for he cannot but know out late King chose rather to loose his Life than resign his Power that he never had quiet Possession but a Prince always strugling against him nor had he the acceptance of the People or any thing but force to buoy him up which after his Death fail'd in his next Descendent By what I have said it may appear to any equal Judge that the Laws made 1 Henry 4. were good notwithstanding his pretended Usurpation And as to the thing it self that the Bishops Absence in cases of Blood doth not make a Judgment given void appears plainly by the Case of the Earl of Salisbury in 2 H. 5. who petitions that a Judgment given against the Father might be reversed and assigns for Error that the Bishops who were Peers of the Realm were not present and upon full hearing and debate it was adjudged no Error Now I appeal to this Author whither he can think that my Lord and his Counsel were so stupid as not to urge what they could think of for the advantage of the Earl and the Clergy for whatsoever other faults might be laid to the charge of his Parent the cause appears to be turn'd upon that hinge by all this we may well conclude that the Lords in that Parliament did not hold the Bishops such Peers as ought to be allowed Judges concerning the Life and Death of Noble-men This Judgment our Author hath not thought fit to take notice of which might be equivalent to error temporis for it was either ignorantia or neglectus rei But he tells you Edward the fourth repealed all again in which he is mistaken for Edward the fourth repealed nothing but what concerned the Title between York and Lancaster with some Charters to others I come now to his third head or point Whether supposing that the Bishops absented as he contends only upon the account of the Canon-Law in the times of Popery whether those Laws do continue in force now since the Reformation he thinks they do not In this I shall be very short and against his Reasons which are rather Surmises than other I shall return direct Authorities of Judges and Lawyers in point First he saith the Canon-Law was grounded upon a superstitious fancy that to be present in Cases of Blood brought upon them Irregularity and hath there a large Digression upon the Unreasonableness of the Canon-Law in many particulars I shall easily yield that many of the Rules brought upon the Church by the Papacy are full of Hypocrisie and self-ends but do not think that our Bishops did first forbear from bloody Tryals about Lanfranks time as if this Canon had been unknown in England till then almost 700 years after the first Council of Toledo for Sir Henry Spelman reckons that Canon to be Anno Christi 400. and William the first came in Anno 1066. And in this first Council this Canon is cited but it is more reasonably referred to the eleventh Council of Toledo and the sixth Canon which expresly forbids their medling in Blood 't will yet be about 500 years before Williams Time It is therefore more probable that their forbearance in those Cases proceeded not from any thing brought in by Laufrank but was received here long before from their obedience to the Apostolick Canons which did not only forbid their medling in Blood but in all secular Employments and were carefully observed till Constantine's time who flourished in the year of Christ 323. 'T is likely enough that the Liberty then taken by the Clergy was restrained in Spain by that Council And if our Author please to observe it till they came to be corrupted by Covetousness and Ambition their chiefest Employment was to make Peace between their Neighbours as Chancellors and Arbitrators rather than as Lawyers and Judges In earnest whoever shall consider the intricacy of the Laws of England as they are called the Common-Law will rather believe when they sate as Chief Justices if ever they did so their Seats were among others better versed in the Common Laws than themselves and they sate rather to direct what was equal according to the rules of Mercy than according to the rigorous balance of Justice This certainly was their Office when they sate with the Earl in the County-Court Mr. Lambert in his Laws of Edgar cap. 5. hath these words Celeberrimus autem ex omni satrapiâ conventus bis quotannis agitor cui quidem illius diocesis Episcopus Aldermannus intersunto quorum alter jura divina alter jura humana populum edoceto Here you see the Bishops Office was only to teach the People the Divine Law as the Earl or Alderman did those of the Land His next Suggestion is rather a Conjecture than a Proof to wit that this Canon was never received contrary to himself before or that if it were received it was in diminution of the King's Prerogative and so repealed by the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. He might as well have said That all the Ecclesiastical Laws as of Tithes Marriages probate of Wills and other Faculties now exercised in the Ecclesiastical Courts are against the King's Prerogative and therefore void What Success an Attempt of that Nature lately had he may easily call to mind But let me bring into his Remembrance what the Statute made in the same Parliament 25 H. 8. cap. 21. hath in the Preamble of it Whereas his Majesties Realm recognizeth no Superiour under God but only his Majesty hath been and is free from Subjection to any mans Laws but only such as have been devised made and ordained within this Realm for the Weal of the same or to such others as by the Sufferance of the King and his Progenitors the People of this Realm have taken at their free Liberty by their own Consent to be used among them and have bound themselves by long Custom to the observance of the same not as to the observance of the Laws of any foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as the ancient and accustomed Laws of the same by the said Sufference Consents and Customs and none otherwise We see here the Sense of the whole Parliament That such Laws as had been used and accustomed should be look'd upon as the Laws of the Kingdom and not of any foreign Prince or Prelate Now let him tell me what Laws were common to us with any foreign Prelate except the Ecclesiastical and Canon-Law which having been here used are acknowledged a part of the Laws of the Land by Usage and Sufferance of the People So that we have now a whole Parliament that they did not look upon these as against the Kings Prerogative and so null as this Author would have it but fully confirmed as part of the English Law Agreeable with this is my Lord Coke in Cawdrey's Case lib. 5. 32. b. It is says he Resolved and enacted by authority of Parliament that all Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals
such Judgements and then particularly whether among the Grantz of that Parliament of 25 E. 3. that affirmed that Judgement against Thorp there were any Bishops And I infer there was none because they tell the King that hereafter even out of Parliament if any body else offend in like manner he may take any of them that is of those Grantz that now give him this advice to joyn in condemning him and by the Law of the Land a Bishop could not joyn therefore there was no Bishop amongst them And that by the Law Bishops and all Clergy-men were prohibited appears by the Act of Parliament of the second of that King which I mentioned before confirming one to the same purpose made in Edward the First 's time that No Clerk should be a Justice of Gaol-delivery for Tryal of Felons this I think is not petere Principium to prove the true meaning of what was done at that time in the House of Lords by what the Law of the Land had already established which must regulate what the House of Lords then did and doth shew there could be no Bishops in the number of those Grantz Then for what he saith of the Commons charging Michael de la Poole before the King Prelates and Lords which was in 10 R. 2. and parallelling his crime to that of Sir William Thorp who for it was condemned to dye upon which he will infer that Michael de la Poole was charged with a Capital crime and accused of it by the Commons before the Prelates as well as before the other Lords who gave their Judgements upon it He may examine the Record and he will find that the Impeachment was only for Misdemeanors cozening the King in an exchange of Land when he was Chancellour and some other miscarriages of that nature And it is the Impeachment which is in the nature of an Indictment that governs the Tryal be the crime what it will As it is laid in the Impeachment or the Indictment it must be so found upon the Tryal at the least it can be found no higher less haply it may be A man that is Indicted for a Misdemeanour cannot be found Capitally Guilty And though by a comparison by way of aggravation it was likened to Thorp's Case Michael de la Poole made it appear there was no resemblance between them And who will take pains to read the Record of Thorp which I dare say this Trifler never did nor scarce any Record will see that the ground of that Judgement which made it Capital was that himself had submitted to such a condition when he took upon him the Office of Chief Justice the words are Si sembla a eur le Jugement sur ceo rendu resonable depuis qil se obligea mesmes per son serement a tiel penance fil feist alencontre The Judgement given upon it seemed to them to be agreeing to reason since he had bound himself by his Oath unto such a punishment if he did contrary to his Oath And I must say it would go hard with a great many if every one should be hanged that cozens the King And it is a pretty remark of his upon Sir John Lee's Case 42 E. 3. that the Record saying That he was brought before the Prelates Dukes Earls Barons and some of the Commons c. He observes that if at this Tryal any thing had been objected which had been Capital the Bishops were present at it And I say he might have made a truer observation than that which is That they might be well assured that nothing Capital was to be objected because then the Bishops would not have been present And one thing I am sure is observable which is that the Bishops that is the Prelates are here recorded to be present and to be ranked before the Dukes Earls c. We are sure if any be specified they are and still ranked in the first place What my Gentleman means in what he saith upon the Tryals 50 E. 3. I understand not they are the Cases of Richard Lyons the Lord Latimer William Ellis the Lord Nevill and John Peach all these were only charged with Misdemeanors he saith their crimes were great and hainous and reckons the loss of Forts among them which he saith was a crime Capital in Gomenitz and Weston 1 R. 2. and that I acknowledge the Bishops to have been present at those Tryals But still this learned Gentleman who brags here that he will not suffer the World to be longer amused and imposed upon by my Notions doth himself still mistake the business not well understanding the nature of the thing he treats of Otherwise he would consider that the Tryal of a Criminal person must always be pursuant to his Charge which is a point I have already spoken to therefore I shall say little here only this that the Impeachment of the Commons against those persons was only for Misdemeanors their Tryal was accordingly and the Bishops were present And for what he saith of Gomenitz and Weston was clean another Case it was for betraying those Towns which they had undertaken to keep when the force upon them was not so great However it is not material what their Crime would appear to be upon proof but what their Charge was and that was Capital Then for what he adds of the Bishops being comprehended under the general Apellation of Les Seigneurs du Parlement The Lords of Parliament in several Cases which he there cites which he beats upon over and over again in so many several places of his Pamphlet and sets up like a Man of Straw of his own making to make sport with is what I never denied my Position is That I have still observed in all Tryals of Crimes when Bishops could be present it is so expressed that they were so as in all Crimes not Capital and I do not think one Instance can be given to the contrary And my other Position which I affirm with more confidence is That if any of the other ranks of the Lords be mentioned the Bishops are so likewise or else it is a certain argument that they were not there My Gentleman is a little put to his Trumps in the Case of Gomenitz and Weston 1 R. 2. That is so plain first the Commons coming and desiring That such as had lost Towns and Castles by their own default might be punished Per agard des Seigneurs Baronage By the Judgement of the Lords and Baronage whereupon those Lords commanded Gomenitz and Weston to be brought before them and upon a long hearing condemned them both to death And the Lords are particularly named the Duke of Lancaster first and ten more Earls and Barons by name of whom Roger Lord Clifford was the last and then a general clause Et plusours autres Setgneurs Barons Bannerettes And many other Lords Barons and Bannerets Now this is so plain and exclusive of all Prelates as my Gentleman is forced to confess that it seems
Contradictio in adjecto an Imparity in a Parity Thirdly If the Husband be enobled the Wife must be so but the Wife of a Bishop is not enobled therefore the Person of her Husband is not for the Wife and the Husband are one Fourthly If a Bishop were a Peer he could in Parliament time be Tryed no where but in the House of Peers but Matter of Fact we find to be otherwise Therefore I think I may safely conclude that Bishops are no Peers But before I leave this point I must answer one thing which is said They say they hold by Baronage and therefore they are Barons as Fitz Stephen makes the Bishops in their altercation with the Temporal Lords about the pronunciation of the Sentence against the Arch-bishop saying Non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones Nos Barones vos Barones Pares hic sumus We sit not here in Parliament as Bishops but as Barons we are Barons and you are Barons Here we are Peers Fitz-Stephen's authority signifies nothing to me but this I know is said and believed by many therefore it must be answered to disabuse many who may think that holding by Barony creates a Baron which it doth no more than holding by Knights service makes a man a Knight or holding by Villanage makes a man a Villain which many do to this day even but here at East-Barnet and yet are good Free-men and no Villains for it works not upon the Person as Fleta saith l. 3. c. 13. the service they do is ratione tenementi non personae So the Bishops holding per Baronagium are thereby made subject to do the service of Barons and to obey the Kings Writ of Summons to attend the Parliament which makes them Lords of Parliament but affects not their person The Bishop of the Isle of Man is a Bishop as well as any of the rest first instituted by Pope Gregory the Fourth as Sir Edward Cooke saith but not holding by Baronage hath no place nor vote in Parliament We must know that this Tenure by Baronage was first created by William the First of all the Lands which held of the Crown in Capite consisting of so many Knights Fees these Lands were divided some to Lay-men some to Ecclesiastical persons And these were all bound to certain services though not all to the same and among others all to attend in Parliament whenever the King pleased to Summon them and so became Lords of Parliament This continued so till King Iohn's time when the number of the Temporal Lords growing so great and numerous that King made some alteration which certainly was setled and confirmed by Parliament but justly the time when this was done is not known the Record of it being lost The alteration was that none of the Temporal Lords should come to Parliament but such as received the Kings Writ a particular Summons for it These were called Barones Majores those who were not so summoned and so did not come to Parliament were stiled Barones Minores and were still Feodal Barons as before and held their Lands per Baronagium but were not Lords of Parliament Therefore it was not barely holding by Barony which made the person a Baron even in those times there was an act of the Kings requisite even in the Summoning of him to Parliament to make that Honour to affect and enoble the Person and so to fix it and make it hereditary in the Family which way of dignifying a Person continued till the eleventh year of Richard the Second when Iohn de Beauchamp Steward of the Houshold was first created by Patent Baron of Kiderminster since which time it hath still been practised to make them all Barons by Patent But the Bishops have still continued upon the first Institution of being by their Tenures obliged and accordingly Summoned to attend in Parliament which made them Lords of Parliament but not Peers of the Realm And now I come to his last point making them a Third Estate for which he cites the Bill presented to Richard the Third in his first Parliament where they are made so and to this I can oppose other passages in Parliament clean contrary as that 2 H. 4. where the Temporal Lords and they together are made to be one of the three Estates and other instances may be given of the same nature But let us a little consider how that Bill was framed 1 R. 3. it was first devised by certain Lords Spiritual and Temporal and other Nobles and notable Personages of the Commons a Party picked out and chosen for that purpose who presented it in the behalf and in the name of the Three Estates of this Realm of England and what was this to do to declare Edward the Fourth to have lived in adultery with Dame Elizabeth Gray whom he had married being precontracted to Dame Ellianor Bottiler daughter to the Earl of Shrewsbury and consequently all his Children Bastards Edward the Fifth a Bastard and Elizabeth his Sister a Bastard afterwards married to Henry the Seventh which entituled him and his Posterity to the Crown set an end to all the foregoing competitions and setled it as it is at this day this Bill as the Record saith was first presented and delivered to their Soveraign Lord the King that was to R. 3. whom they made so in the name and on the behalf of the said Three Estates out of Parliament and now by the said Three Estates assembled in Parliament ratified and confirmed And truly I must say this is not an authority to be bragged of for making the Bishops a Third Estate But then let us see if the Bishops sitting in the House of Lords have the necessary and essential qualifications of being a Third Estate in Parliament without which they cannot be a Third Estate there That the Clergy is one of the three Estates of the Realm and they the Principal and Chief of them no body denies And that they are Summoned to Parliament as a Third Estate of the Realm the dignified Clergy personally others of the Inferiour sort by their Procurators and Representatives is likewise confessed but not to have any part in making of Laws for the good Government of the Kingdom no not so much as in matters meerly concerning the Church but they may offer and propose and be consulted with but whatever they agree upon must come to the two Houses of Parliament and receive the stamp of their Authority before it can be presented to the King to become a Law and be binding to the People This is the work of the Convocation which meets at the same time with the Parliament and there is convened the Third Estate of the Realm Where the Bishops make the Upper House and there sit as Bishops according to their Spirituality But their Summons gives them another capacity which is to meet in the House of Lords and there Cum caeteris Praelatis Magnatibus Proceribus regni de arduis negotiis Statum regni Ecclesiae
what Men may say of themselves or passeth under common Estimation of Men but what upon serious Examinition of the Question shall be found to be true I shall endeavour to make it appear that many who held Lands in Cap per Baroniam or per servitium Baroniae were not enobled in Blood nor had Right to demand their Writ of Summons as the Noble Barons had but were to expect the King's Will and Pleasure and were often left out These were secundae Dignitatis Barones or Barons by Tenure only of which some might probably be adopted into the Nobilitas Major afterwards as Barones adscriptij yet at first were not so and this was to them an Honour but to the Bishops a Burthen who held their Lands free before and had no Honour conferred upon them as the rest had For tho it be true that all the great Noble-Men held per Baroniam yet was it not their Tenure which gave them that Right as I shall shew by and by These second sort of Barons were called Barons Peers because they held of the King in Capite as his immediate Free-holders and were stiled Barones Regis for the Word imported then no more but Men holding of the King's Person in Capite These subdivided their Lands to others under the like Military Service these were likewise called Barons from their appearing at their Lord's Court called the Court Baron and Baronagium became a Word of general Signification comprehending those liberè Tenentes or Sutors to the Court Baron who together with the King 's immediate Tenants who were the Barones Regis that is the Kings immediate Free-holders made up the Communitas Angliae and comprehended all Persons except such as held in Villenage Besides these thus made by the King there were others some found here some brought out of Normandy of great Nobility and Extraction who had of their own great Possessions as Earldoms and Counties in this Country and others brought over with the Conquerour out of Normandy of an Inferiour Rank to whom he gave the like Honour out of the Lands of those adhered to Harold which all held of him per Baroniam but by Creation were many of them afterwards made of a higher Rank and were called Comites Regis and Majores Barones Regni they being possessed of the like Honours in their several Countries before The Bishops I conceive were not under any of these Ranks but were called to Parliaments ratione Episcopalis Dignitatis not ratione Tenurae only of which they complained as a Burthen Creation they had none to any higher Honour than Episcopal their Tenure could not give them a greater Honour than to be Barones minores or Barons Peers Neither can I find in any Act of Parliament or Record that they were called Lords before the time of Rich. II. and then first called Lords Spiritual to shew their Honour arose from their Spiritual Function and not from any Temporal Possessions nor the name of Barons applied to them except by themselves who perhaps finding the Burthen of their Service which before was free were willing that others should give them the Title tho there was no more reason that their Tenure by Baron Service should make them Barons than that Knight Service should make the Tenant a Knight Having thus cleared my way I shall in the next place shew that these Barones Minores or Barons Peers were sometimes summoned by Writs to Parliament and sometimes left out The Abbot of Feversham one under the same Rule with the Bishops was summoned to 12 Consecutive Parliaments as Tenant in capite per Baroniam and then left out 19 Edw. 2. Rot. penes remem Dom. Regis in Scall Thomas de Furnival had been sumoned to 30 Parliaments and yet upon an Amerciment in the Exchequer pleads he was no Baron now except he had held in Cap. per Baroniam or part of a Barony he could not have been summoned at all as a Member of Parliament Whether his Plea were allowed doth not appear upon the Record but by this and some other Records in my hand to the same purpose it seems to me that many that held per Baroniam were not Barons but at the best Bannerets or Barons Peers I cannot find by my utmost search that any thing hitherto hath madeit apparent that Baronies were ever annexed to the Possessions of the Bishops but Men have generally taken it for granted that they were so They say that William the first soon after his Reception to the Crown of England did introduce new Tenures and established Counties and Baronies and did then order that Bishops and the Parliamentary Clergy should hold per Baroniam or sicut Baroniam which the Learned Mr. Selden saith in the language of those Times signified the same thing For he saith that tenere de Rege in capite and habere possessiones sicut Baroniam and to be a Baron according to the Laws of those Times are synonimous Seld. Tit. Hon. part 2. pag. 704 Cook Hakewell and others say they hold per Baroniam But the Proofs any that I have met with offer to make good this Division by William or that Tenure per Baroniam did infer more when a minor Baron in my Judgment are not cogent What they urge is taken out of Wendover and from him transcribed by Matth. Paris He first greatly blaming the Act of William hath these Words Episcopatus Abbatias omnes quae Baronias tenebant catenus ab omni servitute saeculari libertatem habuerant sub servitute statuit militars irrotulans singulos Episcopatus Abbatias pro voluntate suâ quot Milites sibi successoribus suis Hostilitatis tempore voluit a singulis exhiberi That is He established under Military Service all Bishopricks and Abbeys which held Baronies and at that time had freedom from all Secular Service inrolling them all and appointing according to his Pleasure what Souldiers in time of War they should severally find unto him and his Successors Mr. Selden finding the contradiction in these Words that their Baronies which should have kept them as he thought free from Secular Service as the words import were the only thing that bound them to it thinks there ought to be a Parenthesis after Baronias in purâ perpetuâ eleemosina eatenus ab omni servitio saeculari c. and makes the words run thus All Bishops and Abbeys that held Baronies in Frankalmoign and in that respect freed from all Secular Service c. And backs this Conjecture by the Authority of Mr. Cambden who he conceives might have seen some Copy where those words were But he need not have put himself to the trouble of that Conjecture had he translated eatenus at that time as the word signifies and never that I know in that respect However finding further that this would not take away all doubt because the words refer not to all Bishopricks and Abbeys but to such only as then possessed
Opinion have been some Heraulds and have contended that by the Writ of Summons the Person was enobled and if his Descendents were so called for three Descents the Blood was enobled I conceive this Opinion to be erroneous For it is against a Maxime in Law that the King should pass any thing by Implication and as unreasonable to believe he might not have Liberty to require the Counsel of his Subjects without conferring an Honour upon them he did not intend Besides it will hence follow That during divers Parliaments of Edw. 1. almost all in Edw. 2. and many in Edw. 3. all the Judges King's Serjeants and many other were enobled for they had the same Writ the Barons had yet were never accounted such nay were often after such Summons omitted The known Case of Mounthermer is very pertinent to our purpose who having married the Relict of the Earl of Gloster who had a great part of the Earldom in Jointure her Husband was summoned as an Earl during the Minority of her Son but after he came of Age Mounthermer was summoned as a Baron during his own Life and after wholly omitted in his Descendents If it be said that his Summons enobled him but in regard his Descendents were not called the Blood was not enobled what will they then say to the Case of Radulphus de Camois who was summoned and his Son after him in 7 Edw. 2. yet in 7 Rich. 2. Claus. Memb. 32. in dors Thomas Camois the Grand-child was chosen one of the Knights for Surrey and discharged by the King 's Writ because he and his Ancestors were Baronets and the said Thomas was summoned and served in that Parliament not as a Baron but as a Barons Peer or Baronet which was an inferiour sort of Honour and signisied the same thing that Tenants in Cap. did in the time of King John But that these sorts of Peers were sometimes summoned and sometimes omitted at the King's Pleasure The only difference being that which appeared when they came thither the one appearing viz. The inheritable Barons in their Robes the others not but in Habits different from the Barons Now that there was this difference is made plain by those Authorities shall be produced under the next Head which is that there were a sort of Persons called Barons who were so by Tenure only that is to say who held of the King in Cap. and had such a number of Knights-fees and upon that account were summoned as Barons or rather as Barons Peers Mr. Selden seems to say in his Tit. Hon. Part 2. Sect. 17. pag. 690. That all Honorary Barons of that time whereof he speaks were for ought appears Barons only by Tenure The words are cautelous and his Expressions as became a Learned Man warily set down First Honorary Barons viz. Such as had the Honorary Name of Barons but not the Blood for such I take his meaning to be because he gives us no Definition of Honorary Barons nor why if it be admitted that Barons had their beginning from the number of Knight's fees which they held why Earls had not the like beginning who held of the King in Cap. as well as the others Now that there was a clear distinction between Barons enobled in Blood and those that held only in Cap. the one we find called Barones Majores the greater Barons the other Barones Minores lesser Barons The red Book in the Exchequer or Remembrancers Office attributed to Gervasius Tilburiensis speaks of it as an undoubted Truth Quidam c. Some hold of the King in Cap. things belonging to the Crown to wit greater or lesser Barons Quidam enim de Rege tenent in Capite quae ad Coronam pertinent Barones scil majores seu minores by which it appears they both held of the King in Cap. yet were distinguished into greater or lesser Fitstephens in the Life of Thomas of Becket Chap. 11. mentions Secundae Dignitatis Barones Barons of a second Degree Matth. Paris Anno 1215 hath these words Summoneri faciemus Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas nostras Et praeterea faciemus submoneri in generali per Vicecomites Ballivos nostros omnes alios qui in Cap. tenent de nobis ad certum diem Here we see two different sorts of Barons the one summoned by the King 's Writ the other by the Sheriff The first sort by Writs sealed by the Chancellor the rest by Writs to the Sheriff yet both held in Capite But certainly omnes qui de Rege tenent in Capite must be understood with a reasonable Restriction For it will be very evident to any Man who shall examine the Inquisitions post Mortem remaining in the Tower that much Land held per Baroniam was in the Hands of private Men who were never reputed Barons neither could these Inquisitions be understood of Tenures from Mesne Lords and not from the King because all Tenures per Baroniam were Tenures in Capite which must be from the King Besides if the Tenure of Land made a Baron Why were not the Purchasers of those Lands by the King's Licence of Alienation ever after the Stat. of quia emptores Terrarum called to Parliament as Barons The Case of the Earl of Arundel 11 Hen. 6. will not mend the matter for his Ancestor was created by Writ and the Castle entailed upon him so that he was called to Parliament not by having the Land only but by virtue of the Creation of his Ancestor and the Entail upon it In so much that I still conceive that the ancient Nobility from whatsoever beginning it arose was made inheritable by Creation and Investiture of Robes upon which sometimes followed Cnarters which directed how it should descend and the Confusion in Historians hath proceeded from their not distinguishing Barons from Barons Peers so called not from their Parity in Honour but in Estate and Tenure but wanting Investiture were called or left out at the Pleasure of the King This Distinction is clearly mentioned in the old Modus tenendi Parliamentorum printed by Mr. Hakewell Summoneri debent omnes singuli Comites Barones eorum Pares All Earls and Barons ought to be summoned as also their Peers I know the Authority of this Treatise hath been questioned by some Learned Men but by none with more violence and less reason than by Mr. Prin in his fourth part of his Register of Writs p. 591. To which easie Answers may be given if we consider the Translators out of the Saxon Tongue might easily translate Words which they thought of an equivalent Signification by words in use at that time as Wittena Gemot for Parliament and the like Others of as great Judgment have as strenuously defended the Authority of it Sir Edward Cook in his Jurisdiction of the Court of Parliament strongly defends its Antiquity and Mr. Hakewell pag. 135.
immediately But I mnst needs say this Errour of Mr. Hunt's is the most excusable of any I meet with in his Book because the great Lord Cook leads him the way For he tells us and refers to the Mirror for Proof That by the Laws and Ordinances of ancient Kings and especially of King Alfred it appeareth that the first Kings of this Realin had all the Lands of England in demesne and les Grandes Mannors Royalties they reserved to themselves and of the Remnant they for the Defence of the Realm enfeoft the Barons of the Realm with such Jurisdiction as the Court Baron now hath and instituted the Free-holders to be Judges of the Court Baron Then he tells us in his second Institutes That till the Statute of 24. E. 3. whereby 't is provided that Alienations of Lands made by Tenants which held of H. 3. or of other Kings before him to hold of themselves should stand in force saving to the King his Prerogative of the time of his Great Grand-Father his Father and his own It was doubted whether the King's Tenant might have given part of the Tenancy to hold of himself Which is in Effect the same with Mr. Hunt's Notion of all the Tenants holding of the King in Chief 1. But 't is obvious that by what the Lord Cook said of the Laws of King Alfred and others whereby he supposes Tenures were erected not only of the King but of his Grantees who had their Court Barons His Opinion was that the King's Tenant might have granted out to hold of himself for otherwise how could he have had his Court of Tenants 2. Whereas he supposes that the Laws of King Alfred shew that the Kings had all the Lands in Demesne there is but one Law of King Alfred mentioned in the Mirror and that is for the great Councils assembling at London twice a year or oftner if need be Not any thing of Tenures 3. But amongst the Establishments made per cel estate per plusors Royes by several Kings in Parliament the Mirror says Assentus fuist que les choses suivant serrent appendant aux Roys al droit de la corone Soveraigne jurisdiction la Soveraign Signory c. come Franchises treasnre trove c. Then it goes on Ceux droits retiendrent les primers Roys delremnant de la terre enfefferont les Countees Barons c. Here 't is plain that no more than the Rights aforesaid amongst which Chief Cities Chief Ports and Great Mannors were named not all the Lands were retained by the first Kings And tho they are said to have Infeoff'd others of the rest of the Land to hold of them yet that does not necessarily imply that they had all in them before Nay the Mirror shews the contrary for it says That after God pleased to abate the British Nobility who used Force rather than Law he left the Realm to the most humble and simple of all the adjacent Countries the Saxons who came to conquer it from Almain de la quel gent il y eurent iesque quarant Soveraigns que touts soy tiendrent a Companions Amongst these forty Princes being equal and independent here was no King till they came to make a Choice And so the Mirror tells us they did having felt the smart of their Competitions Then Eslierent de eux un Roy a reigner sur eux Governer le People de dieu a Maintainer Defendre les Persons les Biens en quiet per les Rules de droit This shews they did not resign their Properties to the King for they chose him to defend them yet it seems they consented to take Grants from the King by such Services as were in common agreed upon And though they were principally from him as Head of the Body Politick yet any Man that observes the Forms of the Saxon Kings Grants will not think it a vain Imagination that such as I speak of should have been with universal Consent 4. But I cannot find any Warrant to question the Tenants Power at the Common Law to Grant out to hold of himself And I am sure there is an express Resolution for it in Dyer the Words are thus in English A Man seized of a Mannor in Fee held of the King in Capite before the Statute of Quia Emptores Enfeoffs J. S. of part of the demeans in Fee without saying more the Feofee enfeoffs another to hold of the Feoffor and his Heirs by 26 s. and 8 d. Rent for all Services The Land clearly is not held in Capite And the first Mesnalty is not held of the Feoffor as of the Mannor by Knights Service The Statute of 34 E. 3. mentioned before by the Lord Cook is not in the least contrary to this For whereas before Magna Charta the King's Tenant might have alien'd as he pleas'd and Magna Charta's Provision Quod nullus liber homo det de caetero amplius alicui vel vendat alicui de terrâ suâ quà m ut de residuo terrae suae possit sufficienter fieri Domino feodi servitium ei debitum quod pertinet ad feodum illud interpretatively gave a Fine to the King when his Tenant alien'd which was not due before that great Charter was made The Statute 34. E. 3. gave the King Fines for Alienations made in the time of any King even before the making of the Charter The Lord Cook cites an Answer to a Petition in Parliament 18. E. 1. Rex non vult aliquem medium which is no more than that he would not grant his Tenant who then petition'd Licence to alien However he had not forfeited his Land if he had alien'd but the King might have entred and seized the Land in the Name of Distress for a reasonable Fine for the Trespass Which the Lord Cook takes for the better Opinion And if the Land were forfeited to be sure the indivisible Service could not have been multiplied as Mr. Hunt imagines 'T is certain that tho at the Common Law the King or any other Lord might have distrained for his Services reserved upon the Original Grant in the Lands of any inferiour Grantee as well as in the Lands of his immediate Tenants yet there was this Inconvenience that the Wardships and Marriages were not so considerable when the Lands were parcell'd out and the Lands of the immediate Tenant who only was to be in Ward or to be married by the first Grantor were of less value Therefore was that Provision by Magna Charta by the Interpretation of which the King was to have Fines upon Alienations But tho the Inconvenience of Tenants aliening to hold of themselves was taken away by the Statute of Quia emptores Terrarum 18 Edw. 1. which gave Tenants free Power to alien their Lands and provided that the Alienees should hold of the Alienors immediate Lords with an Apportionment of Services Yet Licences of Alienation being
than the Suitors at the Curia being Summon'd The Legislative power they exercised as Members of the General Council or Parliament And the Iudicial power as Members of the Curia and were Members of the Curia as they held Lands of the King in Chief Whereas Men came to the Parliament generally upon the account of property in Land without consideration of tenure so it were free In short a Man may have that in an extraordinary capacity in Parliament which he has not there in an ordinary I likewise held that Becket was try'd for Misdemeanors only though according to the Language of those days they were crimina Laesae Majestatis and that the Tryal was in a bare Curia Regis when no more than Suitors to that were summoned Mr. Hunt 's Argument upon this follows If it was the Curia Regis wherein the ordinary Justice of the Nation was administred and not the Parliament was intended in the Assize of Clarendon in which the priviledge and indulgence under the quosque was allow'd to Bishops then the Assize of Clarendon is unduly urg'd against the Bishops judging in Cases of Blood in Parliament c. And consequently by the Assize of Clarendon the Bishops have no leave to withdraw 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 was an indulgence which they might use or wave Now to my thinking this seeming irrefragable Argument has no real force For not to mention his wrong interpretation of the Constitution of Clarendon nor yet his mistake of the Fact in relation to Becket 's Tryal as if he were Tryed for a Capital Offence In both which I doubt not but he will receive Conviction to the contrary from these two Learned Authors I am bold to say that there is no manner of consequence in the first Branch of his Dilemma which is the only thing that can lye upon me to answer And truly I conceive that it by no means follows that because the Curia Regis in the Constitution of Clarendon is not the whole Parliament but only that Court which either when a Parliament was held or when only a Council of Tenants in Capite or Lords assembled had the sole exercise of the Judicial Power that therefore Iudgements in Parliament before the Lords such as were Members of the Curia are not affected by that Constitution any more than we can now say the House of Lords cannot be concerned in any matter which does not belong to the whole Parliament I shall only add three Observations which may go far to put an end to this Controversie 1. That part of the Constitution of Clarendon which says of the Ecclesiastick Tenants in Chief Debent interesse Judiciis Curiae Regis quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem was part of the avitae consuetudines ecclesiasticae If it had been a New Law then indeed whatever was not expresly forbidden were matter of Liberty But it being only in affirmance of the Ancient Law their Liberty went no further than the usage which was to be present only till such Causes came to be tryed 2. If Precedents are as Mr. Hunt censures them like an Oracle that will always give a Response agreeable to the Enquirer and Consulter then we must as I formerly did look to the Law in the Case without entring into the large Field of Precedents 3. If the Canons require the Bishops not to concern themselves in the Tryals of Capital Causes and those Canons have been sufficiently received to become the Law of the Land which these Authors prove undeniably then the Bishops must ever be supposed to have been absent when such matters came in question in Parliament unless they are mentioned there by name and cannot be comprehended under words common to them with the Temporal Lords any more than we can imagine that the Popish Lords who are excluded the Lords House by Act of Parliament yet still are Peers are Parties to any Judgement given by the Peers there SIR THE former trouble I gave you upon this Subject you pulled upon your self by desiring my opinion in it but for this I now give you I must beg your pardon it being singly upon my own account to do my self â—…ht and justifie what I then wrote to you against several aspersions cast upon me in a Pamphlet entituled The Right of Bishops to judge in Capital Cases in Parliament c. made it seems by the same person who had set out the other Pamphlet intituled The Honours of the Spiritual Lords asserted c. Of which I gave you some account in a Postscript to my former Letter and I think without any sharp reflection either upon that Author or his work The most I said was When I had instanced in three notorious falsifications of his The first is p. 112. where he quotes Mr. Selden to prove That the Spiritualty made their Proxies in Capital Causes in more Parliaments than the 21 R. 2. for that they did it likewise in the 2 H. 4. and 2 H. 5. which I shew was a mistake and only said he could not find it so in the Record it self but that he took it upon trust out of the Margin of Mr. Seldens book of the Priviledges of the Baronage p. 125. where there is such a quotation of the 2 H. 4. and the 2 H. 5. but wholly misapplyed by our Assertor of Honours for Mr. Selden alledges that Precedent to shew that whereas 2 H. 5. it was by the then Earl of Salisbury assigned as an error in the Attainder of his Father who was condemned of High-Treason in the 2 H. 4. because it was done Sans Assent des Prelates which are the words of the Record Without the Assent of the Prelates by the way speaks nothing of Proxies it was then adjudged to be no error and his Petition rejected which in truth is a strong Argument to prove that the Prelates had no right to be present at such Tryals and Judgments which is the main Question between us And though he being of another mind had maintained his opinion by so gross a prevarication I was so far from retorting it upon him with any bitterness saying It was disingenious and a suppressing of truth and not setting things down faithfully which is his ordinary language concerning me Or with insipid jeers saying I wear a sharp Sword a Trenchant Toledo as one of the younger house of great Alexander and that he brings me to the Sun like Alexanders Horse and telling of the Magical combate in Apuleius and a City of Birds in Aristophanes and such other scurralous passages as his Book is full of which shews the sweetness of the Gentlemans nature and the goodness of his cause which he maintains only by railing and false assertions Whereas I rather lessened his fault saying only that he was mistaken by being
saying is neither in the Judgement it self nor any thing leading to it So he comes to the Arch-bishop Becket's Case where he notably spends his mouth but like an ill Hound all upon false Hunting and indeed runs riot so far as he is not to be lashed in He fills several leaves of his Book with Encomium's of the Popish Clergy because some of them sometimes did what it was their duty to do which doth not excuse them in the general current of their proceedings commonly to stand for the authority of the Pope and the See of Rome against the Regal power and the authority of Parliaments as they did 20 R. 2. saying They were sworn to the Pope and to that See and they would oppose whatever the King and the Temporal Lords should do En restriaion del Poair Apostoliqué ou derogagation de la libertoe de Saina Eglise In restraint of the Power Apostolick or derogation of the Liberty of Holy Church So he takes much pains to assert the Kings natural right to command his Subjects to serve him upon any emergency and so to make Clergy-men Justitiaries if he see cause for it Which then gives them power of Judicature and I do acknowledge it but it is to be understood of Judicature in such Cases as the Law of the Land allows we know they have been some of them Lord Chancellours Lord Treasurers Lord Privy Seal but can he shew me that any of them judged in Cases of Blood For this Case of Beckett's is certainly misrepresented in Fitz-Stephens manuscript We know there have been heretofore in many Counties Justices of Assize which have been Clergy-men joyned with others in Commission who were not Clergy-men to take Assizes in the County And the Act of Parliament 27 E. 1. c. 3. coming to give power to those Justices of Assize to deliver the Gaols and so to be made Justices of Gaol-delivery and try Felons and Murtherers it provides that if one of them be a Clerk then one of the most discreet Knights of the Shire shall be associated to him that is a Lay-man and be empowered by the Knights Writ to deliver the Gaols of the Shires and chasten and punish whom they shall find to be guilty And this Statute is confirmed 2 E. 3. c. 2. which makes it manifest what the intendment of the Law is in that particular that Clerks must not meddle to judge in Cases of Blood and must hold good even for Bishops who are all of them Clerks As for this Case of Beckets which only stands upon the credit of a Manuscript said to be made by Fitz-Stephens a Monk whom he characterizes for a sober and grave Historian and more solito out of the sweetness of his nature gives me a lash saying It is usual with me to let fall expressions to vilifie Testimonies and Precedents when they make against me and this because I stile it a Blind Manuscript and suspect the Author as partial having been a creature of Beckets and consequently no friend to the King And therefore I give rather credit to the unanimous consent of the Historians of those times who do not relate the passages of that Tryal to be as he makes them than I do to him and his Manuscript I call it a Blind Manuscript because it sees not the light lyes obscure in some bodies Closet Mr. Selden doth not tell where and I dare say our Asserter never saw it though he terms the Author a grave Historian His tale is how at that great Council at Northampton Archiepiscopus laesae Majestatis Coronae Regiae arguitur quia est a Rege citatus pro causa Iohannis neque venerat neque idonee se excusasset c. The Arch-bishop is questioned for Treason against the Crown of the King because he was summoned by the King in the Cause of John that is one John the Marshal who complained that the Arch-bishop had done him injustice in his Court and he neither came nor had sifficiently excused himself upon sickness or any other just reason which might necessarily hinder him whereupon he was condemned to forfeit his personal estate and the Bishops and Barons not agreeing who should pronounce the sentence they putting it off from one to another at last the King commanded the Bishop of Winchester to do it This is his story and one may think it a strange piece of Treason one not to come immediately upon a Summons to attend the King especially if it be true what all the Historians that write of those times have related of this business Gervasius Dorobernensis is an Author as Mr. Selden observes who lived in that age and one of whom Mr. Selden and all Antiquaries we are sure have a good opinion and though our Asserter is confident enough to affirm they all have so of Fitz-Stephen it is of what I do not find that much hath been said by them to shew that nor do I think that any of our Antiquaries but Mr. Selden doth so much as mention him And from Gervasius Dorobernensis we have this relation Rex praecepit praesules Proceres regni apud Northamptoniam una cum ipso Archiepiscopo convenire c. The King commanded the Prelates and Nobles of the Kingdome together with the Arch-bishop himself to meet at Northampton where the Arch-bishop was accused of many things first that he had not fully done justice to one John that had a suit before him then that upon this occasion being called into the Kings presence he neglected to come To this the Arch-bishop made answer That John had all the justice done him that was due to him that he had illegally defamed his Court that he would not swear upon the Evangelists as the custome is but upon an old Song-book which he brought with him But that being upon this summoned he came not into the Kings presence was not upon any contempt but that he was hindred by a great sickness and that he had excused himself by two competent witnesses whom he had sent for that purpose yet this served not his turn but Curiali Iudicio Episcoporum consensu condemnatus est He was condemned by the Iudgement of the Court the Bishops consenting to it that all his personal estate should be at the Kings disposing This now is delivered unto us by an unquestionable known Author who lived in that time Fitz-Stephen and he agree in the matter of the Accusation and agree in the Judgement but Fitz-Stephen lays it to be Crimen laesae Majestatis Coronae Regiae High-Treason which must be for not coming to the King when he was summoned Gervasius saith that he sent his excuse by two witnesses who testified that he was then very sick and not able to come which we all know to be a Lawful Essoine De malo lecti which cannot be disallowed but must excuse nay justifie any bodies absence Now can any body that is master of common sense believe Fitz-Stephens relation who will have this to be
a Capital crime High Treason and a Capital proceeding upon it We see the Sentence was far from Capital and could not have been such as it was if the Crime had been laid in the Accusation to be High Treason Roger de Hoveden in his relation of this business makes no mention of Treason He saith That the King calling a great Council at Northampton Taedium magnum fecit Archiepiscopo did a thing which much vexed the Arch-bishop which was that he caused his Horses to be put into the Arch bishops Inn whereupon the Arch-bishop sent the King word that he would not come to the Council till his Inn was cleared of those Horses yet upon the second day of the meeting the Arch bishop came into the Chapel where the Council sate and there desired the Kings leave that he might go over into France to visit Pope Alexander who was then there which the King denied him and said he should first answer for the injustice he had done to John the Marshal in his Court This John having complained to the King that he had had a long suit in the Arch bishops Court for some Land he held of him and could have no Iustice and that thereupon Curiam Archiepiscopi Sacramento falst ficaverat secundum consuetudinem Regni He had according to the custome of the Kingdom upon Oath charged the Court with wrong doing which I take to be a protesting against the proceeding of that Court and the Judgement there given in the nature of a Writ of Error The Arch-bishop answered to this That John had no injustice done him and that he brought into the Court a certain strange Book and would swear upon that how for want of Iustice he left my Court which the Officers that kept my Court looked upon as an injury done to me because it is the Law of the Kingdome Quod qui Curiam alterius falsificare voluerit oportet eum jurare super sacrosancta Evangelia Whoever will so charge a Court with false dealing must take his Oath upon the Holy Evangelists Notwithstanding this the King swore he would have Iustice done upon him Et Barones Curiae And the Barons of the Court gave Iudgement on him to be at the Kings mercy Which Iudgement the Arch-bishop going about to reverse Iudicium illud falsificare is the expression He was perswaded by the Barons to submit himself to the Kings mercy for a Fine of five hundred pounds Here is nothing in all this that can possibly infer any thing like Treason And it is something observable what both these Authors say of the Judgement given Gervasius saith Curiali Iudicio Episcoporum consensu condemnatus est as if the part of the Bishops in this judgement were something differing from the Act of the Court and not comprized in it Hoveden saith Barones Curiae Regis judicaverunt eum as if the Bishops had no hand in it at all Radulphus de Diceto Decanus Londinensis I suppose Dean of Pauls who lived in those times mentions this business he saith That the Arch-bishop was questioned upon John the Marshals complaint and fined 500 l. and that he was questioned likewise for moneys received by him when he was Chancellour for some Bishopricks and Abbies of which he had received the profits during their vacancies and that not finding the Bishops to be his friends he appealed from their Judgement but then the Proceres the Nobles though he appealed from their Judgement likewise yet they In eum nec confessum nec convictum sententiam intorserunt They wrested a Iudgement against him though he confessed nothing nor was at all convicted You see here is not a word of Treason laid to his charge nor nothing Capital or any thing towards it Matthew Paris tells you the same story and almost in the very same words Now let any man judge whether all those Historians concurring or single Fitz-Stephen disagreeing deserves more credit And that which hath greatest weight with me is the Argument drawn ex natura rei the crime which all agree that the Arch-bishop was charged with was his not appearing upon the Kings Summons which without a great and a very false Multiplying-Glass cannot appear to be any thing like Treason So I must conclude that since the Charge against him had nothing of Capital in it the proceedings upon it was not as against a Capital Offender not brought to Tryal as a Prisoner but came in upon a bare Summons and tarried there and returned at full liberty the Judgement neither of loss of Life nor Limb but meerly Pecuniary and as some of the Authors say compounded with for five hundred pounds I must I say conclude that this whole Case is nothing to our purpose and neither the Law nor usage of Parliament did bar the Bishops from being personally present at such a Tryal And now I come to the point of Peerage which I have so fully handled in my former Letter as I think I need not say much in this Our Asserter brings three Arguments to prove them to be Peers The first is That it is the general stile of all Parliaments from the beginning to be Generale Concilium Cleri Populi even before the coming in of the Normans which no man denies The businesses of the Church as well as of the Civil State are there determined the Writ of Summons shews it which saith That the King intending to call a Parliament Pro quibusdam arduis negotiis Nos Statum defensionem Regni Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae concernentibus Bishops and Temporal Lords are summoned and heretofore several others were summoned as Bannerets and sometimes other persons of Quality who likewise were not Peers and yet were called to the Parliaments as pleased the King and the Judges are so summoned at this day Super dictis negotiis tractaturi consilium suum impensuri Where the Bishops act as Bishops and what by the Law of the Land and the practice and usage of Parliaments they ought to do that they do and may do the Temporal Lords in like manner and so likewise the Judges every one acts in his Sphere but this neither gives the Bishops power to judge in Capital Causes if otherwise it be prohibited them nor doth it make them Peers no more than it did formerly the Bannerets and others for their being summoned to sit and vote in the House of Peers We had the experience of this the last Parliament a Baron pretending to a much ancienter station among the Peers by proving that his Ancestor had been summoned by one of our former Kings to sit more than once in the House of Lords yet not making it appear that that favour had been still continued to him and it being made appear on the other side that several Families in this Kingdom would have the same pretence upon the like ground it was the opinion of the House that he had no Right to it and consequently that his Ancestor was never acknowledged to
specialiter tangentibus tractare consilium impendere and thither they are obliged to come and attend by their Tenure of their Baronies where they sit in their Personal Capacity to do the service which they owe for the Lands they hold of the King Now we will consider if being there upon such an account it can any ways stand with reason and the nature of a Third Estate to esteem them to be so 1. To represent the body of the lesser Clergy as our Asserter will have them to do who else he saith would be in a worse condition than the meanest Clown having no body to represent them in giving Aids and Subsidies first I say that as Subsidies were heretofore given in Parliament which was the ancient Parliamentary way of supplying the necessities of the Crown and Government where the Convocation gave the Supply of the Clergy the Bishops as Members of the House of Lords had nothing to do in it but as Members of the Convocation they had and the Representatives of the lesser Clergy who were chosen by them and made up the Lower House of the Convocation they gave their consents and joyned in that Gift for the whole body of the Clergy the two Houses of Parliament did only ratifie and confirm what the Convocation had done and therefore only the beginning and the end of that Act of Subsidy given by the Clergy not the body of it was openly read in the several Houses of the Lords and Commons So 4 R. 2. the Commons having offered to give an aid so as the Clergy who enjoyed a third part of the Realm would pay one third part of the Summ the Clergy answered That they were not to grant any Aid by Parliament but of their own free wills and therefore willed the Commons to do their duties and they would do theirs This was the ancient way of granting supplies in Parliament where you see the lesser Clergy had their Representatives which it seems our Asserter did not understand and so no wonder if he did mistake as he commonly doth And this I must say further the lesser Clergy as he calls them are little beholding to him to have them to be represented by Bishops having no hand in the choice of them This I am sure puts them into a meaner condition than the meanest Clown who if he have but 40 s. Free-hold gives his voice to whom he will to represent him in Parliament to give his assent to part with his Money and to make any Law to bind him Of later times they have taken up another way of granting publick supplies which is of so much in the Pound which they call a Pound-rate and this brings in the Clergy to pay their proportion who are now as busie as any in electing of Members to Parliament In a word none can represent another in Parliament that is not chosen by him every particular person that hath right of vote being included in the majority of Vote So the whole Clergy being the third Estate of the Realm and the Bishops not being chosen by them they cannot represent that third Estate 2. The Bishops sit not in the House of Lords Ratione Spiritualitatis as was the opinion of all the Judges of England 7 H. 8. in Keilway's Reports in Dr. Standish's Case Les Spiritual Seignieurs nont ascun place en â—…e Parlament chamber per reason de lour Spiritualtie mes solement per reason de lour temporal possessions The Lords Spiritual have no place in the Parliament chamber by reason of their Spiritualty but by reason of their Temporal possessions How then can they be said to be there a Third Estate to represent the Clergy of England when they sit not there as Clergy-men 3. If they be a Third Estate they must have a Negative voice to whatever is proposed in the House if the majority of their opinions be against it And for our Asserter to say that the Custome and so the Law of the Parliament is otherwise and that the two Estates of the Lords Temporal and Spiritual make but one House where they vote intermixedly Why this shews they are not two Estates because they do vote intermixedly for if they were so they must vote severally and not be twisted so together as they are as I said before in my former Letter like a nest of Boxes one within another And think what a disparagement it would be to the House of Lords that two Estates must be clapped together to make them equal to the one Estate of the House of Commons 4. If the Bishops were a Third Estate the Parliament could not act as a Parliament without them for a Parliament is composed and must consist of Three Estates and nothing is binding but what is so passed But we know that in Edward the First 's time there was a Parliament called and held Clero excluso and Laws were there made when none of them were present and many Acts have passed in several Parliaments when the Bishops have all voted against them The Judges in that of 7 H. 8. deliver their opinions for Law Due nostre Sur le Roy poit assetz bien tener son Parlement per luy ses Temporal Seigniors per ses Commons tout sans les Spirituals Seigniors Our Lord the King can hold his Parliament himself with his Temporal Lords and his Commons wholly without the Lords Spiritual These and many other Reasons confirm me in my opinion that Bishops are neither Peers of the Realm nor a Third Estate in Parliament yet they might be both and not invalidate my Position which I at first undertook to prove which was only this that by the Practice and Custome of Parliament and by the Law of the Land Bishops are prohibited from meddling in Parliament as Members of the House of Lords in any Tryal of a Criminal Person where the Charge the Proceedings and the Sentence upon it is Capital and goes to the Loss of Life or Members only one Precedent excepted that extravagant one of 28 H. 6. And my good friend the Asserter who hath almost as many Errata's as Lines in his Book must give me leave to summ up all my Corrections of them in one Distich as Martiall did those of his Friend Fidentinus such another Fidentinus it seems as our Asserter and it was this Emendare tuos O Fidentine libellos Multae non possunt una litura potest And I must say the Verse doth not better quadrare with the product of his Brains which hath so many faults as can only be covered and put out of sight with one rasure from the beginning to the end than this one and the same Name of Fidentinus deciphers the Confidence of them both Nullâ pallescere culpâ And so I shall leave my Friend Fidentinus to learn better manners if he be not altogether incorrigible and apply my self to peruse and answer if I can a Treatise of a worthy Gentleman who is I see of a differing opinion
Barones Regis were the King's Tenants in Capite Amongst which there were Knights at least And the Homines sui I take it were his great Officers and Justices These made a Select Council acting in Parliament and out of it either in a full Body or contracted by Agreement as I could easily shew But the Tenants in Capite were the King 's ordinary Council and therefore manifestly the Assize there was drawn up and advised by them in full Parliament with the Consent of all the Barons of the Kingdom under which in those ancient Times omnes quodamodo ordines Regni continebantur as Mr. Cambden observes But 't is observable that here 't is Homines sui or Regis to shew that the Justices and others who came not upon the account of Free-hold but as the King's Servants were not to be termed Barones sui A few Years before this there was a Summons for an Assembly at this very place and 't was manifestly no more than a Curia Regis 1. Whereas there were the Barones Terrae at the last above named to this were summoned only Tenants in Capite 2. Whereas then they were to exercise a Legislative Power de Statutis Regni this was only for a Judicial Power such as Tenants in Capite exercised by themselves for 't was only upon the Case of Becket 3. Whereas the former was called Magnum Concilium de Statutis Regni this Magnum Concilium as some call it was but Curia Regis Barones Curiae Regis adjudicaverunt eum esse in Misericordia As Hoveden informs us Now the Question is Whether those Tenants in Capite the Barones Curiae were Barones Regis which that they were I think is very obvious they being by reason of holding of the King obliged to attend at his Court And that these were the King's Barons or Barons of his Court or owing Suit and Service there must needs be synonimous But utterly to silence this Gentleman he grants that Hen. I. was crown'd in an extraordinary Convention of the People that is more than Tenants in Chief consented to that Change in the Succession Now that very King's Charter says 't was Communi Concilio Baronum Regni when among these he comes to mention such as held of him in Chief he calls them his Barons emphatically not but that all were his Barons in a remote sense Si aliquis Baronum meorum vel Comitum sive aliorum qui de me tenent mortuus fuerit haeres suus non redimat Terram suam sicut faciebat tempore Fratris mei This Relief it seems in his Brother's time was uncertain and immoderate and was by him reduced to the old Standard as 't was in Canutus his time as appears by the Comparison of the Laws of both The Earls Relief was eight Horses four with Furniture four without besides Arms and a certain quantity of Gold The Thanus Regis primarius as in King Canutus his Law or qui ei proximus as in Henry the 1st paid for Hereot or Relief which there were synonimous four Horses two with Furniture two without c. The Mediocris Thanus paid one Horse with Furniture and other things more or less according to the Custom of the Places under different Laws Here was Thanus or Baro Regis primarius the same with Baro Major and Thanus Mediocris or Baro Minor one of the alij qui de nobis tenent in Capite mentioned in King John's Charter And surely no Man will say that this Relief was not payable because of tenure in Capite By the 17th of King John it had become customary for the Relief to be paid in Money as appears by his Charter Siquis Comitum vel Baronum nostrorum sive aliorum tenentium de nobis in Capite per Servitium Militare mortuus fuerit relevium debeat habeat hareditatem suam per antiquum relevium scilicet haeres vel haeredes Comitis de Baroniâ Comitis integrâ per centum libras haeres vel haeredes Militis de integro feudo Militis per centum solidos ad plus et qui minus debuerit minus vel secundum antiquam consuetudinem feudorum Here Baro noster was manifestly the same with Thanus Regis in the older Laws and Baro de Baroniá integrâ with Thanus primarius or qui ei proximus The Mediocris Thanus Regis was the Miles or libere tenens one holding in Chief by Knights Service by whatsoever Proportion of a Knights Fee And by this time I think 't is evident that they whom Mr. Hunt supposes to have been the only Barones Regni were in a strict Sense the Barones Regis and but part of the Barons of the Kingdom 3. Whereas he Imagines that if a Tenant in Capite by Knights Service granted out to never so many they all owed the same entire and indivisible Service to the King and were his Tenants in Capite in this he must needs have been mistaken But that I may not seem to misrepresent his Sense I shall transcribe his Words and then endeavour to bring them out of their Clouds The Feudal Baronage says he was as large and as numerous as the Tenures by Knights Service in Chief which were capable of being multiplied several ways for every part of the Fee however divided the Services reserved upon that Fee that were entire and indivisible were to be performed by the several Proprietors of the several parts of the divided Fee In this Paragraph there are three postulata 1. That Tenure by Knights Service in Chief was Tenure by Barony 2. That every Tenure by Knights Service had some entire indivisible Service incident to it 3. That this entire indivisible Service was multiply'd to the benefit of the King upon the Tenants aliening any part of the Fee The two first I agree to his Hands but dispute the third I conceive with good reason For upon the first view 't is evident that if the Grantee of the King's Tenant in Chief by Knights Service would before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum have been a Tenant in Chief by reason of the entire and indivisible Service incident to the Tenure of his Land by the same reason the Grantees of Land held of the King in Chief by Socage or other Free Tenure would have been Tenants in Capite because of Fealty which is as indivisible an incident to all other Free Tenures as Homage or any thing else belonging to Knights Service And by Consequence upon this Notion since the King even before the pretended Conquest had ratione Coronae the Supream Signiory of all the Land of the Kingdom as the Mirror shews All the Land of the Kingdom would have been held of the King immediately before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum And then to be sure ever after since that provided that Lands shall be held as the Feoffor held over which by this opinion must always have been of the King
258 to A a 263 wherefore the Point of Conquest examined and what improvement is made of the admittance of it 293 to 300 Constitutions of Clarendon expounded and the Bishops Wings clipt there 144 to 166 Convocation of the Clergy 81 82 127 137 S 290 Corporations an account of them and of their ancient Interest in Parliament 276 to 286 3d part Coventry its first Representation in Parliament B b 279 Crimes some that did laedere Majestatem Regiam not capital 172 in marg Curia Regis of various Acceptation 150 Curia Regis how far Mr. W. and Mr. Hunt agree with the Author against Dr. Brady as to its being distinct from the General Council of the Nation V 204 Objection against them where their Notion of it differs from the Authors 205 particular Objections against Mr. W's Notion of it 209 X 210 Mr. Hunt's mistake about it 231 to Y 235 D. DAnby's Plea O 197 Demeasn the Kings of England never had all the Lands of the Kingdom in demeasn 3d part p. 253 to 255 Dictare Sententiam how understood N 179 Doctor Oates vndicated P 222 Doctor Standish his Case 47 S 291 E. EArls and Barons are the Peers of the Realm 22 23 24 R. 263 Earls and Barons consiliarij nati 138 Earl of Arundel's Case O 208 Earl of Hereford and Glocester their Case T 287 V 189 Earl Godwin his Appeal Q 227 Earl of Northumberland 51 54 R 274 275 Earl of Salisbury Kent Huntington their Case 50 Ellis William's Case 35 Errors none by the Bishops absence 47 Estate Bishops but part of a 3d Estate 80 to 85 Exegetical where words used exegetically 52 X 213 Explication of several words quosque Judicium pervenior 155 156 Exposition of words according to the standing 18 to 25 52 X 212 to Y 226 and Q 233 234 F. FErrer's Sir Ralph's Case 39 Fitstephen's Authority examined 77 Fortescuâ—… his Authority B b 271 Form of Writs no Proof of Right 86 Franck-pledges at a Great Council of the Kingdom and who within them B b 273 274 275 283 284 G. GEntlemen how became so C c 285 Glocester Earl and Hereford their Case T 287 and V 189 Godwin Earl his Appeal Q 227 Gomentez and Weston their Cases 37 Grants where the Bishops not comprehended under that word itsextent 32 S 278 279 Government the same before 49 H. 3. as since 3d part 271 to 290 Gurney Thomas 26 H. HAxy Thomas his Case 43 Henry Hotspur's Case S 281 282 283 Huntington's Earl Case 50 S 280 Hunt Mr. the Censure of his Book Pref. to the second Treatise His wrong Translation of non licet in mar 157 His Mistakes Y 229 c. Reasons why he might have spared his Censures Y 228 229 I. IMpeachment when by the Commons the Lords obliged to to try a Commoner 14 Interesse ubi judicium sanguinis tractatur vel exercetur prohibited 158 John Imperial's Case 39 R 264 Irregularity P 221 222 223 Judicial Power in Capital Cases denied the Bishops in the Northern Kingdoms 90 Judicial Power denied them here by Canon Common and Statute Law Vid. Bishops Absence not meerly from the Canons Judgments in which the Bishops had share 11 Judicium a word of various Acceptations 155 Judgments alledged to be void for the Absence of the Bishops 11 195 O 196 Judgments in Parliament and the Curia Regis how reconciled General Pref. V fin K. KEnt Earl S 280 King cannot make an Estate 126 127 King Stephen's Grants reversed at Clarendon 141 142 King Rich. II. undecently reflected on O 194 L. LAwyers confessedly differ from the Questionist as to the Trial of Bishops T 277 and V 194 Laws made upon a dubious Title good 45 46 P 209 to 214 Laws concerning the matter and manner of their making 44 45 Lay-men used to meet with the Clergy in their Councils 157 Lee Sir John's Case 35 Legislative Power in capital Matters allowed to Bishops yet no judicial Power inferred Gen. Pref. 87 88 131 132 and even that an Abuse crept in since Hen. VIII 88 London a Corporation at the Common Law B b 282 Lord Latimer Lions Richard c. 35 Lords of Parliament 36 Lords Temporal expresly named in the Record as sole Iudges 40 58 and R 276 S 280 M. MAnucaptors B b 274 March Earl 22 Mautraver's Case 20 51 279 S 280 281 ibid. Modus tenendi Parl. its Antiquity 121 Molross the Abby its Case and the Authority of that Book answered G 206 207 Mortimer Sir Iohn's case whether judg'd by Act of Parliament 56 to 59 R 262 Mortimer Roger's Case 14 and R 262 N. NAmes equivocal no good Argument from thence P 227 Nevel Lord 35 Nobilitas Major how made 113 Bishops no part of such Nobility S 287 Northumberland Earl R 51 54 274 275 O. OAts Dr. vindicated P 222 Objections from Reason against Mr. W. and Mr. Hunt where they differ from the Autthor's Notion of the Curia Regis 3d part 205 206 Ocle William 26 Old-Castle Sir John 55 Old Modus its Antiquity 121 Omnipotency and the Bishop's Affectation of it in what sense understood by Lord H. 152 153 Orlton's Case R 267 P. PArdons made revocable at Pleasure O 195 Parliament when the word first in use 121 Parliament at Clarendon 139 Peace of the Bishops refusing to give Counsel about it 30 31 R 266 269 Percy Henry's Case 53 Peers of the Realm who 20 21 Pessimae Consuetudines what 140 142 Petrus Blessensis his Testimony 97 98 125 167 168 R 261 Plain dealing 147 Plea of the Earl of Danby O 197 Pool William Duke of Suffolk 13 T 286 Pool Michael's Case 33 34 R 272 Presidents urged against Lord Hollis make for him 14 Proctors or Proxies why the Bishops desire to make them 12 concerning their making them 46 162 197 199 B 200 201 204 205 Proprietors of Land as such their Interest in the Great Council of the Kingdom Y 230 231 and B b 273 to 291 Protestations of the Lord Hollis his Sincerity 6 Protestation made by the Bishops 11 R 2 5 6 7 8 41 42 43 and O 185 to 194 Protestations in the names of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal 8 13 Protomartyr 49 Q. QUestion concerning the Bishops stated 10 11 R. REcapitulation of Arguments against the Bishops being Iudges in case of Blood N 184 Again more fully P 223 224. Q 225. S 277 Rickhil Sir William's Case 48 Reflections upon R. the 2d undecent O 194 Regradation of Peers V 190 S. SAlisbury Earl's Case 50 Sautree William's Case 49 Scheme of the Government as it anciently stood and now stands B b 271 to 291 Scripture against the Bishops their medling in Secular Affairs 134 Scroop Lord. 50 Segrave's Case 61 62 and Q 232 233. T 287 Seniores Populi who meant by them 167 170 Sinister ends in the Parliament 21 R. 2. O 195 Spencer's their Case 48 O 197 198. and Q 234 Standish his Case 47 and S 291 Statute 27. Ed. Ist. c. 3.
of settled Prerogative were not taken away from the King he not being named in the Statute By that Statute indeed if a Tenant in Capite aliened with Licence the Alience became Tenant in Capite for the Statute divided the Signiory But how it could be at the Common Law in any other Case than that of Copartners who are but as one Heir and plac'd in the same Relation to the Lord I cannot imagine I find in the Statute of Ireland this of Copartners is mentioned as the Law of England In Regno nostro Angliae talis est Lex Consuetudo quod siquis tenuerit de nobis in Capite habuerit Filias heredes ipso patre defuncto antecessores nostri habuerunt semper nos habuimus cepimus homagium de omnibus hujusmodi Filiabus singulae earum tenerent de nobis in Capite in hoc Casu Which shews that the Case of Copartners being a single Instance of the continuance of the same immediate Service notwithstanding the division of the Fee was an Exception out of a general Rule But I dare say no body that understands any thing of the Feudal Law as it has been received in this or other Nations will be of Mr. Hunt's Opinion in this particular 3dly Mr. H. would have done well to have answered the Objections against the supposed Conquest before he concluded for it and I shall take it for granted 't is a Question heartily begg'd 'till I find an Answer to these Arguments in Ius Anglorum ab antiquo 1. That the Histories of those Times prove undeniably that William the first came in upon Terms which he swore to at his Coronation and solemnly confirmed afterwards This indeed was a Conquest in the Language of those times as 't was distinguish'd from an Hereditary Right but no otherwise Thus in King Iohn's time a Man pleads that his Father had such a thing de Conquestâ—… suo viz. by his own Purchase or Acquisition 2. That Dooms-day-Book it self demonstrates that Men enjoyed their Lands under their old Titles And those Laws of St. Edw. which the Histories assure us were confirmed by Compact with William the first without particular Confirmation of their Estates 3. That we have later Records of the allowance of Titles derived from before the Norman Acquisition nay even of the whole Palatinate of Chester the Title to which was laid only in Descent even after King William's Confirmation 4. That ancient Historians and Dooms-day-Book confirm the Opinion of that Judg in Edw. III. time who informs us that William the first disseized only them that were in Arms against him and forfeited by opposing that Title which the Nation received Till Mr. Hunt has answered these Arguments amongst others in Ius Anglorum ab antiquo I hope he will not be angry that some are so critical that they will not call the first William Conqueror especially since Conquestor and Conquestus cannot now be reduced to their old peaceable Signification And therefore are by no means to be admitted unless we take the sense of the Judicious Lord Clarendon who rebukes Mr. Hobbs for insisting upon William the first his Title by Conquest as being what he himself renounced and abdicated if he ever had it If Mr. Hobbs says that unhappy Great Man Had taken the pains and known where to have been informed of the Proceedings and Transactions of William the Conqueror he would have found Cause to believe that that great King did ever dexterously endeavour from the time that he was assured that his Possession would not be disturbed to divest himself of the Title of a Conqueror and made his legal Claim to what he had got by the Will of Edward the Confessor whose Name was precious to the Nation and who was known to have a great Friendship for that Prince who had now recovered what had been his And he knew so well the ill Consequence which must attend the very imagination that the Nation had lost its Propriety that he made haste to grant them an Assurance that they should still enjoy all the Benefits and Priviledges which were due to them by their own Laws and Customs By which they should be still governed as they were during that King's whole Reign who had enough of the unquestionable Demesnes and Lands belonging to the Crown of which he was then possest without a Rival and belonging to those Great Men who had perish'd with their Posterity in the Battel with Harold to distribute to those who had born such Shares and run such Hazards in his prosperous Adventure And those Laws and Customs which were before the Conquest are the same which the Nation and Kingdom have been since governed by to this day with the Addition of those Statutes and Acts of Parliament which are the Laws of the Successive Kings with which they have gratified their Subjects in providing such new Security for them and Advantages to the Publique as upon the Experience and Observation of the Ages and Times when they were made contributed to the Honour and Glory of the King as well as Happiness of the People Many of which are but the Copies and Transcripts of ancient Land-marks making the Characters more plain and legible of what had been practised and understood in the preceding Ages and the Observations thereof are of the same Profit and Convenience to the King and People And upon Mr. Hobbs his Supposition that William the first at his Reception had dispens'd with the Subjection of the Ecclesiasticks by the Oath he took not to infringe the Liberty of the Church The Lord Clarendon has to the same purpose with the former or rather as evidence that there was no colour of a Conquest these words They who know any thing of that time know that the Oath he took was the same and without any Alteration that all the former Kings since the Crown had rested on a single Head had taken which was at his Coronation after the Bishops and the Barons had taken their Oath to be his true and faithful Subjects The Arch-bishop who crowned him presented that Oath to him which he was to take himself which he willingly did to defend the holy Church of God and the Rectors of the same to govern the universal People subject to him justly to establish equal Laws and to see them justly executed Nor was he more wary in any thing than as hath been said before that the People might imagine that he pretended any other Title to the Government than by the Confessor tho it is true that he did by degrees introduce many of the Norman Customs which were found very useful or convenient and agreeable enough if not the same with what had been formerly practised And the common Reproach of the Laws being from time to time put into French carries no weight with it For there was before that time so rude a Collection of the Laws and in Languages so Forriegn to