not mention'd in the Abridgment n. 11. Domino Rege tribus Regni Statibus in presenti Parlamento existentibus the King and the Three Estates of the Realm being present in Parlament Nothing can be plainer then that the King is none and that the Three Estates of the Kingdom are the Three Estates in Parlament 11 H. VI. n. 24. Lord Cromwell Treasurer exhibits a Petition in Parlament wherein he saith the estate and necessity of the King and of the Realm have been notified to the Three Estates of the Land assembled in Parlament In an Appendix annexed to the Rolls of Parlament that year the Duke of Bedford saith in his Petition to the King how that in your last Parlament yit liked your Highness by yadvis of Three Estates of his Land to will me c. 23 H. VI. n. 11. Presente Domino Rege tribus Regni Statibvs in presenti Parlamento existentibus c. 28 H. VI. n. 9. Domino Rege tribus Regni Statibus in pleno Parlamento comparentibus c. After these I shall insist upon the Precedents cited by the Authour of the Letter himself viz. the Ratification of the Peace with France by the Thrée Estates 9 H. V. and 11 H. VII which he alledges as an extraordinary thing that the Three Estates joyned in these Transactions whereas in truth it was nothing but a Ratification of the Peace in Parlament and consequently those Three Estates of the Kingdom are the Three Estates of Parlament For the Parlament was then sitting at both these Ratifications and no other Assembly of the Thrée Estates was ever known in England Walsingham saith that H. V. called aParlament which was sitting at that time for the King kept S. George's Feast at Windsor that year from thence he went to the Parlament at London which ended within a Month and the Ratification of the Peace bears date May 2. Judge then whether these were not the Three Estates in Parlament But to prove this more fully It seems by 23 H. VI. n. 24. that a Statute was made in the time of H. V. that no Peace should be made with France without the consent of the Three Estates of both Realms which was then repealed But whom they meant by the Thrée Estates here in the time of H. VI. appears by 28 H. VI. n. 9. when the Chancellour in the presence of the King gave thanks to the Three Estates and prorogued the Parlament where it is plain the Three Estates in Parlament were meant and that the King could be none of them In 38 H. VI. n. 38. the Chancellour again in the presence of the King and of the Three Estates having given thanks to all the Estates dissolved the Parlament But that which puts this matter out of doubt is that in the Parlament 1 H. VI. the Queen Dowager in her Petition mentions the Ratification made in Parlament 9 H. V. and saith it was not onely sworn by the King but by the Thrée Estates of the Kingdom of England Cest assavoir les Prelatz Nobles Grands per les Comuns de mesm le Roialm Dengleterre that is to say by the Prelats Nobles and other Grandees and by the Commons of the Realm of England as appears more fully saith that Petition by the Records and Acts of the said Parlament And the King there declares in four several Instruments that the said Articles of Peace were approved and ratified by Authority of Parlament in these words Qui quidem Pax Tractatus conclusio concordia omnesque Articuli contenti in eisdem in Parlamento dicti Patris nostri apud Westm. 2 0 die Maii A. R. 9. tento Auctoritate ejusdem Parlamenti approbati laudati auctorizati acceptati Nothing can be plainer from hence then that the Three Estates of the Kingdom were no other then the Three Estates in Parlament And the same appears by another Petition of the same Queen 2 H. VI. n. 19. For latter Times I shall instance onely in the Parlament 1 Eliz. c. 3. wherein the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons declare that they do represent in Parlament the Thrée Estates of the Realm From whence it follows 1. That the Three Estates of the Kingdom must be represented in Parlament 2. That the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons do represent those Three Estates of the Kingdom and therefore are the Three Estates in Parlament 3. That the King can be none of the Estates in Parlament because he doth not represent any of the Estates of the Kingdom And it is a wonder to me that any man who considers the Constitution of the Government of Europe and how agreeable it was in all the Kingdoms of it as to the Assemblies of the Three Estates could ever take the King to be one of the Three Estates in Parlament For the Question would seem ridiculous to persons of any other Nation if we should ask them whether the King was reckon'd among the tres Ordines Regni For by the Three Estates they all mean the Three Ranks of men the Clergy Nobility and Commonalty But the Authour of the Letter could not deny that these were the Three Estates of the Kingdom but he saith the Three Estates of Parlament are clean another thing which I may reasonably suppose is sufficiently disproved by the foregoing Discourse But he quotes several Authorities for what he saith which must now be examined and will appear to be of no weight if compared with the evidence already given on the other side The first Authority is of King Iames in his Speech at the Prorogation of the Parlament 1605. wherein he saith the Parlament consists of a Head and a Body the King is the Head the Body are the Members of the Parlament This Body is subdivided into two parts the Vpper and the Lower House The Vpper consists of the Nobility and the Bishops the Lower of Knights and Burgesses The force of the Argument lies in King Iames his making the Bishops but a Part of the Vpper House but that this doth not exclude their being a Third Fstate I prove by a Parallel Instance In 5 H. IV. the Bishop of London being Chancellour compared the Parlament to a Body as King Iames did but he made the Chùrch the Right Hand the Temporal Lords the Left Hand and the Commonaltie the other Members yet presently after he calls these the several Estates which the King had called to Parlament But that the Bishops sitting in the same House with the Temporal Lords doth not hinder their being a distinct Estate will appear when we come to answer his Reasons And for King Iames his sense as to this matter we may fully understand it by this passage in his Advice to his Son As the whole Subjects of our Countrey by the ancient and fundamental Policy of our Kingdom are divided into Three Estates c. These words are spoken of the Kingdom of Scotland but the ancient
in the same circumstances the Apostles were when the Christian Church was to be planted in the World and so few persons as the 12 Apostles made choice of for that Work Is there no difference to be made between a Church constituted and settled and incorporated into the Commonwealth and one not yet formed but labouring under great difficulties and making its way through constant persecutions May it not be as well argued that Bishops are not to stay in one Countrey nor to have any fixed habitation because the Apostles passed from place to place preaching the Word of God Doth not the Authour of the Letter himself confesse that the Clergy are one of the Three Estates of the Kingdom and by the Act 8 Eliz. 1. the Clergy are called one of the greatest States of this Realm And is there not then great Reason that those who are the chief part of it as he confesseth the Bishops to be should have a share in affairs that concern the whole Nation And would it not seem strange to the Christian World that we alone of all the Kingdoms of Europe should exclude the Bishops from having an equal Interest with the other Estates in Parlament For it were easy to prove from unquestionable Testimonies that as soon as the Christian Religion was well settled in any of these Northern Kingdoms the Bishops were admitted into all the publick Councils and have so continued to this day where the Convention of the Estates hath been kept up Bohemia onely excepted since the days of Sigismond I begin with France where Hincmarus saith there were two great Councils every year one of the States of the Kingdom for ordering the Affairs of the ensuing year and redressing of Grievances and in these the Bishops were always present and the other of the King's Council which managed the intervening Affairs and into this the chief of the Bishops were chosen It were endless to repeat the several Parlaments in France in the time of the Merovingian and Caroline Race wherein Laws were passed and the great Affairs of the Kingdom managed by the Bishops Noblemen and others Those who have looked into the ancient Annals and Capitulars of France cannot be ignorant of this There is one thing remarkable to our purpose in the famous Council of Frankford which opposed the Worship of Images so stoutly viz. that after the matters of Religion were agreed then according to the Custom of that Age the other Estates being present they proceeded to other matters and then Tassilo Duke of Bavaria was brought upon his Knees for Treason and the Cause of Peter Bishop of Verdun was heard who was likewise accused of Treason and there purged himself Concerning both which Cases there are 2 Canons still extant among the Canons of that Council and in another the Bishops are appointed by consent of the King to doe Justice in their several Dioceses And that they had not onely a share in the Legislative but in the Iudiciary part appears by one of the ancient Formulae in Marculphus where it is said that the King sate in Judgment unà cum Dominis Patribus nostris Episcopis vel cum plurimis Optimatibus nostris vel in the language of that Age is the same with This was the Palatine Court where Bignonius saith the greater Causes were heard the King himself being present or the Comes Palatii Episcopis Proceribus adsidentibus the Bishops and Lords sitting in Iudicature together with him And this was not onely the Original of the Parlament of Paris as a standing Court of Iudicature but the like in England was the true foundation of the Supreme Court of Iudicature in the House of Peers So that in the eldest and best times of France after Christianity had prevailed there neither consultation about publick Affairs nor administration of Justice were thought inconsistent with the Function of Bishops In Spain during the Gothick Power all the great Affairs of the Kingdom and even the Rights of their Princes were debated and transacted by the greatest of the Clergy and Nobility together as may be seen in the several Councils of Toledo in that time in the case of Suintilas Sisenandus and others And in one of them it is said that after they had dispatched matters of Religion they proceeded ad caeterarum Causarum negotia to the handling of other Causes In the 13. Council of Toledo the Case of Impeachments of Treason is brought in and Rules set down for due proceedings therein And yet from one of these Councils of Toledo it is that all the stir hath been made in the Canon-Law about Bishops not being present in cases of bloud In Germany the first Laws that were ever published were those by Lotharius II. in Comitiis Regni saith Goldastus and there were present 33 Bishops 34 Dukes 72 Counts besides the People And by the Matriculation-Roll of the States of the Empire it appears what a great Interest the Clergy have preserved ther in from the first times of the prevalecy of Christianity there And Arumaeus a considerable Protestant Lawyer of the Empire saith the Bishops of Germany sit in a double capacity in the Diets both as Bishops and as Princes of the Empire And he commends the prudence of that Constitution with respect both to Iustice and the Honour and Safety of Religion For the Kingdom of Bohemia Goldastus a learned Protestant saith that there as in all other well-constituted Kingdoms among Christians there were 3 Estates of Prelats Nobles and Commons and this continued he saith from the time Christianity was received till the days of Sigismond No sooner was Christianity received in Hungary but their Princes Stephanus and Ladislaus called their great Councils of their Prelats and Nobles and the Laws made in the Concilium Zabolchianum were passed by the King with all his Bishops and Nobles and with the consent of the whole Clergy and People In Poland Starovolscius saith that their Ancestours after they received Christianity out of regard to Religion gave the Bishops the first place in the Senate and admitted the Clergy to the great Offices of the Kingdom And Sigismond in his Constitution saith the States of Poland consist of the Bishops Barons and Delegates called Nuntii terrestres In the Northern Kingdoms Adamus Bremensis saith that the Bishops after the People received Christianity were receiv'd into their publick Councils And Loccenius reckons up among the several Estates the Bishops Nobles Knights and Deputies of the Country and Cities And it appears by the Hirdstraa or the ancient Laws of Norway the Bishops as well as Nobility were present in the Convention of the States and all publick Councils The like might be proved here in the Saxon times from the Conversion of Ethelbert downward This is so very evident that he must blind his eyes that doth not see it if he doth but cast them on the History of those
the force of a Law because it may be destroy'd by the Act of the Parties themselves If therefore the Bishops did afterwards act contrary to this Protestation they took away all the force of it 2. The particular nature of this Protestation is such as doth most evidently preserve their Right to be personally present on the account of their Peerage and Baronies and the great design of a Protestation is to preserve a Right notwithstanding some Act which seems to destroy it as thier absenting themselves on the account of the Canons might seem to doe But of this already 3. We are now to consider the third Point Whether on supposition that on the account of the Canon-Law the Bishops had always withdrawn in the time of Popery that had continued in force still since the Reformation I think not upon these Reasons 1. Because the Canon-Law was founded upon a Superstitious fancy viz. that if Clergy-men be present in Causes of Bloud they contract Irregularity ex defectu perfectae Lenitatis as the excellent Canonist Navarr saith because it argues a want of perfect Lenity But if we consider the cases they allow which do not incurre Irregularity and those they do not allow which do incurre it we shall find all this stir in the Canon-Law about this matter to be onely a Superstitious kind of Hypocrisy 1. If a man in Orders gives another man Weapons without which he could not defend himself and by those weapons he maims him that assaulted him this doth not make him irregular but if he kills him it doth and yet the Canons make the case of Dismembring and Death the same 2. It makes a man act against the Law or Nature to prevent Irregularity For they say if it be for the defence of Father or Mother or preventing the ruin of his Country although the Cause be never so just a Clergy-man that dismembers or takes away another's life is irregular 3. If a Clergy-man discovers Treason or accuses another for Treason without a Protestation that he doth not doe it with a design to have him punished he is irregular but if he makes that Protestation although death follows he is not 4. If a Clergy-man be in an Army and perswades the Souldiers to fight manfully and kill as many as they can this doth not make him irregular ny although he beats them if they will not fight but if he happens to kill an enemy himself then he is 5. If he gives a Souldier a Sword or a Gun by which he dispatches his enemies if he did it with a particular intention that he should slay or maim them he is irregular if onely with a general intention that he should overcome he is not This being somewhat a nice Case the Canonists take more then usual pains to prove it And from hence they defend their Priests and Iesuits in the Indies who carry the Cross before their Armies into the Field and encourage them to kill all they can and yet Navarr saith they are so far from being irregular that they are regularissimi as his word is 6. If a man to gain an Indulgence carries a faggot to burn an Heretick if it be with a design to take away his life he is irregular but if he be hanged first or dead before it be thrown into the fire then he is not 7. If a man in Orders helps a Chirurgeon in cutting off a man's Leg he is not irregular but if a man be justly condemned to have his Leg cut off if he then gives any assistence he is irregular because the one is moved out of Mercy and the other out of Justice 8. If the Bishops sit and condemn a man for Heresy and deliver him over to the Secular Power for Execution yet they free this from Irregularity or else the practice of the Inquisition were lost This seems a very difficult Case but the Canonists salve this by saying that the Inquisitours when they deliver them over to the Secular Power do pray that they may not be hurt either Wind or Lim as it appears by the Forms used in the Directorium Inquisitorum And if this be not the height of Hypocrisie let the World judge And therefore this part of the Canon-Law is not consistent with the Sincerity of the Reformation 2. This part of Canon-Law is inconsistent with the King's Power over Ecclesiastical Persons For it supposeth them liable to the penalty of a Law which he hath no cognisance of and derives no force or authority from him which tends to the diminution of the King's Prerogative Royal and therefore it is nulled by the Stat. 25 H. VIII c. 19. I do very much question whether this ever were any part of the Canon-Law of England notwithstanding the Pope's Decretals i. e. whether these Canons ever received confirmation by the Royal Authority either in Synodal Constitutions or elsewhere And it would be a very hard case if our Kings had not the same Privileges which are allow'd in Popish Countries viz. that nothing passes for Canon-Law within their Territories till it pass the examination of the King's Council and approbation by his Authority Thence in France nothing passes without the King's Pareatis nor in Spain or Flanders without the King of Spain's Placet no nor in the Kingdom of Naples without the Royal Exequatur It is well known that the 6. Book of Decretals was not allowed in France because of the quarrel between the King and Boniface VIII and that even the Council of Trent it self was not allowed by Philip II. till it had been strictly examined by the King's Council that nothing might be allowed which tended to the diminution of his Prerogative How then will men justifie the making that a part of the Canon-Law of England which was repugnant to the Rights of the Crown and deprives the King of the Power of taking advice of those of his Subjects whom he hath summon'd for that end 3. The Sanction of this Law is ceased which was Irregularity And some of our most Learned Iudges have declared that is taken away by the Reformation But in case any be of another opinion I shall urge them with this inconveniency viz. that the great Instrument of discovering the Plot falls under Irregularity by it For it is most certain by the Canon-Law that a man in Orders accusing others of Treason without making his due Protestation in Court is Irregular But if this be now thought unreasonable as it is in the person of an Accuser why should it not be so in the case of Iudges And if the Irregularity be taken away then the Sanction is gone and if the Sanction be taken off in a meer positive Law the force of the Law is gone too And therefore this Canon-Law which forbids Clergy-men being present in Capital Cases and giving Votes therein is wholly taken away by the Reformation And we do not find any mention of it for 80 years and more after the Reformation till about the
THE GRAND QUESTION Concerning the Bishops Right To VOTE in PARLAMENT In Cases Capital STATED and ARGUED FROM The Parlament-Rolls and the History of former Times WITH An Enquiry into their Peerage and the Three Estates in Parlament LONDON Printed for M. P. and sold by Richard Rumball Book-binder at the Ball and Coffin in the Old Change 1680. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE Question stated and general Prejudices removed CHAP. II. The Right in point of Law debated Concerning the Constitution of Clarendon and the Protestation 11. R. 2. CHAP. III. The Precedents on both sides laid down those against the Bishops examined and answered CHAP. IV. The Peerage of the Bishops cleared how far they make a third Estate in Parlament Objections against it answered CHAP. 1. The Question stated and general Prejudices removed THE Question in debate as it is stated by the Authour of the Letter is Whether the Bishops may be present and Vote Iudicially in Capital Cases which come to be judged in Parlament either in giving the Iudgment it self or in resolving and determining any circumstance preparatory and leading to that Iudgment For our better proceeding towards a Resolution of this Question it will be necessary to take notice of some things granted on both sides which may prevent needless disputes and be of great use in the following Debate 1. It is granted That the Bishops do sit in Parlament by virtue of their Baronies and are bound to serve the King there And one part of the Service due to the King there is to sit in Iudgment for the Authour of the Book entitled The Iurisdiction of the House of Peers asserted proves at large that the Right of Iudicature belongs to the Barons in Parlament and that the Lords Spiritual have a considerable share therein appears by this passage in the Title-page of that Book translated into English The Iudgment of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is according to the Vse and Custom of Parlament The Vse and Custom of Parlament is the Law of Parlament The Law of Parlament is the Law of England The Law of England is the Law of the Land The Law of the Land is according to Magna Charta Therefore the Iudgment of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal is according to Magna Charta Some Right then of Iudicature in Parlament the Bishops have by Magna Charta which whatever it be is as much theirs by that Charter as any Right of Temporal Persons and cannot be invaded or taken from them without breach of that Charter any more then the Rights of the Lords Temporal or of any other Persons whatsoever But how far that Right doth extend is now the thing in Question 2. It is not denied that the Bishops do sit in Parlament by the same kind of Writs that other Barons do They are summon'd to advise and debate about the great and difficult Affairs of the Kingdom cum Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus dicti Regni nostri Angliae colloquium habere tractatum i. e. to joyn therein with the Bishops and other Lords of the Kingdom So that by the King 's Writ of Summons they are impower'd and requir'd to confer and treat of all the weighty Affairs that shall be brought before them And no Instance is so much as offer'd to be produced of any Writ wherein the King doth limit and restrain the Bishops any more then any other Lords of Parlament as to any matter of Consultation or Point of Judicature belonging to that House They have then by their Writ of Summons as good right to sit in all Cases as in any and since the other Lords by their Writs are summoned to advise with the Prelates in all matters that shall come before them without limitation it is not to be conceived how this can be done if the Bishops in some of the most important Debates be excluded 3. It is yielded That if the House proceeds in a Legislative way by passing Bills of Attainder the Bishops have a Right to sit and Vote therein as well as other Lords at these it is said that the Bishops are or should be all present at the passing of them for then they act as Members of the House of Lords in their Legislative capacity But men do as certainly die that are condemned in the Legislative as in the Iudicial Way Is not this then really as much a Case of Bloud as the other If the Bishops should give their Votes in the Legislative way to condemn a Person for Treason and yet think they had not Voted in a Case of Bloud they would then indeed be like Chaucer's Frier mention'd by the Authour of the Letter that would have of a Capon the Liver and of a Pig the Head yet would that nothing for him should be dead Doth a Bill of Attainder cut of a man's Head without making it a Case of Bloud There can be then no objection now made against the Bishops Right from any Canons of the Church for those allow no such distinction of proceeding in the Legislative or Iudicial Way And the late Authour of the Peerage and Iurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual doth grant that the Canons do prohibit the Bishops voting in Bills of Attainder as much as in any Case whatsoever But we are not to suppose a Person of such abilities as the Authour of the Letter would go about to exclude the Bishops from their Right of Voting in a Iudicial way in Cases Capital unless there were some great appearance of Law on his side because he professes so great a Desire that Right may prevail and that his design in writing was to satisfy himself and others where that Right is The discovery whereof is our present business Yet before the Authour of the Letter comes to a close debate of the matter of Right he lets fall some general Insinuations to create a prejudice in the Reader 's mind as to the Bishops meddling at all in Secular Affairs as though it were inconsistent with their Function and with some passages in the Imperial Law And because men may sometimes doe more harm by what they tell us they will not say then by what they do say it will be fit to prevent the danger of such Insinuations before we come to consider his Arguments 1. The first is that meddling at all in Secular Affairs seems to be the doing that which the Apostles declared they would not doe viz. leave the Word of God and serve Tables But are all Persons of Estates now bound to part with them as the Christians then did The serving of Tables was a full employment and they who attended that Office were the Treasurers of the Church to distribute to every one as they judged fit out of the common Stock Is it no Service to God to doe Justice and to shew Mercy to attend upon the publick Affairs of the Kingdom when they are called to it by their Sovereign Or are all Bishops now
Judge then bare Inheritance of Honour can do But to give a full Answer to this Argument on which that Authour lays so much weight and challenges any Person to give a rational account wherein the advantage of a man's being tried by his Peers doth consist I shall 1 shew that this was not the Reason of Trial by Peers 2 give a brief account of the true and original Reason of it 1. That this was not the Reason 1. Not in the Judgment of the Peers themselves as that Authour hath himself sufficiently proved when he takes so much pains to prove p. 3. that a Writ of Summons to Parlament doth not ennoble the Bloud and consequently doth not put persons into equality of Circumstances with those whose Bloud is ennobled and yet he grants that those who sate in the House of Peers by virtue of their Summons did judge as Peers as is manifest from his own Precedents p. 15. from the 4 Edw. 3. From whence it follows that this was not thought to be the Reason by the Peers themselves in Parlament 2. That this was not the Reason in the Judgment of our greatest Lawyers because they tell us that where this Reason holds yet it doth not make men Judges As for instance those who are ennobled by Bloud if they be not Lords of Parlament are not to be Judges in the case of one ennobled by Bloud Onely a Lord of the Parlament of England saith Coke shall be tried by his Peers being Lords of Parlament and neither Noblemen of any other Country nor others that are called Lords and are no Lords of Parlament are accounted Pares Peers within this Statute Therefore the Parity is not of Bloud but of Privilege in Parlament 3. The Practice it self shews that this was not the Reason For this Reason would equally hold whether the Trial be at the King's Suit or the Suit of the party but in the latter case as in an appeal for Murther a man whose bloud is ennobled must be tried by those whose bloud is not ennobled even by an Ordinary Iury of 12 men And I desire our Authour to consider what becomes of the inheritable quality of Bloud in this case when Life and Fortune lies at the mercy of 12 substantial Free-holders who it is likely do not set such a value upon Nobility as Noble-men themselves do and yet our Law which surely is not against Magna Charta allows an Ordinary Iury at the Suit of the party to sit in Judgment upon the greatest Noble-men Therefore this Reason can signifie nothing against the Bishops who are Lords in Parlament as I have already proved 2. I shall give a brief account of the true and original Reason of this Trial by Peers without which that Authour it seems is resolved to conclude that the Iurisdiction of the Bishops in Capital Cases is an abuse of Magna Charta and a Violation offer'd to the Liberties of English Subjects As to the general Reason of the Trial by Peers it is easie to conceive it to have risen from the care that was taken to prevent any unfair proceedings in what did concern the Lives and Fortunes of men From hence Tacitus observes of the old Germans that their Princes who were chosen in their great Councils to doe justice in the several Provinces had some of the People joyned with them both for Advice and Authority These were Assessours to the Judges that mens lives and fortunes might not depend on the pleasure of one man and they were chosen out of the chief of the People none but those who were born free being capable of this honour In the latter times of the German State before the subduing it by Charlemagn some learned men say their Iudges were chosen out of the Colleges of Priests especially among the Saxons After their being conquer'd by him there were 2 Courts of Judicature established among them as in other parts of the German Empire 1. One ordinary and Popular viz. by the Comites or great Officers sent by the Emperour into the several Districts and the Scabini who were Assistants to the other and were generally chosen by the People The number of these at first was uncertain but in the Capitulars they are required to be seven who were always to assist the Comes in passing Judgments But Ludovicus Pius in his second Capitular A. D. 819. c. 2. enlarged their number to 12. And if they did not come along with him they were to be chosen out of the most substantial Free-holders of the County for the words are De melioribus illius Comitatûs suppleat numerum duodenarium This I take to be the true Original of our Juries For our Saxon Laws were taken very much from the Laws of the Christian Emperours of the Caroline Race as I could at large prove if it were not impertinent to our business and thence discover a great mistake of our Lawyers who make our ancient Laws and Customs peculiar to our selves As in this very case of Trial by Peers which was the common practice of these parts of the World Therefore Otto Frisingensis takes notice of it as an unusual thing in Hungary Nulla sententia à Principe sicut apud nos moris est per pares suos exposcitur sola sed Principis voluntas apud omnes pro ratione habetur that they were not judged by their Peers but by the Will of their Prince Which shews that this way of Trial was looked on as the practice of the Empire and as preventing the inconveniences of arbitrary Government And it was established in the Laws of the Lombards and the Constitutions of Sicily In the one it is said to be Iudicium Parium in the other proborum virorum In the Saxon Laws of King Ethelred at Wanting c. 4. 12 Freemen are appointed to be sworn to doe Iustice among their neighbours in every Hundred Those in the Laws of Alfred are rather 12 Compurgators then Iudges however some make him the Authour of the Trial by Peers in England But by whomsoever it was brought into request here it was no other way of Trial then what was ordinary in other parts of Europe and was a great instance of the moderation of the Government of the Northern Kingdoms 2. There was an extraordinary or Royal Court of Iudicature and that either by way of Appeal which was allowed from inferiour Courts or in the Causes of Great men which were reserved to this Supreme Court. In which either the King himself was present or the Comes Palatii who was Lord High Steward and all the Great persons were Assessours to him In such a Court Brunichildis was condemned in France and Tassilo Duke of Bavaria in the Empire and Ernestus and other Great men A. D. 861 and Erchingerus and Bartoldus under Conradus the last of the French Race And among the Causes expresly reserved for this Supreme Court were those which concerned the Prelats as well as the
Angliae tam viri Ecclesiastici quà m Seculares And in the Writs of Summons the distinction hath been always preserved between the Praelati and the Magnates for in those to the Bishops it is cum caeteris Praelatis Magnatibus c. in those to the Temporal Lords cum Praelatis Magnatibus c. In those to the Bishops they were commanded in Fide Dilectione quibus nobis tenemini in those to the Temporal Lords in Fide Homagio or since Ed. III. in Fide Ligeancia Which shews that they were not summon'd meerly as Temporal Barons 4. The Authour of the Letter confesseth the Clergy to be one of the three Estates of the Kingdom but denies them to be one of the three Estates in Parlament From whence I argue thus Either the Clergy must be represented in Parlament or one of the Estates of the Kingdom is not at all represented there And if one of the Estates of the Kingdom be not there represented how can it be a perfect Representative So that this distinction of the Three Estates of the Kingdom and the Three Estates in Parlament unavoidably overthrows the Parlament's being a compleat Representative But in 23 H. VIII n. 33. as Mr. Petyt observes there is this passage in the Parlament-Rolls It is considered and declared by the whole Body of this Realm now represented by all the Estates of the same assembled in this present Parlament Therefore all the Estates of the Kingdom must be represented in Parlament And 1 Eliz. c. 3. The Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons are said to represent in Parlament the Three Estates of the Realm From whence it follows that according to the sense of the Parlament if the Clergy be an Estate of the Kingdom as he saith they are they must be represented in Parlament or the whole Body of the Realm cannot be there represented 2. We now come to consider the weight of Authority in this matter For which I shall premise two things 1. That the whole Parlament assembled are the best Judges which are the Three Estates in Parlament and their Authority is more to be valued then that of any particular Persons whether Lawyers or others 2. That no Parlaments can give better Testimony in this matter then those which have assumed most to themselves For if there be Three Estates in Parlament and the Bishops be none then the King must be one of the Three as the Authour of the Letter insinuates throughout this discourse and the natural consequence from hence seems to be a co-ordination or that two joyning together may over-rule the third Therefore in all Reason if any Parlaments would have made the King one of the Three Estates it would have been either the Parlament 1 H. IV. which deposed one King and set up another or that 1 R. III. which disinherited the Children of Ed. IV. and set up their Uncle I shall therefore first from the Rolls of these two Parlaments shew which are the Three Estates in Parlament and from them evidently prove that the King is none but the Bishops are the Third Estate I begin with the Parlament 1 H. IV. By the Rolls it appears 1. That R. II. appointed two Procurators to declare his Resignation of the Crown coram omnibus Statibus Regni before all the States of the Kingdom From whence it unavoidably follows 1. that the King was none of them 2. that the Estates of the Kingdom and the Estates in Parlament are the same thing 2. Among the Articles against R. II. one is concerning the Impeachment of Tho. Archbishop of Canterbury coram Rege omnibus Statibus Regni before the King and all the Estates of the Realm The King then was none of the Estates 3. The Commissioners for the sentence of Deposition are said to be appointed per Pares Proceres Regni Anglie Spirituales Temporales ejusdem Regni Communitates omnes Status ejusdem Regni representantes by the Peers and Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons of the Kingdom representing all the States of the Kingdom Where observe 1. The Bishops are called Peers as well as the Temporal Lords 2. The Estates of the Parlament are to represent all the Estates of the Kingdom 3. The Three Estates in Parlament are the Lords Spiritual the Lords Temporal and the Commons of the Realm and Fabian expresly calls them the Three Estates of this present Parlament representing the whole Body of the Realm In the Rolls of Parlament 1 R. III. it is recorded that before his Coronation certain Articles were deliver'd unto him in the name of the Three Estates of the Realm of England that is to say of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and of the Commons by name c. Now forasmuch as neither the said Three Estates neither the said Persons which in their name presented and deliver'd as it is afore said the said Roll unto our said Sovereign Lord the King were assembled in form of Parlament divers Doubts have been moved c. Now by the said Three Estates assembled in this present Parlament and by Authority of the same be ratified and enrolled c. Upon which Mr. Pryn himself makes this Marginal Note The Three Estates must concurr to make a Parlament no one or two of them being a full or real Parlament but all conjoyned But lest I should seem to take advantage onely of these two Parlaments I shall now shew this to have been the constant sense of the Parlaments as will appear by these following Records In 1 H. VI. n. 12. All the Estates of the Realm are said to be assembled in Parlament 3 H. VI. n. 19. the Three Estates assembled in this present Parlament 6 H. VI. n. 24. the Duke of Gloucester desired an explanation of his Power as Protector in the Answer drawn up by the Lords appointed for that purpose it is alledged that H. V. could not by his last Will nor otherwise alter change or abroge without the Assent of the Three Estates nor commit or grant to any Person Governance or Rule of this Land longer then he lived Nevertheless they adde It was advised and appointed by the Authority of the King assenting the Three Estates of this Realm Which shews how far the King was from being thought one of the Three Estates in Parlament at that time 10 H. VI. n. 17. Ralph Lord Cromwell put in a Petition to the Parlament that he was discharged the Office of King's Chamberlain in a way contrary to the Articles for the Council sworn 8 H. VI. coram tribus Regni Statibus before the Three Estates of the Realm as they were assembled in Parlament which appears by the Record 8 H. VI. n. 27. 11 H. VI. n. 10. The Duke of Bedford appeared in Parlament and declared the Reasons of his coming coram Domino Rege tribus Regni Statibus before the King and the Three Estates of the Realm as it is in the Record but
and fundamental Policy of that is the same with England and he that believed the Subjects made the Three Estates there could never believe the King to be one of them here The next Authority is of King Charles I. in his Answer to the 19 Propositions Iune 2. 1642. wherein he tells the two Houses that neither one Estate should transact what is proper for two nor two what is proper for three To which I answer that the Penner of that Answer was so intent upon the main business viz. that the two Houses could doe nothing without the King that he did not go about to dispute this matter with them whether the King were one of the Three Estates or not but taking their supposition for granted he shews that they could have no Authority to act without the King's concurrence But the unwary Concessions in that Answer were found of dangerous consequence afterwards when the King's enemies framed the Political Catechism out of them which is lately reprinted no doubt for the good of the People In 2 H. IV. n. 32. he makes the House of Commons to declare to the King and Lords that the Three Estates of the Parlament are the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Whereas the truth of that matter is this A difference had happen'd in the House of Lords between the Earl of Rutland and Lord Fitz-Walter whereupon the House of Commons go up to the King and the Lords and having it seems an Eloquent Speaker who ventured upon dangerous Metaphors he makes bold with the Similitude of the Trinity because that would help him to perswade them to Vnity but if he had left the King out he might have been suspected to have set up an Independent Power in the Three Estates therefore lest he should lose his Similitude which goes a great way with an eloquent man he strains another point and draws the King into his Trinity And is such an expression to be mention'd in comparison with the express Declaration but the year before 1 H. IV. of both Houses concerning the Three Estates in Parlament Next to this Similitude that of Stephen Gardiner ought to be mention'd who compared Faith Hope and Charity concurring to Iustification to the concurrence of the Three Estates in Parlament i.e. the King and two Houses to the making of Laws But I wonder the Authour of the Letter who expresseth so much dislike of his Divinity would take his Iudgment in Politicks But this notion of making the King one of the Three Estates how valuable soever it be to some men is it seems onely to be met with in some grave ancient Similitudes But of what Authority these are against the constant sense of Parlaments so fully declared I leave any man of understanding to judge For the judgment of eminent Lawyers he quotes but one in King Iames his time viz. Finch in his Book of Law l. 2. ch 1. who doth indeed in the words quoted by him make the King Lords and Commons to be the Three Estates But I can hardly imagine how a learned Lawyer could fall into such a gross mistake unless the Modus tenendi Parlamentum should give the occasion to it which was accounted no blind MS. in those days but a very great Treasure as appears by Sir E. Coke who cites it on all occasions And very few Lawyers had the judgment in Antiquity which Mr. Selden had who first discovered the just Age and Value of that MS. This Authour indeed towards the conclusion of his Treatise makes the King the first of the Estates but then he makes Six Estates in Parlament or Degrees as he calls them and delivers this for good doctrine at the very end of his Treatise that if any one of all these be summon'd and do not appear yet with him it is notwithstanding a full Parlament nay he expresly saith the King may hold a Parlament without a House of Lords But there are so many other such Positions discover'd by others in that Treatise that I need to say no more of it And as to this point of the King 's being one of the Estates in Parlament Sir Ed. Coke who otherwise too much admired that Treatise declares against it in the very beginning of his Treatise of the Parlament This Court saith he consisteth of the King's Majesty sitting there as in his Royal Politick capacity and of the Three Estates of the Realm viz. of the Lords Spiritual Archbishops and Bishops the Lords Temporal and the Commons of the Realm And however the Authour of the Letter may slight Mr. Selden's Judgment in this matter yet these two may be sufficient to weigh down the Scales against any one Lawyer 's Authority to the contrary especially since they were never suspected I dare say for any partiality towards the Clergy 3. But the Authour of the Letter thinks to carry this point by meer strength of Reason We must therefore diligently consider the force of his Arguments 1. If Bishops were one of the Estates in Parlament Reason would they should vote by themselves separately from other Lords which would make another Estate But they do not onely not vote apart by themselves the whole Body of them together but that Body is divided and separated within it self one part from another If both Houses ever sate together as some imagine and as they do in a neighbour Kingdom this way of Reasoning will make but one Estate in Parlament all that time But to give a clear answer to this objection I distinguish two things in the Bishops their Spiritual Capacity by which they represent and their Civil Capacity as Barons in which they vote according to the Rules of the House For the manner of giving their Votes is a thing under the Regulation of the House and depends upon Custom but their Spiritual Capacity as Bishops in which they represent doth not And the Reason of their sitting together with other Lords is upon the account of their Writs of Summons which as Mr. Selden confesseth ever since the latter end of Edw. III. hath been for the Bishops cum ceteris Prelatis Magnatibus Proceribus colloquium habere tractatum and therefore they are bound to sit together in the same place with the Temporal Lords or else they cannot advise and confer together And I leave the Authour of the Letter to consider whether his Reason or the King 's Writ ought to take place 2. If the Bishops were a Third Estate they must have a Negative voice to all that passeth there But the Bishops are intermingled with the Temporal Lords in making up the Majority as a part of it Since I have evidently proved the Clergy to be one of the Three Estates in Parlament if he be sure that every Estate ought to have a Negative voice then I am sure that this Objection lies more upon him to answer then upon the Bishops But to prevent any new disputes I shall return this Answer to