upon themselves to be sole Judges in it and for all that I can see the Act 2 H. 4. owns this to be part of their Spiritual Jurisdiction And this is one Reason alledged for the Repeal of this Act 25 H. 8. c. 14. because there is no Declaration of Heresie made in it but it is left to the Judgment of the Ordinary And therefore this Act was ill thought upon to prove the King 's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In Henry the Seventh's time the King is said to be persona mixta because he hath both Ecclesiastical and Temporal Jurisdiction But this Argument is drawn only from some occasional Talk mentioned in the Year Books 10 Hen. 8. 18. Brian said That a sage Doctor of Law said one time to him That Priests might be tried at Common Law Car il dit quod Rex est persona mixta car est persona unita cum sacerdotibus saint Eglyse If all this be granted it proves no more than that the King hath Jurisdiction by his Law over Ecclesiastical Persons which is not disputed CHAP. III. Whether the King's Supremacy by Law extends to the Dispensing with Laws Of the Nature and Original of the Power The Inconsistency of such a Dispensing Power with the Frame of our Government HAving thus far proceeded in clearing the ancient Legal Supremacy I am now come to an Instance of greater Weight and Difficulty and which will therefore require more Pains and Care in the Examination of it viz. 11 H. 7. 12. By the Ecclesiastical Laws allowed with in this Realm a Priest cannot have two Benefices nor a Bastard can be a Priest but the King may by his Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction dispense with both these because they be mala prohibita and not mala per se. Here we are to enquire into these things 1. How far the King's Power and Jurisdiction did extend in the Cases mentioned 2. How far the Reason here given will justifie a Power of Dispensing with Laws 1. As to the Cases here mentioned there is no doubt but the Canonists made the Power of Dispensing in these to be an Argument of the Pope's Supremacy or the Plenitude of his Power But doth it hence follow That what Princes did to their own Subjects as to the qualifying them for a Legal Possession of Benefices must argue a Supremacy in them over Ecclesiastical Persons and Causes And there is a difference to be made between not Receiving the Pope's Canons in particular Cases and a Power of Dispensing with Ecclesiastical Laws If the Law were so then as is noted by Fineax in 11 H. 7. 12. the plain Consequence is That the contrary were no part of the Ecclesiastical Laws allowed within this Realm As in the famous Case about the Canon Law concerning Bastardy when the Barons said Noluleges Angliae mutari no man can say That the Barons dispensed with the Pope's Ecclesiastical Laws but that they refused to execute them for as it is well observed in Standish's Case in Kelway's Reports 7 H. 8. Ecclesiastical Laws have no force where the General Practice hath been contrary If this were no more than a private Opinion of Fineux of what he thought the King might do although there were no Precedent for it then it signifies little but if from hence it appears What the Common Law of England was then it follows That this was not received at that time for the Ecclesiastical Law of this Kingdom And so Hobart in Colt and Glover's Case understands it f. 147. for he produces this as an Instance That the Crown always kept a Possession of its Natural Power And to this he adds a Power of Commendam or Retaining a Benefice with a Bishoprick 11 H. 4. 60. This he calls a Power of Dispensation in Spiritualibus But with submission to two such great Men in the Law If the Crown always kept a Possession of these Rights there could be no Dispensation with the Ecclesiastical Law in these Matters but an Exclusion of it As for Instance The Kings of France do challenge many Priviledges to themselves in their Kingdoms in plain Derogation to the Canon Law and for these Priviledges they plead an Ancient Right of the Crown or an immemorial Custom As in the great Controversic of late Years about the Regale the Canon Law is express That upon Pain of Excommunication no Lay Person what soever shall presume to meddle with the Profits of Vacant Bishopricks which was decreed by two Popes in several Councils Urban II in a Council at Awergn MXCV and Innocent II in Lateran Council MC XXXIX both entred in the Body of the Canon Law And yet the Kings of France insist to this Day on the Rights of Vacant Sees as belonging to them But can this be pleaded as a Dispensing with the Ecclesiastical Laws allowed in that Realm No but that this Part of the Ecclesiastical Law was not received there for that partly by the Feudal Right partly by the Right of the Crown partly by Immemortal Custom the Profits of Vacant Bishopricks accrue to the King. It is a harder Point to defend the Regale where the Custom hath gone along with the Canon but if the Rights of the Crown be defended in France against Custom and Canon too our Kings cannot be blamed for resuming other Rights after so long Usurpation by the Popes But where the Canon Law was not received in any Part of it there it hath no Force to oblige and where there is no Ecclesiastical Law in Force there can be no Dispensing with it for although the later Canon Law doth void all Customs against the Liberties and Priviledges of the Church Non debet in hac parte Canonibus ex aliqua consuetudine praejudiâ—ium generari Yet when these Canonists come to explain it they tell us That an immemorial Custom hath Force against a Canon but how Not as a Custom but as it is a Proof of an Ancient Priviledge granted by the Pope although there be not the least â—ootsteps of it And so this Instance of H. 7. will prove according to this Way only some Ancient Priviledge our Kings had and no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by the Right of the Crown But whether the King could Dispense with the Ecclesiastical Laws in these Cases or not it is certain the Pope challenged to himself the Power of doing it For after that the Third Council of Lateran liad strictly forhidden Pluralities which were then so common and scandalous upon pain of Forfeiture Innocent the Third complained in the Fourth Lateran That he saw little or no Benesit come by that severe Canon and therefore he seems to make one more severe That whosoever takes another Benefice shall be deprived of the former ipso jure and if he seeks to keep it to lose the other Yet after all this ends only in the Popes Power to dispense as he saw Cause with Persons of greater Rank or Merit and greater Preferments The Words are Circa sublimes tamen
Particular Statute made for the Security of our Religion or for a Suspension of our Ecclesiastical Laws CHAP. IV. Of the Alterations made in the Supremacy by the Statutes of Henry the Eighth with an Answer to the Objections I Now come to the Alterations made in our Laws about the King's Supremacy in the Time of Henry the Eighth 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. An Act passed for taking away all Appeals to Rome which is founded on the King 's Natural and Independent Right of Governing and doing Justice to all his People and the Sufficiency of his own Clergy for Hearing and Determining such Matters as belonged to their Function and therefore all Causes are to be Heard Discussed Examined finally and definitively Adjudged and Determined within the King's Jurisdiction and Authority and not elswhere in the Courts Spiritual and Temporal But if the King be concerned then it is referred to the Upper-House of Convocation The Preamble of this Act against Appeals to Rome is considerable Whereas by divers Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed That this Realm of England is an Empire governed by one Supreme Head and King c. with plenary whole and entire Power Preheminence Authority Prerogative and Jurisdiction c. for final determination of Causes c. so that here is an Appeal to Ancient History in this Matter and we have still sufficient Evidence of it before the Popes Encroachments prevailed The Bishops and Barons told Anselm in William Rufus his time It was a thing unheard of and contrary to the Custom of his Realm for any one to go to Rome without the King 's Leave which is after explained by way of Appeal Anselm made but a shuffling Answer to this although he had sworn to observe the Customs of the Realm and he could not deny this to be one but he pretended It was against S. Peter 's Authority and therefore could not observe it for this were saith he to abjure S. Peter From whence I infer That the Custom of the Realm was then thought by Anselm to be inconsistent with the Pope's Authority For whatever they talk of S. Peter it is the Pope they mean. In the Reign of H. 1. the Pope complains grievously That the King would suffer no Appeals to be made to him and that due Reverence was not shewed to S. Peter in his Kingdom and that they ended Ecclesiastical Causes at Home even where Bishops were concerned and very learnedly quotes the Deâ—retal Epistles against them Afterwards the Pope sent his Legate and the King denied him Entrance and the whole Parliament rejected it as contrary to the Ancient Custom and Liberty of England That Passage in the Laws of H. 1. c. 5. which seems to allow of Appeals is a mere Forgery the whole Chapter being a Rapsody taken out of the Canonists H. Huntingdon saith That Appeals were brought in in King Stephen 's time by Henry Bishop of Winchester his Brother being the Pope's Legate By the Constitutions of Clarendon c. 8. the Appeal lay from the Archbishop to the King which is well expressed by Robert of Gloucester And the K. amend solde the Ercbishops deed And be as in the Pope's sted and S. Thomas it withsteed And although H. 2. in his Purgation for the Death of the Archbishop did swear That he would hinder no Appeals to Rome in Ecclesiastical Causes and that he would quit the Ancient Customs of the Realm Yet Hoveden saith The Constitutions of Clarendon were renewed in the Parliament at Northampton and the Justices in Eyre were sworn to observe them and to make others observe them inviolably And for those who went out of the Kingdom in Case of Appeals the Justices were to enquire per consuetudinem Terrae according to the Ancient Custom and if they did not return and stand to the King's Court they were to be outlawed In the Time of R. 1. the Popes complained much of Geofry Archbishop of York for slighting Appeals made to Rome and imprisoning those that made them Celestine doth it twice and in the same Words And Innocent the Third in King John's Time renews the same Complaint of him That he shewed no regard to Appeals made to the Apostolick See. But when the Rights of the Crown were given up by King John to the Pope no Wonder if the Liberties of Appeals were granted by him But yet in the succeeding Reigns we have several Instances upon Record of Persons imprisoned by the King for making Appeals to Rome John of Ibstock in the Time of E. 1. The Abbot of Walden and a Prebendary of Banbury in the Reign of E. 2. The Parson of Leighe Harwoden and the Prior of Barnwel in the time of E. 3. So that this Right was still owned by our Princes when the Matter came into Contest and therefore the Act of H. 8. against Appeals was but a just Resuming of the Ancient Rights of the Crown 25 H. 8. c. 19. A Commission is appointed for reviewing the Canons And it is observable That because it could not be done in Parliament Time the King hath Power given him by Act of Parliament to nominate the thirty two Persons to act in this Matter in these Words Be it therefore enacted by the Authority aforesaid That the King's Highness shall have Power and Authority to nominate and assign at his Pleasure the said thirty two Persons of his Subjects whereof sixteen to be of the Clergy and sixteen to be of the Temporality of the Upper and Nether House of Parliament And because the last Resort was to the Arch-Bishop in the former Act of Appeals therefore to prevent any Inconveniences thereby a new Power is granted by this Act i. e. Upon an Appeal to the King in Chancery a Commission is to be directed to such Persons as the King shall appoint who are to hear and determine such Appeals and the Causes concerning the same 25 H. 8. c. 21. After the Submission of the Clergy and the King being owned Supreme Head yet the Power of dispensing with the Canons in particular Cases did not pass by Commission from the King but by Act of Parliament The Words are It standeth therefore with natural Equity and good Reason that all and every such Laws human made without this Realm or induced into this Realm by the said Sufferance Consents and Custom Your Royal Majesty your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons representing the whole State of your Realm in this your High Court of Parliament have full Power and Authority not only to dispense but also to Authorize some elect Person or Persons to dispense c. So that the Power of granting Faculties at a time when the Prerogative was highest was not executed by Commission from the King by vertue of his Supremacy and Prerogative Royal but was granted to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in the manner expressed in that Act. A late Author has stretched this Statute to a Power of dispensing in other
Principum suorum confirmavit saith the Textus Roffensis He likewise confirmed Charters as the Saxons had done that to Battel Abby was Consilio Episcoporum Baronum meorum But the most considerable thing he did as to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was separating the Courts Ecclesiastical from the Hundred Courts by his Charter to Remigius and others which he saith was granted in a great Council and by the Advice of the Archbishops Bishops and all the Great Men of his Kingdom So that still extraordinary Acts relating to Church Matters were passed in Parliament by General consent And what now doth the Appropriation of a Church with a Cure of Souls signifie to prove his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction When those things in his Time were not brought under such strict Rules as they were afterwards but Appropriation might have been made by any Lay Person that never pretended to the least Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and he might as well have brought his demolishing so many Churches in the New Forest for an Instance of his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In the Reign of William the Second In William Rufus his time a great Heat arose between him and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury about owning the Pope Whether the Archbishop could do it without the King's Consent the Business was referred to Parliament which the King called on purpose at Rockingham saith Eadmerus who was there present The Bishops declared they could not deprive him as the King would have had them to whom they had promised Obedience After which it was again referred to Parliament but Anselm not yielding he went out of the Land. In the Reign of King Henry the First In the Reign of Henry the First a new Controversie arose between the King and the same Archbishop about the Ancient Right of the Crown as to Investiture of Bishops the King calls a Parliament about it wherein the Bishops and Lords joyned with the King afterwards Anselm desired The Advice of the Bishops and Nobles might be heard at Easter which shews that both Sides referred it to the Parliament In his Time a Council was called and several Canons passed and the Archbishop desired of the King That the Primates Regni might sit with them that all things might pass utriusque Ordinis concordi cura with the Consent of both Estates The King afterwards takes the Advantage of these Canons and prosecutes the Breakers of them and raises Money upon Pretence of Forfeitures to the great Grievance of the Clergy Anselm although then in Disfavour writes to the King about it and tells him This was a new Method of Proceeding because it belonged to the Bishops in their Diocesses to call the Clergy to an Account or if they neglected to the Archbishop and Primate The King Answers That his Barons were to meet him on Ascension-day and by their Advice he would give an Answer but upon Anselms Return this Prosecution ceased Other Affairs of the Church were then referred to the Parliament at Easter from thence to Pentecost and by reason of Anselm's Sickness to August and then the Bishops Abbots and Lords of the Kingdom met in the King's Palace at London and by Consent of Parliament Investiture was turned into Homage In his time the Bishoprick of Ely was erected by the King's Consent in Parliament Regi Archiepiscopo caeterisque Principibus Regni visum fuit saith Eadmerus The Consecration of an elect Archbishop of York was transacted in Parliament the King advising with the Bishops and Nobles about it for Anselm before his Death had sent an Inhibition to the Bishops Not to consecrate him unless he made the Profession of Obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury The Bishops resolved to adhere to Anselm's Inhibition and the King yielded After Anselm's Death the King advised with his Parliament at Windsor about a Successor to him and the Bishop of Rochester at the Request of the Bishops was agreed upon And the King filled the Abbies before he went into Normandy consisto Principum Episcoporum suorum In the latter End of Henry the First many Disputes hapned about Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as between the Bishops of S. Davids and Glamorgan which were debated in magno Placito apud London saith Henry of Huntingdon And for such Causes saith he another Assembly was held in the beginning of Lent and again in Rogation Week In all this time when the Norman Kings asserted all the Rights of Sovereignty with great Zeal yet they never pretended to appoint any Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes but still referred them to Parliaments In the Reign of King Henry the Third The next Instance the Lord Coke brings falls as low as the Time of Henry the Third The first whereof is the King 's granting a Writ of Prohibition if any man sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for any thing of which by Allowance and Custom it had not lawful Cognizance But how doth the King's Power of granting Prohibitions prove his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction It effectually proves the King 's Right to preserve his Crown and Dignity as the Prohibition implies but how doth it hence appear that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction comes from his Crown and Dignity The contrary seems rather to follow viz. That the Ecclesiastical Courts were held from another Power but all Matters of Temporal Cognizance did belong to the Crown There is no Question but since the Acts for restoring Jurisdiction to the Crown the supream Jurisdsction both in the Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts is derived from the Crown And in whose-soever Names the Courts are kept the Authority of keeping them is from the King. For it is declared by Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. 1. 17. That all Ecclesiastical Power is united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm which all Bishops do own in taking the Oath of Supremacy and therefore the old Form continuing can signifie nothing against the Law of this Realm and their own Oaths But as long as the main Points were secured by the Laws there was no necessity apprehended of altering the Forms for on the other side it was objected that since the Laws had placed all Jurisdiction in the Crown it seemed as unreasonable to continue the old Form of Prohibitions in laesionem Coronae Dignitatis Regiae how can this be say they when the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical as well as Civil is owned to be from the Crown It is said in Answer That a Prohibition implies that the thing is drawn into aliud Examen than it ought to be and this is contra Coronam Dignitatem Regiam Why not then as well when an Ecclesiastical original Cause is brought into a Temporal Court for that is aliud Examen then by Confession on that side and if Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction be derived from the Crown the aliud Examen must relate only to the Court and not to the Crown All that I infer from hence is that the old Forms were thought fit to be continued both Parties reconciled them as well
as they could to the Laws in force But the Judges confessed That although de jure both the Jurisdictions were ever in the Crown yet the one was sometimes usurped by the See of Rome which is a plain acknowledgment that by the Matters of Fact in those times the Right could not be proved and especially in the times of H. 3. when the Popes Usurpations here were at so great a height that the King upon Writs of Enquiry sent into the several Counties found That the Revenues of the Roman Court by Provisions Extortions c. exceeded the Kings And the King had so little Authority left that the Pope put Bishops upon him Rege penitus irrequisito saith Matt. Westm. so that he was so far from Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction that he had not the Nomination of his Bishops nor so much as a Consent to their Election unless the Pope thought fit sometimes to gratifie him in it For the Pope pretended to the Right of Disposal of Church Preferments by Vertue of his Ordinary Jurisdiction which was said to be twofold 1. Voluntary in the Collation of Benefices 2. Judicial in the hearing of Causes the former might be done at Rome but the other in the Ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts And Bracton who was a Judge in his time owns the Pope as much to have the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as the King had the Temporal but yet he adds That if an Ecclesiastical Judge did meddle with Matters out of their Cognizance the King's Prohibition did lye against him and he ought to supersede his Proceedings till it were tryed in the King's Court to whom the Jurisdiction belonged But it is still harder to prove the King's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction because the Spiritual Courts were to certifie the Kings Courts in case of Bigamy Bastardy and such like For the Question is not about their Temporal Subjection to the King in signifying the Sentence of the Court but whence they derived their Authority of holding the Ecclesi astical Courts over which Bracton saith the Pope had the ordinary Jurisdiction the Power to delegate others to execute it What doth it signifie to the Kings Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction that the Barons of England would not receive that part of the Canon Law which concerned the Legitimation of Children born before Wedlock For it depended upon the Barons Consent Whether a Canon of the Church should be made the Law of the Land concerning the Rights of Inheritance In the Reign of King Edward I. In the Time of Ed. I. we may expect some brisker Sallies towards the Kingdoms Deliverance from the Popes Usurpations which were thought so intolerable even by the Monkish Historians in his Fathers Reign What that Bull was the bringing whereof the Law-Books say was then adjudged Treason it would have been worth our while to have known For it is hard to imagine that at that time the meer bringing a Bull should be so Capital a Crime when so many were brought without danger both before and after But it seems by the Certificate of the Judges concerning it still in the Tower the Matter of it was very prejudicial to the Crown And it argues no Spiritual Jurisdiction for Princes to examine and refuse when they see cause Bulls that come from Rome For this is practised in those Countries which profess Obedience to the Popes Jurisdiction Covarruvias affirms it of Spain In Portugal when John the Second would have given up that Right to the Pope the Estates of the Kingdom would not permit him Peter the Second Duke of Britain forbad receiving any Bull before Examination by his Council under pain of Corporal Punishments and Confiscation of Goods Ant. Faber saith in Savoy No Bulls have Authority there till they are approved by the Senate and an Appeal lies from them tanquam ab Abusu Even in Naples it self Ferdinand the Catholick King gave a severe Reprimand to his Vice-Roy for not hanging up a Person who would have executed a Bull without his Authority The Letter it self is Published in the Jus Belgarum where many other things may be seen to the same purpose The Right of Patronage is a Civil Right in Princes as well as others and therefore E. 1. Without pretending to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction might justly punish the Archbishop of York for his obstinate refusing to admit the Kings Clerk because of a Papal Provision The Statute of Bigamy might very well be interpreted in Parliament and yet the King have no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction For it was no more than declaring in what sense a Law should be taken i. e. Whether it should extend to Bigamy before the Constitution of the Council of Lyons or after The Act of Parliament made at Carlisle 35 E. 1. against Aliens possessing Benefices is no more than hath been done in Countries where the Popes Jurisdiction is the most owned As in Spain Covarruvias saith They have Prescription and Pragmatical Sanctions against Aliens possessing Benefices The Laws of Poland and many Edicts in France exclude Strangers But I shall now produce some considerable Precedents in the time of Ed. 1. to shew that the Proceedings against the Arch-Bishops and Bishops for Misdemeanors or Contempts was in Parliament and not by Commissioners the inferior Clergy being left to the Jurisdiction of their Ordinaries 3 Ed. 1. E. Warren complained to the King That the Archbishop of Canterbury had contemned his Orders in not taking off Excommunication from some of his Servants The King sends to him to proceed no further against the Earl or his Servants usque ad Parliamentum where the Matter of Contempt might be debated But in the mean time the Archbishop sends to the King a true Account of the Matter and how far he was from Contempt which is still extant in the Records of the Tower. 7 E. 1. John Peckam Archbishop of Canterbury was summoned to Parliament to answer to a Charge of Misdemeanors against him for some Passages in the Council at Reading which he was fain to revoke and to declare that no Articles there passed should create any Prejudice to the Crown or Kingdom 8 E. 1. The Archbishop went about to Visit the Kings Free Chappels The King hearing of it sent a Writ to him to forbear usque ad proximum Parliamentum ut tunc ex unamini mutuo consensu provideamus quid fieri debeat in Praemissis 21 E. 1. John Roman Archbishop of York was Attached upon a Contempt for Excommunicating the Bishop of Durham while he was in the King's Service And after a full hearing in pleno Parliamento he was condemned and upon Submission was Fined to the King sour thousand Marks 28 E. 1. A Controversie arose between the King and the Bishop of Chichester about his refusing to admit a Person Presented to a Prebend in the Free Chappel of Hastings the King sends his Writ to the Warden of Cinque-Ports extant in the Tower among the Writs of that Time to enquire into this Matter
Statutes And it cannot be supposed that at that time when the Pope was allowed to be Head of the Church and consequently Supreme Patron of the Benefices of it that the Acceptance of a Title to an Ecclesiastical Benefice from him should be thought Malum in se. But these Statutes being in force I shall make it appear that the King did own he had no Power to Dispense with them but as the Parliament thought fit to allow it I begin with 15 R. 2 at a time when the Kingdom was in quiet and however could not be in any disturbance on the Account of the Statute of Provisors which the Nation desired and only those who depended on the Court of Rome opposed But the Court-Bishops suggested that it was for the Kings Interest in dealing with the Court of Rome to have a Power to Relax and to Dispense with these Statutes as he saw Cause Therefore the Arch-Bishop of York then Chancellor proposed it in the opening of the Parliament as one of the things for which it was called viz. To find out a Temperament in that Matter so as the Pope might not lose his Right nor the King his After this Matter was debated the Commons declare their Assent en plein Parliament That without prejudice to the Rights of those who were in Possession by virtue of the Statute the King by the Advice and Consent of the Lords might Dispense with the said Statute so as should seem reasonable and useful till the next Parliament but so as the said Statute be repealed in no Article of it And they reserve to themselves the Liberty of disagreeing the next Parliament And they conclude with a solemn Protestation That this was a Novelty not practised before and ought not to be drawn into an Example and Precedent for the future and they desire this Protestation might be Entred and Recorded in the Rolls of Parliament which the King commanded to be done Doth this now look like a Declaratory Act and made in Affirmance of the Kings Dispensing Power It might as well be said That an Act for Restraining the Prerogative is made in Affirmance of it It is true there is a Dispensing Power granted but with such Restrictions and Limitations as shew that such a Power was not then thought to be inherent in the Crown For 1. Why should it be proposed to the Parliament to grant it if the King had it before Did the King ever put it to the Parliament to grant him a Power to Pardon Malefactors But in the case of Dispensing with a Law it was not only proposed but assigned as one Reason of calling the Parliament 2. Why till the next Parliament if it were owned to be an inherent Right of the Crown Would the Parliament go about to bound and limit an inseparable Prerogative in such a manner 3. Why is it called a Novelty and a thing not to be drawn into example Was ever any thing like this said of a Declaratory Act The Natural Consequence whereof is just contrary that whereas some just Right of the Crown hath been contested and denied for the future it ought to be owned and submitted to by all Persons It is hard to think of Words more inconsistent with a meer Declaratory Act than those Ne soit trait en ensample nen Consequence en temps avenir 4. If this were a Declaratory Act what need it be repeated so often in Parliament afterwards Were the Commons so forgetful of the Kings Prerogative as to need making so many Declaratory Acts about the same thing Yet thus we find it about this Dispensing Power as to the Statutes of Provisors For 16 R. 2. The Archbishop of York again declared in the opening of the Parliament That one Cause of calling it was to settle this Matter about Provisors And the Commons again yielded The King should have such a Power to moderate it as he should with his Council judge expedient but so as it be all laid open before the next Parliament that they might upon good Advice agree to it 17 R. 2. Tydeman Abbot of Beauley was by the Popes Provision made Bishop of Landaff But the King notwithstanding the former Proceedings did not take upon him to dispense with the Statute but left it to the Parliament and his Dispensation was passed by Act of Parliament the King Lords and Commons assenting thereto 20 R. 2. The Commons in Parliament do again Assert de bon gre de leur parte en plein Parlement That the King with his Council may dispense with the Statute of Provisors as shall seem fit so as the same be heard and examined the next Parliament and so corrected as shall be thought convenient by the King with the Advice of his Council in Parliament 1 H. 4. The Commons in like manner give their Assent That the King should have the same Power of Dispensing with the Statute which his Predecessors had and to Repeal and Annul it as should seem expedient to him Which was no more than a General Dispensation Yet notwithstanding this was recorded in Parliament 2 H. 4. The Commons appearing before the King and the Lords it was declared That the Dispensation should not extend to Cardinals or other Strangers At the same Parliament a Petition was presented to the King That if any one did accept a Benefice by Papal Provision against the Statute and had his Pardon from the King for it yet if he went about to disturb the present Possessor by virtue of his Provision then his Pardon should be void and he should incur the Penalty of the Statute To which the King gave his Assent 3 H. 4. The King having granted particular Licenses for Dispensations as to this Statute and finding the great Inconveniences which came by them he generally and universally revovoked them and promised in Parliament to find out some proper Remedy in this Matter 7 H. 4. The King was moved in Parliament to confirm that Revocation but he then took time to consider But 9 H. 4. c. 8. the King reinforced in Parliament all the Statutes against Provisors as it is in Print 1 H. 5. The Commons pray That the Statutes may stand in full force against Provisors and that no Protection or Grant made by the King to hinder the Execution of the said Statutes shall be allowable or of any force and whatever is done contrary to them shall be null The Answer is Let the Statutes be observed and kept But if the Statutes were to be strictly observed what saving can there be to the King's Prerogative since the Statutes were Universal and the King 's particular Grants in this Case were the great Motive of the Commons Desire to have them reinforced in the beginning of this King's Reign And these Statutes continued in full Force to the Time of H. 8. insomuch that Cardinal Woolsey was prosecuted by the King's Attorney for offending against them by his Legatine Power
Person and this Royal Power cannot be restrained by any Act of Parliament neither in Thesi nor in Hypothesi but that the King by his Royal Power may dispense with it for upon the Commandment of the King and Obedience of the Subject does his Government consist as it is provided by the Statute of 23 H. 6. c. 8. That all Patents made or to be made of any Office of a Sheriff c. for Term of years or for Life in Fee-simple or in Tail are void and of none effect any Clause or Parol of Non-obstante put or to be put into such Patents to be made notwithstanding And further Whosoever shall take upon him or them to accept or occupy such Office of Sheriff by vertue of such Grants or Patents shall stand perpetually disabled to be or bear the Office of Sheriff within any County of England by the same Authority And notwithstanding that by this Act 1. The Patent is made void 2. The King is restrained to grant a Non-obstante 3. The Grantee disabled to take the Office yet the King by his Royal Sovereign Power of commanding may command by his Patent for such Causes as he in his Wisdom doth think meet and profitable for himself and the Commonwealth of which he himself is sole Judge to serve him and the Weal Publick as Sheriff for such a County for years or for Life c. And so was it resolved by all the Justices of England in the Exchequer Chamber ' 2 H. 7. Here the Point is resolved into an inseparable Prerogative in the King which no Act of Parliament can restrain although made with his own Consent Is there no Act of Parliament then which this great Lawyer will allow to restrain the King's Prerogative so as he cannot disperse with it What saith he to the Case of Buying Offices at Court Cannot the King by vertue of his Prerogative order his Houshold as he pleases to dispose of Offices about him as he thinks fit No. The same Lawyer saith That no Non obstante could dispense with the Act against buying of Offices And yet one would think that the King had as great a Prerogative in the Court as over the Kingdom But how comes he to say That the King can dispense notwithstanding the Disability when elsewhere he saith The King cannot dispense in the Case of a Disability by Law For the Reason he gives why the King cannot present a Man to a Living who is convict of Simony is because the Law hath disabled him Very well And yet in this Case although the Law hath disabled him the King may dispense Where are we now The King can dispense with a Disability and he cannot dispense with it This is indeed a very dark learning of Dispensations as C. Justice Vaughan well called it for we cannot yet find the way through it Can the King dispense with a Disability in Law or not If not the Case of Sheriffs is gone If he can then why not in the case of Symony Why not as to sitting in Parliament without taking the Oaths No here is a Disability in Law. What then Cannot the K. dispense with a Disability in one Case as well as the other Bu the same Person saith That in that Case because the Words amount to a Disability the King cannot dispense and here where the Disability is expressed he may But we are lately told there are two sorts of Disabilities one is actually incurred as that upon the Members who sit without taking the Oaths and the other is a Disability annexed to the Breach of a Law as a penalty and that penalty not to be incurred before a Legal Conviction and in this Case the King's Dispensation coming before the Conviction doth prevent it by making that lawful which would not have been so without it But when a Disability is actually-incurred it cannot be taken off but by Act of Parliament I Answer That if the Law which makes the Disability doth allow of a Dispensation antecedent to the Conviction then I grant that the Dispensation before Conviction prevents the Disability As in Digby's Case if the Dispensation had come before Institution the Disability as to holding the former Living had been prevented because the Law doth expresly allow of a Dispensation in the Case But here is no such thing The Act of Parliament supposes no Dispensation but makes an utter Disability as to the holding the Office in Sir Edward Hales his Case but a dispensing Power is set up against the Act of Parliament and such a Dispensation neither before nor after Conviction can prevent a Disability If it could I can by no means see why it might not as well hold as to Members of Parliament at least as to the Oath of Supremacy if they take their Dispensation before Sitting in the House For the Disability doth not take place till they enter the Parliament 5 Eliz. c. 1. And he that entreth the Parliament without taking the said Oath shall be deemed no Knight Citizen Burgess or Baron nor shall have any Voice but shall be as if he had been never Returned or Elected The Intention of the Law for the Test was a disability to hold the Office but it allows time for Persons to qualifie themselves as appears by the Act for the Test. Is not this plain overthrowing the design of the Law for Persons instead of doing what the Law requires to take out a Dispensation for not doing it and so prevent the Disability And what doth a Law signifie when the very design of it is overthrown And what is the Power of making Laws by common Consent in Parliament if without such Consent the whole force of the Law may be taken away by a dispensing Power So that this doth not meerly make Laws to signifie nothing but according to Will and Pleasure but it makes our very Constitution insignificant which requires to every Law the Consent of the People in Parliament As for Instance By the first Constitution of the Roman Government the King had the custody of the Laws but no Laws were to be made but by the Consent of the Roman People in the Curiae thence called Leges Curiatae Would any one have thought this any Privilege if after these Laws were passed the King should claim an inseparable Prerogative of dispensing with them as he sees Cause For it is implied in such a Fundamental Contract as this that Laws when made should not lose their Force without their Consent who made them Else it is not Contractus bonae Fidei I will not dispute whether this were the Original Contract of our Nation or not but this I may say That when our Government came to a Settlement after long struglings this was one of the Fundamental Articles of it That no Laws should pass or Burdens should be laid upon the People but by their own Consent in arliament Bracton saith That a Law among us supposes the Authority of