them and what subjection the Subjects should yield to Decrees and Constitutions made abroad and what Doctrins were publicly to be Taught which might conduce to the quiet Peace and Tranquility of the Subject and their living in Piety and Vertue §. 14. How the Popes obtained greater powers after the Canon Laws were owned here It is further to be noted that the Popes power was enlarged after the Canon Law was received more than it had been before but if we believe Walsingham (a) Walsingham ad Ann. 1297. it was not Read in our Universities publicly till the 25th of Edward the First
by one Simon a Monk of Walden ☞ It is likewise to be noted that altho' as I have shewn before the first Race of our Kings did frequently oppose some Rights the Popes claimed by Canons yet within the compass of an Hundred Years after the Conquest The Popes Jurisdiction in four particulars by the Canons or little more the Court of Rome obtained four great points of Jurisdiction First of sending Legats into England Secondly drawing Appeals to Rome Thirdly the Donation of Bishoprics and other Dignities in the Church Fourthly the Exemption of the Clergy from Secular Power Notwithstanding all which several Kings reassumed their Rights and Jurisdiction as occasions offered until the Reign of King Henry the Eighth as the Statutes of Mortmain Provisoes c. do manifest §. 15. The Kings Supremacy asserted by King Henry the 8th But in King Henry the Eighth's time a Total Rout was given to them all In the Twenty fourth of his Reign all Appeals to Rome were taken away and Established in the King and all Sentences made or to be made with England declared to be Authentical notwithstanding any Act from Rome The grounds of which Act are set forth in the (b) Stat. 24. H. 8. c. 12. Parag. 1. Preamble That this Realm of England is an Empire Governed by one Supreme Head and King The Lawyers Judge this Statute not to be Introductory of any new power but declatory of the Ancient Rights of the Crown having Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a Body Politic Compact of all sorts and Degrees of People divided in Terms by Names of Spirituality and Temporality been bounden and own to bear next to God a Natural and humble obedience Then follows the plenitude of the Kings power as before I have related after which follows That the Body Spiritual hath power when any cause of the Law Divine happens to come in question or of Spiritual Learning This Statute was made to exclude the Popes power which King Henry the 8th rejected that it was declared Interpreted and shewed by that part of the Body Politic called the Spirituality without the Intermedling of any exterior person or persons by which the See of Rome is intended to be utterly Excluded and all Canons of Council likewise not allowed of by the King and his Laws to declare and detemin all such doubts and to Administer all such Offices and Duties as to their Rooms Spiritual doth appertain and the Laws Temporal for Tryal of property of Lands and Goods and for the Conservation of the people of this Realm in Unity and Peace without Rapine and Spoil was and yet is Administred Adjudged and Executed by sundry Judges and Ministers of the other part of the Body Politic called the Temporality and both the Authorities and Jurisdictions do conjoyn together in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other By which it is easie to infer that this Statute exterminates and abolisheth all Forreign power so that whatever before this was Transacted here by the Popes or their Legats is now to be declared and determined by the King or such as by Law are appointed to hear and determin such matters under him §. 16. The Kings power of Visiting c. In the Twenty-sixth of the same King it is enacted That the King his Heirs and Successors shall have full Power and Authority from time to time to (a) Stat. 26 H. 8 c. 1. The Kings power of Visiting Visit Repress Redress Reform Order Correct Restrain and Amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities what soever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisidiction ought or may lawfully be Reformed Repressed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or Amended most to the pleasure of Almighty God the increase of Virtue in Christs Religion and for the Conservation of the Peace Unity and Tranquility of this Realm any Uses Customs Forreign Laws Forreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding It is known that the Title of Supreme Head of the Church given by that Act to the King his Heirs and Successors was Repealed by Queen Mary The Title of Supreme Head changed and was never restored but in the First of Queen Elizabeth all the powers given by the Act of 26 H. 8. are restored to the Crown under the Name of Supreme Governor For in the first of Queen Elizabeth such Ancient Jurisdictions over the Estate Ecclesiastical are restored to the Crown The restoring of Ancient Jurisdiction as by Queen Mary had been Repealed and all Foreign powers repugnant to the same are abolished I shall only insert what relates to the present matter Stat. 1. Eliz. Parag. 17. Parag. 17. It is thus Enacted That such Jurisdiction Privileges Superiorities and Prehemenences Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual and Ecclesiastical power or Authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities shall for ever by Authority of this present Parliament be Vnited and Annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Parag. 18. The Kings power in Ecclesiastical matters And in the 18th Paragraph The Queen her Heirs and Successors shall have full Power and Authority by Letters Patents under the Great Seal to Assign Name and Authorize c. such person or persons c. as the Queen her Heirs and Successors shall think meet to exercise use occupy and execute under them all manner of Jurisdictions Privileges and Preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within their Dominions to Visit Reform Redress Order Correct and Amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or may lawfully be Reformed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or Amended c. Which seems to me 25 H. 8. c. 21. Parag. 20. The King Supreme Visitor notwithstanding Mr. Pryns exceptions clear by another Act of Parliament the words of which are Provided that the said Arch-Bishop of Canterbury or any other person or persons shall have no power or Authority by reason of this Act to Visit or Vex any Monasteries Abbys Priories Colleges Hospitals Houses or other places Religious which be or were Exempt before the making of this Act c. But that Redress Visitation and Confirmation shall be had by the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors by Commission under the Great Seal to be directed to such persons as shall be appointed requisite for the same In fine whoever considers the Accumulated power of our Kings most own à fortiori that whatever Visitatorial Power was excercised before King H. 8ths time was by the Kings allowance and all since
prove like the Sin of Witch-craft but the latter will be better accepted than Sacrifice because in that you only offer up a beast to God but in this you Sacrifice your Passions you slay them and offer them up to Gods service Remember Error seldom goes in Company with Obedience and that none are so likely to find the way to Eternal happiness in the end as they who follow the Conduct of their Superiors from the beginning not with Eye service as Men pleasers but in singleness of Heart Fearing God and the King and whatsoever you do do it heartily as unto the Lord and not unto us Men And the Lord give you understanding in all things The Speech being ended the Lords adjourned till the Afternoon to the Common Room of the College FRIDAY Afternoon AT which time the Court being sat Dr. Hough in behalf of himself and the Fellows demanded a Copy of their Lordships Commission which was denyed him and the Court ordered to proceed and then admonished the Fellows to produce the Registery of the College Affairs and also to give an account of what Leases had been Lett for two Years last past together with the Benefactions given to the College and likewise ordered them to bring in the Buttry Book to Morrow Morning to which time they adjourned §. 3. SATVRDAY Morning October 22d 1687. DR Hough was called in and it appearing to their Lordships that his Election to the Presidents place was made null and void by a Sentence given by the Lords Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes and that he the said Dr. Hough had legal notice of the same but notwithstanding the said Sentence he had and did still refuse to submit thereunto The Court ordered him forthwith peaceably to depart the College and deliver up the Keys of the Lodgings and struck his Name out of the Buttry-Book and having so done declared to the Fellows that he was Actually Expelled and admonished them not to own him as their President Then the Court askt the Fellows whether they would amdit the Bishop of Oxon their President according to the Kings Mandate but all of them refused except Mr. Charnock but said they would not oppose it Then adjourned till the Afternoon SATVRDAY Afternoon DR Hough came into the Court and made his protestation against the proceedings and appealed from the same as Illegal Unjust and Null as he asserts Whereupon there was a Tumultuous Hum or Acclamation made by the by-standers which gave the Court some disturbance in so much that they thought fit to bind over Dr. Hough in 1000 l. and two Sureties in 500 l. each to appear at the Kings Bench and again admonished Dr. Hough to quit the College which he accordingly did that Night Then adjourned to Tuesday Morning Thus far out of the Register But because the Paper sent with the Letter to the Earl of Sunderland is more full in several particulars I shall Insert it after the following Letter together with such Additions as the Bishop of Chesters own Journals afford me §. 4. The Lords Commissioners sent the Following Letter to my Lord President Dated 22d October 1687. MY LORD BY His Majesties Messenger See the Answer to this after the Programma §. 6. we have sent your Lordship a particular account of our proceedings here to which we humbly refer in which your Lordship will perceive the Temper of that Society My Lord we hope your Lordship will easily believe that we are not unwilling to do any thing which may vindicate the Kings Honor and Authority but we humbly desire to be well advised by your Lordship in the Methods of it for we are now a little at a stop by reason of the Bishop of Oxon's not appearing in Person having no Power as we humbly conceive either by the Kings Mandate or by our Commission to Admit him by Proxy His Majesties Letter Mandatory for the same being directed to the College who all but two or three do as yet refuse it We therefore humbly Pray your Lordship to dispatch His Majesties Mandate directed to Us to Admit the Bishop or his Proxy or that you would please to give us some other Directions such as your Lordship in your Great Wisdom shall Judge more expedient We do crave leave also to Intimate to your Lordship that it is our humble Opinion that We cannot proceed any further then Expulsion against Dr. Hough which your Lordship will find already done according to the Power we have by the Commission and we humbly Pray your Lordships Pardon and further Commands which shall be readily obeyed by His Majesties most Dutiful Subjects and Your Lordships most humble Servants Tho. Cestriensis R. Wright Tho. Jenner My Lord since the Writing of this Letter We have reason to believe we shall have an entire submission from the College on Tuesday next for Dr. Hough since his Expulsion hath left the College and taken Lodgings in the Town §. 4. The account sent by the Lords Commissioners of their proceedings till Saturday night Octob. 22. Oxford the 22d Octob. 1687. HIs Majesties Commissioners for Visiting the College of St. Mary Magdalen in Oxford Note that what is conteined betwixt these is what is in the Bishop of Chesters and Dr. Thâ—mas Smiâ—hs Diary and not in the Account sent by the Lords Commissioners Friday Afternoon being Yesterday viz. Thursday the 20th of October come at the time appointed viz. Friday Octob. 21. for the President Fellows and Schollars thereof to appear their Lordships took upon them the Execution thereof My Lord Bishop of Chester made a Speech to them upon the occasion of the Visitation and after an adjournment of the same to the Afternoon there then appeared Dr. Hough and several of the Fellows and most of the Schollars and Officers of the College Dr. Hough objected to the shortness of the time from the notice of the Visitation and prayed a Copy of the Commission and time to consider of it which was over ruled by the Court saying that if he and they could take any advantage from the Commission he hoped the King and their Lordships did not intend to bar them of it And in his own Name and the greatest part of the Fellows said that he submitted to the Visitation so far as was consistent with the Laws of the Land and the Statutes of the College and no further and that he could suffer no alteration of the Statutes neither by the King nor any other Person for which he had taken an Oath from which he could not swerve and thereupon Quoted the Statutes confirmed by King Henry the Sixth and their Oath that they should submit to no Alteration made by any Authority The Oxford Relation saith that my Lord Chief Justice answered you cannot Imagin that we Act contrary to the Laws of the Land and as to the Statutes the King has dispensed with them Do you think we come here to Act against Law Then the Sentence given the 22d Day of June 1687.
remedy had been at Common Law only It were easie to quote the resolutions of several Judges Savil's Reports fol. 83.105 that no Appeals lye to any but the King in person from a Sentence of the Kings Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes so Baron Savile affirms that no Appeal doth lye from a Sentence in the High Commission Court and that the high Commission Court is not within the meaning of the Statute of the 25 of H. 8. but the Opinion of my Lord Dyer or others do not exclude an Appeal to the King in person Dyer's Reports for 42. who is the Fountain of Justice and all the Statutes of King Henry the 8th and Queen Elizabeth as to the Erecting of Courts and granting Jurisdiction do only remit and restore the King to his Ancient Jurisdiction of Visiting and Reforming abuses recieving Appeals and other Judicial Acts as Supreme Head and Ordinary as Serjant Dacres observes §. 15. The Case of Charles Cottington Esq about Appeals I shall now Instance in a case of later date wherein there being an Appeal made to the House of Lords against a Decree of the Delegates the Lords dismissed it as not coming properly before them ☞ The case was this Ex Autographo In the Custody of the Clerk of the Parliament Charles Cottington Esq exhibited his Petition May the 10. 1678. to the Lords shewing that in the Year 1677. he Travailing into Foreign parts unfortunately fell into acquaintance with one Angela Margareta Gallina Daughter to a broken Gold-smith in Turin in the Dukedom of Savoy The Petition of Mr. Cottington and was contracted to her in the presence of a Romish Priest in Turin that afterwards he found her a vicious person Married to one Frichinone Patrimoniale upon which Information he left her and returned for England Then he sets forth that this Gallina came to England and claimed to be the Petitioners Wife that he had cited her before the Dean of the Arches in a cause de jactitatione Matrimonii and she alleged that before the contract with the Petitioner she was Divorced from Patrimoniale and the Divorce was pronounced by the Arch-Bishop of Turin and that tho' he made it appear that the Sentence was Collusory and in it self void and not to be regarded in England yet the Judge of the Arches had Sentenced the said Gallina to be the Petitioners Wife Then follows the premises so highly concerning your Petitioner both to the peril of his Conscience Honor Body and Estate and concerning this his Majesties Kingdom in the Establishing a Foreign Jurisdiction against the Laws of the Kingdom Your Petitioner humbly Appealeth in the premisses to this High and Honorable Court and humbly prayeth that the said Sentence of the said Dean of the Arches and Commissioners Delegates may be reversed This was referred to the Committee of privileges Referred to the Committee of privileges June the 6th it was ordered that Presidents and Records should be brought and Council to be heard June the 12th The Earl of Essex's Report from that Committee The Earl of Essex made report from the Committee that upon full hearing what was alleged by Council on both sides and upon perusal of several Presidents they are of Opinion that the said Appeal did not come properly before them the Earl of Shaftsbury only dissenting as by his Subscription appears The Order is entred in these words Die Lunae 17 o. Junii 1678. According to the Order of the 12th of this Instant June The House of Lords Order upon it the House took into consideration the Report from the Committee of privileges concerning the Appeal of Charles Cottington Esq from the Commissioners Delegates whether the said Appeals be properly brought before this House The Opinion of the Committee being that the said Appeal did not properly come before this House The Opinion of the Committee being that the said Appeal did not properly come before this House After debate and consideration of Presidents the Question being put Whither to agree with this Committee in the Report It was resolved in the Affirmative and it is thereupon Ordered that the Petition and Appeal of the said Charles Cottington be dismissed the House of Peers It is to be considered in this matter Considerations upon this Case that after the Sentence in favor of this Gallina by the Delegates Mr. Cottington Petitioned the King in person for a review or dis-annulling the Decree which the King refused to grant and upon that the Petitioner Addressed himself to the Lords whose Order I have recited and tho' it be not expressed in the same Order why the matter was not properly brought before their Lordships yet it is well known that the cause was by reason that Appeals in Ecclesiastical causes do not lye before their Lordships If I could have procured the Printed Case I might have enlarged upon this matter and if it be my good fortune to meet with it before the Publication hereof I shall take notice of what may be material in the Appendix §. 16. The Ninth Objection that matter of Fact proves not right It is Ninthly Objected that tho' it be allowed that the Kings of England have sometimes dispensed with College Statutes and done those things I have all along Instanced in yet that proves not the Right or Justice of the thing since à facto ad jus non valet consequentia To this I Answer The Answer there is a vast dis-proportion betwixt the Acts of Kings and of Subjects Constant and un-interrupted usage are the Foundations of the Customs of England which are Incorporated into the Common Law of the Land and so many Rights are determined for private persons But in the Orders of the Sovereign one declaration of his pleasure by Mandate in several Cases is sufficient Precedent tho' but rarely made use of upon the presumption in Law that such Acts of Kings are not without deliberate consultation However the constant practice of the Kings of England which I hope I have fully proved takes away all colour for this Argument And it is most certain if the Kings dispensing power with Statutes and putting in Heads of Colleges Fellows c. by Mandates If the Kings Prerogative in this Case had been against Law it would have been questioned at some time had been against the Law we should at some time or other heard of Actions brought before the Judges against the Kings Authority in that matter and found determinations upon them in favor of the aggrieved which I think is not to be found But the Kings of England have been in Possession of this Prerogative in all Ages The King in Possession of this Prerogative tho' most conspicuously since the Reformation and so this Prerogative must be adjudged to appertain to the King till by some Legal Tryal it shall be determined otherwise It may be upon this Topick rationally urged that tho' the Kings dispensing power in other matters be in
pronounced against him That whereas he had denyed the Authority of the Court and in Contempt of the Sentence of Suspension given against him by the Lords Commissioners at Whitehall taken his Commons and Battled in the College as a Fellow of the College notwithstanding his said Suspension the Court proceeded to deprive him of his Fellowship and Ordered his Name to be struck out of the Buttry-Book The Sentence pronounced against him I find in the Register tho' not in this place in the words following By His Majesties Commissioners c. WHereas in our Visitation of the said College it appeareth unto us that Henry Fairfax Doctor in Divinity one of the Fellows of the said College has been guilty of Dis-obedience to His Majesties Commands and obstinately contemned his Royal Authority and doth still persist in the same we have thought fit upon mature consideration thereof to Declare Pronounce and Decree that the said Dr Henry Fairfax be Expelled and Deprived of his said Fellowship and accordingly we do hereby deprive him and Expel him from the same Given under our Seal the 25th day of October 1687. Then the Lords issued the following Order By His Majesties Commissioners c. WHereas we have thought fit to Deprive and Expell Dr. Henry Fairfax from his Fellowship in the said College you and either of you are hereby required to cause our said Sentence and Decree a Copy whereof is hereto annexed to be affixed on the Gate of the said College to the end that due notice may be taken of the same and of the due Execution hereof you are to certifie us Given under our Seal the 25th of October 1687. To Thomas Atterbury and Robert Eddows Or either of them He then gave in his Protestation against their Proceedings which the Court over-ruled and ordered him to depart and quit his Lodgings in the College in Fourteen Days Then the Doctor prevailed with much a do saith the Oxford Relation to Read the following Protestation and left it in Court which was as followeth I Henry Fairfax Fellow of St. Mary Magdalen College Dr. Fairfax's Protestation do under my former Answer heretofore made and to the Intent it may appear that I have not consented nor agreed to any thing done against me to my prejudice I protest that this Sentence given here against me is Lex nulla and so far forth as it shall appear to be aliqua I do say it is iniqua injusta and that therefore I do from it as iniqua injusta appeal to our Sovereign Lord the King in his Courts of Justice as the Laws Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm will permit in that behalf Henry Fairfax §. 14. The under Porter deprived Then the Lords askt Robert Gardiner the Under Porter if he would submit to the Bishop of Oxon as President of the College which he refusing to do the Lords deprived him of his Office and adjourned the Court till the next Morning Mr. John Gilman's Paper I find thus That the Statutes of the College This Paper is mis-placed and should have been October 22d Afternoon to which I am positively Sworn are the only Rule of my Actions and Obedience in this and all other Cases of the like Nature and I conceive the Bishop of Oxon has not those Statutable Qualifications which are required therefore I cannot Assist at the Admission of the Bishop of Oxon. The submission of Dr. Thomas Smith was as followeth Dr. Tho. Smiths submission which he gave in when the Fellows gave in theirs I have put here by it self because I would not mix it with the other given in in Writing also MY LORDS I Own from my Heart and acknowledge the Kings Supremacy I do now and will always pay all Dutiful Just and Humble Obedience to His Majesties Authority as becomes a Priest of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of England Establish'd by Law. I make no exception to the Legality of your Lordships Commission nor to the exercise of it in this present Visitation I am ready and willing to obey in licitis honestis the President whom the King has pleased to Constitute President when ever he shall come and preside in the College Thomas Smith D. D. The Paper given in by Mr. Craddock was as followeth ABout Six Years since This Paper was given in October 22d Afternoon when I was made Fellow by the Kings Permission I took an Oath that I would not be dispensed with from my Local Statutes by which Statutes and Oaths it does not belong to me to Admit any Man President besides I conceive Dr. Hough cannot be Legally dispossessed of the Presidentship of Magdalen College till he has Appealed to Westminster or an Higher Court and till then I shall not cease my obedience to him Willi. Craddock I shall now insert the Lords Commissioners Answer to my Lord Presidents last Letter and then proceed in the Narrative §. 15. The Answer to the Lord Presidents Letter of the 23d of October Oxon the 25th October 1687. MY LORD IN Obedience to your Lordship of the 23d Instant and the Kings Letters Mandatory we have this day Installed the Lord Bishop of Oxon's Proxy by placeing him in the Presidents Seat in the Chappel and some while after Dr. Hough having left the College and the Keys being deny'd us we caused the Doors of the Lodgings to be broken up and gave his Proxy Possession thereof My Lord we proceeded to examin the Fellows concerning their submission to the Lord Bishop of Oxon now their President their Answers were Unanimous in scriptis that they would all submit but Dr. Fairfax whom for that and denying the Jurisdiction of the Court and Contempt of his former Sentence of Suspension we have Deprived and Ejected and one Robert Gardiner a Porter all the rest of the College we left this Night in good temper and the Bishops Servants in quiet Possession We have likewise looked into the Constitutions Orders and Statutes of the College and cannot find any of the Society to have offended therein or in mis-applying their Revenues They having given us as we conceive a clear Answer to the Accusation against them for Imbezling such a part of it as was pretended to be set a side for Pilgrims and poor Travellors which we will bring up and transmit to your Lordship * * Here may be noted how tender the Lords Commissioners were and willing to have won them to obedience And this we must say my Lord that generally they have behaved themselves with great regard and deference to His Majesties Command saving in that particular whereof we gave your Lordship an account in our last and even for that they have expressed a very hearty sorrow and submission and we do humbly conceive that the Bishop of Oxon when he comes in Person to the College which he promises suddenly to do so soon as his health will give him leave will be best able to find out those faults of
of Chester reply'd that they did not expect of them to Confess a Capital Crime only to make some acknowledgment To which Mr. Fulhum said This is according to the original the Oxford Relation varying in words tho' not in Sense My Lords we were ordered to Address our selves as having acted in Contempt of His Majesties Authority which he looked upon as so great a Crime that upon no account he would be guilty of My Lords continued he I did obey His Majesty as far as I could to the utmost of my Power and your Lordships having been pleased to accept the submission on Tuesday I humbly conceive your Lordships are engaged that nothing further be required of me of what I have done being Conscious of no Contempt to His Majesties Authority To which the Bishop of Chester Answered you are a very forward speaker and abound in your own Sense Mr. Fulham reply'd he hoped their Lordships would give them leave to speak when their Fortunes were so considerably at Stake as their own Relatoin saith Then Dr. Bayley desired their Lordships to give him leave to explain what he meant by the word submit By this it appears how necessary it was to have a more clear and full submission subscribed in his Answer on Tuesday viz. The word Submit was to be understood with reference to the King and that he did not intend it as a submission to the Bishop as Lawful President §. 23. Upon this a fresh Question was put to the Fellows whether they would obey the Bishop of Oxon as their President in licitis honestis to which all except one or two Answered they would not Upon this Question put to Mr. Fulham he Answered that he could not confess any Crime or Offence done against the King that Dr. Hough having been Duly Elected and Admitted President he thereby obtained a Right which he was not satisfied that he had any ways forfeited therefore he could obey no other Person as President The Bishop of Chester asked him if he would obey the Bishop of Oxon as in Possession to which according to the Relation of those who Writ down what he spoke in Court he thus Answered The Oxford Relation palliates this Answer that he could not submit otherwise then as it was agreeable to the Law of the Land and Statutes of the College without prejudice to the Right of the Election of the Fellows and that he humbly conceived the Bishop was violently and unjustly put into Possession and that it should have been by the Posse Comitatus Then my Lord Chief Justice said Not as the Oxford Relation hath it that their Oxford Law was no better then their Oxford Divinity that their Oxford Divinity was better than their Oxford Law If they had a mind to a Posse Comitatus they might have it soon enough to which Mr. Fulham said he intended nothing but respect to their Lordships and had endeavored to speak and behave himself with due Reverence and desired their Lordships would put a favourable construction of what he said as the Oxford Relation saith The Sentence of Suspension against Mr. George Fulham Then all were Commanded to withdraw and the Buttry-Book called for after which Mr. Fulham was called in with the rest and the Bishop of Chester said to him Mr. George Fulham whereas you have openly and in Opprobrious Language Contemned the Authority of the Court we Suspend you from the profits of the Fellowship during the Kings pleasure and you are accordingly Suspended of which all the Fellows and other Members of this College are Commanded to take notice and to the rest his Lordship further said whereas there are several Fellows absent who are in Contempt of His Majesty that they may not suffer for want of greater notice then they have yet had we do direct and order you who are Fellows now present to give them notice by the usual Methods and to take notice your selves that we have adjourned this Court till Wednesday the 16th of November ensuing to be held at this place at Nine in the Morning SECT II. The Second Visitation by Adjournments of St. Mary Magdalens College by the Lords Commissioners §. 1. The Kings Mandate for Mr. Willi. Joyner and Mr. Job Allibon THe Lords Commissioners having in this Interval of time Communicated their Proceedings to His Majesty and by his appointment to the rest of the Lords Commissioners at Whitehall The three Lords Commissioners Visitors took their Journy to Oxford where upon the 15th of November they arrived WEDENSDAY the 16th of November 1687. At Nine of the Clock in the Morning Proclamation being made the Statute-Book and Buttry-Book were Ordered to be brought in Then Mr. William Joyner and Mr. Job Allibon were called and the Mandate for their Election was Ordered to be Read which followeth JAMES R. RIght Reverend Father in God Right Trusty and Well-beloved and Trusty and Well-beloved We Greet you well Being Informed that there are two Fellowships now Vacant in St. Mary Magdalen College by the Expulsion of Dr. Fairfax and the Death of Thomas Ludford and having received a good Character of the Learning and Sobriety of Our Trusty and Well-beloved William Joyner and Job Allibon We have thought fit hereby to Authorize and require you forthwith to Admit the said William Joyner and Job Allibon into the Fellowships lately enjoyed by the said Dr. Fairfax and Tho. Ludford with all the Rights Privileges and Profits Perquisits Emoluments and Advantages whatsoever thereunto belonging without Administrating any Oaths to them but that of a Fellow Any Law Statute Custom or Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding with all which We are pleased to Dispense in this behalf and for so doing this shall be your Warrant And so We bid you heartily farewell Given at Our Court at Whitehall the 11th Day of November 1687. In the Third Year of Our Reign By His Majesties Command Sunderland P. This being done Register the said Mr. Joyner and Mr. Allibon were Admitted Fellows of the said College taking only the Oath required by their Statute-Book to be taken at the Admission of a Fellow and their Names were Entred into the Buttry-Book Then the Fellows were called in except those hereafter to be mentioned and Dr. Younger who was excused being in waiting upon her Royal Highness the Princess of Denmark several Certificates were produced to excuse Mr. Charles Hawles Mr. Edward Maynard Mr. John Hicks Mr. Thomas Goodwin Mr. Francis Smith Mr. Robert Holt and Mr. Robert Thornton §. 2. The Lord Bishop of Chesters Speech The Fellows being thus Convened the Lord Bishop of Chester made this following Speech GENTLEMEN YOur Vndutiful and I might say your Ingrateful behavior towards His Majesty for Six Months last past your obstinate froward and unreasonable stiffness to so good and Gracious a Prince was that which brought this present Visitation upon you which how great a sin it was against God whose Vicegerent you have contemned beyond all
uniting yet they might abuse the Power to the detriment of the Common-weal therefore in the Digests we find the Law thus (d) Lege neque Societas i. f. quod cujuscum que Vniversitatis neque Societas neque Collegium neque hujusmodi Corpus passim omnibus habere conceditur nam legibus Senatus-consultis principalibus constitutionibus eares coercetur Agreeable to which I find in the Letter from King Edward to the Pope in behalf of the University that it enjoys (e) In Regia Benevolentia recumbit speciali Rot. Rom. 11. E. 2. M. 14. Intus it's Privileges by special Royal Benevolence By the Constitution of our Laws this Right as all Jurisdiction and Franchises are is Lodged in the Crown and thence only derived So (a) Rex habet omnia Jura in manu suâe quae ad Coronam ad Laitatem pertinent potestatem Regni Gubernaculum Habet etiam Justitiam Judicium quae sunt Jurisdictiones habet etiam ea quae ad pacem pertinent Ea quae dicuntur privilegia licet pertinent ad Coronam possunt ad privatas personas transferri sed de gratia ipsius Regis speciali Bracton upon the Question quis concedere potest libertates quibus qualiter referuntur thus resolves it The King saith he hath all the Rights in his own Hands which appertain to the Crown and his Lay-Power and the Government of the Kingdom He hath also Justice and Judgment which are Jurisdictions and those things which appeartain to Peace He further observes that those things which are called Privileges tho' they appertain to the Crown may be transferred to private persons but of the special Grace only of the King. ☞ All the Law Books Unanimously agree that none can make Corporations but the (b) 49 E. 3.4.49 Ass 8. King and such Power cannot be prescribed for it inherent in the Crown Therefore Sir Edward (c) Co. 10. Rep. f. 33. b. Coke calls them Creatures of the Crown The Nature of some (d) Atturny Generals Argument for the Quo Warranto Ms. p. 9. Corporations is to be Constituted by the King alone as the Dean and Chapters Majors and Commonality some have been by the Popes alone and some mixt by the King for the Temporal Possession by the Pope for their Spirituality However the King is still the Donor Fountain and Spring from whence these and all other Liberties flow §. 3. Things requisite to a Corporation My (c) Suttons Hosp fol. 29. Lord Coke saith there are Four things that are of the Essence of a Corporation First a Legal Authority which he saith is Four ways First By Common Law as by the King alone which therefore is said to be by Common Law as the most known and regular way Secondly By Authority of Parliament Thirdly by the Kings Charter Fourthly By prescription which in effect are all by the King for what is by Act of Parliament is certainly so and what is by prescription is presumed to have obtained a Grant from the Crown which in process of time hath been lost and so by the Tacit allowance and consent of Successive Kings acquires a Right His other Essential parts are in the Operative words of which there is no need to discourse here ☞ By the Statute of Merton (a) Id. p. 26. b. no Grant of Lands to Pious or Charitable uses are good without the Kings Licence For this purpose the Kings Grant is absolutly necessary for that it was solely in his Power to Grant and the Donor of the Lands without the King can do nothing to establish a perpetuity Without capacitating the Incorporating cannot be effected for the Inhabitants of a Village or City are single persons which are not in a Capacity to take any Lands in Succession the like is to be said of Liberties Privileges and Immunities but only to their Singular Heirs but such Inhabitants are in a Capacity to be Incorporated by the King and after such an Incorporation to have a Succession of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments §. 4. The end of Corporations ☞ The general intent and end of all Civil Incorporations allowed by the Policy of the Law (b) Atturny Generals Argument ut supra is in order to better Government subservient to the Oeconomy of the whole by such prescribed Rules as the Kings of England have been Graciously pleased to limit them by which as Emergences happened might be altered by the same Power that bestowed them ☞ Bishop Saunderson (a) Quum ex concessione principum idque ex gratia speciali corporentur istiâ—s modi Societates nec aliis gaudeant juribus privilegiis vel potestate extra ea quae vel ex diuturna temporis praescriptione vel ex chartis diplomatibusque Regiis constare potest fuisse sibi concessa De obligatione Conscientiae praelect 7. sect 28. according to his Judicious way of expressing matters saith the Sodalities Bodies Corporate or Colleges are as Members of the great Body the Kingdom or Common-wealth and are contained in it as the Inferior Orbs of the Heavens are in the Superior That these are Incorporated by the Grants of Princes of their special Grace and enjoy not any Rights Privileges or Powers besides those which by prescription of long time or from Royal Charters it appears they have had Granted to them Therefore whatever Power they have of making any Laws for their Government it is derivative and no way Primitive and is ultimately resolved into the Supreme Regal Power as it 's true Original Therefore such like Societies or their Magistrates cannot at their own Arbitrament constitue or exercise any Power in making Laws but according to the manner and measure of the faculty Indulged to them by the Prince ☞ Hence it is that whoever is the Founder of a College the King calls it upon all occasions Our College and the Members likewise in all Applications to the King say Your College for tho' the particular Founder give the Land yet as it is a College or Corporation the King is the Founder ☞ So it is (b) Patrick Case Trinit 18. Car. 2. Keble Rep. 2d St. fol. 65. vouched for Law that the King without the Ordinary may Erect Universities and this is not a Prerogative our Kings only enjoy but we find it frequently in the Grants of the Modern Roman Emperors and Kings §. 5. The Power of conferring Degrees in Universities conferred on Subjects Examples of the Emperors giving Power to Count Palatines to make Doctors in Divinity Law Physic and Philosophy which are the peculiar Degrees conferred by Universities quâ Vniversities by the Grants of Privilege from their respective Sovereigns may be found in Tho. (a) Thesi 22. c. Sagittarius cited by Mr. Selden ☞ So Rudolphus the second Emperor of Germany (b) Sacri Lateranensis Palatii Aulaeque nostrae Caesariae Imperialis Consistorii Comitu Doctores Licentiatos Baccalaureos in utreque Jure
thereunto but also be so far Lord over them that when he seeth cause he may abate or totally remit the Penalty Incurred by the breach of them and dispense with others for not observing of them at all yea generally Suspend the Execution of them c. §. 2. Why the Author Treats not largely on this subject But I foresee it will be alleged that what is urged thus in General and in Theory is to be applyed to the Constitution of the Government of England otherwise it reacheth not the point in Question concerning the Kings power of dispensing with College Statutes To which I Answer first That the Kings power in dispensing with Penal Laws in General having by Solemn Judgment in the Kings Bench been determined and several Treatises published to clear the point of Law and there being so lately a * Jus Coronae Treatise Writ by a Judicious person wherein the Kings power in that matter is Learnedly discussed I may be excused from treating more particularly of that § 3. Observations on the 25 H. 8. C. 21. I shall therefore only note a few observables from the Statute of the 25 of King H. 8. Chapter the 21. Entituled in Kebles Edition 1684. An Act concerning Peter-pence and Dispensations but Originally Entituled otherwise as may be seen in the * 1 2 Phil. M. c. 8. sect 10. Act of Repeal in Queen Maries time and the * 1 Eliz. c. 1. sect 8. Act of restoring it in Queen Elizabeths time to which I shall add the explication of another Act 8 Eliz. Cap. 1. and some few other remarks upon that Head. The Foundation of this Act is grounded upon an Hypothesis The Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. is founded upon the usage of a dispensing power that a dispensing power is needful in Government and altho' it be the constant Opinion and Judgment of the Courts of Law and all Lawyers that the principal intendment of that Act was to Abolish the Popes power and Authority in England in granting Licences Dispensations Faculties c. Yet from this Act many particulars may be observed I must refer the Reader to the Act it self which will shew not only the allowed usage of a dispensing power by the Popes and Prelates in matters of Ecclesiastical Cognizance by sufferance as the Act Styles it of our Kings but that the Original Right of such dispensations was in the King and so continues It is then First to be noted from the Act The Pope excercised a dispensing power that the Pope claimed by Usurpation as it is there Styled and persuaded the Subjects that he had a power to dispense with all Human Laws yea and Customs of all Realms in all Causes which he called Spiritual But the same Act saith that such claim of the Pope was in Derogation of the Kings Imperial Crown and Authority Royal contrary to Right and Reason The power excercised by the sufferance of the King and in derogation of the Royal Authority Therefore in the close of this Section it is added that because it is now in these days present seen that the State Dignity Superiority Reputation and Authority of the said Imperial Crown of this Realm by the long sufferance of the said unreasonable and un-charitable usurpations and exactions practised in the times of the Kings most Noble Progenitors is much and sore decayed and diminished c. Therefore remedy is provided c. From hence I think with submission Nota. it must be owned that if the Pope usurped this power in derogation of the Authority Royal then that power must be owned to be originally in the King otherwise in the Construction of the Act it could be no Usurpation §. 4. The Ecclesiastical power originally in the King according to this Act. ☞ Besides it 's the general Opinion of the greatest Lawyers of England that according to the Constitution of our Laws all Ecclesiastical power and Authority in England is Originally in the King so derived from him or if otherwise it is adjudged Usurpation and encroachment It being an undeniable Maxim That no person hath power or Jurisdiction in England but the King or what is derived from him and this power of the King cannot be disposed away nor abolished but by express words in an Act of Parliament Yea so Sacred are the Prerogatives of the Crown that tho' in some Cases the Kings of England have by Act of Parliament departed with their Prerogatives So the Statutes of the 23 H. 6. about Sheriffs and 31 H. 6. about Justices of Assize are frequently dispensed with Coke 12 Rep. 14. Hoberts Reports Colt and Glovers Case p. 146. and yielded not to dispense with the contrary by a non-obstante yet such Acts have been judged void So my Lord Hobert upon this very Statute saith that he holds it clear that tho' this Statute says that all Dispensations c. shall be granted in manner and form following and not otherwise yet the King is not thereby restrained The Kings prerogative not restrained by Acts of Parliament on several Cases but his power remains full and perfect as before and he may still grant them as King for all Acts of Justice and Grace flow from him as 4 Eliz. Dyer 211. The Commission of Tryal of Pyracy upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 53. is good tho' the Chancellor do not nominate the Commissioners as that Statute appoints yet it is a new Law and Mich. 5. and 6 Eliz. Dyer 225. the Queen made Sheriffs without the Judges notwithstanding the Statute of 9 E. 2. and Mich. 13. and 14 Eliz. Dyer 303. The Office of Aulnage granted by the Queen without the Bill of the Treasurer is good with a non-obstante against the Statute 31 H. 6. cap. 5. For these Statutes and the like saith the Reverend Judge were made to put things in Ordinary Form and to ease that Sovereign of Labor but not to deprive him of Power He further adds that notwithstanding the excercise of the Popes Authority yet the Crown always kept a Possession of it's Natural power of Dispensations in Spiratualibus as 11 H. 4. so to retain Benefices with Bishoprics and 11 H. 7. to have double Benefices I might add to these to Reservation in the Statute 2 R. 1 Hen. 4. cap. 6. 2. c. 4. saving to the King his Regality to be found in the Parliament Roll in the Kings Confirmation of Liberties which Sir Ed. Coke 4. Instit 51. complain of for being un-printed as also of King Henry the 4th that he will by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal aforesaid and at the request of the said Commons be Counselled by the Wise Men of his Council in things touching the Estate of him and of his Realm saving always his liberty that is his Prerogative for that is properly the King Liberty §. 5. Where to find Arguments for the dispensing power I shall not trouble the Reader with