the Kings Issue and by Consequence by raising of Contentions about the Crown and Destruction of the People in Succeeding time by Civil War was therefore High Treason before this Statute 3. That to Levy war against the King within the Realm and Aiding the Kings Enemies either within or without the Realm are tending to the Kings Destruction or Disherison and was High Treason before this Statute by the Common-Law 4. That Counterfeiting the principal Seals of the Kingdom by which the King Governeth his People tendeth to the Confusion of Government and Consequently to the Destruction of the People and was therefore Treason before the Statute 5. If a Souldier design the Killing of his General or other Officer in time of Battel or a Captain Hover doubtfully with his Troops with intention to gain the Favour of him that shall chance to get the Victory it tendeth to the Destruction both of King and People whether the King be present or absent and was High Treason before the Statute 6. If any Man had Imprisoned the Kings Person he had made him incapable of Defending his People and was therefore High Treason before the Statute 7. If any Man had with design to raise Rebellion against the King Written or by words advisedly uttered denyed the King Regnant to be their Lawful King he that wrought Preached or spoke such words living then under the Protection of the Kings Laws it had been High Treason before the Statute for the Reasons aforesaid And perhaps there may be some other Cases upon this Statute which I cannot presently think upon but the Killing of a Justice or other Officer as is determin'd by the Statute is not otherwise High Treason but by the Statute And to distinguish that which is Treason by the Common-Law from all other Inferior Crimes we are to Consider that if such High Treason should take effect it would destroy all Laws at once and being done by a Subject 't is a return to Hostility by Treachery and consequently such as are Traytors may by the Law of Reason be dealt withal as Ignoble and Treacherous Enemies but the greatest of other Crimes for the most part are breaches of one only or at least of very few Laws La. Whether this you say be true or false the Law is now unquestionable by a Statute made in 1 and 2 of Queen Mary whereby there is nothing to be esteemed Treason besides those few Offences specially mentioned in the Act of 25 Ed. 3. Ph. Amongst these great Crimes the greatest is that which is Committed by one that has been trusted and loved by him whose Death he so designeth For a Man cannot well take heed of those whom he thinks he hath obliged whereas an open Enemy gives a Man warning before he Acteth And this it is for which the Statute hath declared that it is another kind of Treason when a Servant killeth his Master or Mistress or a Wife killeth her Husband or a Clerk killeth his Prelate and I should think it petty Treason also though it be not within the words of the Statute when a Tenant in Fee that holdeth by Homage and Fealty shall kill the Lord of his Fee for Fealty is an Oath of Allegiance to the Lord of the Fee saving he may not keep his Oath in any thing Sworn to if it be against the King For Homage as it is expressed in a Statute of 17 Edw. 2. is the greatest submission that is possible to be made to one Man by another for the Tenant shall hold his Hands together between the Hands of his Landlord and shall say thus I become your Man from this day forth for Life for Member and for Worldly Honour and shall owe that my Faith for the Lands that I shall hold of you saving the Faith that I owe unto our Soveraign Lord the King and to many other Lords Which Homage if made to the King is Equivalent to a promise of simple obedience and if made to another Lord there is nothing excepted but the Allegiance to the King and that which is called Fealty is but the same Confirmed by an Oath La. But Sir Edw. Coke 4 Inst. p. 11. denies that a Traytor is in Legal understanding the Kings Enemy for Enemies saith he be those that be out of the Allegiance of the King and his Reason is because if a Subject joyn with a Forraign Enemy and come into England with him and be taken Prisoner here he shall not be Ransomed or proceeded with as an Enemy shall but he shall be taken as a Traytor to the King Whereas an Enemy coming in open Hostility and taken shall either be Executed by Martial-Law or Ransomed for he cannot be Indicted of Treason for that he never was in the Protection and Ligeance of the King and the Indictment of the Treason saith Contra Ligeantiam suam debitam Ph. This is not an Argument worthy of the meanest Lawyer Did Sir Edw. Coke think it is possible for a King Lawfully to kill a Man by what Death soever without an Indictment when it is manifestly proved he was his open Enemy Indictment is a form of Accusation peculiar to England by the Command of some King of England and retained still and therefore a Law to this Country of England but if it were not Lawful to put a Man to Death otherwise than by an Indictment no Enemy could be put to Death at all in other Nations because they proceed not as we do by Indictment Again when an open Enemy is taken and put to Death by Judgment of Martial-Law it is not the Law of the General or Council of War that an Enemy shall be thus proceeded with but the Law of the King contained in their Commissions such as from time to time the Kings have thought fit in whose Will it always resteth whether an open Enemy when he is taken shall be put to Death or no and by what Death and whether he shall be Ransomed or no and at what price Then for the Nature of Treason by Rebellion is it not a return to Hostility What else does Rebellion signifie William the Conqueror Subdued this Kingdom some he Killed some upon promise of future obedience he took to Mercy and they became his Subjects and swore Allegiance to him if therefore they renew the War against him are they not again open Enemies or if any of them lurking under his Laws seek occasion thereby to kill him secretly and come to be known may he not be proceeded against as an Enemy who though he had not Committed what he Design'd yet had certainly a Hostile Design Did not the long Parliament declare all those for Enemies to the State that opposed their Proceedings against the late King But Sir Edw. Coke does seldom well distinguish when there are two divers Names for one and the same thing though one contain the other he makes them always different as if it could not be that one and the same Man should be both an Enemy
of the Caesars that could write or read The right to the Government was either Paternal or by Conquest or by Marriages Their succession to Lands was determined by the pleasure of the Master of the Family by Gift or Deed in his life time and what Land they disposed not of in their life time descended after their death to their Heirs The Heir was the Eldest Son The issue of the Eldest Son failing they descended to the younger Sons in their order and for want of Sons to the Daughters joyntly as to one Heir or to be divided amongst them and so to descend to their Heirs in the same manner And Children failing the Uncle by the Fathers or Mothers side according as the Lands had been the Fathers or the Mothers succeeded to the inheritance and so continually to the next of blood And this was a natural descent because naturally the nearer in Blood the nearer in kindness and was held for the Law of nature not only amongst the Germans but also in most Nations before they had a written Law The right of Government which is called Jus Regni descended in the same manner except only that after the Sons it came to the eldest Daughter first and her Heirs the reason whereof was that Government is indivisible And this Law continues still in England La. Seeing all the Land which any Soveraign Lord possessed was his own in propriety how came a Subject to have a propriety in their Lands Ph. There be two sorts of Propriety One is when a Man holds his Land from the gift of God only which Lands Civilians call Allodial which in a Kingdom no Man can have but the King The other is when a Man holds his Land from another Man as given him in respect of service and obedience to that Man as a Fee The first kind of propriety is absolute the other is in a manner conditional because given for some service to be done unto the giver The first kind of propriety excludes the right of all others the second excludes the right of all other Subjects to the same Land but not the right of the Soveraign when the common good of the People shall require the use thereof La. When those Kings had thus parted with their Lands what was left them for the maintenance of their Wars either offensive or defensive or for the maintenance of the Royal Family in such manner as not only becomes the dignity of a Soveraign King but is also necessary to keep his Person and People from contempt Ph. They have means enough and besides what they gave their Subjects had much Land remaining in their own hands afforrested for their recreation For you know very well that a great part of the Land of England was given for Military service to the great Men of the Realm who were for the most part of the Kings kindred or great Favourites much more Land than they had need of for their own Maintenance but so charged with one or many Souldiers according to the quantity of Land given as there could be no want of Souldiers at all times ready to resist an invading Enemy Which Souldiers those Lords were bound to furnish for a time certain at their own Charges You know also that the whole Land was divided into Hundreds and those again into Decennaries in which Decennaries all Men even to Children of 12 years of age were bound to take the Oath of Allegiance And you are to believe that those Men that hold their Land by the service of Husbandry were all bound with their Bodies and Fortunes to defend the Kingdom against invaders by the Law of nature And so also such as they called Villains and held their Land by baser drudgery were obliged to defend the Kingdom to the utmost of their power Nay Women and Children in such a necessity are bound to do such service as they can that is to say to bring Weapons and Victuals to them that fight and to Dig But those that hold their Land by service Military have lying upon them a greater obligation For read and observe the form of doing homage according as it is set down in the Statute of 17 Edw. 2. which you doubt not was in use before that time and before the Conquest La. I become your Man for Life for Member and for worldly Honour and shall owe you my faith for the Lands that I hold of you Ph. I pray you expound it La. I think it is as much as if you should say I promise you to be at your Command to perform with the hazard of my Life Limbs and all my Fortune as I have charged my self to the reception of the Lands you have given me and to be ever faithful to you This is the form of Homage done to the King immediately but when one Subject holdeth Land of another by the like Military service then there is an exception added viz. saving the faith I owe to the King Ph. Did he not also take an Oath La. Yes which is called the Oath of Fealty I shall be to you both faithful and lawfully shall do such customs and services as my duty is to you at the terms assigned so help me God and all his Saints But both these services and the services of Husbandry were quickly after turned into Rents payable either in Money as in England or in Corn or other Victuals as in Scotland and France When the service was Military the Tenant was for the most part bound to serve the King in his Wars with one or more Persons according to the yearly value of the Land he held Ph. Were they bound to find Horse-men or Foot-men La. I do not find any Law that requires any Man in respect of his Tenancie to serve on Horseback Ph. Was the Tenant bound in case he were called to serve in Person La. I think he was so in the beginning For when Lands were given for service Military and the Tenant dying left his Son and Heir the Lord had the custody both of Body and Lands till the Heir was twenty one years old and the reason thereof was that the Heir till that Age of twenty one years was presum'd to be unable to serve the King in his Wars which reason had been insufficient if the Heir had been bound to go to the Wars in Person Which methinks should ever hold for Law unless by some other Law it come to be altered These services together with other Rights as Wardships first possession of his Tenants inheritance Licenses for Alienation Felons Goods Felons Lands if they were holden of the King and the first years profit of the Lands of whomsoever they were holden Forfeitures Amercements and many other aids could not but amount to a very great yearly Revenue Add to this all that which the King might reasonably have imposed upon Artificers and Tradesmen for all Men whom the King protecteth ought to contribute towards their own protection and consider then whether the
this the fault of his Councellor Nor when a Judge in the Common-Pleas hath given an Erroneous Sentence it is always likely that the Judge of the Kings-Bench will reverse the Judgment though there be no Question but as you may find in Bracton and other Learned Men he has power to do it because being Professors of the same Common-Law they are perswaded for the most part to give the same Judgments For Example if Sir Edw. Coke in the last Terme that he sate Lord-Chief-Justice in the Court of Common-Pleas had given an Erroneous Judgment that when he was removed and made Lord-Chief-Justice of the Kings-Bench would therefore have reversed the said Judgment it is possi he might but not very likely And therefore I do believe there is some other power by the King constituted to reverse Erroneous Judgments both in the Kings-Bench and in the Court of Common-Pleas La. I think not for there is a Statute to the contrary made 4 o Hen. 4. cap. 23. in these words Whereas as well in Plea Real as in Plea Personal after Judgment in the Court of our Lord the King the Parties be made to come upon grievous pain sometimes before the King himself sometimes before the Kings Council and sometimes to the Parliament to answer thereof anew to the great Impoverishing of the Parties aforesaid and to the subversion of the Common-Law of the Land it is ordained and established that after Judgment given in the Court of our Lord the King the Parties and their Heirs shall be there in Peace until the Judgment be undone by Attaint or by Error if there be Error as hath been used by the Laws in the times of the Kings Progenitors Ph. This Statute is so far from being repugnant to that I say as it seemeth to me to have been made expresly to confirm the same For the substance of the Statuâ—e is that there shall be no Suit made by either of the Parties for any thing adjudged either in the Kings-Bench or Court of Common-Pleas before the Judgment be undone by Error or Corruption prov'd and that this was the Common-Law before the making of this Statute which could not be except there were before this Statute some Courts authorised to examine and correct such Errors as by the Plaintiff should be assign'd The inconvenience which by this Statute was to be remedied was this that often Judgment given in the Kings Courts by which are meant in this place the Kings-Bench and Court of Common-Pleas the Party against whom the Judgment was given did begin a new Suit and cause his Adversary to come before the King himself here by the King himself must be understood the King in Person for though in a Writ by the words Coram nobis is understood the Kings-Bench yet in a Statute it is never so nor is it strange seeing in those days the King did usually sit in Court with his Council to hear as sometimes King James and sometimes the same Parties commenced their Suit before the Privy-Council though the King were absent and sometimes before the Parliament the former Judgment yet standing For remedy whereof it was ordained by this Statute that no Man should renew his Suit till the former Judgment was undone by Attaint or Error which Reversing of a Judgment had been impossible if there had been no Court besides the aforesaid two Courts wherein the Errors might be Assigned Examin'd and Judg'd for no Court can be esteemed in Law or Reason a Competent Judge of its own Errors There was therefore before this Statute some other Court existent for the hearing of Errors and Reversing of Erroneous Judgments What Court this was I enquire not yet but I am sure it could not be either the Parliament or the Privy-Council or the Court wherein the Erroneous Judgment was given La. The Doctor and Student discourses of this Statute cap. 18. much otherwise than you do For the Author of that Book saith that against an Erroneous Judgment all Remedy is by this Statute taken away And though neither Reason nor the Office of a King nor any Law positive can prohibit the remedying of any Injury much less of an unjust Sentence yet he shows many Statutes wherein a Mans Conscience ought to prevail above the Law Ph. Upon what ground can he pretend that all Remedy in this case is by this Statute prohibited La. He says it is thereby enacted that Judgment given by the Kings Courts shall not be examin'd in the Chancery Parliament nor elsewhere Ph. Is there any mention of Chancery in this Act It cannot be examin'd before the King and his Council nor before the Parliament but you see that before the Statute it was examin'd somewhere and that this Statute will have it examin'd there again And seeing the Chancery was altogether the highest Office of Judicature in the Kingdom for matter of Equity and that the Chancery is not here forbidden to examine the Judgments of all other Courts at least it is not taken from it by this Statute But what Cases are there in this Chapter of the Doctor and Student by which it can be made probable that when Law and Conscience or Law and Equity seem to oppugne one another the written Law should be preferr'd La. If the Defendant wage his Law in an Action of Debt brought upon a true Debt the Plaintiff hath no means to come to his Debt by way of Compulsion neither by Subpoena nor otherwise and yet the Defendant is bound in Conscience to pay him Ph. Here is no preferring that I see of the Law above Conscience or Equity for the Plaintiff in this case loseth not his Debt for want either of Law or Equity but for want of Proof for neither Law nor Equity can give a Man his Right unless he prove it La. Also if the Grand-Jury in Attaint affirm a false Verdict given by the Petty-Jury there is no farther Remedy but the Conscience of the party Ph. Here again the want of Proof is the want of Remedy for if he can prove that the Verdict given was false the King can give him remedy such way as himself shall think best and ought to do it in case the Party shall find surety if the same Verdict be again affirmed to satisfie his Adversary for the Dammage and Vexation he puts him to La. But there is a Statute made since viz. 27 Eliz. c. 8. by which that Statute of Hen. 4. 23. is in part taken away for by that Statute Erroneous Judgments given in the Kings-Bench are by a Writ of Error to be examin'd in the Exchequer-Chamber before the Justices of the Common-Bench and the Barons of the Exchequer and by the preamble of this Act it appears that Erroneous Judgments are only to be reform'd by the High Court of Parliament Ph. But here is no mention that the Judgments given in the Court of Common-Pleas should be brought in to be examin'd in the Exchequer-Chamber why therefore may not the Court of Chancery
little worth if they tended not to the preservation and improvement of Mens Lives seeing then without Humane Law all things would be Common and this Community a cause of Incroachment Envy Slaughter and continual War of one upon another the same Law of Reason Dictates to Mankind for their own preservation a distribution of Lands and Goods that each Man may know what is proper to him so as none other might pretend a right thereunto or disturb him in the use of the same This distribution is Justice and this properly is the same which we say is one owns by which you may see the great Necessity there was of Statute Laws for preservation of all Mankind It is also a Dictate of the Law of Reason that Statute Laws are a necessary means of the safety and well being of Man in the present World and are to be Obeyed by all Subjects as the Law of Reason ought to be Obeyed both by King and Subjects because it is the Law of God Ph. All this is very Rational but how can any Laws secure one Man from another When the greatest part of Men are so unreasonable and so partial to themselves as they are and the Laws of themselves are but a dead Letter which of it self is not able to compel a Man to do otherwise than himself pleaseth nor punish or hurt him when he hath done a mischief La. By the Laws I mean Laws living and Armed for you must suppose that a Nation that is subdued by War to an absolute submission of a Conqueror it may by the same Arm that compelled it to Submission be compelled to Obey his Laws Also if a Nation choose a Man or an Assembly of Men to Govern them by Laws it must furnish him also with Armed Men and Money and all things necessary to his Office or else his Laws will be of no force and the Nation remains as before it was in Confusion 'T is not therefore the word of the Law but the Power of a Man that has the strength of a Nation that makes the Laws effectual It was not Solon that made Athenian Laws though he devised them but the Supream Court of the People nor the Lawyers of Rome that made the Imperial Law in Justinian's time but Justinian himself Ph. We agree then in this that in England it is the King that makes the Laws whosoever Pens them and in this that the King cannot make his Laws effectual nor defend his People against their Enemies without a Power to Leavy Souldiers and consequently that he may Lawfully as oft as he shall really think it necessary to raise an Army which in some occasions be very great I say raise it and Money to Maintain it I doubt not but you will allow this to be according to the Law at least of Reason La. For my part I allow it But you have heard how in and before the late Troubles the People were of another mind Shall the King said they take from us what he please upon pretence of a necessity whereof he makes himself the Judg What worse Condition can we be in from an Enemy What can they take from us more than what they list Ph. The People Reason ill they do not know in what Condition we were in the time of the Conqueror when it was a shame to be an English-Man who if he grumbled at the base Offices he was put to by his Norman Masters received no other Answer but this Thou art but an English-Man nor can the People nor any Man that humors them in their Disobedience produce any Example of a King that ever rais'd any excessive Summ's either by himself or by the Consent of his Parliament but when they had great need thereof nor can shew any reason that might move any of them so to do The greatest Complaint by them made against the unthriftiness of their Kings was for the inriching now and then a Favourite which to the Wealth of the Kingdom was inconsiderable and the Complaint but Envy But in this point of raising Souldiers what is I pray you the Statute Law La. The last Statute concerning it is 13 Car. 2. c. 6. By which the Supream Government Command and disposing of the Militia of England is delivered to be and always to have been the Antient Right of the Kings of England But there is also in the same Act a Proviso that this shall not be Construed for a Declaration that the King may Transport his Subjects or compel them to march out of the Kingdom nor is it on the contrary declared to be unlawful Ph. Why is not that also determined La. I can imagine cause enough for it though I may be deceiv'd We love to have our King amongst us and not be Govern'd by Deputies either of our own or another Nation But this I verily believe that if a Forraign Enemy should either invade us or put himself in t a readiness to invade either England Ireland or Scotland no Parliament then sitting and the King send English Souldiers thither the Parliament would give him thanks for it The Subjects of those Kings who affect the Glory and imitate the Actions of Alexander the Great have not always the most comfortable lives nor do such Kings usually very long enjoy their Conquests They March to and fro perpetually as upon a Plank sustained only in the midst and when one end rises down goes the other Ph. 'T is well But where Souldiers in the Judgment of the Kings Conscience are indeed necessary as in an insurrection or Rebellion at home how shall the Kingdom be preserved without a considerable Army ready and in pay How shall Money be rais'd for this Army especially when the want of publick Treasure inviteth Neighbour Kings to incroach and unruly Subjects to Rebel La I cannot tell It is matter of Polity not of Law but I know that there be Statutes express whereby the King hath obliged himself never to Levy Money upon his Subjects without the consent of his Parliament One of which Statutes is 25 Ed. 1. c. 6. in these words We have granted for us and our Heirs as well to Arch-Bishops Bishops Abbots and other Folk of the Holy Church as also Earls Barons and to all the Commonalty of the Land that for no Business from henceforth we shall take such Aids Taxes or Prizes but by the common Consent of the Realm There is also another Statute of Ed. 1. in these words No Taxes or Aid shall be taken or Leveyed by us or our Heirs in our Realm without the good will and assent of the Arch-Bishops Bishops Earls Barons Knights Burgesses and other Freemen of the Land which Statutes have been since that time Confirmed by divers other Kings and lastly by the King that now Reigneth Ph. All this I know and am not satisfied I am one of the Common People and one of that almost infinite number of Men for whose welfare Kings and other Soveraigns were by God Ordain'd For
Court of Equity in that to which belong such Causes as are to be determined by Equity that is to say by the Law of Reason Ph. You see then that the difference between Injustice and Iniquity is this that Injustice is the Transgression of a Statute-Law and Iniquity the Transgression of the Law of Reason was nothing else but the Law of Reason and that the Judges of that Law are Courts of Justice because the breach of the Statute-Law is Iniquity and Injustice also But perhaps you mean by Common-Law not the Law it self but the manner of proceeding in the Law as to matter of Fact by 12 Men Freeholders though those 12 Men are no Court of Equity nor of Justice because they determine not what is Just or Unjust but only whether it be done or not done and their Judgment is nothing else but a Confirmation of that which is properly the Judgment of the Witnesses for to speak exactly there cannot possibly be any Judge of Fact besides the Witnesses La. How would you have a Law defâ—n'd Ph. Thus A Law is the Command of him or them that have the Soveraign Power given to those that be his or their Subjects declaring Publickly and plainly what every of them may do and what they must forbear to do La. Seeing all Judges in all Courts ought to Judge according to Equity which is the Law of Reason a distinct Court of Equity seemeth to me to be unnecessary and but a Burthen to the People since Common-Law and Equity are the same Law Ph. It were so indeed If Judges could not err but since they may err and that the King is not Bound to any other Law but that of Equity it belongs to him alone to give Remedy to them that by the Ignorance or Corruption of a Judge shall suffer dammage La. By your Definition of a Law the Kings Proclamation under the Great Seal of England is a Law for it is a Command and Publick and of the Soveraign to his Subjects Ph. Why not If he think it necessary for the good of his Subjects For this is a Maxim at the Common-Law Alledged by Sir Edward Coke himself 1 Inst. Sect. 306. Quando Lex aliquid concedit concedere videtur id per quod devenitur ad illud And you know out of the same Author that divers Kings of â—ngland have often to the Petitions in Parliament which they granted annexed such exceptions as these unless there be necessity saving our Regality which I think should be always understood though they be not expressed and are understood so by Common Lawyers who agree that the King may recall any Grant wherein he was deceiv'd La. Again whereas you make it of the Essence of a Law to be Publickly and plainly declar'd to the People I see no necessity for that Are not all Subjects Bound to take notice of all Acts of Parliament when no Act can pass without their Consent Ph. If you had said that no Act could pass without their knowledge then indeed they had been bound to take notice of them but none can have knowledge of them but the Members of the Houses of Parliament therefore the rest of the People are excus'd or else the Knights of the Shires should be bound to furnish People with a sufficient Number of Copies at the Peoples Charge of the Acts of Parliament at their return into the Country that every man may resort to them and by themselves or Friends take notice of what they are obliged to for otherwise it were Impossible they should be obeyed And that no Man is bound to do a thing Impossible is one of Sir Edw. Cokes Maxims at the Common-Law I know that most of the Statutes are Printed but it does not appear that every Man is bound to Buy the Book of Statutes nor to search for them at Westminster or at the Tower nor to understand the Language wherein they are for the most part Written La. I grant it proceeds from their own Faults but no Man can be excused by the Ignorance of the Law of Reason that is to say by Ignorance of the Common-Law except Children Mad-men and Idiots But you exact such a notice of the Statute-Law as is almost Impossible Is it not enough that they in all Places have a sufficient Number of the Poenal Statutes Ph. Yes If they have those Poenal Statutes near them but what Reason can you give me why there should not be as many Copies abroad of the Statutes as there be of the Bible La. I think it were well that every Man that can Read had a Statute-Book for certainly no knowledge of those Laws by which Mens Lives and Fortunes can be brought into danger can be too much I find a great Fault in your Definition of Law which is that every Law either forbiddeth or Commandeth something 'T is true that the Moral-Law is always a Command or a Prohibition or at least Implieth it but in the Levitical-Law where it is said that he that Stealeth a Sheep shall Restore four Fold what Command or Prohibition lyeth in these words Ph. Such Sentences as that are not in themselves General but Judgments nevertheless there is in those words Implied a Commandment to the Judge to cause to be made a Four-fold Restitution La. That 's Right Ph. Now Define what Justice is and what Actions and Men are to be called Just. La. Justice is the constant will of giving to every Man his own that is to say of giving to every Man that which is his Right in such manner as to Exclude the Right of all men else to the same thing A Just Action is that which is not against the Law A Just Man is he that hath a constant Will to live Justly if you require more I doubt there will no Man living be Comprehended within the Definition Ph. Seeing then that a Just Action according to your Definition is that which is not against the Law it is Manifest that before there was a Law there could be no Injustice and therefore Laws are in their Nature Antecedent to Justice and Injustice and you cannot deny but there must be Law-makers before there was any Laws and Consequently before there was any Justice I speak of Humane Justice and that Law-makers were before that which you call Own or property of Goods or Lands distinguished by Meum Tuum Alienum La. That must be Granted for without Statute-Laws all Men have Right to all things and we have had Experience when our Laws were silenced by Civil War there was not a Man that of any Goods could say assuredly they were his own Ph. You see then that no private Man can claim a Propriety in any Lands or other Goods from any Title from any Man but the King or them that have the Soveraign Power because it is in virtue of the Soveraignty that every Man may not enter into and Possess what he pleaseth and consequently to deny the Soveraign any thing necessary to
the sustaining of his Soveraign power is to destroy the Propriety he pretends to The next thing I will ask you is how you distinguish between Law and Right or Lex and Jus. La. Sir Ed. Coke in divers places makes Lex and Jus to be the same and so Lex Communis and Jus Communis to be all one nor do I find that he does in any places distinguish them Ph. Then will I distinguish them and make you judge whether my distinction be not necessary to be known by every Author of the Common Law for Law obligeth me to do or forbear the doing of something and therefore it lies upon me an Obligation but my Right is a Liberty left me by the Law to do any thing which the Law forbids me not and to leave undone any thing which the Law commands me not Did Sir Ed. Coke see no difference between being bound and being free La. I know not what he was but he has not mention'd it though a man may dispense with his own Liberty that cannot do so with the Law Ph. But what are you better for your Right if a rebellious Company at home or an Enemy from abroad take away the Goods or dispossess you of the Lands you have a right to Can you be defended or repair'd but by the strength and authority of the King What reason therefore can be given by a man that endeavours to preserve his Propriety why he should deny or malignly contribute to the Strength that should defend him or repair him Let us see now what your Books say to this point and other points of the Right of Soveraignty Bracton the most authentick Author of the Common Law fol. 55. saith thus Ipse Dominus Rex habet omnia Jura in manu suâ est Dei Vicarius habet ea quae sunt Pacis habet etiam coercionem ut Delinquentes puniat habet in potestate suâ Leges nihil enim prodest Jura condere nisi sit qui Jura tueatur That is to say our Lord the King hath all Right in his own Hands is Gods Vicar he has all that concerns the Peace he has the power to punish Delinquents all the Laws are in his power To make Laws is to no purpose unless there be some-body to make them obeyed If Bracton's Law be Reason as I and you think it is what temporal power is there which the King hath not Seeing that at this day all the power Spiritual which Bracton allows the Pope is restored to the Crown what is there that the King cannot do excepting sin against the Law of God The same Bracton Lib. 21. c. 8. saith thus Si autem a Rege petitur cum Breve non curret contra ipsum locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat emendet quod quidem si non fecerit satis sufficit ad poenam quod Dominum expectet Vltorem nemo quidem de factis ejus praesumat disputare multo fortius contra factum ejus venire That is to say if any thing be demanded of the King seeing a Writ lyeth not against him he is put to his Petition praying him to Correct and Amend his own Fact which if he will not do it is a sufficient Penalty for him that he is to expect a punishment from the Lord No Man may presume to dispute of what he does much less to resist him You see by this that this Doctrine concerning the Rights of Soveraignty so much Cryed down by the long Parliament is the Antient Common-Law and that the only Bridle of the Kings of England ought to be the fear of God And again Bracton c. 24. of the second Book sayes That the Rights of the Crown cannot be granted away Ea vero quae Jurisdictionis Pacis ea quae sunt Justitiae Paci annexa ad nullum pertinent nisi ad Coronam Dignitatem Regiam nec a Corona separari possunt nec a privata persona possideri That is to say those things which belong to Jurisdiction and Peace and those things that are annexed to Justice and Peace appertain to none but to the Crown and Dignity of the King nor can be separated from the Crown nor be possest by a private Person Again you 'l find in Fleta a Law-Book written in the time of Edw. 2. That Liberties though granted by the King if they tend to the hinderance of Justice or subversion of the Regal Power were not to be used nor allowed For in that Book c. 20. concerning Articles of the Crown which the Justices Itinerant are to enquire of the 54th Article is this you shall inquire De Libertatibus concessis quae impediunt Communem Jâ—stitiam Regiam Potestatem subvertunt Now what is a greater hindrance to Common Justice or a greater subversion of the Regal Power than a Liberty in Subjects to hinder the King from raising Money necessary to suppress or prevent Rebellions which doth destroy Justice and subvert the power of the Soveraignty Moreover when a Charter is granted by a King in these words Dedita coram pro me Haeredibus meis The grantor by the Common-Law as Sir Edw. Coke sayes in his Commentaries on Littleton is to warrant his Gift and I think it Reason especially if the Gift be upon Consideration of a price Paid Suppose a Forraign State should say claim to this Kingdom 't is no Matter as to the Question I am putting whether the Claim be unjust how would you have the King to warrant to every Free-holder in England the Lands they hold of him by such a Charter If he cannot Levy Money their Estates are lost and so is the Kings Estate and if the Kings Estate be gone how can he repair the Value due upon the Warranty I know that the Kings Charters are not so meerly Grants as that they are not also Laws but they are such Laws as speak not to all the Kings Subjects in general but only to his Officers implicitly forbidding them to Judge or Execute any thing contrary to the said Grants There be many Men that are able Judges of what is right Reason and what not when any of these shall know that a Man has no Superiour nor Peer in the Kingdom he will hardly be perswaded he can be bound by any Law of the Kingdom or that he who is Subject to none but God can make a Law upon himself which he cannot also as easily abrogate as he made it The main Argument and that which so much taketh with the throng of People proceedeth from a needless fear put into their minds by such Men as mean to make use of their Hands to their own ends for if say they the King may notwithstanding the Law do what he please and nothing to restrain him but the fear of punishment in the World to come then in case there come a King that fears no such punishment he may take away from us not only our Lands Goods and Liberties but our Lives
should have been Commended You see by this that many things are made Crimes and no Crimes which are not so in their own Nature but by Diversity of Law made upon Diversity of Opinion or of Interest by them which have Authority And yet those things whether good or evil will pass so with the Vulgar if they hear them often with odious terms recited for hainous Crimes in themselves as many of those Opinions which are in themselves Pious and Lawful were heretofore by the Popes Interest therein called Detestable Heresie Again some Controversies are of things done upon the Sea others of things done upon the Land There need by many Courts to the deciding of so many kinds of Controversies What order is there taken for their Distribution La. There be an extraordinary great number of Courts in England First there be the Kings Courts both for Law and Equity in matters Temporal which are the Chancery the Kings-Bench the Court of Common-Pleas and for the Kings Revenue the Court of the Exchequer and there be Subjects Courts by Priviledge as the Court in London and other priviledg'd places And there be other Courts of Subjects as the Courts of Landlords called the Court of Barons and the Courts of Sherifs Also the Spiritual Courts are the Kings Courts at this day though heretofore they were the Popes Courts And in the Kings Courts some have their Judicature by Office and some by Commission and some Authority to Hear and Determine and some only to Inquire and to Certifie into other Courts Now for the Distribution of what Pleas every Court may hold it is commonly held that all the Pleas of the Crown and of all Offences contrary to the Peace are to be holden in the Kings Bench or by Commissioners for Bracton saith Sciendum est quod si Actiones sunt Criminales in Curia Domini Regis debent determinari cum sit ibi poena Câ—rporalis infligenda hoc coram ipso Rege si tangat personam suam sicut Crimen Laesae Majestatis vel coram Justitiariis ad hoc specialiter assignatis That is to say That if the Plea be Criminal it ought to be determin'd in the Court of our Lord the King because there they have power to inflict Corporeal punishment and if the Crime be against his person as the Crime of Treason it ought to be determin'd before the King himself or if it be against a private person it ought to be determin'd by Justices Assigned that is to say before Commissioners It seems by this that heretofore Kings did hear and determine Pleas of Treason against themselves by their own Persons but it has been otherwise a long time and is now For it is now the Office of the Lord Steward of England in the Tryal of a Peer to hold that Plea by a Commission especially for the same In Causes concerning Meum and Tuum the King may sue either in the Kings-Bench or in the Court of Common Pleas as it appears by Fitzherbert in his Natura Brevium at the Writ of Escheat Ph. A King perhaps will not sit to determine of Causes of Treason against his Person lest he should seem to make himself Judge in his own Cause but that it shall be Judged by Judges of his own making can never be avoided which is also one as if he were Judge himself La. To the Kings-Bench also I think belongeth the Hearing and Determining of all manner of Breaches of the Peace whatsoever saving alwayes to the King that he may do the same when he pleaseth by Commissioners In the time of Henry the 3d and Edward the 1st when Bracton wrote the King did usually send down every seven years into the Country Commissioners called Justices Itinerant to Hear and Determine generally all Causes Temporal both Criminal and Civil whose places have been now a long time supplyed by the Justices of Assize with Commissions of the Peace of Oyer and Terminer and of Goal-delivery Ph. But why may the King only Sue in the Kings-Bench or Court of Common-Pleas which he will and no other Person may do the same La. There is no Statute to the contrary but it seemeth to be the Common-Law for Sir Edw. Coke 4 Inst. setteth down the Jurisdiction of the Kings-Bench which he says has First Jurisdiction in all Pleas of the Crown Secondly The Correcting of all manner of Errors of other Justices and Judges both of Judgments and Process except of the Court of Exchequer which he sayes is to this Court Proprium quarto modo Thirdly That it has power to Correct all Misdemeanours extrajudicial tending to the breach of the Peace or oppression of the Subjects or raising of Factions Controversies Debates or any other manner of Misgovernment Fourthly It may hold Plea by Writ out of the Chancery of all Trespasses done Vi Armis Fifthly It hath power to hold Plea by Bill for Debt Detinu Covenant Promise and all other personal Actions but of the Jurisdiction of the Kings-Bench in Actions real he says nothing save that if a Writ in a Real Action be abated by Judgment in the Court of Common-Pleas and that the Judgment be by a Writ of Error reversed in the Kings-Bench then the Kings-Bench may proceed upon the Writ Ph. But how is the Practice La. Real Actions are commonly decided as well in the Kings-Bench as in the Court of Common-Pleas Ph. When the Kng by Authority in Writing maketh a Lord-Chief-Justice of the Kings-Bench does he not set down what he makes him for La. Sir Edw Coke sets down the Letters Patents whereby of Antient time the Lord Chief-Justice was Constituted wherein is expressed to what end he hath his Office viz. Pro Conservatione nostra tranquilitatis Regni nostri ad Justitiam universis singulis de Regno nostro exhibendam Constituimus Dilectum Fidelem nostrum P. B. Justitiarium Angliae quamdiu nobis placuerit Capitalem c. That is to say for the preservation of our self and of the Peace of our Realm and for the doing of Justice to all and singular our Subjects we have Constituted our Beloved and Faithful P. B. during our pleasure Chief Justice of England c. Ph. Methinks 't is very plain by these Letters Patents that all Causes Temporal within the Kingdom except the Pleas that belong to the Exchequer should be decidable by this Lord-Chief-Justice For as for Causes Criminal and that concern the Peace it is granted him in these words for the Conservation of our self and peace of the Kingdom wherein are contained all Pleas Criminal and in the doing of Justice to all and singular the Kings Subjects are comprehended all Pleas Civil And as to the Court of Common-Pleas it is manifest it may hold all manner of Civil-Pleas except those of the Exchequer by Magna Charta Cap. 11. So that all original Writs concerning Civil-Pleas are returnable into either of the said Courts but how is the Lord-Chief-Justice made now La. By these
words in their Letters Patents Constituimus vos Justitiarium nostrum Capitalem ad Placita coram nobis tenenda durante beneplacito nostro That is to say we have made you our Chief-Justice to hold Pleas before our self during our pleasure But this Writ though it be shorter does not at all abridge the power they had by the former And for the Letters Patents for the Chief-Justice of the Common-Pleas they go thus Constituimus dilectum Fidelem c. Capitalem Justitiarium de Communi Banco Habendum c. quamdiu nobis placuerit cum vadiis foedis ab antiquo debitis consuetis Id est We have Constituted our Beloved and Faithful c. Chief-Justice of the Common-Bench To have c. during our pleasure with the ways and Fees thereunto heretofore due and usual Ph. I find in History that there have been in England always a Chancellour and a Chief-Justice of England but of a Court of Common-Pleas there is no mention before Magna Charta Common-Pleas there were ever both here and I think in all Nations for Common-Pleas and Civil-Pleas I take to be the same La. Before the Statute of Magna Charta Common-Pleas as Sir Edw. Coke granteth 2 Inst. p. 21. might have been holden in the Kings-Bench and that Court being removeable at the Kings will the Returns of Writs were Coram Nobis ubicunque fuerimus in Anglia whereby great trouble of Jurors ensued and great charges of the parties and delay of Justice and that for these causes it was Ordain'd that the Common-Pleas should not follow the King but be held in a place certain Ph. Here Sir Edw. Coke declares his Opinion that no Common-Plea can be holden in the Kings-Bench in that he says they might have been holden then And yet this doth not amount to any probable proof that there was any Court of Common-Pleas in England before Magna Charta For this Statute being to ease the Jurors and lessen the Charges of Parties and for the Expedition of Justice had been in Vain if there had been a Court of Common-Pleas then standing for such a Court was not necessarily to follow the King as was the Chancery and the Kings-Bench Besides unless the Kings-Bench wheresoever it was held Plea of civil Causes the Subject had not at all been eased by this Statute For supposing the King at York had not the Kings Subjects about London Jurors and parties as much trouble and charge to go to York as the People about York had before to go to London Therefore I can by no means believe otherwise then that the Erection of the Court of Common-Pleas was the effect of that Statute of Magna Charta Cap. 11. And before that time not existent though I think that for the multiplicity of Suits in a great Kingdom there was need of it La. Perhaps there was not so much need of it as you think For in those times the Laws for the most part were in setling rather than setled and the old Saxon Laws concerning Inheritances were then practised by which Laws speedy Justice was Executed by the Kings Writs in the Courts of Barons which were Landlords to the rest of the Freeholders and Suits of Barons in County-Courts and but few Suits in the Kings Courts but when Justice could not be had in those Inferior Courts but at this day there be more Suits in the Kings Courts than any one Court can dispatch Ph. Why should there be more Suits now than formerly For I believe this Kingdom was as well Peopled then as now La. Sir Edw. Coke 4 Inst. p. 76. assigneth for it six Causes 1. Peace 2. Plenty 3. The Dissolution of Religious Houses and dispersing of their Lands among so many several persons 4. The multitude of Informers 5. The number of Concealers 6. The multitude of Attorneys Ph. I see Sir Edw. Coke has no mind to lay any fault upon the Men of his own Profession and that he Assigns for Causes of the Mischiefs such things as would be Mischief and Wickedness to amend for if Peace and Plenty be the cause of this Evil it cannot be removed but by War and Beggery and the Quarrels arising about the Lands of Religious Persons cannot arise from the Lands but from the doubtfulness of the Laws And for Informers they were Authorised by Statutes to the Execution of which Statutes they are so necessary as that their number cannot be too great and if it be too great the fault is in the Law it self The number of Concealers are indeed a number of Couseners which the Law may easily Correct And lastly for the multitude of Attorneys it is the fault of them that have the power to admit or refuse them For my part I believe that Men at this day have better learn't the Art of Caviling against the words of a Statute than heretofore they had and thereby encourage themselves and others to undertake Suits upon little reason Also the variety and repugnancy of Judgments of Common-Law do oftentimes put Men to hope for Victory in causes whereof in reason they had no ground at all Also the ignorance of what is Equity in their own causes which Equity not one Man in a thousand ever Studied and the Lawyers themselves seek not for their Judgments in their own Breasts but in the precedents of former Judges as the Antient Judges sought the same not in their own Reason but in the Laws of the Empire Another and perhaps the greatest cause of multitude of Suits is this that for want of Registring of conveyances of Land which might easily be done in the Townships where the Lands ly a Purchase cannot easily be had which will not be litigious Lastly I believe the Coveteousness of Lawyers was not so great in Antient time which was full of trouble as they have been since in time of Peace wherein Men have leisure to study fraud and get employment from such Men as can encourage to Contention And how ample a Field they have to exercise this Mystery in is manifest from this that they have a power to Scan and Construe every word in a Statute Charter Feofment Lease or other Deed Evidence or Testimony But to return to the Jurisdiction of this Court of the Kings-Bench where as you say it hath power to correct and amend the Errors of all other Judges both in Process and in Judgments cannot the Judges of the Common-Pleas correct Error in Process in their own Courts without a Writ of Error from another Court La. Yes and there be many Statutes which Command them so to do Ph. When a Writ of Error is brought out of the Kings-Bench be it either Error in Process or in Law at whose Charge is it to be done La. At the Charge of the Clyent Ph. I see no reason for that for the Clyent is not in fault who never begins a Suit but by the advice of his Council Learned in the Law whom he pays for his Council given Is not
examinâ—â— Judgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas La. You deny not but by the Antient Law of England the Kings-Bench may examine the Judgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas Ph. 'T is true but why may not also the Court of Chancery do the same especially if the fault of the Judgment be against Equity and not against the Letter of the Law La. There is no necessity of that for the same Court may examine both the Letter and the Equity of the Statute Ph. You see by this that the Jurisdiction of Courts cannot easily be distinguished but by the King himself in his Parliament The Lawyers themselves cannot do it for you see what Contention there is between Courts as well as between particular Men. And whereas you say that Law of 4 Hen. 4. 23. is by that of 27 Eliz. cap. 8. taken away I do not find it so I find indeed a Diversity of opinion between the makers of the former and the latter Statute in the preamble of the latter and Conclusion of the former The Preamble of the latter is forasmuch as Erroneous Judgments given in the Court called the Kings-Bench are only to be reformed in the High Court of Parliament and the Conclusion of the former is that the contrary was Law in the times of the Kings Progenitors These are no parts of those Laws but Opinions only concerning the Antient Custom in that Case arising from the different Opinions of the Lawyers in those different times neither Commanding nor Forbidding any thing though of the Statutes themselves the one forbids that such Pleas be brought before the Parliament the other forbids it not But yet if after the Act of Hen. 4. such a Plea had been brought before the Parliament the Parliament might have Heard and Determin'd it For the Statute forbids not that nor can any Law have the force to hinder the Law of any Jurisdiction whatsoever they please to take upon them seeing it is a Court of the King and of all the People together both Lords and Commons La. Though it be yet seeing the King as Sir Edw. Coke affirms 4 Inst. p. 71. hath committed all his power Judicial some to one Court and some to another so as if any Man would render himself to the Judgment of the King in such case where the King hath committed all his power Judicial to others such a render should be to no effect And p. 73. he saith farther That in this Court the Kings of this Realm have sitten on the High Bench and the Judges of that Court on the Lower Bench at his feet but Judicature belongeth only to the Judges of that Court and in his presence they answer all Motions Ph. I cannot believe that Sir Edw. Coke how much soever he desir'd to advance the authority of himself and other Justices of the Common-Law could mean that the King in the Kings-Bench sate as a Spectator only and might not have answered all motions which his Judges answer'd if he had seen cause for it For he knew that the King was Supream Judge then in all causes Temporal and is now in all Causes both Temporal and Ecclesiastical and that there is an exceeding great penalty ordained by the Laws for them that shall deny it But Sir Edw. Coke as he had you see in many places before hath put a Fallacy upon himself by not distinguishing between Committing and Transferring He that Transferreth his power hath deprived himself of it but he that Committeth it to another to be Exercised in his name and under him is still in the Possession of the same power And therefore if a Man render himself that is to say Appealeth to the King from any Judge whatsoever the King may receive his Appeal and it shall be effectual La. Besides these 2 Courts the Kings-Bench for Pleas of the Crown and the Court of Common-Pleas for Causes Civil according to the Common-Law of England there is another Court of Justice that hath Jurisdiction in Causes both Civil and Criminal and is as Antient a Court at least as the Court of Common Pleas and this is the Court of the Lord Admiral but the proceedings therein are according to the Laws of the Roman Empire and the Causes to be determin'd there are such as arise upon the Marine Sea For so it is ordain'd by divers Statutes and confirm'd by many Precedents Ph. As for the Statutes they are always Law and Reason also for they are made by the Assent of all the Kingdom but Precedents are Judgments one contrary to another I mean divers Men in divers Ages upon the same case give divers Judgments Therefore I will ask your Opinion once more concerning any Judgments besides those of the King as to their validity in Law But what is the difference between the proceedings of the Court of Admiralty and the Court of Common-Law La. One is that the Court of Admiralty proceedeth by two Witnesses without any either Grand-Jury to Indict or Petty to Convict and the Judge giveth Sentence according to the Laws Imperial which of old time were in force in all this part of Europe and now are Laws not by the Will of any other Emperor or Forraign Power but by the Will of the Kings of England that have given them force in their own Dominions the reason whereof seems to be that the causes that arise at Sea are very often between us and People of other Nations such as are Governed for the most part by the self same laws Imperial Ph. How can it precisely enough be determin'd at Sea especially near the mouth of a very great River whether it be upon the Sea or within the Land For the Rivers also are as well as their Banks within or a part of one Country or other La. Truly the Question is difficult and there have been many Suits about it wherein the Question has been whose Jurisdiction it is in Ph. Nor do I see how it can be decided but by the King himself in case it be not declar'd in the Lord Admirals Letters Patents La. But though there be in the Letters Patents a power given to hold Plea in some certain cases to any of the Statutes concerning the Admiralty the Justices of the Common-Law may send a Prohibition to that Court to proceed in the Plea though it be with a non-obstante of any Statute Ph. Methinks that That should be against the Right of the Crown which cannot be taken from it by any Subject For that Argument of Sir Edw. Coke's that the King has given away all his Judicial Power is worth nothing because as I have said before he cannot give away the Essential Rights of his Crown and because by a non-obstante he declares he is not deceived in his Grant La. But you may see by the Precedents alledged by Sir Edw. Coke the contrary has been perpetually practised Ph. I see not that perpetually for who can tell but there may have been given other Judgments in such cases
Bishops and Right of Advowsans and Presentations belonged to himself and to the Nobility that were the founders of such Bishopricks Abbies and other Benefices And he enacted farther that if any Clerk which he or any of his Subjects should present should be disturbed by any such Provisor that such Provisor or Disturber should be attached by his Body and if Convicted lye in Prison till he were Ransomed at the Kings Will and had satisfied the Party griev'd renouced his Title and sound sureties not to sue for it any farther and that if they could not be found then Exigents should go forth to Outlawrie and the Profits of the Benefice in the mean time be taken into the Kings hands And the same Statute is confirmed in the 27th year of King Ed. the 3d which Statute alloweth to these Provisors six weeks Day to appear but if they appear before they be outlaw'd they shall be received to make Answer but if they render not themselves they shall forfeit all their Lands Goods and Chattels besides that they stand outlaw'd The same Law is confirmed again by 16 Rich. 2d cap. 5. in which is added because these Provisors obtained sometimes from the Pope that such English Bishops as according to the Law were instituted and inducted by the Kings Presentees should be excommunicated that for this also both they and the Receivers and Publishers of such Papal Process and the Procurers should have the same Punishment Ph. Let me see the Statute it self of 27 Ed. 3. La. It lies there before you set down verbatim by Sir Edw. Coke himself both in English and French Ph. 'T is well we are now to consider what it means and whether it be well or ill interpreted by Sir Edw. Coke And first it appeareth by the Preamble which Sir Edw. Coke acknowledgeth to be the best Interpreter of the Statute that this Statute was made against the Incroachments only of the Church of Rome upon the Right of the King and other Patrons to collate Bishopricks and other Benefices within the Realm of England and against the power of the Courts Spiritual to hold Plea of Controversies determinable in any of the Courts of the King or to reverse any Judgment there given as being things that tend to the Disherison of the King and Destruction of the Common-Law of the Realm always used Put the case now that a Man had procur'd the Pope to reverse a Decree in Chancery had he been within the danger of Premunire La. Yes certainly or if the Judgment had been given in the Court of the Lord Admiral or in any other Kings Court whatsoever either of Law or Equity for Courts of Equity are most properly Courts of the Common-Law of England because Equity and Common-Law as Sir Ed. Coke says are all one Ph. Then the word Common-Law is not in this Preamble restrained to such Courts only where the Tryal is by Juries but comprehends all the Kings Temporal Courts if not also the Courts of those Subjects that are Lords of great Mannors La. 'T is very likely yet I think it will not by every Man be granted Ph. The Statute also says That they who draw Men out of the Realm in Plea whereof the Cognizance pertaineth to the Kings Court or of things whereof Judgment is given in the Kings Court are within the Cases of Premunire But what if one Man draw another to Lambeth in Plea whereof Judgment is already given at Westminster Is he by this Clause involv'd in a Premunire La. Yes For though it be not out of the Realm yet it is within the meaning of the Statute because the Popes Court not the Kings Court was then perhaps at Lambeth Ph. But in Sir Edw. Coke's time the Kings Court was at Lambeth and not the Popes La. You know well enough that the Spiritual-Court has no power to hold Pleas of Common-Law Ph. I do so but I know not for what cause any simple Man that mistakes his right Court should be out of the Kings Protection lose his Inheritance and all his Goods Personal and Real and if taken be kept in Prison all his Life This Statute cannot be by Sir Edw. Cokes Torture made to say it Besides such Men are ignorant in what Courts they are to seek their Remedy And it is a Custom confirmed by perpetual usage that such ignorant Men should be guided by their Council at Law It is manifest therefore that the makers of the Statute intended not to prohibit Men from their suing for their Right neither in the Chancery nor in the Admiralty nor in any other Court except the Ecclesiastical Courts which had their Jurisdiction from the Church of Rome Again where the Statute says which do sue in any other Court or defeat a Judgment in the Kings Court what is the meaning of another Court Another Court than what Is it here meant the Kings-Bench or Court of Common-Pleas Does a Premunire lye for every Man that sues in Chancery for that which might be remedied in the Court of Common-Pleas Or can a Premunire lye by this Statute against the Lord Chancellor The Statute lays it only on the Party that sueth not upon the Judge which holdeth the Plea Nor could it be laid neither by this Statute nor by the Statute of 16 Rich. 2. upon the Judges which were then punishable only by the Popes Authority Seeing then the Party Suing has a just excuse upon the Council of his Lawyer and the Temporal Judge and the Lawyer both are out of the Statute the punishment of the Premunire can light upon no body La. But Sir Edw. Coke in this same Chapter bringeth two Precedents to prove that though the Spiritual-Courts in England be now the Kings Courts yet whosoever sueth in them for any thing tryable by the Common-Law shall fall into a Premunire One is that whereas in the 22d of Hen. 8. all the Clergy of England in a Convocation by publick Instrument acknowledged the King to be Supream Head of the Church of England yet after this viz. 24 of H. 8. this Statute was in force Ph. Why not A Convocation of the Clergy could not alter the Right of Supremacie their Courts were still the Popes Courts The other Precedent in the 25th of Hen. 8. of the Bishop of Norwich may have the same Answer for the King was not declared Head of the Church by Act of Parliament till the 26th year of his Reign If he had not mistrusted his own Law he would not have laid hold on so weak a Proof as these Precedents And as to the Sentence of Premunire upon the Bishop of Norwich neither doth this Statute nor that other of R. 2. warrant it he was sentenced for threatning to excommunicate a Man which had sued another before the Mayor But this Statute forbids not that but forbids the bringing in or publishing of Excommunications or other Process from Rome or any other Place Before the 26 Hen. 8. there is no Question but that for a
and that no deputed Judge could punish an Offender but by force of some Statute or by the words of some Commission and not ex officio They might for a contempt of their Courts because it is a contempt of the King imprison a Man during the Kings pleasure or fine him to the King according to the greatness of the Offence But all this amounteth to no more than to leave him to the Kings Judgment As for cutting off of Ears and for the Pillory and the like corporal Punishments usually inflicted heretofore in the Star-Chamber they were warranted by the Statute of Hen. 7. that giveth them power to punish sometimes by discretion And generally it is a rule of Reason that every Judge of Crimes in case the positive Law appoint no Punishment and he have no other Command from the King then to consult the King before he pronounce Sentence of any irreparable dammage on the Offender For otherwise he doth not pronounce the Law which is his Office to do but makes the Law which is the Office of the King And from this you may collect that the Custome of punishing such and such a Crime in such and such a manner hath not the force of Law in it self but from an assured presumption that the Original of the Custome was the Judgment of some former King And for this Cause the Judges ought not to run up for the Customs by which they are warranted to the time of the Saxon Kings nor to the time of the Conquest For the most immediate antecedent precedents are the fairest warrants of their Judgments as the most recent Laws have commonly the greatest vigor as being fresh in the memory of all Men and tacitly confirmed because not disapprov'd by the Soveraign Legislator What can be said against this La. Sir Edw. Coke 3 Inst. p. 210. in the Chapter of Judgments and Executions saith that of Judgments some are by the Common-Law some by Statute-Law and some by Custome wherein he distinguisheth Common-Law both from Statute-Law and from Custome Ph. But you know that in other places he makes the Common-Law and the Law of Reason to be all one as indeed they are when by it is meant the Kings Reason and then his meaning in this distinction must be that there be Judgments by Reason without Statute-Law and Judgments neither by Statute-Law nor by Reason but by Custome without Reason for if a Custome be Reasonable then both he and other Learned Lawyers say it is Common-Law and if unreasonable no Law at all La. I believe Sir Edw. Coke's meaning was no other than yours in this point but that he inserted the word Custom because there be not many that can distinguish between Customs reasonable and unreasonable Ph. But Custom so far forth as it hath the force of a Law hath more of the nature of a Statute than of the Law of Reason especially where the question is not of Lands and Goods but of Punishments which are to be defined only by authority Now to come to particulars What Punishment is due by Law for High Treason La. To be drawn upon a Hurdle from the Prison to the Gallows and there to be hanged by the Neck and laid upon the ground alive and have his Bowels taken out and burnt whilst he is yet living to have his Head cut off his Body to be divided into four parts and his Head and Quarters to be placed as the King shall assign Ph. Seeing a Judge ought to give Judgment according to the Law and that this Judgment is not appointed by any Statute how does Sir Edw. Coke warrant it by Reason or how by Custom La. Only thus Reason it is that his Body Lands Goods Posterity c. should be torn pulled asunder and destroy'd that intended to destroy the Majesty of Government Ph. See how he avoids the saying the Majesty of the King But does not this Reason make as much for punishing a Traytor as Metius Suffetius in old time was executed by Tullus Hostilius King of Rome or as Ravillac not many years ago in France who were torn in pieces by four Horses as it does for Drawing Hanging and Quartering La. I think it does But he confirms it also in the same Chapter by holy Scripture Thus Joab for Treason 1 Kings 2. 28. was drawn from the horns of the Altar that 's proof for drawing upon a Hurdle Esth. 2. 22. Bithan for Treason was Hang'd there 's for hanging Acts. 1. 18. Judas hanged himself and his Bowels were poured out there 's for hanging and embowelling alive 2 Sam. 18. 14. Joab pierced Absalom's heart that 's proof for pulling out a Traytors heart 2 Sam. 20. 22. Sheba the Son of Bichri had his Head cut off which is proof that a Traytors Head ought to be cut off 2 Sam. 4. 12. They slew Baanah and Rechab and hung up their Heads over the Pool of Hebron this is for setting up of Quarters And Lastly for forfeiture of Lands and Goods Psal. 109. v. 9. 10. c. Let their Children be driven out and beg and other Men make spoil of their labours and let their Memory be blotted out of the Land Ph. learnedly said and no Record is to be kept of the Judgment Also the Punishments divided between those Traytors must be joyn'd in one Judgment for a Traytor here La. He meant none of this but intended his Hand being in to shew his Reading or his Chaplains in the Bible Ph. Seeing then for the specifying of the Punishment in Case of Treason he brings no argument from natural Reason that is to say from the Common Law and that it is manifest that it is not the general Custom of the Land the same being rarely or never executed upon any Peer of the Realm and that the King may remit the whole Penalty if he will it follows that the specifying of the Punishment depends meerly upon the authority of the King But this is certain that no Judge ought to give other Judgment than has been usually given and approv'd either by a Statute or by Consent express or implyed of the Soveraign Power for otherwise it is not the Judgment of the Law but of a Man subject to the Law La. In Petit Treason the Judgment is to be drawn to the place of execution and hang'd by the Neck or if it be a Woman to be drawn and burnt Ph. Can you imagine that this so nice a distinction can have any other foundation than the wit of a private Man La. Sir Edw. Coke upon this place says that she ought not to be beheaded or hanged Ph. No not by the Judge who ought to give no other Judgment than the Statute or the King appoints nor the Sheriff to make other execution than the Judge pronounceth unless he have a special warrant from the King And this I should have thought he had meant had he not said before that the King had given away all his Right of Judicature to his Courts of
King after the report of the Judge heard give the Sheriff command to do it Fourthly that the general verdict of the King hinders not the King but that he may Judge of it upon the special matter for it often happens that an ill-disposed Person provokes a Man with words or otherwise on purpose to make him draw his Sword that he may kill him and pretend it done in his own defence which appearing the King may without any offence to God punish him as the cause shall require Lastly contrary to the Doctrine of Sir Edw. Coke he may in his own Person be Judge in the case and annul the Verdict of the Jury which a deputed Judge cannot do La. There be some cases wherein a Man though by the Jury he be found not Guilty shall nevertheless forfeit his Goods and Chattells to the King For example a Man is slain and one A. hating B. giveth out that it was B. that slew him B. hearing thereof fearing if he be tryed for it that through the great power of A. and others that seek his hurt he should be condemned flieth and afterwards is taken and tryed and upon sufficient evidence is by the Jury found Not Guilty yet because he fled he shall forfeit his Goods and Chattels notwithstanding there be no such Judgment given by the Judge nor appointed by any Statute but the Law it self authoriseth the Sheriff to seize them to the use of the King Ph. I see no reason which is Common-Law for it and am sure it is grounded upon no Statute La. See Sir Edw. Coke Inst. 1. Sect. 709. and read Ph. If a Man that is Innocent be accus'd of Felony and for fear flieth for the same albeit that he be judicially acquitted of the Felony yet if it be found that he fled for the same he shall notwithstanding his Innocence forfeit all his Goods and Chattells Debts and Duties O unchristian and abominable Doctrine which also he in his own words following contradicteth For saith he as to the forfeiture of them the Law will admit no proof against the presumption of the Law grounded upon his flight and so it is in many other cases But that the general Rule is Quod stabitur praesumptioni donec probetur in contrarium but you see it hath many exceptions This general Rule contradicts what he said before for there can be no exceptions to a general Rule in Law that is not expresly made an exception by some Statute and to a general Rule of equity there can be no exception at all From the power of Punishing let us proceed to the power of Pardoning La. Touching the power of Pardoning Sir Edw. Coke says 3 Inst. p. 236. That no Man shall obtain Charter of pardon out of Parliament and cites for it the Statute of 2 Ed. 3. cap. 2. and says farther that accordingly in a Parliament Roll it is said that for the peace of the Land it would help that no pardon were granted but by Parliament Ph. What lawful power would he have left to the King that thus disableth him to practice Mercy In the Statute which he citeth to prove that the King ought not to grant Charters of Pardon but in Parliament there are no such words as any Man may see for that Statute is in Print and that which he says is in the Parliament Roll is but a wish of he tells not whom and not a Law and 't is strange that a private wish should be inroll'd amongst Acts of Parliament If a Man do you an injury to whom think you belongeth the Right of pardoning it La. Doubtless to me alone if to me alone be done that injury and to the King alone if to him alone be done the injury and to both together if the injury be done to both Ph. What part then has any Man in the granting of a pardon but the King and the party wrong'd if you offend no Member of either House why should you ask their pardon It is possible that a Man may deserve a pardon or he may be such a one sometimes as the defence of the Kingdom hath need of may not the King pardon him though there be no Parliament then sitting Sir Edw. Coke's Law is too general in this point and I believe if he had thought on 't he would have excepted some Persons if not all the Kings Children and his Heir apparent and yet they are all his Subjects and subject to the Law as other Men. La. But if the King shall grant pardons of Murder and Felony of his own head there would be very little safety for any Man either out of his House or in it either by Night or by Day And for that very cause there have been many good Statutes provided which forbid the Justices to allow of such pardons as do not specially name the Crime Ph. Those Statutes I confess are reasonable and very profitable which forbid the Judge to pardon Murders but what Statute is there that forbids the King to do it There is a Statute of 13 Rich. 2. c. 1. wherein the King promiseth not to pardon Murder but there is in it a clause for the saving of the Kings Regality From which may be inferr'd that the King did not grant away that power when he thought good to use it for the Common-wealth Such Statutes are not Laws to the King but to his Judges and though the Judges be commanded by the King not to allow pardons in many cases yet if the King by writing command the Judges to allow them they ought to do it I think if the King think in his conscience it be for the good of the Common-wealth he sinneth not in it but I hold not that the King may pardon him without sin if any other Man be damnified by the Crime committed unless he cause reparation to be made as far as the party offending can do it And howsoever be it sin or not sin there is no power in England that may resist him or speak evil of him lawfully La. Sir Edw. Coke denies not that and upon that ground it is that the King he says may pardon high Treason for there can be no high Treason but against the King Ph. That 's well therefore he confesseth that whatsoever the offence be the King may pardon so much of it as is an injury to himself and that by his own right without breach of any Law positive or natural or of any grant if his Conscience tell him that it be not to the dammage of the Common-wealth and you know that to judge of what is good or evil to the Common-wealth belongeth to the King only Now tell me what it is which is said to be pardoned La. What can it be but only the offence If a Man hath done a Murder and be pardoned for the same is it not the Murder that is pardoned Ph. Nay by your favour if a Man be pardoned for Murder or any other offence it is the Man that is
so nor do I see any reason to the contrary For the Subjects whether they come into the Family have no title at all to demand any part of the Land or any thing else but security to which also they are bound to contribute their whole strength and if need be their whole fortunes For it cannot be supposed that any one Man can protect all the rest with his own single strength And for the Practice it is manifest in all Conquests the Land of the vanquished is in the sole power of the Victor and at his disposal Did not Joshua and the high-Priest divide the Land of Canaan in such sort among the Tribes of Israel as they pleased Did not the Roman and Graecian Princes and States according to their own discretion send out the Colonies to inhabit such Provinces as they had Conquered Is there at this day among the Turks any inheritor of Land besides the Sultan And was not all the Land in England once in the hands of William the Conqueror Sir Edw. Coke himself confesses it therefore it is an universal truth that all Conquer'd Lands presently after Victory are the Lands of him that Conquer'd them La. But you know that all Soveraigns are said to have a double Capacity viz. a natural Capacity as he is a Man and a a politick Capacity as a King In his politick Capacity I grant you that King William the Conqueror was the proper and only owner once of all the Land in England but not in his natural Capacity Ph. If he had them in his politick Capacity then they were so his own as not to dispose of any part thereof but only to the benefit of his People and that must be either by his own or by the Peoples discretion that is by Act of Parliament But where do you find that the Conqueror disposed of his Lands as he did some to English-men some to French-men and some to Normans to be holden by divers Tenures as Knight-service Soccage c. by Act of Parliament Or that he ever called a Parliament to have the assent of the Lords and Commons of England in disposing of those Lands he had taken from them Or for retaining of such and such Lands in his own hands by the name of Forrests for his own Recreation or Magnificence You have heard perhaps that some Lawyers or other Men reputed wise and good Patriots have given out that all the Lands which the Kings of England have possessed have been given them by the People to the end that they should therewith defray the Charges of their Wars and pay the wages of their Ministers and that those Lands were gained by the Peoples Money for that was pretended in the late Civil War when they took from the King his Town of Kingston upon Hull but I know you do not think that the pretence was just It cannot therefore be denyed but that Land which King William the Conqueror gave away to English-men and others and which they now hold by his Letters Patents and other conveyances were properly and really his own or else the Titles of them that now hold them must be invalid La. I assent As you have shewed me the beginning of Monarchies so let me hear your opinion concerning their growth Ph. Great Monarchies have proceeded from small Families First by War wherein the Victor not only enlarged his Territory but also the number and riches of his Subjects As for other forms of Common-wealths they have been enlarged otherways First by a voluntary conjunction of many Lords of Families into one great Aristocracie Secondly by Rebellion proceeded first Anarchy and from Anarchy proceeded any form that the Calamities of them that lived therein did prompt them to whether it were that they chose an Hereditary King or an elective King for life or that they agreed upon a Council of certain Persons which is Aristocracy or a Council of the whole People to have the Soveraign Power which is Democracy After the first manner which is by War grew up all the greatest Kingdoms in the World viz. the Aegyptian Assyrian Persian and the Macedonian Monarchy and so did the great Kingdoms of England France and Spain The second manner was the original of the Venetian Aristocracy by the third way which is Rebellion grew up in divers great Monarchies perpetually changing from one form to another as in Rome rebellion against Kings produced Democracy upon which the Senate usurped under Sylla and the People again upon the Senate under Marius and the Emperor usurped upon the People under Caesar and his Successors La. Do you think the distinction between natural and politick Capacity is insignificant Ph. No If the Soveraign power be in an assembly of Men that Assembly whether it be Aristocratical or Democratical may possess Lands but it is in their politick Capacity because no natural Man has any right to those Lands or any part of them in the same manner they can command an Act by plurality of Commands but the Command of any one of them is of no effect But when the Soveraign power is in one Man the Natural and Politick Capacity are in the same Person and as to possession of Lands undistinguishable But as to the Acts and Commands they may be well distinguished in this manner Whatsoever a Monarch does Command or do by consent of the People of his Kingdom may properly be said to be done in his politick Capacity and whatsoever he Commands by word of Mouth only or by Letters Signed with his hand or Sealed with any of his private Seals is done in his natural Capacity Nevertheless his publick Commands though they be made in his politick Capacity have their original from his natural Capacity For in the making of Laws which necessarily requires his assent his assent is natural Also those Acts which are done by the King previously to the passing of them under the Great Seal of England either by word of Mouth or warrant under his Signet or privy Seal are done in his natural Capacity but when they have past the Seal of England they are to be taken as done in his politick Capacity La. I think verily your distinction is good For natural Capacity and politick Capacity signifie no more than private and publick right Therefore leaving this argument let us consider in the next place as far as History will permit what were the Laws and Customs of our Ancestors Ph. The Saxons as also all the rest of Germany not Conquer'd by the Roman Emperors nor compelled to use the imperial Laws were a Savage and Heathen People living only by War and Rapine and as some learned Men in the Roman Antiquities affirm had their name of Germans from that their ancient trade of life as if Germans and Hommes de guerre were all one Their rule over their Family Servants and Subjects was absolute their Laws no other than natural Equity written Law they had little or none and very few there were in the time
Kings of those times had not means enough and to spare if God were not their Enemy to defend their People against Forreign Enemies and also to compell them to keep the Peace amongst themselves Ph. And so had had the succeeding Kings if they had never given their rights away and their Subjects always kept their Oaths and promises In what manner proceeded those Ancient Saxons and other Nations of Germany especially the Northern parts to the making of their Laws La. Sir Edw. Coke out of divers Saxon Laws gathered and published in Saxon and Latine by Mr. Lambert inferreth that the Saxon Kings for the making of their Laws called together the Lords and Commons in such manner as is used at this day in England But by those Laws of the Saxons published by Mr. Lambert it appeareth that the Kings called together the Bishops and a great part of the wisest and discreetest Men of the Realm and made Laws by their advice Ph. I think so for there is no King in the World being of ripe years and sound mind that made any Law otherwise for it concerns them in their own interest to make such Laws as the people can endure and may keep them without impatience and live in strength and courage to defend their King and Countrey against their potent neighbours But how was it discerned and by whom was it determined who were those wisest and discreetest Men It is a hard matter to know who is wisest in our times We know well enough who chooseth a Knight of the Shire and what Towns are to send Burgesses to the Parliament therefore if it were determined also in those dayes who those wise Men should be then I confess that the Parliaments of the old Saxons and the Parliaments of England since are the same thing and Sir Edw. Coke is in the right Tell me therefore if you can when those Towns which now send Burgesses to the Parliament began to do so and upon what cause one Town had this priviledge and another Town though much more populous had not La. At what time began this custom I cannot tell but I am sure it is more ancient than the City of Salisbury because there come two Burgesses to Parliament for a place near to it called Old Sarum which as I Rid in sight of it if I should tell a stranger that knew not what the word Burgess meant he would think were a couple of Rabbets the place looketh so like a long Cony-Borough And yet a good Argument may be drawn from thence that the Townsmen of every Town were the Electors of their own Burgesses and Judges of their discretion and that the Law whether they be discreet or not will suppose them to be discreet till the contrary be apparent Therefore where it is said that the King called together the more discreet Men of his Realm it must be understood of such Elections as are now in use By which it is manifest that those great and general Moots assembled by the old Saxon Kings were of the same nature with the Parliaments assembled since the Conquest Ph. I think your reason is good For I cannot conceive how the King or any other but the inhabitants of the Boroughs themselves can take notice of the discretion or sufficiency of those they were to send to the Parliament And for the Antiquity of the Burgess-Towns since it is not mentioned in any History or certain Record now extant it is free for any Man to propound his conjecture You know that this Land was invaded by the Saxons at several times and conquered by pieces in several Wars so that there were in England many Kings at once and every of them had his Parliament and therefore according as there were more or fewer walled Towns within each Kings Dominion his Parliament had the more or fewer Burgesses But when all these lesser Kingdoms were joyned into one then to that one Parliament came Burgesses from all the Burroughs of England And this perhaps may be the reason why there be so many more such Burroughs in the West than in any other part of the Kingdom the West being more populous and also more obnoxious to invaders and for that cause having greater store of Towns Fortified This I think may be the original of that priviledge which some Towns have to send Burgesses to the Parliament and others have not La. The Conjecture is not improbable and for want of greater certainty may be allowed But seeing it is commonly receiv'd that for the making of a Law there ought to be had the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal whom do you account in the Parliaments of the old Saxons for Lords Temporal and whom for Lords Spiritual For the Book called The mode of holding Parliaments agreeth punctually with the manner of holding them at this day and was written as Sir Edw. Coke says in the time of the Saxons and before the Conquest Ph. Mr. Selden a greater Antiquary than Sir Edw. Coke in the last Edition of his Book of Titles of Honour says that that Book called the Mode c. was not written till about the time of Rich. 2. and seems to me to prove it But howsoever that be it is apparent by the Saxon Laws set forth by Mr. Lambert that there were always called to the Parliament certain great Persons called Aldermen alias Earls and so you have a House of Lords and a House of Commons Also you will find in the same place that after the Saxons had received the Faith of Christ those Bishops that were amongst them were always at the great Mootes in which they made their Laws Thus you have a perfect English Parliament saving that the name of Barons was not amongst them as being a French Title which came in with the Conqueror FINIS The King is the Supream Judge