to whom such Judgment doth of Right appertain did give their Judgment He concludes that the Bishops could not he said to be his Peers which shews they were not there But he must give us leave with much better Logick to conclude that they were present and We with reason presume because they are Peers of Parliament for so the Record is not his Peers for he fallaciously changeth the Terms they were there except he can prove them absent if common Right is not Reason of presumption no presumption can be reasonable But we can prove to him they were there And thereby in consequence we have another proof that they are Peers Sir Robert Cottons Abridgment tells us 5 H. 4. Fol. 426. that at the same time the Arch-Bishops and Bishops at their own request and therefore certainly then present were purged from suspicion of Treason by the said Earl And at the same time I pray observe Sir Henry Piercy his levying of War was adjudged Treason by the King and Lords in full Parliament Note that here is said to be a full Parliament and yet nothing in the Entry but the stile of Lords So various and contingent in respect of form are the Entries which ought to be observed But to review and consider again the Case of John Hall condemned in Parliament for Treason for murdering the Duke of Glocester And to this place I have reserved the Case of the two Merchants that killed John Imperial an Ambassadour of Genoua for both Cases are of the same nature and must receive the same answer and that is this The Statute of the 25 E. 3. was made to declare certain matters Treason and to be so judged in ordinary Judicatures but withall that Statute did provide that if any other Case supposed Treason do happen it shall be shewed to the King and Parliament whether it ought to be judged Treason Concerning which the King and Parliament do and are to declare by their Legislative power as it is agreed by all and as they did in the Case of John Imperial as appears by that Record expresly So that though the Bishops were not present at the Judgment of John Hall they might have been it must be confessed by our Adversary if the Judgment against John Hall was by the Legislative Power as it must be By this it appears how false an Argument this of his is To conclude no Right from absence for it is plain here it proves too much it proves a thing notoriously false a thing false by the confession of our Adversary and from what any falshood may be inferred is not it self true but stands reproved by the falshood and absurdity of what follows in consequence thereof But this is too Solemn Reproof of so frivolous an Argument for it is no more in effect than this That no man can have an Authority but what he is always in the exercise of The Octavo goes on and remembers that in the 2 H. 4. the first Writ de Haeretico comburendo was framed by the Lords Temporal only and without question it was so For the order of proceedings in Case of Hereticks Convict so required it The Bishops are upon the Matter the pars laesa in Heresy The authority of the Church is therein offended and it was not therefore proper for an Ecclesiastick to be an Actor therein The Author doth improve this as he doth all things that he can with any manner of colour to render the Order of Bishops hated and disesteemed which is the publick establishment the legal provision for the Government and guidance of Religion What mischief then is he a doing How great is his fault to deprave that provision to destroy their Reputation and Esteem with the people to destroy all their authority as much as in him lyeth His utmost endeavours are not thereto wanting to make their Ministries useless and to frustrate the provisions of the Law and the care of the Government in the highest concernment of the Nation Doth this become a great man I will not say a good man God rebuke him To lessen the Authority and disrepute and dishonour any Order of men or any Constitution that can be any ways useful to the publick is a great fault but this of his is a most enormous offence But what can be inferred from hence against the Order of the Bishops may be with like unworthiness inferred against the Christian Religion it self For it may be as well concluded that the Christian Religion is a bad Religion for that men of that denomination in the general Apostasie by pretence of Warranty from that Religion though it gave none murdered innocents As that the practices of the Bishops of that Religion so depraved do reflect any dishonour against the Bishops of reformed Christianity And this Answer will suffice too for the Case of Sir John Old-Castle As for the Earls of Kent Huntingdon and Salisbury the Lord le Despencer and Sir Ralph Lumley before that executed and declared Traytors in Parliament by the Lords Temporal only in the Parliament of the 2 H. 4. and the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Bardolph against whom it was proceeded in a Court of Chivalry after their death who were declared Traytors after they were dead in the Parliament in the 7 H. 4. I hope the Octavo Gentleman and all that are at present of his Opinion will take this for a sufficient Answer if we had no more to say that it was irregular very irregular indeed to condemn men after they were dead when he himself would set aside the Authority of the Case of William de la Poole in 28 H. 6. in Parliament where the Bishops were present which though he saith is the sole single precedent of Bishops acting in Capital Causes We shall therein convict him to be a man of Will to have lost himself in his passions and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And enter that Case with a cloud of other testimonies and reasons that affirm I will not stick to say demonstrate so as such matters can be demonstrated with a moral demonstration such as shall leave no doubt with any man of the Bishops Right of judging in Capital causes in Parliament But We shall further add for Answer that the Temporal Lords did not herein exercise the Office of a Judge For it could be no Judgment they delivered It was only an officious declaration an avowing of the justness of the slaughter of these great men and to enter themselves of the other side But is it as reasonable for this Writer to fore-judge the Bishops of their Franchise and to have it seized because they would not be guilty of a misuser thereof and would not consent to so insolent a thing as to judge men unheard nay when dead and they could not be heard And to kill over again the murdered Lords for so they are in consideration of the Law who are not by legal process condemned and executed I cannot but observe in many of
Regni definitum est quod Comes Johannes disseiseretur de omnibus Tenementis suis in Anglia Castella sua obsiderentur This is a Cause of Treason for that Richard the First immediately upon the demise of the Crown was King It can be no objection that this was not a formal Parliament for whether it was or no it seems the Bishops power in that Cause was allowed That it was Commune Concilium Regni and had the Nature of a Parliament And that the Bishops therein had a parity of Authority with the Temporal Lords But soon after his return King Richard held a Parliament at Notingham Hoveden mentions the Bishops that were present by Name In which Parliament our Historian tells us That the King Petiit sibi Judicium fieri de Comite Johanne fratre suo qui contra fidelitatem quam ei juraverat Castella sua occupaverat terras suas transmarinas destruxerat foedus contra eum cum inimico suo Rege Franciae contra eum inierat And the like Justice he required against the Bishop of Coventry for that he had adher'd Regi Franciae Comiti Johanni inimicis suis and it was thereupon adjudged Judicatum saith Hoveden quod Comes Johannes Episcopus Coventrensis peremptoriè citarentur si intra quadraginta dies non venerint nec Juri steterint Judicaverunt Comitem demeruisse regnum Episcopum Coventrensem subjacere judicio Episcoporum in eo quod Episcopus erat Judicio Laicorum in eo quod ipse Vicecomes Regis extiterat You see here the Bishops zeal and Loyalty that they adjoyn'd the censure of the Church which they had power of as Bishops to a Civil punishment which they with the Temporal Barons had Authority to pronounce against One of their own Order who was guilty of a design to engage a Nation in a War by opposing the lawful Successour to the Crown and this being so great a Cause We hear nothing here of any scruple the Canon gave them nor mention of any Priviledge of an Ecclesiastick to be exempt from the Judgment of the secular Court In the same Parliament Giraldus de Canavilla was accus'd of harbouring of Pirats and Praeterea saith Hoveden appellaverunt eum de Laesurâ Regiae Majestatis in eo quod ipse ad vocationem Justitiariorum Regis venire noluit nec juri stare de praedictâ receptatione raptorum neque eos ad Justitiam Regis producere sed respondet se esse hominem Comitis Johannis velle in Curiâ suâ Juri stare Hoveden tells us all that were present at this great Council Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Galfridus Arch-Bishop of York Hugh Bishop of Durham Hugh Bishop of Lincoln William Bishop of Ely William Bishop of Hereford Henry Bishop of Worcester Henry Bishop of Exeter and John Bishop of Carlisle Earl David Brother of the King of Scots Hamelinus Earl de Warrenna Ranulfus Earl of Chester William Earl of Feriers William Earl of Salisbury and Roger Bigot Let any one judge if it was likely that the Bishops did withdraw in the Case of Earl John or the said Bishop when besides them there were but six Barons present at that Parliament What manner of great Council would this Parliament have been that had consisted but of six Barons of what Authority would such a Parliament have been in the absence of the King and a troubled Estate of the Kingdom CHAP. VII IN the time of Edward the Second in the two Judgments against the Spencers the Right of the Bishops to judge in capital Causes in Parliament was carried so high in opinion that their presence was thought necessary to give Authority and validity to the Judgment of the House of Lords in such Cases and their absence was assigned for Error for Reversal of those Judgments for an Error that appears in the irregularity of the Proceedings is an allowable Cause for vacating the Judgment by the same Court that gave it And so far did that Opinion prevail that the presence of the Lords Spiritual was necessary to give Authority to a Judgment of that House that for this Cause because the Prelates were absent that Judgment was reversed Which opinion did arise upon this mistake that because the Lords Spiritual was one of the two States that made the House of Lords nothing could be done without their concurrence But though they are a distinct State from the Temporal Lords they make but one House and they are both there under one Notion and Reason viz. as they are both Lords Spiritual and Temporal the Baronage of England But let any man tell me that can whether if the Lords Spiritual had not been understood Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes it could have been a question whether their absence could avoid the Judgment in the Case of the Spencers much less that such an opinion should prevail that the Judgment should be as it was for that reason reversed And tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was set aside and the Judgment affirmed in 1 E. 3. Yet the publick Recognition of the Bishops Right in the Reversal remains an undeniable Testimony to their Right of sitting Tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was not warrantable for the reason of the Bishops absence as it could not have been reversed by reason of the absence of as many Temporal Barons if there remained enough besides to make a House to give the Judgment And yet we find the Reversal of the Reversal reversed in 21 R. 2. and the Family of the Spencers restored in the person of the Earl of Glocester So prevalent was the opinion that the Bishops Concurrence was necessary in all capital Judgments in Parliament at that time For this see Sir Robert Cottons Abridgment fol. 373. Yet it is observable that the consequence from the Bishops being a third State and an Essential constituent part of that House to a necessity of their presence in all judicial matters even of Capital Offences and Treason did so stick with that Age for they then in that Age did no more know what three States served for or that they both made but one House than some in our time can tell how to find them For that very Reason in 21 R. 2. the first Petition that the Commons made in that Parliament to the King was for that diverse Judgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present The Commons prayed the King that the Clergy would appoint some to be their Common Proctor with sufficient Authority thereunto The Prelates therefore being severally examined appointed Sir Thomas de la Piercy to assent The words of which Petition and the procuratory Letters for greater Authority and more satisfaction I have thought fit to transcribe Nos Thomas Cantuar. Robertus Eborac Archiepiscopi ac Praelati Clerus utriusque Provinciae Cantuar. Ebor. jure Ecclesiarum nostrarum Temporalium earundem habentes jus interessendi in singulis Parliamentis Domini nostri Regis
Authority or weight enough to perswade the contrary or an alteration therein notwithstanding that complaint which he tells us was made in the 45 of E. 3. fol. by the two Houses Counts Barons and Commons to the King how the Government of the Kingdom had been a long time in the hands of the Clergy Per cet grant mischiefs dammages sont avenuz en temps passe pluis purroit eschire en temps avenir al disherison de la Coronne grant prejudice du Royalme Whereby great mischiefs and damages have happened in times past and more may fall out in time to come to the disherison of the Crown and great prejudice to the Realm And therefore they humbly pray the King that he would imploy Laymen This they had too much reason to desire then when the Pope had advanced his Authority over them and put them under Oaths of Canonical obedience which rendred them less fit to be intrusted in the Government of this Kingdom who were become Subjects of another Empire usurping continually upon us which will never be our Case again if the Bishops can help it CHAP. III. ANd now we proceed to the Precedents of which the Octavo Book principally consists which seem as that Author and the other in Folio would have it to be not only a discontinuance of the Right of the Bishops to judge in Capital Causes but an argumentative proof that they never had any because it can as they say be never proved to be otherwise Immemorial time I confess is a great evidence of the right whether In non user or user and a fair reason to allow or deny the pretence and therefore we will now consider the Precedents As for the argumentative and discoursive parts of those books they will fall in to be answered by way of Objection when we are discoursing and proving the affirmative part of the Question and will best be reproved by being placed near the light of our reasons for establishing the Right of the Prelates If we do not give some satisfaction to these Precedents whatever we shall say I know can signifie no more than an Argument to prove a thing not true which is possible de facto testified by unexceptionable witnesses for such the Precedents will be taken until exceptions are made to their Testimony The Precedents produced by the two Authors are mostly the same only the Octavo hath more than what the Folio Book hath recited The first case that the Octavo produceth against the Lords Spiritual their Right of being Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes is that of Roger Mortimer Earl of March Simon Beresford and others who were no Peers and yet tryed in Parliament and no Bishops present and we agree it probable for his reason because there is mention made of Counts Barons and Peers and Peers being named after Barons could not comprehend the Bishops And because we think it reasonable when the orders of that House are particularly enumerated that the order omitted should be intended absent but we will not allow but that Peers is and so is Grants comprehensive of Bishops Nor will we when the entry is General intend the Bishops absent except he cannot otherwise prove them absent which we mention in the entry once for all as just and common measures between us in this dispute It will appear true what we affirm of the words Peers and Grants by what follows And if we should not insist upon their being present when nothing appears to the contrary we should do wrong to the Cause But to come to the consideration of this Precedent Is this a just Precedent Is not Magna Charta hereby violated Are not the proceedings altogether illegal Here are Commoners tryed by Peers in Parliament It is well known that the high displeasure of the King was concerned and that he did interpose with a plenitude of Power in this particular case against the fundamental constitutions of the Government the greatest crime of this Earl was too much familiarity with the Kings Mother Indignation and Revenge and not Justice formed the Process It was proceeded to condemn him Judicio Zeli upon pretence of the Notoriety of the fact Sir Robert Cotton in his abridgment tells us Anno 4. Ed. 3. That the King charged the Peers who as Judges of the Land by the Kings assent adjudged that the said Roger as a Traytor should be drawn and hanged The Bishops were not present certainly they were none of the Judges that gave Judgment as the King pronounced without Cognisance of the Cause The King had more Honour for their Order than to call then to such Drudgery and service of the Crown The iniquity of the sentence appears by the reversal thereof in Parliament 25 Ed. 3. in which the Original Record is recited Sir Robert Cotton in his Abridgment tells us That this Earl being condemned of certain points whereof he deserved commendation and for other altogether untrue surmises there was a Bill brought into the Lords House for the reversal of the Judgment and it was reverst by Act of Parliament indeed it could not be otherways reverst for no Court can judicially reverse their own Judgment for Error in Law and Judgment in the Lords House being the dernier Resort cannot be repealed but undone it may be by themselves in their legislative Capacity Here saith the Octavo the Bishops were not present at the passing of that Bill but yet the Octavo Gentleman will not pretend that the Bishops are to be excluded in any Acts of Legislation Why therefore was he so willing to impose upon the people so falsely and unrighteously and to produce this as a Precedent against the Bishops Right of Session in matters of that Nature by himself recognized There is nothing can excuse him herein for he is certainly self-condemned of undue Art in thiâ— matter In 20 R. 2. the Case of Sir Thomas Haxey happen'd which the Octavo book page 20 produceth against us He was forsooth condemned in Parliament for that he had preferred a Bill in the House of Commons for regulating the outragious Expences of the Kings House particularly of Bishops and Ladies Haxey was for this tryed and condemned to death for it in Parliament And here appears to be no Bishops and there ought not to have been any for these reasons First that the Bishops were the parties wronged and therefore could not in any fitness give sentence But Secondly if that was not in the Case that that caus'd the process was Royall anger upon a great faction of State in which I believe the Bishops were not engaged made for deposing of Rich. the 2d that was understood by the King to be in acting and promoted by Sir Thomas Haxey by his Bill It was this made the sentence altogether abhorrent from legal justice in matter and form Here was a Tryall of a Commoner by Peers a matter made Treason that did participate nothing of the nature of Treason But the discreet Gentleman
recited upon which our Adversaries do so much ground themselves from the Cognisance of the Lords Spiritual and they could not be present when any such Case was agitated or moved all the Grandees were Notoriously Willfully and Knowingly and in the face of the whole World perjured to the Eternal infamy of our Nation Could the whole Nation be ignorant of its own Laws and Constitutions made and sworn to but a few months before and neither the King Lords Spiritual or Temporal or Commons understand them 120 men at least for about that number were the Bishops and regular Barons in H. the 2ds time and not less now come into the highest Judicature in the greatest Cause that ever was agitated It was in the Case of Becket disputed whether we should have a Civil or Ecclesiastical Soveraignty and there sit Judges and no body except against them in October if excluded by the Statute made in February before though the King and the Nobles had reason to suspect them on Becket's side and they unwilling themselves to Judge and they under an Oath not to sit and the Temporal Lords under an Oath not to admit them or allow them to be there And yet not a word of this matter in all the Historians of that time Thomas of Canterbury his friends to a man who were forward enough to reproach the Judges sure when they condemned the Sentence and applauded the Criminal and made a Pater patriae a Martyr and Saint of this Notorious Church Rebel He therefore that can believe that the Bishops were not rightful and unexceptionable Judges in capital Causes in Parliament in the time of H. 2. may believe that a whole Nation may become of insane Memory at once go to bed a Monarchy and wake into a Common-wealth without any notice or observation of a Change And now that the Assise of Clarendon is of our side I hope will be admitted and that the Bishops not only may but ought to be present in capital Causes in Parliament for the words of the Statutes are That the Archiepiscopi Episcopi universi personae qui de Rege tenent in Capite habeant possessiones suas de Rege sicut Baroniam sicut caeteri Barones debent interesse Judiciis Curiae Domini Regis cum Baronibus So that now they were declared to be Judges as the other Barons in that they ought to be present in all Causes Only they were favoured so much in decent regard to their Order that they were not required to be present at the Sentence of Death and multilation of Member for as much as they are the Ministers of Gods pardon and the Publishers of the Doctrine of Faith and Repentance they ought to comport with their office and express their Commiseration to the greatest Sinner and to have some reluctancy against the Sentence of Condemnation and to that purpose is that Indulgence given them in the quousque perveniatur ad mutilationem membrorum vel mortem But the Assise of Clarendon having I will not say left them but required them to be Judges this exception of Quousque c. being only an Indulgence as aforesaid upon the Reasons aforesaid they remain entire Judges in Capital Causes and may depart from that Indulgence and ought so to do when Justice is necessary and the offences more than ordinarily Publick and will be pardoned and escape with impunity to the hazard of the Government except they interpose For if the Assise of Clarendon had not left them entire Judges of Right only at liberty as to the pronouncing of Sentence they had not remain'd Judges for the office of a Judge cannot be divided he that hath not an Authority to judge the Cause can be reckoned and accounted no other than a ministerial assistant to the process in such matters as the Court shall award Therefore Bishops in that they have intermedled as Judges in such Causes they have continued and avowed their Right of judging and in that they have withdrawn at the Sentence they have used that Liberty But to leave nothing for an after objection Evasion or Cavillation it shall be in our Adversary's choice Whether this Curia Regis mentioned in the Assise of Clarendon as also the Court that tryed Thomas Becket was the Curia Regis wherein the ordinary Justice of the Nation was at that time administred or the Parliament If it was the Curia Regis and not the Parliament was intended in the Assise of Clarendon in which the Priviledge and Indulgence under the Quousque was allowed to Bishops Then the Assise of Clarendon is unduly urged against the Bishops judging in Cases of blood in Parliament for that all Laws of Priviledge and exemption are stricti Juris and not to be extended beyond the Letter of the Law the single instance or the enumerated Cases and consequently by the Assise of Clarendon the Bishops have no leave to withdraw in Cases of blood in Parliament If the Court wherein Thomas Becket was tryed was the Curia Regis then the Bishops judging in that Court in that Cause doth most clearly declare that being a Case in point that the quousque in the Assise of Clarendon was an Indulgence and Priviledge which they might use or wave as they then did But this cannot be denyed that the Bishops are and were Barons ever since the Conqueror of which and of the Curia Regis we shall hereafter give an account and whatever was the business and office of Baron was consequently the office and business of a Bishop of Common Right and still is except any Legal restraint was put upon them by any Law which was not done by the Assise of Clarendon as we have proved by the reason of the making of that Law the Interpretation of that Law at that time Nor was that Law or any other Law hitherto pretended but only the Canons of the Church against the Right and Duty of Bishops in Capital Causes in Parliament or if they will have it in the Curia Regis CHAP. VI. AND now we proceed further to shew how this Right and Authority of the Prelates hath been used and acknowledged in after-times Roger de Hovedon hath remembred in the Life of Richard the First who succeeded Henry the 2. That before the arrival of Richard the First in England who had been in Captivity in the Empire that one Adam de St. Edmond Agent to John Earl of Morton returned into England being sent to fortifie the Castle of Earl John against the King his Brother and was apprehended by the Lord Mayor of London with several papers of instructions and Commissions of Earl Johns for that purpose Hoveden tells us That the Mayor cepit omnia brevia sua in quibus mandata Comitis Johannis continebantur tradidit ea Cantuariensi Episcopo qui in crastino convocatis coram eo Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus Regni ostendit eis literas Comitis Johannis earum tenorem statim per commune Concilium
Judgments good without an Original upon a Verdict If the Causes that are properly now of the cognisance of that Court of Common Pleas had been allotted to that Court Originally when the distribution of Administration of Justice was made in the Constitution of the Government that Court by its proper Authority and its own Process would have done Justice to all its Suitors without first expecting a Writ out of Chancery to bring the Cause before them or leaving any right without remedy to complain in Chancery of the defects of Justice in that Court But that Law of Magna Charta cap. 11. before-mentioned which erected the Court of Common Pleas fix'd the Judges and appropriated civil Causes to their Judicature no longer now ambulatory was the first step that was made to reduce the Court of Barons called Curia Domini Regis in which the Capitalis Justiciarius did preside Yet still this Court continued a Court of Pleas of the Crown and Appeals and for those that had the Priviledge of that Court as Officers Dependents Suitors as appears by Bracton l. 3. cap. 7. Rex habet unam propriam Curiam sicut Aulam Regiam Justitiarios Capitales qui proprias causas Regias terminant aliorum omnium per querelam i. e. Appeal vel per privilegium seu libertatem This Sir Edward Coke imagines is meant of the Kings Bench but that must be a mistake for sicut Aula Regia is not competent to that Court as now the Capitales Justitiarii were not the Chief Justices we now have For the Office of the Capitalis Justitiarius did yet continue But then that which follows in Bracton the description of the Justices of the Court he before spake of puts the matter out of doubt Item saith he Justitiariorum quidam sunt capitales generales perpetui majores à latere Regis residentes which terms are agreeable to none but the Barons But this sort of Judicature was not fit for continuance and the Barons were to be reduced they were dismist of this Jurisdiction about the time that change was made in reference to them in the Parliament for as long as they continued in their numbers and power so great as they were both Courts and Parliaments were troubled with tumultuous heaps of people brought thither by the Barons to countenance their pretences of which who will may see enough in Eadmerus And this reducement was I doubt not about the end of the Reign of H. 3. when the first Writs were issued to chuse Knights of the Shire Philip Basset was the last of these Capitales Justitiarii Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary p. 415. And then the Court of Kings Bench came to have such Judges as at this day ad obitum H. 3. 1272. Summorum Angliae Justitiariorum authoritas cessarit postea Capitales Justitiarii ad placita coram Rege tenenda appellati sunt saith an ancient Anonymous Author quoted by Sir Hen. Spelman Glossary 406. That ancient Style of Capitalis Justitiarius Angliae is now allowed to the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench though his legal Style is Capitalis Justitiarius ad placita coram Rege tenenda 2 E. 1. Radulphus Hengham was made the first Chief Justice of the Kings Bench as Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary 416. But the Chief Justices of the Common Pleas were first made about the time of King John's Magna Charta when that Court was fixed as is before remembered Sir Henry Spelman out of Florilegus tells us Martin Peteshus was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 1 H. 3. Neither did E. 1. trust the Barons with the Government of his Revenue as it was before the Capitalis Justic and the power of the Barons was reduced but he made Adam de Stratton a Clerk Chief Baron but in what time of his Reign doth not appear But they continued after they were reduced from the business of the Kings Bench and from that of the Court of Common Pleas to have the Government of the Revenue and making a Court of Exchequer And they still continued the Exercise of their ancient ordinary Right and judged Common Pleas in the Exchequer until the 28 E. 1. And then in the Statute called Articuli super Cartas cap. 4. it was enacted That no Common Pleas shall be henceforth held in the Exchequer contrary to the form of the Great Charter Their exercising their power lastly in that Court may be the reason why the Judges of that Court are called Barons Sir Henry Spelman saith he hath an uninterrupted Succession of the Barons of the Exchequer from the sixth year of Edward the Second by which it appears that the present Constitution was established after the Kings Bench and Common Pleas were made such as they now are But there was one Power and Authority that was inseparable from the Baronage and that is the Tryal of Peers the ancient Curia Regis continues to this day to that purpose as it must no other provision being ever since made therein This is the ancient Court of Peers the Curia Regis when revived The Power and Authority of the ancient Capitalis Justitiarius is as often revived as that Court is erected for Tryal for Offices at Common Law can be no more nor less than the Law appointed That he is called High Steward is no Objection to us for so was the Capitalis Justitiarius called and Justitiarius and Seneschallus are used one for another in the Language of those times Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary 403. And this is the true reason I humbly conceive of that Tradition that the High Steward by the Kings constituting him such hath such mighty powers that are fit to be trusted with him no longer than while he is busie about that piece of Justice for which he is appointed and he is not to receive his Commission but just at his entry upon the business of the Court and not before The power of this Capitalis Justitiarius was the same with that of the Mair of the Palace in France from whence the Conquerour brought this Office which was the same or greater with the Authority of the Praefectus Praetorio amongst the Romans It is a thing to be wished that Gentlemen that apply themselves to the study of Antiquities that relate to our Laws and Government would design to adorn and cultivate the present Laws and to make out their reasonableness rather than to innovate upon us by bringing back what is obsolete rejected and antiquated and that they would contribute what they can to refine it from many absurd reasons that dishonour our Faculty which are the best our Books afford even for some of the Regulae juris I shall instance onely in one or two of them Why the Father cannot inherit the Lands of the Son it is told us for a reason in our Books that Terra est quid ponderosum and will not ascend in the right line whereas the true reason is this the Lord that first granted the Fee neglected the Father gave
pleaded in Bar upon which the Defendant will be certainly relieved in Chancery may notwithstanding it hath not heretofore be hereafter allowed in our Law-Courts we should be in a great measure restored to our easie expedite cheap and certain Justice which the Methods of our Common Law-Courts hath most excellently provided until a Parliament sometime or other may consider whether it be not fit to take it quite down by inabling Courts of Law to do true Right in all Causes that shall come before them For nothing renders the Chancery tolerable but the mo exemplary Virtue and Great Endowments of our present Lord Chancellor in which he is not like to have a Successor But to return to the Curia Regis it was not only the great Judicature of the Nation formally but it was also materially our Parliament too That this Curia Regis was not without any more the Parliament of these times is evident first that the Curia Regis was summoned by a general Writ of Summons directed to the Sheriffs in this Form viz. Rex Vicecomiti Northamptoniae c. praecipimus tibi quod summoneri facias Archiepiscopos Episcopos Comites Barones Abbates Priores Milites Liberos homines qui de nobis tenent in Capite c. Rot. Claus 26 H. 3 M. 7. Dorso This must necessarily be this Curia Regis in Distinction to a Parliament For that in the Grand Charter of King John made in the last year of his Reign it was granted that Ad habendum Commune Concilium Regni de auxilio assidendo aliter quà m in tribus praedictis casibus i. e. Those cases of Aid to make the eldest Son a Knight to marry the eldest Daughter and of Ransom and de Scutagiis assidendis faciemus summoneri Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas nostras Et praeterea faciemus summoneri in generali per Vicecomites Ballivos nostros omnes alios qui in capite tenent de nobis At present we make no other use of this Grand Charter than to prove it a distinctive mark of a Parliament where the Summons are personal to the Bishops Earls and the greater Barons This Charter of King Johns declares the ancient usage of summoning the greater Barons by special Summons to them severally directed for that the Kings before him as Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary p. 80. Propter crebra bella simultates quas aliquando habuêre cum his ipsis majoribus suis Baronibus alios etiam eorum interdum omitterent aegrè hoc ferentes Proceres Johannem adegêre sub magno sigillo Angliae pacisci ut Archiepiscopos Episcopos Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas summoneri faceret By which it was provided that all the Barons should have pro more Summons to the Parliament that non of those great Barons should want his several Summons and they had anciently several Summons for in a general Summons no body was excluded By which it doth appear that the Council at Northampton wherein Thomas of Becket was brought in judgment was a Parliament and not the Curia Regis for that the Bishops had their several Writs of Summons which appears in that Fitz Stephens tells us as matter of observation that Thomas of Canterbury had not his Writ of Summons but was cited as a Criminal to answer which we before observed And this was but necessary that when the Tenents in capite or Barons which principally at least made the Parliament were to be consulted about some arduous Affairs that they should have notice and a solemn intimation thereof and their presence required and enjoyned by Writs to them particularly and personally directed Besides that it was agreeable to all the forms of Government then in use to have their ordinary and extraordinary Council For Omnes Germanicae Originis Reges atque Imperatores duplici Concilio antiquitùs utebantur altero statario qui Senatus dicitur ad res quotidianas altero evocato concilium aut conventus ordinum ad res momenti majoris as Grotius assures us Neither can it be denied by any man of modesty who hath heard any thing of the state of our Government before the Conquest and that knows that many ancient Burroughs send Burgesses to Parliament by Prescription and will consider the Records produced by Mr. Petit in his very learned and elaborate Book called The Ancient Right of the Commons of England to prove the Right of ancient Burroughs to send Members to Parliament who represent them but that such though not Suiters to the Curia Regis were Members de jure of the great Council of Parliament But the truth is they are not mentioned in any Record or History of any Parliament from the beginning of the Conquerours Reign to the end of Henry 3. as a distinct part of the Parliament of England their Numbers and Qualities were little and mean of no consideration in comparison to that great Body of the Baronage that constituted our Parliaments in that time but our Parliaments seem by the style used in Histories and Records to be onely the Baronage of England William the First in the fourth year of his Reign Consilio Baronum suorum saith Hoveden pag. 343. fecit summoneri per universos Consulatus Angliae Anglos nobiles sapientes sua lege eruditos ut eorum jura consuetudines ab ipsis audiret Those who were returned shewed what the Customs of the Kingdom were which with the assent of the same Barons were for the most part confirmed in that Assembly which was a Parliament of that time saith Mr. Selden Titles of Honour pag. 701. Amongst the Laws of Hen. 1. published by Mr. Abraham Whelock cap. 2. I find thus Forestas communi consensu Baronum in manu mea retinui sicut pater meus eas habuit And after Lagam Regis Edwardi vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus pater meus emendavit consilio Baronum suorum The Parliament is styled Commune Concilium gentis Anglorum and at the same time Commune Concilium Baronum and also Clerus Populus Matth. Paris fol. 52 53 54. And this is sometimes called Communitas for that it represents the whole people and involves their consent Which appears by 48 H. 3. Pars unica M. 8. D. Haec est forma pacis à Domino Rege Domino Edwardo filio suo Praelatis Proceribus omnibus Communitate Regni Angliae communiter concorditer approbata And that Communitas Regni hath no other sense than commune concilium Regni and used as a comprehensive term of them that made it is evident for that it is said in the second Record Si videntur communitati Praelatorum Baronum And again Per consilium communitatis Praelatorum Baronum Further Magnates Vniversitas Regni sometimes used for the Parliament Matth Paris 659,666 And after King John's Charter wherein it was
the King for that office the best of those they know which are many times most unfit But this may be remedied when his Majesty shall please to give leave to the Clergy of the Diocess to choose their own Diocesan their Choice notwithstanding submitted to the Kings approbation and Confirmation which was permitted by Justinian the Emperor and was in use in several of the best Ages of the Church or by some other method which may be advised by his great Council whereby the greatest assurance may be given that the best and fittest persons be preferred to Bishopricks for the Common people are envious and suspicious and what ever may be done by bad means they always think is so But if Bishops were promoted to their Sees with the gratulations and applauses of the whole body of the Clergy of the respective Diocesses all that passeth under their advice and consent would likely meet with the general satisfactions of the people as it would well deserve as long as the Clergy can have any Authority with them That is as long as the Nation continues Christian But the general Corruption of Manners and decay of Piety is the great and truest cause why the Bishops unenvied enjoy no part of that honour that our Ancestors Wisdome and Piety conferred upon their order conformably to all other the Ancient Christian Governments But when Virtue and Piety shall recover their esteem the reverence of the Clergy will return We are not like long to expect this happy Change for Vice is now arrived to a Plethora and like to burst by its own excesses And we well hope that the mischiefs which we suffer will cure that evil from whence they spring and prevent the greater Calamities that it further threatens However it becomes all good men to assist to support the present Government which is the cheapest the surest and the next way to arrive at a happy constitution of things This was the design of the Author of the Grand Question After the publication of that Book I laid by all thoughts of publishing this Treatise But perceiving that notwithstanding what he hath said the Right yet remains controverted and a Book is since printed wherein several things are objected in prejudice of this Right and more is expected I did review these Papers wherein I found I had prevented those objections and with a little application they would appear insignificant I did resolve to make this publick And besides that I apprehended some things material to the Question were omitted by the Grand Question that a several way of speaking things to the same purpose hath its advantage Our great Courts affect to have several arguments on the same side in great Causes and our Reporters publish them Besides herein several things are occasionally discourst of which makes it of further usefulness to the publick Our adversaries also were treated too kindly by him and had deserved sharper reflections than he makes upon them for their false and perverse Reasonings and ought to lose that reputation which they abuse to the hurt of the Government And further I thought it not for the honour of our faculty that never fails to supply the worst cause with Advocates That a question of this Nature wherein both Church and State Religion and our Civil Policy is concerned and the Right thereof not only clear and evident in it self but also useful to the State should have not one of the Robe to plead for it The friends of the Cause will not grudge to read two Books for the Right as well as several against it and the Adversaries of our Cause ought to suffer the like trouble themselves which they occasion to others These Considerations did induce me to publish this Treatise I am well pleased that I am ingaged in a good Cause that was suited to one of my slender Abilities Right is so strong an Argument for it self that it wants only light to discover it Whereas an unrighteous cause stands in need of disguisings and shadowings and all the Artifices and fetches of the Wit of abler men to give that a Colour at least which is destitute of Law and Right THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THe Nature of the Right the obligation to use it the obvious indications of it and the benefit which may be reasonably expected in the exercise of it How it came to be drawn into question and how it can be fairly determined how it hath been opposed and upon what Reasons and Evidence the Right doth rely Chap. II. The general prejudice against this Right from an Opinion conceived that the Clergy ought not to intermeddle in Secular Affairs remov'd That Bishops have been employed in the greatest trusts by Emperors not hindred by the Church but this hath been envy'd to them by the Pope Chap. III. The Precedents that are produc'd from the Parliament Rolls against this Right are considered They prove not pertinent at most but bare Neglects not Argumentative or concluding against the Right Chap. IV. This Right cannot be prejudic'd by non user The Nature of Prescription that the Right in question is not prescriptible The Original of this Right that it is incident to Baronage The Bishops when made Barons and for what reason That all Offices whether by Tenure or Creation are Indivisable Chap. V. Bishops never pretended the Assise of Clarendon when said to be absent Bishops sat in Judgment upon Becket and his Crime and Charge Treason by which it is demonstrated that the Assise of Clarendon only put them at liberty but not under restraint from using their Right of Judging in Capital Causes Chap. VI. Bishops sat in Judgment upon John Earl of Moreton after King John the Bishop of Coventry c. for Treason Chap. VII An Opinion prevail'd and continued long that no Judgment in Parliament where the Bishops were absent was good and their absence assigned for Error to reverse Judgment in Treason in Parliament prov'd by the Petition of the Commons 21 R. 2. upon their protestation made 11 R. 2. And by that protestation it is evident they had a Right and that they saved it by that protestation They pretended they could not attend the matters then treated of by reason of the Canon But alledged no Law for their absence Chap. VIII Of Canons Canon law What effect Canons can have upon a Civil Right The Canons prohibiting the use proves the Right Chap. IX Bishops made their Proxies in Capital Causes which proves their Right and their thereby being virtually present and the lawfulness of making Proxies and such as they made Chap. X. A Repeal of the Parliament 21 R. 2. No prejudice to what the Bishops did in making their Proxies The Opinion of Bishops presence being necessary in Parliament continued in time of H. 5. Chap. XI Bishops actually exercised this Authority in 28 H. 6. in the Case of William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk Opinion of the Judges that Bishops ought to make Proxies in the Tryal of a
resolved what to do desired of the Earls of Leicester and Cornwall that he might have time untill the morrow And the morrow being Sunday time was given until the Munday and then the Bishops came to Becket and advised him for avoiding danger and scandal to submit himself to the Kings Will which if he should do jam audierint in Curiâ Regis perjurii Crimen sibi imponi tanquam proditorem judicandum eò quod terreno Domino honorem terrenum non servaret cum avitas consuetudines Regni observaturum firmasset ad quas specialiter observare jurisjurandi nova se illos astrixerat Religione And now sure it will be believed that Becket was accused in this Parliament of Treason for Treason was his Crime not allowing the King with the consent of his States to make any Laws but such as he should approve aggravated with perjury for he had sworn himself to observe them After Becket had given the Bishops an obstinate and resolute Answer to adhere to his Treasonable Practices to disallow the Authority of the King and States in the Laws called the Assise of Clarendon and to oppose the observance of them Observe what Gervasius saith discesserunt Episcopi ad Curiam properantes By and by Becket comes too but the Bishops were there before him carrying the Cross himself which the King as well as the Bishops took to be a coming armed Upon which saith Gervasius vocatis Episcopis proceribus gravem grandem Rex deponit querimoniam quod Archiepiscopus sic armatus in Curiam veniens ipsum suos omnes inauditâ saeculis formâ naevo notaverit proditoris Whereupon the Bishops by the Mouth of Hilaris Cicestrensis a Bishop more eloquent than the rest thus said to Becket Quandoque ait fuisti Archiepiscopus tenebamur tibi obedire sed quia Domino Regi fidelitatem jurasti hoc est vitam membra terrenam dignitatem sibi per te salvam fore consuetudines quas ipse repetit conservandas tu niteris eas destruere cum praecipue spectant ad terrenam sui degnitatem honorem idcirco te reum perjurii dicimus perjuro Archiepiscopo de caetero obedire non habemus This I take to be a judging in Treason But this the Bishops did for their part as Bishops and Suffragans they did withdraw their obedience from their Metropolitan which was as much as in them lay to deprive him a conviction it was of the Guilt not indeed judicium sanguinis But this is not all for observe what our said Author saith further they going away the King saith to them discernite quid perjurus contumax proditor debeat sustinere Itur judicatur à quo vel qualiter judicium pronuntiandum esset informatur In which matter Stephanides as he is cited by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour in the Folio Edition fol. 705. tells us how it was consulted and debated between the Bishops the Spiritual Barons and the Temporal Barons for saith he de proferendo judicio distantia fuit inter Episcopos Barones utrisque alteri illud imponentibus utrisque se excusantibus Aiunt Barones vos Episcopi pronuntiare debetis sententiam ad nos non pertinet nos Laici sumus vos personae Ecclesiasticae sicut ille Consacerdotes ejus Coepiscopi ejus Ad haec aliquis Episcoporum Imo vestri potius est hoc officii non nostri non enim est hoc judicium Ecclesiasticum sed Seculare non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones Nos Barones vos Barones pares hic sumus Ordinis autem Nostri rationi frustra innitimini quia si in nobis ordinationem attenditis in ipso similiter attendere debetis eo autem ipso quod Episcopi sumus non possumus Archiepiscopum dominum nostrum judicare By which dispute by the way it doth appear that both the Bishops and Temporal Lords did take themselves to be equally constituted Judges and Peers by reason of their common Baronage in this Case of Becket a Cause of Treason the Bishops owned and avowed a Right of judging him as Barons They did not excuse themselves upon the score of the Canon alledged but from the indecency in respect of the relation that they stood in to the Criminal he being their Superiour and Metropolitan they seem'd willing to decline the making of the Sentence Whether any Judgment was pronounced by whom or what the Judgment was is not certain the Historians differing thereupon But when he went out of the Court he was call'd by the people as he past Traytor and perjured Traytor as the King before had called him And if this be not the clearest proof of Beckets being accused of Treason and the Bishops judging in a capital Cause in Parliament there can be nothing proved to satisfaction Besides that all that writ of his story are unwilling Witnesses they magnify excuse and justify the man all along extolling his virtues They call him Saint Pater Patriae so Gervasius does Coll. 1393. and Martyr Let the Reader consider what is here faithfully recited and then let him tell what Opinion he hath of the Candor of the Octavo Gentleman who could find no fault in Thomas Becket for he saith Folio 62. That Gervasius Dorobernensis saith that Becket was charged with two things Injustice to John Marshall and his own contempt in not appearing to the Kings Summons This Author had nothing of his own knowledge to charge upon him and saith that Stephanides is not to be regarded because he was Beckets friend and an obscure Author it may be not yet come into his Study The Author had reason to see no faults in Becket or to forget them all for the good service the insolencies of that man hath done towards the Scandal of the Order But we have not mispent our own time neither will the Reader regret our length in this matter for this single Case consider'd gives a Resolution to the Question and puts the Right of the Bishops to sit in capital Causes out of all doubt This Case will let in light for the true understanding of the Assise of Clarendon For it must be noted that the Great Parliament of Clarendon was held by Henry the 2. about the latter end of January in the tenth year of his Reign the Bishops and Lords were all Sworn to observe the Statutes there made called the Assise of Clarendon called the Avitae consuetudines Regni of which the Law aforementioned was one This Law therefore must be interpreted in such a sense for that the words will bear it and can be intended in no other than that which may consist with the proceedings in the Case of Arch-Bishop Becket and with the Oaths of all the Bishops and Peers and the great men taken but a short time before to observe the Statutes of Clarendon Now if the whole Order of capital Causes had been intended to be excepted by that Statute above
as many of them as were most proper to judge or assist in the Judgment as the Case did require were appointed by the King or his Capitalis Justiciarius And that it was so in Fact appears by that Famous Cause wherein Arch-bishop Lanfranck recovered against Odo Bishop of Baieux Earl of Kent Eadmerus Hist Nov. l. 1. f. 9. tells us That there was Principum Conventus an Assembly of Barons at Pinneden in Kent and that the Kings Precept was Rex quatenus adunatis primoribus probis viris non solum de Comitatu Cantiae sed de aliis Comitatibus Angliae Querele Lanfranci in medium ducerentur examinarentur determinarentur disposito itaque saith he principum Conventus apud Pinneden Gaufridus Episcopus Constantiensis vir ea tempestate praedives in Anglia Vice Regis for Odo Bishop of Baieux one of the Litigants was at that time the Justiciarius Angliae justitiam de suis querelis strenuissimè jussus fecit where we see Godfrey at the King's Precept took so many Barons of that Country or of any other where any of the Lands lay as Assistants to him For our Historian saith that Lanfranck though Godfred pronounced the Judgment did recover judicio Baronum qui placita tenuerunt The probi homines were such by whom the truth of the matter might be better understood and did probably enquire of it who did accord and agree the Judgment to be right Lanfranc did recover ex communi omnium astipulatione judicio as our Historian also informs us I might cite many more Records of the Method of the Administration of Justice in this Curia Regis but I should be too long in this matter not being strictly necessary to the Question in hand though the understanding of the Nature of this Court and the Constitution of the Government at this time will many ways inserve to the clearing the Right thereof In this Court Peers were tryed all Pleas of the Crown heard and whatever is now the Business of the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer was dispatch'd in this Curia Regis Here Fines were levyed as appears by a Record furnished to us by Sir Hen. Spelman in his Gloss f. 279. the word Fines There men famous for their Skill in the Law did attend and by this Judicature some place was assigned them where they were to hear such Causes as were referred and sent down to them and it is very possible that Fines may be levyed i. e. Concord made of the thing in pretence that was referred to them and it may be true that in a Charter of a Grant of Conusance of Causes Words may be conteined for excluding the Intromissions of the Justices of the one Bench and the other For such Charters never want words These matters are produced by Sir Edward Coke in his Preface to the Eighth Report to prove that the Common Pleas was a Court before the Magna Charta of King John for that these matters are in time before that Charter but these Justices were no other than Ministers to the Curia Regis They were not such Justices as now make that Court all Common Pleas being now appropriated to their Judicature For the Writs before that Charter were returnable coram me vel Justitia mea Glanvil l. 1. cap 6. but after that Charter they were returnable coram Justiciariis meis apud Westmonasterium Bracton l. 2. cap. 32. But before this all Common Pleas were adjudged in the Curia Regis and that Court did send down the Cause to such as did attend that Court to receive its References By Magna Charta cap. 11. it was provided Communia placita non sequantur Curiam nostram sed teneantur in aliquo certo loco And now Writs were made returnable there the Common Pleas were taken out of the Jurisdiction of the Curia Regis one Judicature was appointed for all Causes between the Subjects and one place of Attendance for Litigants By this Provision Justice was administred without Noise and Tumult the Administration of it committed to men of Skill and to such who might be answerable for their Judgments and from whom it might be appealed But after Magna Charta made by King John and confirmed by H. 3 9. the Authority continued of the Justitia or capitalis Justiciarius to him was the resort for Writs from whence all Judicial Authority was still derived He did direct and bound the Justice of the Court of Common Pleas by such Formula's as were allowed in the Curia Regis where the Chancellor and his Colledge of Clerks did attend for the forming of Writs according to the nature of the Complaint with the Allowance of that Court but the Authority of this Court ceasing and the Office of this great Justiciary about the end of H. 3. we find in the Statutes of Glouc. 6 E. 1. c. 7. Laws for a Writ of Entry to be granted to the Reversioner where Tenant in Dower Aliens in Fee though her Alienation was a Forfeiture of that Estate at Common Law But it seems there had been no such Writ yet formed and the Chancellor had no such Power of forming a new Writ That Statute provides that in that Case there shall be a Writ of Entry thereof made in Chancery which is called A Writ of Entry in casu proviso And for that Power might not be wanting in the Chancellor to issue out new Writs where no Writs before formed were fitted to the Case So that Writs in Cases of like reason had been granted by W. 2. cap. 24. it was provided quotiescunque evenerit in Cancellaria quod in uno casu reperitur Breve in consimili casu cadente simili indigente remedio concordent Clerici de Cancellaria in Brevi faciendo Whereas in the full Authority of the Court of the Curia Regis no Right could have failed of a Remedy For Jura sunt matres Actionum But Derivative Authorities are always stricti Juris no Rights are now remediable but where they are in a Parity of Reason or Analogy with such Rights as had received relief in the time of that Great and Original Judicature So inconvenient are those Reformations that reform by pulling down Want of Authority to do Right is a greater Fault in Government than the allowance of a Power that may be abused to Wrong and Oppression But this is the true reason why we have so many Causes irremediable at Common Law petitioning for relief at this day in our Court of Chancery though if the Statute of Westm 2. before-mentioned were well improved the Defects of our Law would not be so shameful and notorious By what hath been said it appears that the Common Pleas was not an Original Court or a Court of ordinary Jurisdiction in the First Constitution of the Government and such it remains and continues to this time For that Court cannot proceed to Judgment in any Cause without an Original Writ out of Chancery though a late Statute makes their
him out of the Government and he had no more Christian Graces than Faith Hope and Charity which he attributes to this Ternary of States of his own making But if he had four of those Graces there had been four States if six of those Graces to have match'd them in number he would have found three States in the House of Commons viz. Knights Citizens and Burgesses and have made six States It seems too King James made a Speech in Parliament wherein he was pleased to use his Logick and liked it seems the Ramistical way of Dichotomies The truth is he had more Logick than a wise King could tell how to bestow For in that Speech he saith The Parliament is composed of a Head and a Body himself and the Parliament This Body is sub-divided into two parts the upper House and the lower House The upper House into two Lords Spiritual and Temporal the lower House into two Knights and Burgesses The Citizens were left out for the sake of his Dithotomy His Method was to proceed by the way of two's and therefore 't was impossible we should here in this Speech of any three whatsoever yet this Speech too is produced against three States distinct from the King Besides they tell us that in one of the late King's Declarations drawn by then a young Gentleman but of great hopes and afterwards a very great Man the King is called one of the three States This Gentleman was very probably misled into that Mistake by a Book called Nomotechnia wherein it is said that the King Lords and Commons are the three States a Book of Institutions for young Students which was never yet allowed for Authority in the Law nor ever had the Honor to be cited in our Courts of Westminster These Mistakes or whatever you will call them with the Authority of the Octavo Author are united together to form an Opinion that the King is but the Bishops are not one of the three States which will be a very dishonorable Error For that it will lead us into a Mistake of our Government and which is much worse for that it hath a tendency to subvert it that is to depress the King and to suppress the Bishops It is an Indign thing and not to be suffer'd that we should lose our Government by Surreption and be made a Babel by dividing and confounding our Language To prevent this mischief we have declared our Government from the very Reason and Nature of the Structure thereof to consist of three States that is three different Orders which make the Great Council of the Kingdom whose End and Business is to administer Council and Auxiliaries to the King who is intrusted with the executive Power of the Government and Laws And besides now we will produce great Authorities to put this Mistake out of Countenance and to prevent its gaining any farther Authority with the People For Errors of this nature in process of time turn into Truth and things prove to be so at last as the Error and Mistake first bespake them and this our Lawyers know well enough with whom 't is a Maxime it belongs only to them and matters within their Province Communis Error facit Jus. And first for this purpose we will mention the Stile that the Parliament used which was convened by the Authority of Richard the Second he being then about to relinquish the Crown to H. 4. This Parliament in transacting so weighty an Office had reason to consider and know who they themselves were They without doubt in all their Proceedings in this High Matter used their true as well as biggest Stile which was that of States Walsingham tells us Sede Regali tunc vacua Procurators Regis Richardi Archiepiscop Eborac Hereford Renunciationem dicti Regis cessionem omnibus statibus Regni tunc adunatis ibi publice declararunt And again Quoniam videbatur cunctis Regni statibus super dictis Articulis singulatim ac etiam communiter interrogatis And again Ordinati sunt Comissarii ex parte statuum Communitatis ejusdem Regni Observe here that the King is none of these States that they are called all the States which signifies more than two that there is mention of States besides Community and therefore it was then understood that there were two States in the Lords House But afterwards he recites us the Form of a most important Instrument which follows In Dei nomine Amen Nos I. Episc Assavensis I. Abbas Glasconiensis Thomas Comes Glocestriae Thomas Dominus de Berkley Tho. de Epingham Tho. Gray Miles Willielmus Thirning Justiciarius per Pares Proceres Regni Angliae Spirituales Temporales ejusdem Regni Communitates omnes status ejusdem Regni Representantes Commissarii ad infra scripta specialiter deputati c. By which it is most clear that the Government was then understood to consist of three States of which the King was none as he cannot be with any Congruity 1 R. 3. Rot. Parl. apud Westm die Veneris 23 Jan. it appears that a Bill was exhibited coram Dom. Rege in Parl. Wherein is contained That several Articles on the behalf and in the name of the three States of the Realm viz. Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons were delivered to the King And farther that the said three Estates were not assembled in form of Parliaments therefore be it ordained by this present Parliament that the Tenor of the said Articles delivered as aforesaid on the behalf of the said three Estates out of Parliament c. Now by the three Estates assembled in this present Parliament be the same ratified and approved Ac idem Dominus Rex de assensu dictorumtrium statuum Regni Authoritate praedicta omnia singula praemissa in billa praedicta contenta concedit ea pro vero indubio pronunciat decernit ac declarat This was in like manner an Act of Parliament for declaring the Right of the Crown to be in Rich. 3. In the Statute made 2 H. 4. the Word State is used plurally and for more than two of which the King was none to signifie the Parliament as appears cap 15. And so it is also in 4 Hen. 4. cap. 4. in which these words are Sith it is the desire of all the States of the Realm that nothing shall be so demanded of our Sovereign the King He will that all those who make any Demand c. So that hereby it is evident that in the Understanding of that time there were three States besides the King But to spare the Reader the trouble of the mentioning the Records at large that testifie the Parliament to consist of the King and the three Estates viz. Lords Spiritual Lords Temporal and Commons I will refer them that doubt to the Collection made in Mr. Pryn's Index to Sir Robert Cotton's Abridgment under that Title who himself was of this Opinion which nothing but the Evidence of the truth of the thing could have
recommend to all ingenious Gentlemen that would be rightly instructed and informed neither deceive others nor would be deceived themselves as they love truth and virtue wisdom and sober thoughts to dispise this sort of wit in others and repress it in themselves And never allow it to be used but in the hours of mirth in the Relaxations of their minds from serious Contemplations and matters grave and weighty where this prophane thing wit ought always to be shut out with care Enough hath been said for rectifying the mistakes of any true Protestant especially any Clergy-man of the Church of England which you have objected against them about Government or Parliament dissenters from the Church of England and Popery Especially when it is made apparent that these mistakes are made serviceable to the Popish Plot and the means which that party prosecute to compass and bring about the ruine of our Church But that nothing may be wanting that lyes in my poor power for pulling their Foot out of the Snare I shall more distinctly consider them First I shall desire them to consider what our Government is and where the true knowledge of it is to be found And where can it be found but in our Statute Books the Commentaries of our Law the Histories of our Government and of the Kingdom Search them if you be at leisure if you are not consult those that have read them and whose business and employment it is to understand them and you cannot fail to be informed That the King hath no power to make Laws that both Houses of Parliament must joyn with the King in making a Law It can with no more reason be concluded that the King hath the Legislative power because his Assent makes the Bills in Parliament Laws than it can because the third Unit added to two makes a Triad that the other two do not go to the making of that number when a matter 's moved from the King in Parliament to pass into a Law the Commons consent last The Letters Patents of Ed. Sir E. Cook 8 R. 3. for making the Eldest Son of a King in Succession Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall was confirmed as there must have been otherwise they would have been void by the House of Commons And yet we will not say that the House of Commons can make a Prince of Wales or Duke of Cornwall And yet upon no better reason than this some men will talk as if they believed themselves that the Legislative power is in the King when no King of England yet ever pretended to it but by their process of Law have punished such officious and mischievous Knaves They will tell you that the Laws are the measures of our Allegiance and the Kings Prerogative and declare the terms of Obedience and Government That a Legislative authority is necessary to every Government and therefore we ought not to want it and therefore Parliaments in which our Government hath placed the making of Laws cannot be long discontinued nor their Conventions rendred illusory and in vain which is all one as to want them That to Govern by Laws implieth that great fundamental Law that new Laws shall be made upon new emergencies and for avoiding unsufferable mischiefs to the State By the Statutes of 4 Ed. 3. c. 14.36 Ed. 3. c. 10. it is provided that Parliaments be holden once every year The Statute of this King required a Parliament every three years which being an affirmatory Law doth not derogate from those of Ed. the 3. But if the King doth not call a Parliament once in a year He neglects these Laws and if he delays calling a Parliament three years he neglects the other Law of his own time to And for that he is by the Law intrusted with the calling of Parliaments He is at liberty to call them within the times appointed And that Laws ought to be made for Redress of mischiefs that may ensue appears by the Statute of provisors 25. E. 3. cap. 23. In which we have these words Whereupon the Commons have prayed our said Soveraign Lord the King that sith the right of the Crown of England and the Law of the said Realm is such that upon the mischiefs Dammage which happeneth to this Realm he ought and is bound of the Accord of his said People in his Parliament thereof to make Remedy and Law in avoiding the mischief and dammage which whereof cometh which that King agreed to by his Royal Assent thereto given I dare be bold to say that never any Bill in Parliament was lost and wanted the Royal Assent that was promoted by the general desires of the people If Popery therefore which is the greatest mischief to us that ever threatned this Kingdom can be kept out by a Law we ought to have such a Law and nothing can hinder such a Law to be past for that purpose but want of an universal desire to have it I desire these Gentlemen to consider how they will answer it to their Saviour at the last day if they suffer his true Religion and the professors of it to be destroyed and persecuted when nothing but their desires of a thing lawful to be had and of right due was requisite to prevent it Their sufferings will be just and righteous from God if their sin occasioneth it and very uncomfortable to themselves The extent of the Legislative authority is no where to be understood but by our Acts of Parliament in which it hath been exercised and used and by such Acts that declare the extent of its power by the 13. Eliz. cap. 1. it is made Treason during that Queens Life and forfeiture of Goods and Chattels afterwards To hold maintain and affirm that the Queen by the Authority of the Parliament of England is not able to make Laws and Statutes of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the descent limitation inheritance and Government thereof And this authority was exercised by Entailing the Crown in Parliaments in the times of Richard the 2d Henry the 4th Henry the 6th Edward the 4th Richard the 3d. Henry the 7th thrice in the time of Henry the 8th and upon the Marriage of Queen Mary to King Philip of Spain both the Crowns of England and Spain were Entailed whereby it was provided that of the several Children to be begotten upon the Queen one was to have the Crown of England another Spain another the Low-Countries The Articles of Marriage to this purpose were confirmed by Act of Parliament Those that are truly Loyal to our present Sovereign have reason to recognize with high satisfaction that such a power of altering and limiting the descent of the Crown is duly lodged in the King and States of the Realm For under the authority of an Act of Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland we derive our selves to the happiness of his Government and and He his title to the Crown of Scotland which drew to
him the Imperial Crown of England For Robert Steward first King of Scotland of that Family lived in concubinate with Elizabeth Mure and by her had three Sons John Robert and Alexander afterwards he Married Eufame Daughter to the Earl of Ross and after was Crowned King of Scotland He had by her Walter Earl of Athol and David Earl of Straherne When Eufame his Wife dyed he Married Elizabeth Mure. After that by one Act of Parliament he made them first Noble that is to say John Earl of Carrick Robert Earl of Menteith and Alexander Earl of Buchquhane And shortly after by another Parliament he limited the Crown in Tail Successively to John Robert and Alexander his Children by Elizabeth Mure in Concubinate and after to the Children of Elizabeth Ross his Legitimate Children who are to this day in their issue by this limitation by authority of an Act of Parliament in Scotland barr'd from the Crown and we hope ever will be by the continuance of the Line of our most Gracious King For note that though a subsequent Marriage by the civil Law which is the Law of Scotland in such cases doth Legitimate the Children born before Marriage of a Concubine yet it is with this exception that they shall not be Legitimated to the prejudice of Children born afterwards in Marriage and before the Marriage of the Concubine Besides the reason of the Civil Law in Legitimating the Children upon a subsequent Marriage is this viz. a presumption that they were begotten affectu maritali which presumption fails where the man proceeds to Marry another woman and abandons or neglects his Concubine But I desire these Gentlemen that are so unwilling to be safe in their Religion which I believe is most dear unto them That if any Law should exceed the declared measures of the Legislative authority though in such Case they may have leave to doubt of the lawfulness of such a Law yet if it be not against any express Law of God they will upon a little consideration determin it lawful if it be necessary to the Common-weal for that nothing can be the concerns of men united in any Polity but may be govern'd and ordered by the Laws of their Legislature for publick good for by the reason of all political societies For further satisfaction of the lawfulness of the bill of exclusion See a Book called The great and weighty Consideration considered there is a submission made of all Rights especially of the Common Rights of that community to the Government of its own Laws But all this and a hundred times as much will not satisfy some Gentlemen of the lawfulness of our Government the extent of the Legislative power of Parliaments since they have entertained a Notion that Monarchy is jure divino unalterable in its descent by any Law of man for that it is subject to none That all Kings are alike absolute that their Will is a Law to all their Subjects That Parliaments the states of the Realm in their Conventions can be no more than the Monarcks Ministers acting under and by his appointment which he may exauctorate and turn out of Office when he pleaseth For there can be say they under the Sun no obliging Authority but that of Kings to whom God hath given a plenitude of power and what is derived from them That this Divine Absoluteness may Govern and exercise Royal power immensely and that it is subject to nor to be abated or restrained by any humane inventions or contrivances of men however necessary and convenient Kings have thought them in former Ages by such methods and such offices and Officers of which number the States of the Realm may be or not be as Kings shall please as they shall by their absolute Will order or appoint Our Parliaments say they are Rebellious and an Usurpation upon the unbounded Power of Kings which belongs to every King as such jure ordinario and by Divine institution That a mixt Monarchy as ours is is an Anarchy and that we are at present without a Government at least such as we ought to have and which God hath appointed and ordained for us That we by adhering to the present Government are Rebels to God Almighty and the Kings unlimited Power and Authority under him which no humane constitution no not the Will and Pleasure of Kings themselves can limit or restrain For that jura ordinaria divina non recipiunt modum That the Legislative Power is solely in the King and that the business of a Parliament if they would think of being only what they ought to be is only to declare on the behalf of themselves and the people that send them for that purpose certainly the obedience that is due from them to such Laws as the K. shall make and that they may be laid aside wholly when he pleaseth And after all this what matter 's it with them what we say our Government is hath been or where the Legislative Authority of the Nation is placed or how used But I desire these Gentlemen to consider how they come to these Notions upon what reason they are grounded How a Government established by God and Nature for all Mankind should remain a secret to all the wise good just and peaceable men of all Ages That Kings should not before this have understood their Authority when no pretences are omitted for encrease of power and enlargement of Empire I desire them to consider that this secret was not discovered to the World before the last Age and was a forerunner of our late unnatural War and is now again revived by the republishing of Sir Robert Filmers Books since the Discovery of the Popish Plot. I wish they would consider that the reasons ought to be as clear and evident as Demonstration that will warrant them to discost from the sense of all Mankind in a matter of such weight and moment That to mistake with confidence and overweening in this matter will be an unpardonable affront to the Common sense of Mankind and the greatest Violation of the Laws of modesty I desire that they would consider and rate the mischiefs that will certainly ensue upon this opinion and whether a probable reason can therefore support it That they would throughly weigh ponder and examine the Reasons of these bold and new Dogmata For their enquiries ought to be in proportion diligent and strict as the matter is of moment and if they are not their error and mistake will be very culpable and the sin of the error aggravated to the measure of the mischief which it produceth and occasioneth Where is the Charter of Kings from God Almighty to be read or found for nothing but the declared Will of God can warrant us to destroy our Government or to give up the Rights and Liberties of our people If they are lawful I am sure it is villany to betray them since all political Societies are framed that all may assist the Common Rights of
ought not to loose our Lives Liberties and Estates but where forfeited by Law we ought much rather not to loose them for the profession of the best Religion which by Law is made the publick national Religion And it is strange that some men of the same Religion in profession can think that notwithstanding it makes no matter what is done to a man if he be Religious but if he be not so the least publick injuries and injustice may be resisted vindicated remedyed and by right defended by old Laws or new ones to be made for that purpose The Christian Religion was publisht when the whole world was Pagan and therefore it was submitted to such usage as the Governments would give it But when the Christian Faith had by miracles of patience declared it self to be of Heaven and of a Divine Original According to the Prophecies on that behalf it took possession of the Empire and Crowns and Scepters became submitted to the Cross and the Christians acquir'd a civil right of Protection and Immunity which they ought not they cannot relinquish and abandon no more than they can destroy themselves or suffer violence and cruelty to destroy the Innocent Such as thus perish shall never wear a Martyrs Crown but perish in the next world for perishing in this This will be interpretatively Crucifying Christ afresh after he is received up into Glory i. e. After his Religion is exalted into dignity and honor and civil Authority If the senate of Rome had been Christians they would never have given up the Government to a Pagan Augustus with a power to him and his Successors to make laws for extirpating the Christian Faith what is said of the Christian Religion and Paganism holds between the Reformed Religion and Popery If any man is so vain as to say that an unalterable course of Succession is established amongst us by Divine Right I say he is a man fitted to believe transubstantiation and the infallibility of the Pope he is deeply lapsed into fanaticism he dreams when he is awake and his dreams are dreams of phrensie There are somethings so false that they cannot be disproved as somethings are so evidently true that they cannot be proved This proposition hath no color to ground it self upon no medium to prove it no argument for it which is to be answered nor nothing more absurd than it self to reduce it to But if any shall add that this Doctrin is the Doctrin of the Reformation and adventure to tell the people so they are the most impudent falsaries that ever any age produced when there is scarce a Child but hath heard what was done said and maintained by the Clergy of England in the case of Mary Queen of Scots a Popish Successor in the earliest time of our Reformation here in England Our Age is blessed with a Clergy renownedly Learned and Prudent by the Providence of God and the piety of our Ancestors they possess good though not to be envyed Revenues and Honors It is scarce possible they should have many among them that can countenance a proposition so wickedly impious and sacrilegious that we cannot have new Laws but must loose the old at the pleasure of a Popish Successor against not their own interest and the Rights of the Church but against the Rights and Liberty of Religion it self For she is capable of Franchises and Immunitys which ought above all things to be most zealously asserted and defended by her Ministers can they themselves with their own hands ever pull down her Hedg and destroy her Defensatives and expose her helpless to the rage of her implacable Enemies and suspend all the Legal security she hath for her preservation upon the Life of our present King whom God long preserve If Kings be admitted to have a power to make Laws One Proclamation may establish the Popish Religion amongst us which the Papal Bulls so long as that See continues will never be able to effect Next to Religion her self the Revenues of the Church challenge their faithful care for they are at best but Usu-fructuary Trustees of her Endowments for the Succession which they will wretchedly betray to an Arbitrary Successor if they do not repress such Opinions that pretend to change the Government into an absolute jure Divinity Monarchy which will leave nothing jure divino but it self and the Popedom Kings for their so doing have the authority of Sir Robert Filmer who affirms in his Treatise called the Power of Kings Fol. 1. That the Laws Ordinances Letters Patents Priviledges and Grants of Princes have no force but during their Life if they be not ratified by the express consent or at least by the sufferance of the Prince following who had a knowledge thereof This is but the necessary consequence and result from the Doctrine of the absolute power of a Prince for in such Government the Concessions of a Predecessor can no more oblige the Successor than he can Govern when he is dead and the Successor must be absolute in his time as the Predecessors were in theirs But in vain is the Net spread in the sight of any Bird this deceit is of so gross a thread that it cannot pass with the common people much less upon our Clergy but I will not dissemble what may be the true reason of the seduction of some young good natured Gentlemen of the Clergy They perswade themselves that if these principles and opinions of the Unlimited Power of Kings had been received the late Wars had been prevented Not rightly considering that if such opinions had never been broached or Universally rejected that War could never have ensued and we should together with peace have enjoyed our ancient Government which our Ancestors transmitted to us without that miserable inter-regnum I would not be perversely understood by any man as if I went about to justify our late War This is all I say that every Government once established will continue for ever if all the parts of it would unalterably consent to preserve it to which their narural Allegiance doth oblige them And never any Prince endeavored to change the Government but where part of the people were first willing or content to have it so Those false flatterers that go about to remove the boundaries of power and change the Government are the greatest enemies to the quiet and happy Reigns of the Kings and the peace and prosperity of Kingdoms And if they do adventure to call the ir fellow Subjects by any opprobrious names of disloyalty because they will not joyn with them in such change they are as absurdly impious and insolent as any Prince or State would be who should challenge another as free and absolute as himself for his Tributary and Vassal and traduce him for a troubler of the World because he would not Compose the Quarrel thus injuriously sought with the surrender of his Crown and dignity I desire these Gentlemen to consider that the happiness of a Nation is best
continues entire together with Sovereign Power and is not at all abated by it and therefore cannot be the same No Soveraign Power can extort the Children from their Fathers Authority and care This is a duty in Nature before Governments They cannot belong to the Government before they are filii precepti and capable of the Conscience of a Law It is a duty in Parents to Educate their Children and a right they have in consequence to govern them that cannot be taken from them It is the Parents duty to form their consciences They are appoint-by God the great Ministers of his Providence to the Children That they perform this Office he hath tyed them to it by the sweatest constraints and almost violences of Nature by an irresistable love and tyes of Endearment that cannot be broken this declares their Right of Authority over their Children against any interposings of Soveraign Authority to its prejudice let or hindrance Thomas Aquinas positively determines that it is not lawful for Christian Kings to baptize the Children of the Jews against the will of their Parents for that saith he it is against the course of natural justice 4ly There is no footsteps in the Records of the old World to verifie this Hypothesis That such Authority was so much as pretended to be used or exercised by Adam but we find instances against it in the short History before the Flood Cain received no sentence from Adam his Prince and Soveraign Judg but from God himself or rather from his Shecinah or some visible Representation of his presence Thence he obtained some degree of impunity and his life protected No mention here at all of Adam his taking the Tribunal or Cains arraignment or of any pardon or indulgence granted by King Adam Lamech that had Kill'd a man by mischance did not alledge his case at his Father Adams Court and the matter of extenuation of the Man-killing we hear of no pardon of Course to be allowed when the circumstances of fact had been first judicially considered How could a thing of such importance be omitted in the story of the old World tho so short It was of more concernment than to know that Tubal Cain was the first Smith and Jubal the first man that made a Musical instrument to know the original nature and reason of Government Besides we find all the grand Children of Noah becoming Princes of Countries and the Sons and grand sons of Esau alike Dukes and Princes that is at least absolute Fathers of their own Families and ruling over such as were their slaves and dependents And the 12 Sons of Jacob are all called Patriarchs When Nimrod played the Tyrant we find nothing said for his justification upon any Patriarchal right But if we consult the Traditions of the Jews they will inform us of another original of Government and that is this They say that God gave several Precepts to Adam and his Sons and Noah and his Sons and one amongst the rest that they should erect Governments which his Sons could not have performed without Rebellion against their King Father if Adam had been so as Sir Robert Filmer first dreamt Also besides that of making Governments there was a Precept given them of honoring their Parents Selden de jure Naturae secundum Hebraeos fol. 2792. And therefore the Precept of honoring Parents is a distinct duty from that of obedience to Governments By this Precept they had Authority in general to establish Governments amongst themselves in the specification of which they were left to rheir own liberty and discretion and therefore were not obliged to any single form of Government It must be understood that the Precept which required the Sons of Adam and Noah to establish Governments required also every mans Submission to their Orders Laws and Decrees when established Lastly We will consider of the instances he gives of the Exercise of Soveraign Power by Fathers of Families which are as impertinent to his purpose as his Doctrine is groundless and precarious but they are these Abrahams War and Judahs judgment upon Thamar As to the first of Abrahams making War We say we cannot allow that making War doth argue any Soveraign Authority It is sufficient that he who makes it is under none to make a vindicative War Lawful For an injured Person may in the State of Nature vindicate wrongs by an authority derived from God and Nature to a just satisfaction Because there is no competent judicature to appeal to for right and redress But see how unhappy the Gentleman is This very instance of his production is clearly against him for if Soveraign Power had been Patriarchal Abraham had been guilty of Treason in making War without a Commission from Melchizedech the King of Salem who as the Learned men conjecture was Shem his Patriarch and Chief and known by him for such But because Abraham the best man perhaps in any Age did not take a Commission from Melchizedech his Patriarchal chief And yet he was blessed by Melchizedech when he returned from the War We may conclude that neither Melchizedeeh nor Abraham knew of any such Patriarchal Soveraignty And also from this great example it appears that it is lawful for him that is not a Soveraign if he be not under any to make War I will not enter into a discourse whence and how is derived the Authority of making War and capital Sentences which must have the same reason to warrant both which hath pusled some great Divines Dr. Hammond that great man was at a loss in this enquiry and thinks that nothing but a Divine Authority can warrant them which hath put them upon strange extravagant Hypotheses of Government and sent this Knights brains a Wool-gathering But this may satisfie any man of sense that whatever is necessary for the general happiness of mankind and for preserving peace in the world and protecting the innocent and disinabling the mighty oppressors is more commendable to be done then the Killing a man in his own defence is simply lawful As to his second instance of Judah his Sentence pronounced upon his Daughter in Law Thamar which he would have an exercise of Patriarchal Soveraign Authority We say how could Judah do this by a Patriarchal Power when Jacob his Father was then alive and for all that appears Judah his Son was not extrafamiliated Besides which is very unlucky Thamar was then none of his Family or of the Subjects of his Domestick Empire for his Son her Husband being dead she was free from the Law of her Husband and ceased to be a Subject of his Paternal Kingdom But Mr. Selden under the Authority of some Rabbins which he cites in his excellent Book before mentioned Fol. 807. saith that Judah might have the Office of a Prince or Magistrate in a district in that Country and by that Authority might judge her according to the Laws of that Country But what the Law was and the Nature and reason of her offence