to distribute this Declaration in all their Churches which was to tell the People they ought to be under no Law in this Case which surely was a very great Pressure both in point of Law and Conscience too they lying under such Obligations to the contrary as they did With submission to your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury If they did deliver this Petition Publishing of it I will not talk of or there has been no proof of a Publication but a delivering of a Petition to his Majesty in the most secret and decent manner that could be imagined My Lords the Bishops are not guilty of the Matter Charged upon them in this Information it has been expresly proved that they did not go to disperse it abroad but only deliver'd it to the King himself And in short my Lord if this should be a Libel I know not how sad the Condition of us all would be it we may not Petition when we suffer Mr. Finch My Lord I Challenge them to shew us any one Instance of such a Declaration such a General Dispensation of Laws from the Conquest till 1672. The first Umbrage of such a thing is that of 〈◊〉 1662 but your Lordship heâ—…s the Declaration of the Parliament upon it Before that as there was no such thing so your Lordship sees what the Parliament did to enable the King not to do this thing but something like it in Richard the Seconds Time where you see the Parliament did give the King a Power to Dispense with the Statute of Provisors for a time but at the same time declared that very Grant of their own to be a Novelty and that it should not be drawn into Consequence or Example My Lord we shall leave it upon this Point to suspend Laws is all one as to abrogate Laws for so long as a Law is suspended whether the Suspension be Temporary or whether it be for ever whether it be at once or at several times the Law is abrogated to all Intents and Purposes But the Abrogation of Laws is part of the Legislature that Legislative Power is lodged as I said before and I could never find it otherwise in all our Law in King Lords and Commons Ld. Ch. Iust. You did open that before Mr. Finch Mr. Finch With this my Lord That my Lords the Bishops finding this Order made upon them to publish this Declaration did what in Duty they were bound to do and unless the Jury do find that they have done that which is contrary to Law and to the Duty of their places and that this Petition is a Libel and a seditious Libel with an intent to stir up Sedition among the People We rely upon it My Lords the Bishops can never be found Guilty upon this Information Ld. Ch. Iust. Have you now done Gentlemen Mr. Finch Yes my Lord till they give us further occasion if they have any other Evidence to offer we must Answer it if not this is the Answer we give to what they have said Mr. Solicit Gen. We make no Bargain with you If you have done say so Ld. Ch. Iust. You must know that you are not to have the last word Mr. Solicit Gen. You have been three hours already if you have any more to say pray conclude Mr. Finch If they say they have no more Evidence then we know what we have to do Ld. Ch. Iust. If you do say any thing more pray let me advise you one thing don't say the same thing over and over again for after so much time spent it is â—…irksome to all Company as well as to me Mr. Finch My Lord we have no more Evidence to offer to your Lordship at present unless they by offering new Evidence give us occasion to Reply upon them Ld. Ch. Iust. Gentlemen you shall have all the Legal favour and advantage that can be but pray let us keep to an orderly decent Method of proceeding Sr. Rob. Sawyer Pray my Lord favour me a word before we conclude My Lord I do find very few Attempts of this Nature in any Kings Reign In the Reign of Henry the Fourth there was an Act of Parliament that Foreigners should have a Free Trade in the City of London notwithstanding the Franchises of London after the Parliament rose the King issued out his Proclamation forbidding the Execution of that Law and Commanding that it should be in Suspence Usque ad Proximum Parliamentum yet that was held to be against Law. Ld. Ch. Iust. Sir Robert Sawyer that which you are to look to is the publishing of this Paper and whether it be a Libel or no. And as to the business of the Parliaments you mentioned they are not to the purpose Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord I say I would put it where the Question truly lyes if they don't dispute the Point then we need not labour it but I dont know whether they will or no and therefore I beg your Lordships favour to mention one Case more and that is upon the Statute of 31 Hen. 8. cap. 8. Which enables the King by Proclamation in many Cases to create the Law which Statute was repealed by 1. Edw. 6. cap. 12. That very Act does recite that the Law is not to be altered or restrained but by Act of Parliament and therefore the Parliament enables the King to do so and so But that was such a Power that the Parliament thought not fit to continue and it was afterwards Repealed but it shews that at that time the Parliament was of the same Opinion as to this Matter that other Parliaments have been since Mr. Sommers My Lord I would only mention the great Case of Thomas and Sorrel in the Exchequer Chamber upon the validity of a Dispensation of the Statute of Edward the Sixth touching Selling of Wine There it was the Opinion of every one of the Judges and they did lay it down as a setled Position that there never could be an Abrogation or a Suspension which is a Temporary Abrogation of an Act of Parliament but by the Legislative Power That was a Foundation laid down quite thorough the debate of that Case Indeed it was disputed how far the King might dispense with the Penalties in such a particular Law as to particular Persons but it was agreed by all that the King had no power to suspend any Law And my Lord I dare Appeal to Mr. Attorney General himself whether in the Case of Godden and Hales which was lately in this Court to make good that Dispensation he did not use it as an Argument then that it could not be expounded into a Suspension He admitted it not to be in Kings power to suspend a Law but that he might give a Dispensation to a particular Person was all that he took upon him to justifie at that time My Lord by the Law of all civilized Nations if the Prince does require something to be done which the Person who is to do it takes to be unlawful
follow the Nature of the Fact that I need not insist upon it if the Act be unlawful the Law supplies the Malice and evil Intentions Mr. Solicit Gen. My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury I am of Counsel in this Case for the King and I shall take leave to proceed in this Method First I shall put the Case of my Lords the Bishops and then consider the Arguments that have been used in their Defence and answer them as much as is material to be answered and then leave it to your Lordship and the Juries Consideration whether what has been said by these Gentlemen weigh any thing in this Case First my Lord I take it for granted and I think the Matter is pretty plain by this time by my Lord Presidents Evidence and their own Confession that it is not to be disputed but that this Paper was presented by these Lords to the King I think there is no great difficulty in that Matter at all but I just touch upon it because I would follow them in their own Method Then my Lord let us take this Case as it is upon the Nature of the Petition and the Evidence that they have given and then let us see whether that will justifie the thing that is done For the business of Petitioning I would distinguish and enquire Whether my Lords the Bishops out of Parliament can present any Petition to the King I do agree that in Parliament the Lords and Commons may make Addresses to the King and signifie their Desires and make known their Grievances there and there is no doubt but that is a natural and proper way of Application For in the beginning of the Parliament there are Receivers of Petitions appointed and upon Debates there are Committees appointed to draw up Petitions and Addresses but to come and deduce an Argument that because the Lords in Parliament have done thus there being such Methods of Proceedings usual in Parliaments therefore my Lords the Bishops may do it out of Parliament that is certainly a Non sequitur no such Conclusion can be drawn from those Premises My Lord I shall endeavour to lay the Fact before you as it really is and then Consider what is proper for the Court to take notice of as Legal Proof or Evidence And I take it all those Presidents that they have produced of what the Lords did and what the Commons did in Parliament is no Warrant for them to shelter themselves under against the Information here in Question Here Mr. Iust. Powel spake aside to the Lord Chief Iustice thus Mr. Iust. Powel My Lord this is strange Doctrine shall not the Subject have Liberty to Petition the King but in Parliament If that be Law the Subject is in a miserable Case Ld. Ch. Iust. Brother let him go on we will hear him out tho' I approve not of his Position Mr. Solicit General The Lords may Address to the King in Parliament and the Commons may do it but therefore that the Bishops may do it out of Parliament does not follow I heard nothing said that could have given Colour to such a thing but the Curse that has been read in 1 Elizabeth But pray my Lord let us consider that Evidence they have given they have begun with that Record in Richard the Seconds time and what is that That the King may dispeâ—…se with the Statute of Provisors till the meeting of the next Parliament and a Protestation of the Commons at the end of it whether that be an Act of Parliament that is Declaratory of the Common Law or Introductory of a new Law Non Constat and for ought appears it might be a Declaratory Act And if so it is a Proof of the Kings Prerogative of Dispensing It might be an Act in Affirmance of the Kings Prerogative as there are a great many such we very well know and generally most of the Laws in that kind are in Affirmance of the Kings power so that the Law turns as an Argument for the King Prerogative and they have given him that which will turn upon themselves so it stood in Richard the Seconds time but whether that be an Argument one way or other Conclusive is lest to your Lordship and the Jury Ay but say they there is no Execution of such a Power till very lately and the first Instance that they produce is that in the Year 1662. But your Lordship knows that before the Râ—…ign of Henry the Fourth there was great Jurisdiction assumed by the Lords in Original Causes then comes the Statute of Appeals 1 Hen. 4. which takes notice that before that time the Lords had assumed an Original Jurisdiction in all Causes and would proceed and determine them in Parliament and out of Parliament and it fell out to be so great a Grievance that it was thought necessary to make a Law against it that Appeals in Parliament should be abolished and destroyed and then comes that Law in favour of the Subject of England and that settles the bounds between the King and the Lords in a great measure before that time the Lords were grown very powerful and where there is a Power there always will be Applications and what is the effect of that Statute 1 Hen. 4. for all that we endeavour is to make things as plain can be that no further Applications no Accusations no Proceedings in any Case whatsoever be before the Lords in Parliament unless it be by Impeachment of the Commons so that there is the Salvo and the use that I make of it is this The Commons by that very Statute did abolish the Power that the Lords had arrogated to themselves and Ordered that they should not meddle with any Cause but upon the Impeachment of the House of Commons and establish the Impeachment of the Commons which is as ancient as the Parliament for that was never yet spoken against the Power of the Commons Impeaching any Person under the degree of the Prince and that is the regular legal way and so the Commons asserted their Ancient Right and whatsoever the Lords took notice of must come by Application of the Commons then Conferences were to pass between the Houses and both Houses by Address apply to the King this is the proper way and course of Parliament of which thy Lord Cook says It is known to few and practised by fewer but it is a Venareble Honourable way and this is the Course that should have been taken by my Lords here and they should have stayed till the Complaint had come from the Commons in Parliament and then it had been Regular for them to Address to the King but they were too Quick too Nimble And whereas the Statute of Hen. 4. says That no Lord whatsoever shall intermeddle with any Cause but by the Impeachment of the Commons they interpose and give their advice before their time if there be any Irregularity in Parliament or out of Parliament the Commons are to make their Complaint of it
and a Man must not be his own Judg nor his own Carver nor must every Man create Difficulties of his own nor set upon Petitioning in this sort But there I lay my Foundation That in such a matter as this there ought to have been the Impeachment of the Commons in Parliament before these Lords could do any thing and I know nothing can be said for the Bishops more than this That they were under an Anathema under the Curse that Sir Robert Sawyer speaks of and for fear of that they took this Irregular Course But some would say Better fall into the hands of God than of Men some would say so I say I know not what they would say but these being the Methods that these Lords should have taken they should have pursued that Method the Law should have carved out their Relief and Remedy for them but they were for going by a new Fancy of their Own. My Lord the Law continued thus and was practised so till the 3. Hen. 7. where the Grievance was found that Offences in the Intervals of Parliament could not be well punished and then comes the Statute that sets up the Court of Star-Chamber and there Men were often brought to Judgment and Punishment for their Sins and though very great Power was given them yet they arrogated to themselves a greater and therefore that Court is abolished by the Statute of the 15th Car. 1. and what is the reason of abolishing that Statute Because the Star-Chamber did not keep within their bounds that the Law set them but assumed to themselves a larger Power than the Law would allow and grew very Exorbitant and very Grievous to the Subject And another reason was which the Statute of 15th Car. 1. founded it self upon because there was nothing that was brought in Judgment before that Court but might be relieved and remedied in the oridinary methods of Justice in the Courts of Westminster Hall So that upon those two Considerations because that Course was exorbitant and because all the Sins and Misdemeanours that were punished there might be punished in an ordinary way of Law in another Court and therefore there was no need of that Court and so it was abolished and the Subject was pretty safe If there was a Crime committed here a Man might come properly before your Lordship into this Court and have it punished My Lord they find fault with the Words in the Information and they say why are these Words put in Seditious Malicious If the matter be Libellous and Seditious we may Lawfully say it and it is no more than the Law speaks it results out of the Matter it self and if it be a Libellous Paper the Law says it is Maliciously and Seditiously done and these Gentlemen need not quarrel with us for so are all the Informations in all times past and 't is no more than the Vi Armis which is Common Form. It may be said How can the publishing of a Libel be said to be done Vi Armis That is only a Supposition of Law and they may as well Object to the conclusion of the Information that it was Contra Coronam Dignitatem Domini Regis if it be an Illegal thing or a Libel these are necessary Consequences it is no more than the speaking of the Law upon the Fact. But my Lord let us a little consider whether this Matter were Warrantable and whether they had any Warrant to do what was done they pretend it was done upon this Account That the King had set forth a Declaration and had Ordered them to Read it which to excuse themselves from they make this Petition or this Libel call it what you will and they use this as the main Argument That they say the King has done Illegally and they tell the King plainly so that it is Illegal for they take notice of this Declaration and say it is Illegal because it is contrary to the Declarations of Parliament in 1662 1672 and 1685. Pray my Lord let us consider a little whether there be any Declaration in Parliament that they have given Evidence of Have they read any Declaration of the Parliament in 1662 What is a Declaration in Parliament but a Bill that is passed by the King Lords and Commons That we know to be the meaning and no other if it pass the Commons it is no Declaration in Parliament nay if it pass the Lords and Commons it is not a Declaration in Parliament except it also pass the King all these things are Nullities and the Law takes no notice of them we have it in our Books over and over and no Court ought to suffer such Evidence to be given I know these Gentlemen are very well acquainted with the Authority in Fitz-Herbert's Title Parliament there was an Act that was said to be by the King and the Lords but because the Commons did not agree to it it is declared and adjudged to be a Nullity and the Court would take no notice of it and how can any Man call that a Declaration in Parliament which is only a Vote of the House of Commons or of the Lords No sure that is one of the Heads I go upon It 's not a Declaration in Parliament unless it be by Act of Parliament Indeed my Lord there is another sort of a Declaration in Parliament before the Lords as they are a Court of Judicature and that is a fair Declaration too for if any thing comes Judicially before the Lords either by Writ of Error or by natural Appeal from any of the other Courts or by Adjournment and there be any Judgment given That is a Declaration in Parliament and may be fairly so called So likewise there is another Judicial Declaration which is when any thing comes before the Lords Judicially upon an Impeachment of the Commons and they give Judgment upon that Impeachment That is a Declaration in Parliament But to say that there is any other Declaration in Parliament is to say more than these Gentlemen can make out if they will shew me any such I will submit to them and not speak a Word against my Lords the Bishops but if these Learned Gentlemen cannot shew me any such then they have not said that was true in this Petition that it was so and so declared in Parliament For let us consider what there is in this Case upon this Evidence for that in 1662. is only a Vote and an Opinion of the House of Commons and I always understood and have been told so by some of the Gentlemen of the other side that such a Vote signifies nothing But besides it seems to be a mistaken Address for they say in it That the Declaration in 1662. which they Address against was the first Declaration of that sort to suspend Laws without Act of Parliament and yet in the same breath they do take notice of the King's Declaration from Breda But here is a mighty Argument used from the King's Speech That
giving Reasons for the Disobedience in a Libellous Petition and I am going on to that The Declaration is said in the Petition to be Illegal which is a Charge upon the King That he has done an Illegal Act. They say they cannot in Honor Conscience or Prudence do it which is a Reflection upon the Prudence Justice and Honour of the King in Commanding them to do such a thing And this appearing to have been delivered to the King by my Lords the Bishops Persons to whom certainly we all owe a Deference as our Spiritual Masters to believe what things they say as most likely to be true and therefore it having an Universal Influence upon all the People I shall leave it here to your Lordship and the Jury whether they ought not to Answer for it Mr. Recorder Will your Lordship please to spare me one Word L. Ch. Iust. I hope we shall have done by and by Mr. Recorder If your Lordship don't think fit I can sit down L. Ch. Iust. No no go on Sir Barth Shore you 'll say I have spoiled a good Speech Mr. Recorder I have no good one to make my Lord I have but a very few Words to say L. Ch. Iust. Well go on Sir. Mr. Recorder That which I would urge my Lord is only this I think my Lord we have Proved one Information and that they have made no Answer to it for the Answer they have made is but Argumentative and taken either from the Persons of the Defendants as Peers or from the Form of its being a Petition As Peers it is said they have a Right to Petition to and Advise the King but that is no Excuse at all for if it contains Matter Reproachful or Scandalous it is a Libel in Them as well as in any other Subject and they have no more Right to Libel the King than His Majesties other Subjects have nor will the Priviledge of their Peerage exempt them from being Punished And for the Form of this Paper as being a Petition there is no more Excuse in that neither For every Man has as much Right to Publish a Book or Pamphlet as they had to Present their Petition And as it would be Punishable in that Man to Write a Scandalous Book so it would be Punishable in them to make a Scandalous and a Libellous Petition And the Author of Iulian the Apostate because he was a Clergy Man and a Learned Man too had as much Right to Publish his Book as my Lords the Bishops had to Deliver this Libel to the King. And if the City of London were so severely Punished as to lose their Charter for Petitioning for the Sitting of a Parliament in which there were Reflecting Words but more Soft Mr. Iust. Holloway Pray good Mr. Recorder don't compair the Writing of a Book to the Making of a Petition for it 's the Birth-right of the Subject to Petition Mr. Recorder My Lord it was as Lawful for the City of London to Petition for the Sitting of a Parliament as it was for my Lords the Bishops to give Reasons for their Disobedience to the King's Command And if the Matter of the City of Londons Petition was reckoned to be Libellous in saying that what the King had done in Dissolving the Parliament was an Obstruction of Justice what other Construction can be made of my Lords the Bishops saying that the King's Declaration is Illegal And if the Matter of this Petition be of the same Nature with that of the City of London your Lordship can make no other Judgment of it but that it ought to have the same Condemnation Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Recorder you will as soon bring the Two Poles together as make this Petition to agree with Iohnson's Book they are no more alike than the most different things you can name Mr. Serj. Trinder My Lord I have but one Word L. Ch. Iust. How unreasonable is this now that we must have so many Speeches at this time of Day But we must hear it go on Brother Mr. Serj. Trinder My Lord if your Lordship pleases That which they seem most to insist upon on the other side and which has not been much spoken to on our side is That this Power which His Majesty has Exerted in setting forth His Declaration was Illegal and their Arguments were Hypothetical If it were Illegal they had not Offended and they offered at some Arguments to prove it Illegal But as to that my Lord we need not go much further than a Case that is very well known here which I crave leave to mention only because the Jury perhaps have not heard of it and that was the Case of Sir Edward Hales where after a long Debate it was Resolved That the King had a Power to Dispense with Penal Laws But my Lord if I should go higher into our Books of Law that which they seem to make so strange of might easily be made appear to have been a frequent and constant practice L. Ch. Iust. That is quite out of the Case Brother Mr. Serj. Trinder I beg your Lorships Favour for a Word or two if your Lordship please to Consider the Power the King has as Supreme Ordinary we say he has a Power to Dispense with these Statutes as he is King and to give Ease to his Subjects as Supreme Ordinary of the whole Kingdom and as having Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority throughout the Kingdom There might be abundance of Cases cited for this if there were need the Statute of primo Eliz. doubtless is in Force at this time and a great many of the Statutes that have been made since that time have express Savings of the King's Supremacy so that the King's Power is Unquestionable And if they have come and Questioned this Power in this manner by referring themselves to the Declarations in Parliament they have done that which of late Days has been always look'd upon as an Ill thing as if the King's Authority was under the Suffrages of a Parliament But when they come to make out their Parliament Declarations there was never a one unless it be first in Richard the Seconds time that can properly be called a Parliament Declaration so that that of the several Parliaments is a Matter perfectly mistaken and if they have mistaken it it is in the Nature of false News which is a Crime for which the Law will Punish them More things might be added but I consider your Lordship has had a great deal of Patience already and much time has been spent and therefore I shall conclude begging your Lordships Pardon for what I have said L. Ch. Iust. I do assure you if it had not been a Case of great Concern I would not have heard you so long It is a Case of very great Concern to the King and the Government on the one side and to my Lords the Bishops on the other and I have taken all the Care I can to observe what has been said on both sides 'T
is always for the Good of the People but I say those Concessions must not be made Law for that is reserved in the King's Breast to do what he pleases in it at any time The truth of it is the Dispensing Power is out of the Case it is only a Word used in the Petition but truly I will not take upon me to give my Opinion in the Question to determine that now for it is not before me The only Question before me is and so it is before you Gentlemen it being a Question of Fact Whether here be a certain Proof of a Publication And then the next Question is a Question of Law indeed Whether if there be a Publication proved it be a Libel Gentlemen upon the point of the Publication I have summed up all the Evidence to you and if you believe that the Petition which these Lords presented to the King was this Petition truly I think that is a Publication sufficient if you do not believe it was this Petition then my Lords the Bishops are not Guilty of what is laid to their Charge in this Information and consequently there needs no Inquiry whether they are Guilty of a Libel But if you do believe that this was the Petition they presented to the King then we must come to Inquire whether this be a Libel Now Gentlemen any thing that shall disturb the Government or make Mischief and a Stir among the People is certainly within the Case of Libellis Famosis and I must in short give you my Opinion I do take it to be a Libel Now this being a point of Law if my Brothers have any thing to say to it I suppose they will deliver their Opinions Mr. Iust. Holloway Look you Gentlemen it is not usual for any Person to say any thing after the Chief Justice has summed up the Evidence it is not according to the Course of the Court but this is a Case of an Extraordinary Nature and there being a point of Law in it it is fit every body should deliver their own Opinion The Question is whether this Petition of my Lords the Bishops be a Libel or no Gentlemen the End and Intention of every Action is to be Considered and likewise in this Case we are to Consider the Nature of the Offence that these Noble Persons are Charged with it is for delivering a Petition which according as they have made their Defence was with all the Humility and Decency that could be So that if there was ill Intent and they were not as it is nor can be pretended they were Men of Evil Lives or the like to deliver a Petition cannot be a Fault it being the Right of every Subject to Petition If you are satisfied there was an ill Intention of Sedition or the like you ought to find them Guilty but if there be nothing in the Case that you find but only that they did deliver a Petition to save themselves harmless and to free themselves from blame by shewing the Reason of their Disobedience to the King's Command which they apprehended to be a Grievance to them and which they could not in Conscience give Obedience to I cannot think it is a Libel It is left to you Gentlemen but that is my Opinion L. Oh. Iust. Look you by the way Brother I did not ask you to sum up the Evidence for that is not usual but only to deliver your Opinion whether it be a Libel or no. Mr. Iust. Powel Truly I cannot see for my part any thing of Sedition or any other Crime fixed upon these Reverend Fathers my Lords the Bishops For Gentlemen to make it a Libel it must be False it must be Malicious and it must tend to Sedition as to the Falshood I see nothing that is offered by the King's Councel nor any thing as to the Malice It was preferred with all the Humility and Decency that became the King's Subjects to approach their Prince with Now Gentlemen the Matter of it is before you you are to Consider of it and it is worth your Consideration they tell his Majesty It is not out of aversness to pay all due Obedience to the King nor out of a want of tenderness to their dissenting Fellow Subjects that made them not perform the Command imposed upon them but they say That because they do conceive that the thing that was Commanded them was against the Law of the Land therefore they do desire his Majesty that he would be pleased to forbear to insist upon it that they should perforâ—…â—…hat Command which they take to be Illegal Gentlemen we must Consider what they say is Illegall in it they say they apprehend the Declaration is Illegal because it is founded upon a Dispensing Power which the King claims to Dispense with the Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs Gentlemen I do not remember in any Case in all our Law and I have taken some Pains upon this Occasion to look into it that there is any such Power in the King and the Case must turn upon that in short If there be no such Dispensing Power in the King then that can be no Libel which they presented to the King which says that the Declaration being founded upon such a pretended Power is Illegal Now Gentlemen this is a Dispensation with a Witness it amounts to an Abrogation and utter Repeal of all the Laws for I can see no difference nor know of none iâ—… Law between the King's Power to Dispense with Laws Ecclesiastical and his Power to Dispense with any other Laws whatsoever If this be once allowed of there will need no Parliament all the Legislature will be in the King which is a thing worth Considering and I leave the Issue to God and your Consciences Mr. Iust. Allybone The single Question that falls to my share is to give my Sense of this Petition whether it shall be in Construction of Law a Libel in it self or a thing of great Innocence I shall endeavour to express my self in as plain Terms as I can and as much as I can by way of Proposition And I think in the first place That no Man can take upon him to write against the actual Exercise of the Government unless he have leave from the Government but he makes a Libel be what he writes true or false for if once we come to impeach the Government by way of Argument 't is the Argument that makes it the Government or not the Government So that I lay down that in the first place That the Government ought not to be impeached by Argument nor the Exercise of the Government shaken by Argument because I can manage a Proposition in it self doubtful with a better Pen than another Man This say I is a Libel Then I lay down this for my next Position That no private Man can take upon him to write concerning the Government at all for what has any private Man to do with the Government if his Interest be not stirred or
they are not Evidence L. Ch. Iust. No I don't intend they shall Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we pray they may have the whole Petition Mr. Iust. Holloway That is with the Direction and Prayer you mean. Mr. Attorn Gen. Yes with all our Hearts Then the Court arose and the Iury went together to Consider of their Verdict and stayed together all Night without Fire or Candle On Saturday the 30th Day of June Anno Dom. 1688. about Ten of the Clock in the Morning the Archbishop and the rest of the Bishops came again into the Court and immediately after the Iury were brought to the Bar. Sir Sam. Astry Cryer Take the Appearance of the Jury Sir Roger Langley Sir Rog. Langley Here. Cryer Vous avez c. And so all the rest were called and answered Then Proclamation for Silence was made Sir. Sam. Astry Gentlemen are you agreed on your Verdict Iury. Yes Sir Sam. Astry Who shall say for you Iury. Foreman Sir Sam. Astry Do you find the Defendants or any of them Guilty of the Misdemeanour whereof they are Impeached or not Guilty Foreman NOT GUILTY Sir Sam. Astry Then hearken to your Verdict as the Court hath Recorded it You say the Defendants and every of them are NOT GUILTY of the Misdemeanour whereof they are Impeached and so you say all Iury. Yes At which there were several great Shouts in the Court and throughout the Hall. Mr. Sollicitor General taking Notice of some Persons in Court that Shouted moved very earnestly that they might be committed whereupon a Gentleman of Grays Inn was laid hold on but was soon after Discharged And after the Shouting was over the Lord Chief Iustice reproving the Gentleman said L. Ch. Iust. Sir I am as glad as you can be that my Lords the Bishops are acquitted but your Manner of rejoycing here in Court is Indecent you might rejoyce in your Chamber or elsewhere and not here Then speaking to Mr. Attorney he said Have you any thing more to say to my Lords the Bishops Mr. Attorney Mr. Attorn Gen. No my Lord. Then the Court arose and the Bishops went away FINIS ADVERTISEMENT There will be shortly Published Poems on several Occasions By Charles Cotton Esq Printed for T. Basset W. Hensman and T. Fox Here the Lord Chief Justice speaking aside said L. C. Just. I must not suffer this they intend to dispute the King's Power of suspending Laws Mr. Just. Powel My Lord they must necessarily fall upon that Point for if the King hath no such Power as clearly 〈◊〉 hath not in my Iudgment the natural Consequence will be that this Petition is no diminution of the King 's Regal Power and so not seditious or libellous L. C. Just. Brother I know you are full of that Doctrine but however my Lords the Bishops shall have no occasion to say that I deny to hear their Counsel Brother you shall have your Will for once I will hear them let them talk till they are weary Mr. Just. Powel I desire no greater liberty to be granted them than what in Iustice the Court ought to grant that is to hear them in defence of their Clients * Here Mr. Iust. Powel speaking to the Lord Chief Iustice Mr. I. Pow. My Lord this is wide Mr. Sollicitor would impose upon us let him make out if he can that the King has such a Power and Answer the Objections made by the Defendants Councel L. Ch. Iust. Brother impose upon us he shall not impose upon me I know not what he may upon you for my part I do not believe one word he sayâ—… * Here there was a great Hissing
never published for the Question was before the Court whether this Sealing of it up and not delivering it to any other body were a Publication the Court was of Opinion that the very Writing of it was a Publication they did not value the delivery of it to the Prince but it was proved he Writ it and that made it Treason My Lord we have Cases enough in my Lord Hobart for this Matter Sir Baptist Hick's Case and my Lady Hattâ—…n's Case there was only a Letter sealed up and delivered to the Party L. C. I. You need not trouble your self about that Mr. Solicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. If the Case then be thus I take it it will turn upon this Fact they have given your Lordship no Proof where this Paper was Signed by them here are seven Persons that had a hand in it and here is only one Person whom they have insisted to be infirm and kept his House for a great while together We say the Publishing follows the Libel where-ever it goes the Libel is in the County of Middlesex they have confessed it in the County of Middlesex and they did not distinguish where it was done Then if they will not distinguish upon the Evidence no Man ought to distinguish but ought to presume it was done in that place where they owned it Mr. Attor Gen. I did not apprehend we were got so far that they Opposed us in the Publication Sir Rob. Sawyer Yes we did for you have given no Evidence of it Mr. Attor Gen. Surely my Lord for that we have give a sufficient Evidence and they have given some Proof of it as to my Lord Archbishop that because he had not been from Lambeth therefore he did not publish nor could cause it to be published for your Lordship sees by this Information they are not only to answer the Publicavit but also the Publicari causavit for do you doubt Gentlemen of the Law in this Case that if I compose a Libel in Surrey for Example and send a Person over into Middlesex I am not Guilty of the Publishing Sir Rob. Sawyer That is not your Case Mr. Attorney Mr. Finch That were clear if it were so but it is not so Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord Archbishop's Case signifies nothing if we shew it was published in Middlesex and you give no Evidence to the contrary but it might be there and I am sure as to the rest of my Lords the Bishops there is no Evidence at all given Here is a Petition that we say is a Libel they it may be will make that a Question this is delivered to the King 's own Hand in the County of Middlesex and there are as many Cases as any one Man can name that this amounts to a Publication by the Party for if I send a Letter by the Post sealed that no body can see but the Party himself and he that writ it it is adjudged over and over again it is a Libel Mr. Justice Powel That you need not labour Mr. Attorney for that 's the Case of Williams of Essex but how do you apply it to the Case now before us Mr. Attor Gen. That 's an Answer to their Objection as to the Publication Mr. Justice Powel But what say you to the first part you have not proved that it was written in Middlesex Mr. Attor Gen. There is the Case of Barrow and Lewellin in Hobart and likewise the Case of Sir Baptist Hicks which is reported both in Hobart and in Popham and in Popham towards the end of the Case there is a remarkable Passage Says that Case If it should not be punishable at the Suit of the King there would be no Remedy for the Party cannot bring an Action because he can be no Witness for himself and it is only known betwixt them two but a Witness for the King he may be to prove his own Receipt of the Letter and the Party's Hand Mr. Justice Powel You need not labour that Point I 'll tell you Mr. Attorney for the Law is very clear in that Point I think if you bring it home to your Case Mr. Attor Gen. Then here 's the Case in short my Lord That my Lords the Bishops have caused to be made and written this Petition they are made Parties to it by setting their Names and this is a continued Act whatsoever is written there is my Lord Archbishop's Writing where-ever it goes as I 'll put you a Case that 's very well known If I take away Goods from a Man in the County of Cumberland and I am found with them in the County of Middlesex it is a continued Act and makes all but one Felony and I shall be Tried here in Middlesex for it If a Man write a thing in one County and it is sent and dispersed in another County that still continues to be his Fact though it may be the first part was not in the same County with the other but suppose all this while that part should not affect my Lord of Canterbury the causing it to be Published does Mr. Justice Powel Do you think Mr. Attorney that writing in one County is such a continued Act that he may be said to write it in another County Mr. Attor Gen. Sir I take it where there is a complicated Crime of Writing and Publishing a Libel and the beginning of it is in one County and the carrying it on is in another that is a continued Act and may be Tried in either County L. C. I. It is all one Act of Libelling as they say Mr. Iust. Holloway In Cases of Felony 't is so taking in one County and being found with the Goods in another it is Felony in either County Mr. Iust. Powel But in that Case they are two Felonies for it is Robbery in the one County and but bare Felony in the other Mr. Sol. Gen. Suppose that my Lords the Bishops Signed this Paper in another County and my Lord Archbishop consents to have it sent into Middlesex is not this a causing it to be published in another County Mr. Iust. Powel Yes it may be if you prove his Consent Mr. Sol. Gen. Then suppose further which may very well consiâ—…t with my Lord Archbishop's Evidence of his not being out of Lambeth in so long time the rest of the Bishops might sign it in Middlesex or it may be in that Place and then they carry it by my Lords consent over hither into this County is not this a causing it to be published the Delivery with his Consent certainly is a Proof of that for our Information goes two ways For Making Contriving Writing and Publishing that 's one And then For causing it to be Made Contrived and Published that 's the other And if I prove that he caused it to be published he may be found Guilty as to that part and not Guilty as to the other for the Information is not so intire but that the King has his choice if the Archbishop had
Council and this is nothing but a Petition against an Order of Council and if there be an Order that commands my Lords the Bishops to do a thing that seems grievous to them surely they may beg of the King that he would not insist upon it And for this Matter they were so well satisfied about it and so far from thinking that it was any part of a Libel that they left it out of the Information and so have made a deformed and absurd Story of it without Head or Tall a Petition directed to no Body and for nothing it being without both Title and Prayer so that this is plain is was lawful to Petition Then my Lord the next Thing is the Reasons which my Lords the Bishops come to acquaint the King with why in Honour and Conscience they cannot comply with and give obedience to this Order and the Reasons my Lord are two The first Reason that is assigned is the several Declarations that have been in Parliament several of which are mentioned that such a Power to dispense with the Law is against Law and that it could not be done but by an Act of Parliament for that is the meaning of the word Illegal that has no other signification but unlawful the same word in point of signification with the word Illicitè which they have used in their Information a thing that cannot be done by Law and this they are pleased to tell the King not as declaring their own Judgments but what has been declared in Parliament though if they had done the former they being Peers of the Realm and Bishops of the Church are bound to understand the Laws especially when as I shall come to show you they are made Guardians of these Laws and if any thing go amiss and contrary to these Laws they ought to inform the King of it My Lord the next thing is Because it is a Thing of so great moment and the Consequences that will arise from their publishing of this Declaration and that too my Lord for the latter I shall begin first with there can be no Question about or any pretence that this is libellous or false for certainly it is a Case of the greatest Consequence to the whole Nation that ever was therefore it cannot be false or libellous to say so My Lord I would not mention this for I am loth to touch upon things of this Nature had not the Information it self made it the very Gift of the Charge for the Information if there be any thing in it says that it was to diminish the King's Prerogative and Regal Power in publishing that Declaration Now my Lord what the Consequence of this would be and what my Lords the Bishops meant by saying It was a Cause of great Moment will appear by considering that which is the main Clause in the Declaration at which my Lords the Bishops scrupled which is the main Stumbling-block to my Lords and has been to many honest Men besides and that is this We do likewise declare It is our Royal Will and Pleasure that from hence-forth the Execution of all and all manner of Penal Laws in Matters Ecclesiastical for not coming to Church or not receiving the Sacrament or for any other Nonconformity to the Religion Established or for or by Reason of the Exercise of Religion in any manner whatsoever be immediately suspended and the further execution of the said Penal Laws and every of them is hereby suspended Now my Lord this Clause either is of some legal â—…ect and Signification or it is not If Mr. Attorny or the King's Council do say it is of no Effect in Law then there is no harm done then this Petition does no ways impeach the King's Prerogative in saying it has been declared in Parliament according as the King's Counsel do agree the Law to be But my Lord if it have any Effect in Law and these Laws are suspended by virtue of this Clause in the Declaration then certainly my Lord it is of the most dismal Consequence that can be thought of and it behoved my Lords who are the Fathers of the Church humbly to represent it to the King. For my Lord by this Declaration and particularly by that Clause in it not only the Laws of our Reformation but all the Laws for the preservation of the Christian Religion in general are suspended and become of no force if there be such an Effect in Law wrought by this Declaration as is pretended that is that the Obligation of Obedience to them ceaseth the Reason of it is plain the words cannot admit of such a Quibble as to pretend that the Execution of the Law is not the Suspending of the Law and that the Suspending the Execution of the Law is not a Suspending of the Law for we all know the Execution of every Law in its primary Intent is Obedience to it that of the Penalty comes in by way of Punishment and Recompence for their Disobedience Now my Lord if this Declaration does discharâ—… the King's Subjects from their Obedience to and the Obligation from those Laws then pray my Lord where are we Then all the Laws of the Reformation are suspended and the Laws of Christianity it self by those latter words 〈◊〉 or for or by reason of Religion in any manner whatsoever so that it is not confined to the Christian Religion but all other Religions are permitted under this Clause And thus all our Laws for keeping the Sabbath and which distinguish us from Heathens will be suspended too My Lord this is such an Inconvenience as I think I need name no more and it is a very natural Confequence from that Clause of the Declaration it discharges at once all Ministers and Clergy-men from performing their Duty in reading the Service of the Church it discharges their Hearers from attending upon that Service When a Law is suspended the Obligation thereof is taken away and those that before thought themselves bound to obey now conclude they are not so obliged and what a mischief that will be to the Church which is under the Care of my Lords the Bishops your Lordship will easily apprehend These things my Lord I only mention to shew the great and evil Consequences that apparently follow upon such a Declaration which made my Lords the Bishops decline obeying the Order and put them under a necessity of applying thus to the King to acquaint him with the Reasons why they could not comply with his Commands to read this Declaration to the People because the Consequences thereof were so great it tending naturally to lead the People into so great an Error as to believe those Lawâ—… were not in Force when in Truth and Reality they are still in Force and continue to oblige them And that being the second Reason in this Petition I come next to consider it to wit thâ—… the Parliament had often declared this pretended Power to be Illegal and for that we shall read the several
there was nothing of Sedition nothing of Malice nothing of Scandal in it nothing of the Salt and Vinegar and Pepper that they have put into the Case We shall prove the Matters that I have open'd for our Defence and then I dare say your Lordship and the Jury will be of Opinion we have done nothing but our Duty Mr. Finch May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury This Information sets forth as you may observe upon opening it that the King having by his Royal Prerogative set forth his Declarations that have been read and made an Order of Council for the Reading the said Declarations in the Churches and that the Archbishop and Bishops should severally send them into their Diocesses to be read my Lords the Bishops that are the Defendants did consult and conspire together to diminish the Kingly Authority and Royal Prerogative of the King and his Power and Government in his Regal Prerogative in setting forth his Declaration and that in prosecution of that Conspiracy they did contrive as it was laid in the Information a malicious seditious scandalous false and feigned Libel under pretence of a Petition and so set forth the Petition and that they published the Petition in the presence of the King. To this Charge in the Information Not Guilty being pleaded the Evidence that hath been given for the King I know hath been observed by the Court and the Jury and I know will be taken into Consideration how far it does come up to the Proof of the Delivery of this Petition by my Lords the Bishops for all that was said till my Lord President was pleas'd to come was no Evidence of any Delivery at all and my Lord Preâ—…dent's Evidence is that they were going to deliver a Petition but whether they did deliver it or did it not or what they did deliver he does not know This is all the Evidence that has been given for the King. But supposing now my Lord that there were room to presume that they had delivered this Petition set forth in the Information let us consider what the Question is between the King and my Lords the Bishops The Question is Whether they are guilty of Contriving to diminish the King's Regal Authority and Royal Prerogative in his Power and Government in setting forth this Declaration Whether they are guilty of the making and presenting a malicious seditious and scandalous Libel and whether they have published it as it is said in the Information in the King's Presence So that the Question is not now reduced to this Whether this Paper that is set forth in the Information was delivered to the King by my Lords the Bishops but whether they have made a malicious seditious and scandalous Libel with an Intent to diminish the King's Royal Prerogative and Kingly Authority And then if you Gentlemen should think that thâ—… is Evidence given sufficient to prove that my Lords the Bishops have delivered to the King that Paper which is set forth in the Information yet unless they have delivered a false malicious seditious and scandalous Libel unless they have published it to stir up Sedition in the Kingdom and unless they have contrived this by Conspiracy to diminish the King 's Royal Prerogative and Authority and that Power that is said to be iâ—… the King my Lords the Bishops are not guilty of this Accusation There are in this Declaration several Clauses which upon reading of the Information I am sure cannot but have been observed by you Gentlemen of the Jury and one special Clause hath been by the Council already opened to you and I shall not enlarge upon it My Lord This Petition that is thus delivered to the King if it be a Libel a scandalous and seditious Libel as the Information calls it it must be so either for the Matter of the Petition or for the Persons that deliver'd the Petition or for the manner of their presenting and delivering it But neither for the Matter nor for the Persons nor for the manner of presenting it is there any Endeavour to dimâ—…nish the King 's Royal Prerogative nor to stir up Sedition nor Reflection upon the King 's true Royal and Kingly Authority The Petition does humbly set forth to His Majesty that there having been such a Declaration and such an Order of Council they did humbly represent to His Majesty that they were not averse to any thing commanded them in that Order in respect to the just and due Obedience that they owed to the King nor in respect of their want of a due Tenderness to those Persons to whom the King had been pleased to shew his Tenderness but the Declaration being founded upon a Power of Dispensing which had been declared illegal in Parliament several times and particularly in the Years 1662 72 and 85. they did humbly beseech His Majesty they not being able to comply with his Command in that matter that he would not insist upon it Now my Lord Where is the Contrivance to diminish the King's Regal Authority and Royal Prerogative This is a Declaration founded upon a Power of Dispensing which undertakes to suspend all Laws Ecclesiastical whatsoever for not Coming to Church or not Receiving the Sacrament or any other Nonconformity to the Religion established or for or by reason of the Exercise of Religion in any manner whatsoever Ordering that the Execution of all those Laws be immediately suspended and they are thereby declared to be suspended as if the King had a Power to suspend at once all the Laws relating to the establish'd Religion and all the Laws that were made for the Security of our Reformation These are all suspended by His Majesty's Declaration as it is said in the Information by virtue of his Royal Prerogative and Power so to do Now my Lord I have always taken it with Submission that a Power to abrogate Laws is as much a part of the Legislature as a Power to make Laws A Power to lay Laws asleep and to suspend Laws is equal to a Power of Abrogating them for they are no longer in Being as Laws while they are so laid asleep or suspended And to abrogate all at once or to do it time after time is the same thing and both are equally parts of the Legislature My Lord In all the Education that I have had in all the small Knowledge of the Laws that I could attain to I could never yet hear of or learn that the Constitution of this Government in England was otherwise than thus That the whole Legislative Power is in the King Lords and Commons the King and his two Houses of Parliament But then If this Declaration be founded upon a part of the Legislature which must be by all Men acknowledged not to reside in the King alone but in the King Lords and Commons it cannot be a legal and true Power or Prerogative This my Lord has been attempted but in the last King's time it never was pretended till
then and in that first Attempt it was so far from being acknowledged that it was taken notice of in Parliament and declared against So it was in the Years 1662. and 1672. In the Year 62. where there was but the least Umbrage given of such a Dispensing Power although the King had declared in his Speech to the Parliament that he wished he had such a Power which his Declaration before seemed to assume the Parliament was so jealous of this that they immediately made their Application to His Majesty by an Address against the Declaration and they give Reasons against it in their Address One in particular was That the King could not dispense with those Laws without an Act of Parliament There was another Attempt in 1672. and then after His Majesty had in his Speech mentioned his Declaration to them the Parliament there again particularly the House of Commons did humbly address to His Majesty setting forth that this could not be done by Law without an Act of Parliament And your Lordship by and by upon reading the Record will be satisfied what was the Event of all this His Majesty himself was so far pleased to concurr with them in that Opinion that he cancell'd his Declaration tore off the Seal and caused it to be made known to the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor who by His Majesty's Command satisfied the House of it that His Majesty had broken the Seal and cancell'd the Declaration with this further Declaration which is enter'd in the Records of the House That it should never be drawn into Example or Consequence My Lord The Matter standing thus in respect to the King's Prerogative and the Declarations that had been made in Parliament consider next I beseech you how far my Lords the Bishops were concerned in this Question humbly to make their Application to the King. My Lords the Bishops lying under a Command to publish this Declaration it was their Duty as Peers of the Realm and Bishops of the Church of England humbly to apply themselves to His Majesty to make known their Reasons why they could not obey that Command and they do it with all Submission and all Humility representing to His Majesty what had been declared in Parliament and it having been so declared they could not comply with his Order as apprehending that this Declaration was founded upon that which the Parliament declared to be illegal and so His Majesty's Command to publish this Declaration would not warrant them so to do This they did as Peers and this they had a Right to do as Bishops humbly to advise the King. For suppose my Lord which is not to be supposed in every Case nor do I suppose it in this but suppose that there might be a King of England that should be mis-led I do not suppose that to be the Case now I say but I know it hath been the Case formerly that the King should be environed with Counsellors that had given him evil Advice it has been objected as a Crime against such evil Counsellors that they would not permit and suffer the Great Men of the Kingdom to offer the King their Advice How often do we say in Westminster-Hall That the King is deceived in his Grant There is scarce a Day in the Term but it is said in one Court or other but it was never yet thought an Offence to say so And what more is there in this Case My Lord If the King was mis-informed or under a Mis-apprehension of the Law my Lords as they are Peers and as they are Bishops are concerned in it and if they humbly apply themselves to the King and offer him their Advice where is the Crime My Lord These noble Lords the Defendants had more than an ordinary Call to this for besides the Duty of their Office and the Care of the Church that was incumbent on them as Bishops they were here to become Actors for they were by that Order of Council commanded themselves to publish it and to distribute it to the several Ministers in their several Diocesses with their Commands to read it Therefore they had more than ordinary Reason to concern themselves in the Matter Next We are to consider my Lord in what manner this was done They make their Application to the King by an humble Petition with all the Decency and Respect that could be shewn asking leave first to approach his Person and having leave they offer'd my Lord President the Matter of their Petition that nothing might seem hard or disrespectful or as if they intended any thing that was unfit to be avowed When they had taken all this Care in their Approach and begging leave for it they come secretly to the King in private when he was all alone and there they humbly present this Petition to His Majesty Now how this can be called the Publication of a malicious and seditious Libel when it was but the Presenting of a Petition to the King alone And how it can be said to be with an Intent to stir up Sedition in the People against His Majesty and to alienate the Hearts of his People from him when it was in this private manner delivered to him himself only truly I cannot apprehend My Lord I hope nothing of this can be thought an Offence If the Jury should think that there has been Evidence sufficient given to prove that my Lords the Bishops did deliver this Paper to the King yet that is not enough to make them guilty of this Information unless this Paper be likewise found to be in Diminution of the King 's Royal Prerogative and Regal Authority in dispensing with and suspending of all Laws without Act of Parliament Unless it be found to be a Libel against the King to tell him That in Parliament it was so and so declared And unless the presenting this by way of Petition which is the Right of all People that apprehend themselves aggrieved to approach His Majesty by Petition be a Libelling of the King And unless this humble Petition in this manner presented to the King in private may be said to be a malicious and seditious Libel with an Intent to stir up the People to Sedition Unless all this can be found there is no Man living can ever find my Lords the Bishops guilty upon this Information Therefore my Lord we will go on and make out this Matter that we have opened to your Lordship if Mr. Attorney and Mr. Sollicitor think fit to argue the Points that we have opened Mr. Pollixfen Pray my Lord spare me a Word on the same Side For the first Point It is a Point of Law whether the Matter contained in this Petition be a Libel The King's Council pretend it is so because it says the Declaration is founded upon a Power the Parliament has declared to be illegal But we say that whatsoever the King is pleased to say in any Declaration of his it is not the King 's saying of it that makes
it to be Law. Now we say This Declaration under the Great Seal is not agreeable to the Laws of the Land and that for this Reason Because it does at one Blow set aside all the Law we have in England My Lord If this be denied we must a little debate this matter for they are almost all Penal Laws not only those before the Reformation but since upon which the whole Government both in Church and State does in a great measure depend Especially my Lord in Matters of Religion they are all Penal Laws For by the Act of Uniformity which my Lords the Bishops are sworn to observe and adjured by an express Clause in the Act No Man is to preach unless he be Episcopally ordained no Man is to preach without a Licence If all this be set aside I confess then it will go very far into the whole Ecclesiastical Government If this be denied we are ready to argue that too L. C. I. They are to do so still Mr. Pollixfen My Lord I am sure the Consequence is otherwise if this Declaration signifie any thing And if it be the Will of the King my Lord the Will of the King is what the Law is If so be the King 's Will be not consonant to the Law it is not obliging My Lord The Cases that we have had of Dispensations are all so many strong Authorities against a general or particular Abrogation My Lord that is a Matter of Law which if it fall out to be any way doubtful it will be fit to have it debated and setled If they will say that the Penal Laws in Matters Ecclesiastical can be abrogated or nulled or made void pro tempore or for Life without the meeting of the King and People in Parliament I must confess they say a great thing as it is a Point of great Concern but I think that will not be said And all that has been ever said in any Case touching Dispensations proves quite the contrary and asserts what I affirm For Why should any Man go about to argue that the King may dispense with this or that particular Law if at once he can dispense with all the Law by an undoubted Prerogative This is a Point of Law which we insist upon and are ready to argue with them but we will go on with the rest of those things that we have offer'd And first we will read the Act of Uniformity made 1 Eliz. that Clause of it where they are so strictly charged to see to the Execution of that Law. This Act my Lord by the Act of Uniformity made in the Beginning of the late King's Reign is revived with all the Clauses in it relating to this Matter If then this be a Duty incumbent upon them and their Oaths require it of them and if they find that the Pleasure of the King in his Declaration is that which is not consonant to this Law what can they do Can any thing be more humble or done with a more Christian Mind than by way of Petition to inform the King in the Matter For I never thought it nor hath it ever sure been thought by any body else to be a Crime to petition the King For the King may be mistaken in the Law so our Books say and we every Day in Westminster-Hall argue against the King's Grants and say He is deceived in his Grants It is the great Benefit and Liberty which the King gives to his Subjects to argue the Legality or Illegality of his Grants My Lord When all this is done to make this to be a Libel by putting in the Words Malicious Seditious Scandalous and with an Intent to raise Sedition would be pretty hard My Lord We pray that Clause of the Statute may be read Mr. Soll. Gen. What for Mr. Pollixfen It is a general Law and therefore the Court will take notice of it and we pray the Jury may hear it read Mr. Soll. Gen. I agree it to be as Mr. Pollixfen has opened and I agree it to be as Sir Robert Sawyer has opened it Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord We shall put it upon a short Point My Lords the Bishops are here accused of a Crime of a very heinous nature as can be they are here branded and stigmatized by this Information as if they were seditious Libellers when my Lord it will in truth fall out that they have done no more than their Duty their Duty to God their Duty to the King and their Duty to the Church For in this Case that which we humbly offer to your Lordship and insist upon it as very plain is this That the Kings of England have no power to suspend or dispense with the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom that establish our Religion That is it which we stand upon for our Defence And we say That such a Dispensing Power with Laws and Statutes is a thing that strikes at the very Foundation of all the Rights Liberties and Properties of the King's Subjects whatsoever If the King may suspend the Laws of the Land which concern our Religion I am sure there is no other Law but he may suspend And if the King may suspend all the Laws of the Kingdom what a Condition are all the Subjects in for their Lives Liberties and Properties All at Mercy My Lord The King 's Legal Prerogatives are as much for the Advantage of his Subjects as of himself and no Man goes about to speak against them But under pretence of Legal Prerogatives to extend the Power of the King to support a Prerogative that tends to the Destruction of all his Subjects their Religion and Liberties in that I think they do the King no Service who go about to do it But now we say with your Lordship's Favour that these Laws are the great Bulwark of the Reformed Religion they are in truth that which fenceth the Religion and Church of England and we have no other Humane Fence besides They were made upon a Fore-sight of the Mischief that had and might come by false Religions in this Kingdom and they were intended to defend the Nation against them and to keep them out particularly to keep out the Romish Religion which is the very worst of all Religions from prevailing among us and that is the very Design of the Act for the Tests which is intituled An Act to prevent Dangers that may happen from Popish Recusants My Lord If this Declaration should take effect what would be the End of it All Religions are let in let them be what they will Ranters Quakers and the like nay even the Roman Catholick Religion as they call it which was intended by these Acts of Parliament and by the Act of Uniformity and several other Acts to be kept out of this Nation as a Religion no way tolerable nor to be endured here If this Declaration take effect that Religion will stand upon the same Terms with the Protestant Religion Suspend those Laws and that Romish
Religion that was intended to be prohibited and so much Care was taken and so many Statutes made to prohibit it will come in and all this Care and all those Statutes go for nothing This one Declaration sets them all out of doors and then that Religion stands upon equal Terms with the established Religion My Lord We say this farther that my Lords the Bishops have the Care of the Church by their very Function and Offices and are bound to take care to keep out all those false Religions that are prohibited and designed to be kept out by the Law. My Lords the Bishops finding this Declaration founded upon a meer pretended Power that had been continually opposed and rejected in Parliament could not comply with the King's Command to read it My Lord Such a Power to dispense with or suspend the Laws of a Nation cannot with any shadow of Reason be It is not long since that such a Power was ever pretended to by any but such as have the Legislative too for it is plain that such a Power must at least be equal to the Power that made the Laws To dispense with a Law must argue a Power greater or at least as great as that which made the Law. My Lord It has been often said in our Books That where the King's Subjects are concerned in Interest the King cannot suspend or dispense with a particular Law. But my Lord how can the King's Subjects be more concern'd in Interest than when their Religion lies at stake It has been resolved upon the Statute of Symony that where the Statute has disabled the Party to take there the King could not enable him against that Act of Parliament And shall it be said that by his Dispensation he shall enable one to hold an Office who is disabled by the Test-Act My Lord We say The Course of our Law allows no such Dispensation as this Declaration pretends to And he that is but meanly read in our Law must needs understand this That the Kings of England cannot suspend our Laws for that would be to set aside the Law of the Kingdom And then we might be clearly without any Laws if the King should please to suspend them 'T is true we say the last King Charles was prevailed upon by Mis-information to make a Dispensation somewhat of the nature of this though not so full an one for that dispensed only with some few Ceremonies and things of that nature But the House of Commons this taking Air in 1662. represent this to the King by a Petition And what is it that they do represent That he by his Dispensation has undertaken to do that which nothing but an Act of Parliament can do that is the dispensing with Penal Laws which is only to be done by Act of Parliament And thereupon it was thought fit upon the King's Account to bring in an Act for it in some Cases My Lord The King did then in his Speech to the Parliament which we use as a great Argument against this Dispensing Power say this That considering the Circumstances of the Nation he could wish with all his Heart that he had such a Power to dispense with some Laws in some Particulars And thereupon there was a Bill in order to an Act of Parliament brought in giving the King a Power to dispense but my Lord with a great many Qualifications Which shews plainly that it was taken by the Parliament that he had no Power to dispense with the Laws of himself My Lord Afterwards in 1672. the King was prevailed upon again to grant another Dispensation somewhat larger L. C. I. Brother Pemberton I would not interrupt you but we have heard of this over and over again already Mr. S. Pemberton Then since your Lordship is satisfied of these things as I presume you are else I should have gone on I have done my Lord. Mr. S. Levinz But my Lord we shall go a little higher than that and shew that it has been taken all along as the ancient Law of England that such Dispensations ought to be by the King and the Parliament and not by the King alone Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord if you will admit every one of the Council to Speech it before they give their Evidence when shall we come to an End of this Cause We shall be here till Midnight L. C. I. They have no Mind to have an End of the Cause for they have kept it three Hours longer than they need to have done Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord This Case does require a great deal of Patience L. C. I. It does so Brother and the Court has had a greas deal of Patience But we must not sit here only to hear Speeches Mr. Att. Gen. Now after all their Speeches of two Hours long let them read any thing if they have it Sir Rob. Sawyer We will begin with the Record of Richard the Second Call William Fisher. William Fisher Clerk to Mr. Ince sworn L. C. I. What do you ask him Sir Rob. Sawyer Shew him that Copy of the Record The Record was then shewn him L. C. I. Where had you those Sir Mr. Fisher. Among the Records in the Tower. L. C. I. Are they true Copies Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. L. C. I. Did you examine them by the Record Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. Sir Rob. Sawyer Then hand them in put them in Clerk reads Ex Rotulo Parliamenti de Anno Regni Regis Richardi Secundi XV. No 1. My Lord It is written in French and I shall make but a bad Reading of it Sir Sam. Astrey Where is the Man that examin'd it Do you understand French Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. Sir Rob. Sawyer The Record is in another Hand than this they may easily read it Mr. Soll. Gen. Who copy'd this Paper Mr. Fisher. I did examine it Mr. Soll. Gen. What did you examine it with Mr. Fisher. I look'd upon that Copy and Mr. Halstead read the Record L. C. I. Young Man read out Fisher reads Vendredy Lande maine del Almes qu'estoit le primier jour Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray tell us what it is you would have read Mr. S. Levinz I 'll tell you what it is Mr. Sollicitor 'T is the Dispensation with the Statute of Provisors And the Act of Parliament does give the King a Power to dispense till such a time Mr. Soll. Gen. Don't you think the King's Prerogative is affirmed by many Acts of Parliament Mr. S. Levinz If the King could dispense without an Act of Parliament what need was there for the making of it Mr. Soll. Gen. Mr. Serjeant We are not to argue with you about that yet L. C. I. Read it in English for the Jury to understand it Mr. Fisher. My Lord I cannot undertake to read it so readily in English. Mr. I. Powel Why don't you produce the Records that are mentioned in the Petition those in King Charles the Second's time Mr. S. Levinz We will produce our Records in Order of Time as they
are Sir Sam. Astrey There is the Clerk of the Records of the Tower Mr. Halstead will read it very well in French or English. Then Mr. Halstead was sworn to interpret the Records into English according to the best of his Skill and Knowledge but not reading very readily a true Copy of the Record in English follows out of the Rolls of Parliament in the 15th Year of King Richard the Second Numero Primo FRiday the Morrow of All Souls which was the first Day of this Parliament holden at Westminster in the fifteenth Year of the Reign of our Lord King Richard the Second after the Conquest the Reverend Father in God the Archbishop of York Primate and Chancellor of England by the King's Commandment being present in Parliament pronounced and declared very nobly and wisely the Cause of the Summons of this Parliament And said First That the King would that holy Church principally and afterwards the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and also the Cities and Burroughs should have and enjoy their Liberties and Franchises as well as they had them and enjoyed them in the Time of his Noble Progenitors Kings of England and also in his own Time. And afterwards said The Summons of this Parliament was principally for three Occasions The first Occasion was To ordain how the Peace and Quiet of the Land which have heretofore been greatly blemished and disturbed as well by Detraction and Maintenance as otherwise might be better holden and kept and the Laws better executed and the King's Commands better obeyed The second Occasion was To ordainâ—… and see how the Price of Wools which is beyond measure lessened and impaired might be better amended and inhaunced And also That in case the War should begin again at the End of the present Truce to wit at the Assumption of our Lady next coming to ordain and see how and whereby the said War may be maintained at the least Charge of the People And the third Occasion was touching the Statutes of Provisors To ordain and see how our Holy Father might have that which to him belongs and the King that which belongs to him and to his Crown according unto that Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar ' s and unto God the things which are God's Then the other Record of Richard the Second was read as follows out of the Rolls of Parliament the fifteenth Year of King Richard the Second No 8 Be it remembred touching the Statute of Provisors That the Commons for the great Confidence which they have in the Person of our Lord the King and in his most excellent Knowledge and in the great Tenderness which he hath for his Crown and the Rights thereof and also in the noble and high Discretions of the Lords have assented in full Parliament that our said Lord the King by Advice and Assent of the said Lords may make such Sufferance touching the said Statute as shall seem to him reasonable and profitable until the next Parliament so as the said Statute be not repealed in no Article thereof And that all those who have any Benefices by force of the said Statute before this present Parliament and also That all those to whom any Aid Tranquility or Advantage is accrued by virtue of the said Statute of the Benefices of Holy Church of which they were heretofore in Possession as well by Presentation or Collation of our Lord the King as of the Ordinaries or Religious Persons whatsoever or by any other manner or way whatsoever may freely have and enjoy them and peaceably continue their Possession thereof without being ousted thereof or any ways challenged hindred molested disquieted or grieved hereafter by any Provisors or others against the Form and Effect of the Statute aforesaid by reason of the said Sufferance in any time to come And moreover That the said Commons may disagree at the next Parliament to this Sufferance and fully resort to the said Statute if it shall seem good to them to do it With Protestation That this Assent which is a Novelty and has not been done before this time be not drawn into Example or Consequence for Time to come And they prayed our Lord the King that the Protestation might be entred of Record in the Roll of the Parliament And the King granted and commanded to do it Mr. S. Levinz Now my Lord we will go on This was in Richard the Second's Time And a Power is given by the Commons to the King with the Assent of the Lords to dispense but only to the next Parliament with a Power reserved to the Commons and to disagree to it and retract that Consent of theirs the next Parliament Sir Geo. Treby The Statute of Provisors was and is a Penal Law and concerning Ecclesiastical Matters too viz. The Collating and Presenting to Archbishopricks Bishopricks Benefices and Dignities of the Church And in this Record now read the Parliament give the King a limited Power and for a short Time to dispense with that Statute But to obviate all Pretence of such a Power 's being inherent in the Crown as a Prerogative they declare 1. That it was a Novelty that is as much as to say That the King had no such Power before 2. That it should not be drawn into Example that is to say That he should have no such Power for the future Mr. S. Levinz Now we will go on to the Records mentioned in the Petition those in the last King's Time in 1662 and 1672 and that in this King's Time in 1685. Where is the Journal of the House of Lords Mr. Walker sworn L. C. I. Is that the Book of the House of Lords Mr. Walker It is the Journal of the House of Lords L. C. I. Is it kept by you Mr. Walker Yes my Lord. L. C. I. Where is it kept Mr. Walker In the usual place here in Westminster Mr. Soll. Gen. What is that Mr. S. Levinz It is the Journal of the House of Lords But my Lord there is one thing that is mentioned in the last Record that is read which is worth your Lordship's and the Jury's Observation That it is declared a Novelty and a Protestation that it should not be drawn into Precedent for the future L. C. I. That has been observed Brother Let us hear your Record read Clerk read Die Mercurii 18 o die Februarii 1662. His Majesty was present this Day sitting in the Regal Crown and Robes the Peers being likewise in their Robes The King gave Order to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to signifie to the House of Commons his Pleasure that they presently come up and attend His Majesty with their Speaker who being present His Majesty made this Speech following My Lords and Gentlemen I Am very glad to meet you here again having thought the Time long since we parted and often wished you had been together to help me in some Occasions which have fallen out I need not repeat them unto you you have all had
be a Libel although it 〈◊〉 true that they did so deliver it First my Lord there is a little disingenuity offered to my Lords the Bishops in only setting forth part and noâ—… the whole in only reciting the Body 〈◊〉 not the Prayer But my Lord with your Lordships favour taking the Petitionary part and adding it to the other it quite alters the Nature of the thing for it may be a Complaint without seeking redress might be an 〈◊〉 â—…atter but here taking the whole together it appears to be a Complaint of a Grievance and a desire to be eased of it With your Lordships favour the Subjects have a right to Petition the King in all their Grievances so say all our Books of Law and so says the Statute of the Thirteenth of the late King They may Petition and come and deliver 〈◊〉 â—…tion under the number of ten as heretofore they might have done says the Statute so that they all times have had a right so to do and indeed if they had not it were the most lamentable thing in the World that Men must have Grievances upon them and yet they not to be admitted to seek Relief in an humble â—…ay Now my Lord this is a Petition setting forth a Grievance and praying his Majesty to give Relief And what is this Grievance It is that Command of his by that Order made upon my Lords the Bishops to distribute the Declaration and cause it to be read in the Churches And pray my Lord let us consider what the Effects and Consequences of that Distribution and Reading iâ—… It is to tell the People that they need not submit to the Act of Unifarmity noâ—… to any Act of Parliament made about Ecclesiastical Matters for they are suspended and dispensed with this my Lords the Bishops must do if they obey this Order but your Lordship sees if they do it they lie under an Anathema by the Statute of 1 Eliz. for there they are under a Curse if they do not look to the preservation and observation of that Act But this Command to Distribute and Read the Declaration whereby all these Laws are dispensed with is to let the People know they will not do what that Act requires of them Now with your Lordships favour my Lords the Bishops lying under this pressure the weight of which was 〈◊〉 grievous upon them they by Petition apply to the King to be eased of it which they might do aâ—… Subjects besides my Lord they are Peers of the Realm and were most of them sitting as such in the last Parliament where as you have heard it was declared such a Dispensation could not be and then in what a Case should they have been if they should have distributed this Declaration which was so coâ—… to their own Actings in Parliament What could they have answered for themselves had they thus contributed to this Declaration when they had themselves before declared that the King could not dispense And that was no new thing for it had been so declared in a Parliament before in two Sessions of it in the late Kings Reign within a very little time one of another and such a Parliament that were so liberal in their Aides in the Crown that a Man would not think they should go about 〈◊〉 deprive the Crown of any of its Rights it was a Parliament that did do as great services for the â—…own as â—…ver any did and therefore there is no reason to suspect that if the King 〈◊〉 had such a power they would have appeared so earnest against it But my Lord if your Lordship pleases these are not the beginnings of this matter for we have shewed you from the Fifteenth of Richard the Second that there was a power granted by the Parliament to the King to dispense with a particular Act of Parliament which argues that it could not be without an Act of Parliament And in 1662 't is said expresly that they cannot be dispensed with but by an Act of Parliament 'T is said so again in 1672 the King was then pleased to assume to himself such a power as is pretended to in this Declaration 〈◊〉 yet upon Information from his Houses of Parliament the King declared himself satisfied that he had no such power Cancelled his Declaration and promised that it should not be drawn into Consequence or Example And so the Commons by their Protestation said in Richard the Seconds time That it was a Novelty and should not be drawn into Consequence or Example Now my Lord if your Lordship pleases if this matter that was Commanded the Bishops to do were something which the Law did not allow of surely then my Lords the Bishops had all the reason in the World to apply themselves to the King in an humble manner to acquaint him why they could not obey his Commands and to seek relief against that which lay so heavy upon them Truly my Lord Mr. Attorney was very right in the opening of this Cause at first that is That the Government ought not to receive affronts no nor the Inferior Officers are not to be affronted a Justice of Peace so low a Man in Office is not for a Man to say to a Justice of Peace when he is executing his Office that he does not do right is a great Crime and Mr. Attorney said right in it But suppose a Justice of Peace were making of a Warrant to a Constable to do something that was not Legal for him to do if the Constable should Petition this Justice of the Peace and therein set forth Sir you are about to command me to do a thing which I conceive is not Legal surely that would not be a Crime that he was to be punished for for he does but seek relief and shew his Grievance in a proper way and the distress he is under My Lord this is the Bishops Case with submission they are under a distress being Commanded to do a thing which they take not to be Legal and they with all humility by way of Petition acquaint the King with this Distress of theirs and pray him that he will please to give Relief My Lord there is no Law but is either an Act of Parliament or the Common Law for an Act of Parliament there is none for such a power all that we have of it in Parliamentary Proceedings is against it and for the Common Law so far as I have read oâ—…it I never did meet with any thing of such a Nature as a Grant or Dispensation that pretended to dispense with any one whole Act of Parliament I have not so much as heard of any such thing mentioned by any of the Kings Council But here my Lord is a Dispensation that dispenses with a great many Laws at once truly I cannot take upon me to tell how many there may be forty or above for ought I know Therefore my Lord the Bishops lying under such a Grievance as this and under such a Pressure being Ordered
that these Gentlemen have spent all this time to no purpose Lord Ch. Iust. Yes Mr. Attorney I 'le tell you what they offer which it will lie upon you to give an Answer to They would have you shew how this has disturbed the Government or diminished the Kings Authority Mr. Att. Gen. Whether a Libel be true or not as to the matter of Fact was it ever yet in any Court of Justice permitted to be made a question whether it be a Libel or not Or whether the Party be punishable for it And therefore I wonder to hear these Gentlemen to say that because it is not a false one therefore 't is not a Libel Suppose a Man should speak scandalous Matter of any Noble Lord here or of any of my Lords the Bishops and a Scandalum Magnatum be brought for it though that which is spoken has been true yet it has been the Opinion of the Courts of Law that the Party cannot justifie it by reason it tends to the disturbing of the Peace to publish any thing that is matter of Scandal The only thing that is to be lookt into is whether there be any thing in this Paper that is Reflecting and Scandalous and not whether it be true or no for if any Man shall Extra-Iudicially and out of a Legal Course and way reflect upon any of the great Officers of the Kingdom nay if it be but upon any Inferior Magistrate he is to be punished and is not to make his Complaint against them unless he do it in a proper way A Man may Petition a Judge but if any Man in that Petition shall come and tell the Judge Sir you have given an Illegal Judgment against me and I cannot in Honour Prudence or Conscience obey it I do not doubt nor will any Man but that he that should so say would be laid by the Heels though the Judgment perhaps might be illegal If a Man shall come to Petition the King as we all know the Council Doors are thronged with Petitioners every day and Access to the King by Petition is open to every body the most Inferior Person is allowed to Petition the King but because he may do so may he therefore suggest what he pleases in his Petition shall he come and tell the King to his Face what he does is Illegal I only speak this because they say in this Case his Majesty gave them leave to come to him to deliver their Petition but the King did not understand the Nature of their Petition I suppose when he said he gave them leave to come to him My Lord for this Matter we have Authority enough in our Books particularly there is the Case of Wrenham in my Lord Hobart the Lord Chancellor had made a Decree against him and he Petitioned the King that the Cause might be re-heard and in that Petition he Complains of Injustice done him by my Lord Chancellor and he put into his Petition many reflecting things this my Lord was punished as a Libel in the Star Chamber and in that Book it was said that though it be lawful for the Subject to Petition the King against any Proceedings by the Judges yet it must not be done with Reflections nor with Words that turn to the Accusation or Scandal of any of the Kings Magistrates or Officers and the Justice of the Decree is not to be questioned in the Case for there Wrenham in his Defence would have opened the particulars wherein he thought the Decree was unjust but that the Court would not meddle with nor would allow him to justifie for such Illegality in the Decree so in this Case you are not to draw in question the truth or falsehood of the Matter complained against for you must take the way the Law has prescribed and prosecute your Right in a Legal Course and not by Scandal and Libelling My Lord there is a great deal of difference between not doing a thing that is Commanded if one be of Opinion that it is unlawful and coming to the King with a Petition highly reflecting upon the Government and with Scandalous Expressions telling him Sir you Act illegally you require of us that which is against Prudence Honour or Conscience as my Lords the Bishops are pleased to do in this Petition of theirs I appeal to any Lord here that if any Man should give him such Language either by Word of Mouth or Petition whether he would bear it without seeking satisfaction and reparation by the Law My Lord there is no greater proof of the Influence of this Matter than the Croud of this day and the Haâ—…angue that hath been made is it not apparent that the taking this Liberty to Canvas and dispute the Kings Power and Authority and to Censure â—…s Actions possess the People with strange Opinions and raises Discontents and Jealousies as if the free Course of Law were restrained and Arbitrary Will and Pleasure set up instead of it My Lord there is one thing that appears upon the Face of the Information which shews this not to be the right Course and if my Lords the Bishops had given themselves the opportunity of reading the Declaration seriously they would have found in the end of the Declaration that the Ring was resolved to call a Parliament in November might not my Lords the Bishops have acquiesced under their passive Obedience till the Parliament met But nothing would serve them but this and this must be done out of Parliament for which there is no President can be shewn and this must be done in such a manner as your Lordship sees the Consequence of by your Trouble of this Day There is one thing I forgot to speak to they tell us that it is laid Malicious and Seditious and there is no Malice or Sedition found we know very well that that follows the Fact those things arise by Construction of Law out of the Fact. If the thing be illegal the Law says it is Seditious a Man shall not come and say he meant no harm in it That was the Case of Williams in his treasonable Book says he I only intended to warn the King of the Danger approaching and concludes his Book with God save the King but no Man will say that a good Preface at the beginning or a good Prayer at the end should excuse Treason of Sedition in the Body of a Book if I meet another Man in the Street and kill him though I never saw him in my Life the Indictment is that it was ex Malitia Praecogitata as it often happens that a Person kills one he never had acquaintance with before and in favorem vitae if the Nature of the Fact be so the Jury are permitted to find according to the Nature of the Case but in strictness of Law there is Malice implyed But my Lord I think these Matters are so Common and that is a Point that has been so often setled that the form of the Indictment and Information must
because he wished he had such a Power this must be declared in Parliament that he had no such Power Is the Speech of the Prince a Declaration in Parliament All the Speeches that were made upon the opening of the Parliament will you say they are Declarations in Parliament Then the Chancellor or the Keeper's Speech or the Lord Privy Seals must be a Declaration in Parliament Whoever speaks the Sense of the King if he does not speak that which is Law and Right is questionable for it and several have been Impeached for so doing for they look not upon it as the King's Speech except it be according to Law Nothing can turn upon the Prince but what is Legal if it be otherwise it turns upon him that speaks it I never did hear that a Speech made by the Chancellor and I will appeal to all the Lords that hear me in it was a Declaration in Parliament Then my Lord we come to the business in 1672. which with that in 1662. and that in Breda shews That this of the King 's is not such a Novelty but has been done often before In 1672. the King was in Distress for Money being intangled in a Dutch War and wanted Supply He Capitulates with his Commons you have heard it read and upon the Commons Address he asserts it to be his Right and makes his Complaint to the Lords how the Commons had used him for when he gives them a fair Answer they Reply and there are Conferences with the Lords about it but at length it all ends in a Speech by the King who comes and tells them of his present Necessitieâ—… and so he was minded to reâ—… a little at the Instigation of the Commons and he has a good Lump of Money for it Would this amount to a Declaration in Parliament Can my Lords the Bishopâ—… fancy or imagine that this is to be imposed upon the King or upon the Court for a Declaration in Parliament Then last of all for that in 1685. in this King's time What is it The Commons make an Address to the King and Complain to his Majesty of some of his Officers in his Army that might pretend to have a Dispensation something of that Nature contrary to the Test Act And what is done upon it They make their Application to the King and the King Answers them and that is all But since it is spoken of in the Court I would take notice That it is very well known by the Case of Godding and Hales the Judgment of this Court was against the Opinion of that Address But what sort of Evidence is all this Would you allow all the Addresses of the House of Commons to be Evidence Give me leave to say it my Lord If you suffer these Votes these Copies of Imperfect Bills these Addresses and Applications of one or both Houses to the King to be Evidence and Declarations in Parliament then what will become of the Bill of Exclusion Shall any Body mention that Bill of Exclusion to be a Declaration in Parliament If so then there is Declaration against Declaration the Declaration of the Commons against the Declaration of the Lords I know not what Judgment my Lords the Bishops may be of now concerning those things of Votes and Addresses being Declarations in Parliament but I am sure they have spoken against it heretofore nay I am sure some of them have Preached against it And if my Lords the Bishops have said These are Declarations in Parliament and they are not Declarations in Parliament and if they accuse the King of having done an Illegal thing because he has done that which has been declared in Parliament to be Illegal when it was never so declared then the Consequence is very plain That they are Mistaken sometimes and I suppose by this time they believe it I dare say it will not be denied me That the King may by his Prerogative Royal issue forth his Proclamation it is as essential a Prerogative as it is to give his assent to an Act of Parliament to make it a Law. And it is another Principle which I think cannot be denied That the King may make Constitutions and Orders in Matters Ecclesiastical and that these he may make out of Parliament and without the Parliament If the King may do so and these are his Prerogatives then suppose the King does issue forth his Royal Proclamation and such in effect is this Declaration under the Great Seal in a Matter Ecclesiastical by Virtue of his Prerogative Royal and this Declaration is read in the Council and published to the World and then the Bishops come and tell the King Sir you have issued out an Illegal Declaration being contrary to what has been declared in Parliament when there is no Declaration in Parliament Is not this a Diminishing the King's Power and Prerogative in issuing forth his Declaration And making Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical Is not this a questioning of his Prerogative Do not my Lords the Bishops in this Case raise a question between the King and the People Do not they as much as in them lyes stir up the People to Sedition For who shall be Judg between the King and the Bishops Says the King I have such a Power and Prerogative to issue forth my Royal Proclamation and to make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical and that without the Parliament and out of Parliament Say my Lords the Bishops You have done so but you have no Warrant for it Says the King Every Prince has done it and I have done no more than what is my Prerogative to do But this say the Bishops is against Law. How shall this be tryed Should not the Bishops have had the Patience to have waited till a Parliament came When the King himself tells them he would have a Parliament in November at furthest L. Ch. Iust. Pray Mr. Sollicitor come close to the business for it is very late Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I beg your Patience you have had a great deal of Patience with them pray spare me a little I am saying when the King himself tells them that he would have a Parliament in November at furthest yet they have no Patience to stay till November but make this Application to him Is not this raising a Question upon the King's Prerogative in issuing forth Declarations and upon the King's Power and Right in Matters Ecclesiastical And when I have said this that my Lords the Bishops have so done If they have raised a Question upon the Right of the King and the Power of the King in Matters Ecclesiastical then they have stirred up Sedition That they have so done is pretty plain and for the Consequence of it I shall appeal to the Case in the 2 Cro. 2. Iac. 1. That is a plain direct Authority for me Mr. Iust. Powel Nay Mr. Sollicitor we all very well know to deny the King's Authority in Temporals and Spirituals as by Act of
Function What can they do if they may not Petition Mr. Soll. Gen. I 'll tell you what they should have done Sir. If they were commanded to do any thing against their Consciences they should have acquiesced till the Meeting of the Parliament At which some People in the Court hissed Mr. Attorn Gen. This is very fine indeed I hope the Court and the Jury will take notice of this Carriage Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord it is one thing for a Man to Submit to his Prince if the King lay a Command upon him that he cannot Obey and another thing to Affront him If the King will impose upon a Man what he cannot do he must acquiesce But shall he come and fly in the Face of his Prince Shall he say it is Illegal And that the Prince acts against Prudence Honor or Conscience And throw Dirt in the King's Face Sure that is not to be permitted that is Libelling with a Witness L. Ch. Iust. Truly Mr. Sollicitor I am of Opinion that the Bishops might Petition the King but this is not the right way of bringing it I am not of that Mind that they cannot Petition the King out of Parliament but if they may Petition yet they ought to have done it after another Manner For if they may in this Reflective way Petition the King I am sure it will make the Government very precarious Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Sollicitor it would have been too late to stay for a Parliament for it was to have been Distributed by such a time Mr. Soll. Gen. They might have lain under it and submitted Mr. Iust. Powel No they would have run into Contempt of the King's Command without Petitioning the King not to insist upon it and if they had Petitioned and not have shewn the Reason why they could not Obey it would have been looked upon as a piece of Sullenness and that they would have been blamed for as much on the other side Mr. Serj. Baldock After so long a Debate I shall not trouble you long most things that are to be said have been said but I shall only say this in short I cannot deny nor shall not but that the Subject has a Right to Petition but I shall affirm it also he has a Duty to Obey and that in this Case the Power of the King to Dispense with Penal Laws in Matters Ecclesiastical is not a thing that is now in Question nor need we here have had these long Debates on both sides It may be perceived plainly by the Proofs that have been read that the Kings and Princes have thought themselves that they had such a Power though it may be the Parliament thought they had not and therefore the Declarations of the one or the other I shall not meddle with in this Case That Power it self which the King has as King of this Realm in Matters rather Ecclesiastical and Criminal than Matters of Property may somewhat appear by what has been read before your Lordship but all this will be nothing in our Case neither has his Majesty now depended so much upon this thing the Declaration has been read to you and what 's there said The King there says That for those Reasons he was ready to Suspend those Laws And be they Suspended Yet my Lord with this too That he refers it to and hopes to make it secure by a Parliament So that there being this it has not gone I think very far and it not having been touch'd here it is not a point of Duty in my Lords the Bishops as Bishops that 's here inquired into Whether they should have medled with this or no in this manner is the Question That the King is Supreme over all of us and has a particular Supremacy over them as Supreme Ordinary and Governor and Moderator of the Church is very plain and my Lord it is as plain that in such things as concern the Church he has a particular Power to Command them this is not unknown but very frequent and common in Matters Ecclesiastical and Matters of State It is not here a Question now whether these Declarations which they were Commanded to take Care of getting read were Legal or not Legal what Prudence there was what Honour there was what Conscience there was for their not reading it is not the Question neither But the point was the King as Supreme Ordinary of his Kingdom to whom the Bishops are Subject does in Council Order And what is it he Orders Their sending out and distributing his Declaration they were concerned in no more than that and it had been a very petty thing a small thing to send out the King's Declaration to be read by the Clergy All the Clergy were Ordered to read it but my Lords the Bishops were only Commanded to distribute it this he might do by Virtue of his Power Ecclesiastical And if this be not an Evil in it self and if it be not against the Word of God certainly Obedience was due from my Lords the Bishops active Obedience was due from them to do so much as this it was no Consent of theirs it was no Approbation of theirs of what they read that was Required So that if they had read it or another had read it by the King's Order especially if that Order be Legal they are bound to do it by Virtue of their Obedience and not to Examine more And my Lord in this Petition here they come to relieve not only themselves that were present for I speak to the Preamble as others before me have spoke to the Conclusion but they do involve the rest of the Bishops that were absent for it is in behalf of Themselves and their Brethren and all the Clergy of that Province Now that all these should joyn in the Petition is a thing very uncertain how does it construe here whether they were altogether and Consented to it or how all their Minds could be so fully known that they would be all involved in the Disobedience to this Order of the King. Then my Lord What is the thing they are greatly averse to There are Two things required in the Order The Bishops required to Distribute the Declaration to the Inferior Clergy and the Inferior Clergy are required to Read it Then their averseness must be to Distribute it and the others to Read it and so they will be involved none of whom did ever appear to have Joyned in it And then they give Reasons for their averseness and it is true Reasons might have been given and good Reasons should be given why they would not do this in Duty to His Majesty more gentle Reasons and other kind of Reasons than those that they have given L. Ch. Iust. Pray Brother will you come to the Matter before us Mr. Serj. Baldock I have almost done my Lord. Mr. Iust. Powel The Information is not for Disobedience Brother but for a Libel Mr. Serj. Baldock No Sir it is not for Disobedience but it is for
is not yet a Question Mr. Finch But it is and this the fittest time for it Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray will you hear us quietly what we have to say and then answer us with Reason if you can I think we are in a proper way but they are not my Lord for as I said my Lords the Bishops are brought by the Kings Writ upon our Motion for the King not upon theirs and now we have them here before the Court We for the King would charge them with an Information which Information that they and the Court may know what it is they are charged with we pray it may be read to them by the Clerk and when it is read let these Gentlemen say what they will for them they shall have their time to speak but certainly they ought not to obstruct the Kings Proceedings nor oppose the Reading of the Information to these noble Lords who are brought here in Custody into Court to this very purpose that they may be charged with this Information Mr. S. Pemberton But we have somewhat to say before you can come to that Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Soll. Gen. You ought not to be heard as yet M. S. Pemberton Under favour we ought to be heard Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord Mr. Sollicitor has opposed our being heard but we now desire he would hear our answer to it and that which we have to say is this That my Lords the Bishops are not here Regularly in the Court to be charged with an Information and if the Law be not with us in this point as we doubt not to make appear it is no question but when your Lordship has heard what we have to say you will give a Right Rule in it My Lord we say that by the Rules of Law no man ought to be Charged with an Information or Indictment by the Express Statute of Edward the Third unless he come into Court by Legal process that is a standing Rule and the practice of this and all other Courts is pursuant to it Now in this Court you have several processes that go out of this Court and he that comes as taken by vertue of a Capias or an Attachment after a Summons or by Venire in the nature of a Subpoena I say he that comes in upon these processes may be Charged with an Information but where a person is in Prison Committed by another Jurisdiction and another Authority then that of this Court when the â—…risoner is brought here by Habeas Corpus the first thing the Court has to do is to enquire whether he be Legally Committed to that end the Return is filed and the party has leave to make his Exceptions to it as we do in this Case My Lords are brought here upon a Habeas Corpus the Return of which has been read and now the Return is filed we are proper to move that my Lords may be discharged for you now see what they are Committed for it is for a Misdemeanour in making and publishing a Libel that 's the matter for which they are Committed and it appears by the Return likewise that they who are thus Committed are Peers of the Realm for so my Lords the Bishops all are and for a Misdemeanour they ought not by Law to have been Committed L. C. I. You go too far now Sir Robert Sanyer I would willingly hear you whatsoever you have to say but then it must be in its due time Mr. Att. Gen. This very discourse indeed I have heard has pass'd up and down the Town for Law We may see now whence they had it Mr. Sol. Gen. I know it has heretofore been urged by me but denyed by them who now urge it and I am glad that they now learn of me to tack about L. C. I. Look you Gentlemen do not fall upon one another but keep to the matter before you Mr. S. Pemberton So we would my Lord if the Kings Councel would let us First we say we being brought here upon a Return of a Habeas Corpus there was neither at the time of the Commitment Cause to Imprison us nor was there by the Warrant any Cause to detain us in Prison and for that besides what has been hinted at we say further that here it is returned that we were Committed by such and such Persons Lords of the Privy Council but the Return doth not say that it was done by them as Lords of the Privy Council which must be in Council for if it be not in Council they have not power to make such a Warrant for the Commitment of any Person and that we stand upon here is a Return that is not a good Return of a Legal Commitment and therefore we pray my Lords may be discharged Mr. Pollexfen Pray my Lord spare me a word that is the thing we humbly offer to your Lordships Consideration and under Favour I think we are proper both as to the Matter and as to the Time the Return is now filed before you if by this Return there appears to have been such a Cause to Commit these Lords to Prison as is Legal then we acknowledge they may in a Legal Course be brought to answer for their Offence but with Submission it appears not by any thing that is in this Return that my Lords the Bishops were Committed by the Order of the Privy Council All that is said is That they were Committed by my Lord Chancellor and those other Persons named Lords of the Privy Council which we conceive is not a good Return for they can do nothing as Lords of the Privy Council except only as they are in Council and by Order made in Council except that do appear they have no Power to Commit then take the Case to be so here is a man Committed by one that has no Authority to Commit him and he is brought by Habeas Corpus into this Court what shall the Court do with him Shall they charge him with an Information No it does appear that he was never in Custody but under a Commitment by those who had no Legal Power to Commit him and therefore he must be discharged and that we pray for my Lords the Bishops What the Kings Councel may have to say to them afterwards by way of Information or otherwise they must take the Regular Methods of the Law to bring my Lords the Bishops to answer but as the Case stands here before you upon this Return it does appear they had no Authority to Commit them by whose Warrant they were Committed and therefore this Court has nothing to do but to discharge them Mr. Finch I beg your Lordships leave to say one word farther on the same side I think with humble Submission this is the most proper time for us to make this Motion for here is a Habeas Corpus Returned this Return is filed and then the Kings Councel move to Charge my Lords the Bishops with an Information that Motion of theirs we say is too soon
not at all to the purpose That is but what was offered in another Case that may be remembred and offered by way of Plea and pressed with a great deal of Earnestness but Rejected by the Court and now what could not be receiv'd then by way of Plea these Gentlemen would by their Importunity have you receive by way of Parole at the Bar I suppose the Design is to entertain this great Auditory with an Haraâ—…gue and think to perswade the weak men of the World for the wise are not to be imposed upon that they are in the Right and we in the wrong under Favour my Lord we are in the Right for the King we desire this Information may be read and let them plead what by Law they can to it according to the Course of the Court but that which they now urge is untimely and out of Course Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord we offer this to your Lordship Mr. Att. Gen. Why Gentlemen you have been heard before your time already Mr. S. Pemberton Pray my Lord give us leave to answer what the Kings Counsel have objected L. C. I. The Kings Counsel have answered your Objections and we must not permit Vying and Re-vying upon one another if you have no more to say but only as to the Matters that have been urged you have been heard to it on both sides already Mr. S. Pemberton I would if you please answer what has been objected by the Kings Counsel and state the Case aright Mr. Iust. Allybone Brother Pemberton I do not apprehend that the Objection you make against this Commitment has any weight in it The Objection as I take it is this that these Lords were not legally committed because they were committed says the Return by such and such Lords of the Council particularly named and it does not specifie them to be united in the Privy Council now truly with me that seems to have no weight at all and I will tell you why If my Lord Chief Iustice do commit any Person and set his Name to the Warrant he does not use to add to his Name Lord Chief Iustice but he is known to be so without that Addition and would you have a different Return from the Lieutenant of the Tower to a Habeas Corpus than the Warrant it self will justifie the Lords do not use to write themselves Privy Counsellors they are known to be so as well as a Judge who only writes his Name and does not use to make the addition of his Office. Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray my Lord give me leave to be heard to this I think truly it is a weighty Objection for under Favour we say it must upon the Return here appear that they were legally committed before you can charge them with an Information I do not take Exceptions to the Warrant because it is subscribed by such Lords and they do not write themselves Lords of the Council they need not do that and the Return has averred that they are so But the Return ought to have been that it was by Order of the Privy Council and so it must be if they would shew my Lords to be legally committed that they were committed by Order of the Privy Council and not by such and such particular Persons Lords of the Privy Council so in the Case put by Mr. Iustice Allybone of a Commitment by your Lordship or any of the Judges it must be returned to be by such a Warrant by such a One Chief Iustice for that shews the Authority of the Person committing and then your Lordships Name to it indeed is enough without the Addition But if it does not appear by the Return that there was sufficient Authority in the Person to commit your Lordship cannot take it to be a Legal Commitment But now in this Case they could have no Authority to commit but in Council and this Return seems to make it done by them as particular Persons and that 's not a good Return with your Lordships favour upon which these Reverend and Noble Lords can be detained in Prison But what do they on the other side say to this Why we shall be heard to it anon but my Lord they very well know it would be too late for that Effect which we desire of our Motion and therefore we lay the Objections before you now in its proper time say we you ought not to read any Information against us because we are not legally here before the Court and sure that which was said by the Kings Councel that your Lordship may charge any One that you find here in Court which way soever he comes in cannot be legal Mr. Att. Gen. Who ever said so Sir Robert Sawyer I apprehended you said so Mr. Attorney or else you said nothing Mr. Att. Gen. Sir Robert Sawyer You of that side have a way of letting your selves in to say the same things over and over again and of making us to say what you please Sir Rob. Sawyer Truly I did apprehend you laid down that for Doctrine which I thought a very strange One for we say with your Lordships favour he that is in Court without a Legal process is not in Court so as to be charged with an Information S. Pemberton My Lord It is not the Body being found here that intitles the Court to proceed upon it but the person accused is to be brought in by Legal Process Then if we be not here by Legal Process the Information cannot be charged upon us and if we suffer it to be read it will be too late for us to make this Objection L. C. I. That you have all said over and over and they have given it an Answer Mr. Att. Gen. Pray Mr. Serjeant will you make an end you have repeated your Objection over and over I know not how often and will never be contented with our Answer Mr. I. Allyb. Sir Rob. Sawyer That which you said in Answer to the Case I put methinks does not answer it For if the Return be as good that it was by a Warrant from such an one Lord Chief Iustice as if my Lord Chief Iustice had added the Title of his Office to his own Name when he subscribed the Warrant Then this Return That this was done by such and such Lords of the Council must be as good as if they had added that to their own Names Sir Rob. Sawyer That is not our Objection Mr. Att. Gen. Your Objection has been heard and answered we pray the Information may be read Mr. Serj. Pemberton No we are not come to that yet Mr. I. Allyb. Pray would you have an Averment by the Lieutenant of the Tower in his Return to an Habeas Corpus that it was done by them in the Council-Chamber Mr. Finch My Lord The Difference is this with Submission a Commitment by Sir Rob. Wright Ch Justice is a good Commitment and a Return of that Nature were a good Return because he is Chief Justice all over
in Parliament and particularly in the Years 1662 and 1672. and the beginning of Your Majesties Reign and is a matter of so great Moment and Consequence to the whole Nation both in Church and State that your Petitioners cannot in Prudence Honour or Conscience so far make themselves Parties to it as the Distribution of it all over the Nation and the solemn Publication of it once and again even in God's House and in the time of his Divine Service must amount to in common and reasonable Construction In contemptum dicti Domini Regis nunc Legum hujus regni Angliae manifestum in malum exemplum omnium aliorum in tali casu delinquentium ac contra pacem dicti Domini Regis nunc Coronam Dignitatem suas c. Unde idem Atornatus dicti Domini Regis nunc generalis pro eodem Domino Rege petit advisamentum Curiae hic in praemissis debitum legis processum versus praefatos Willielmum Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem Willielmum Episcopum Asaphensem Franciscum Episcopum Eliensem Iohannem Episcopum Cicestrensem Thomam Episcopum Bathonensem Wellensem Thomam Episcopum Petriburgensem Ionathanum Episcopum Britollensem fieri ad respondendum dicto Domino Regi de in praemissis c. T. Powys W. Williams Mr. Attor Gen. My Lord we humbly pray that according to the Rules of the Court in such Cases my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and my Lords the Bishops may Plead to the Information Mr. Solli Gen. My Lords the Bishops are here in Custody in Court upon the highest Commitment that can be in this Kingdom to wit That of the King in Council and we pray that according to the Course of the Court they may Plead to the Information presently L. Ch. Just. What does his Grace and my Lords the Bishops say to it Mr. Serj. Pemberton Will your Lordship give us leave who are of Council for his Grace my Lord of Canterbury and the rest of my Lords the Bishops to speak a word in this Matter L. Ch. Just. Ay Brother go on Mr. Serj. Pemberton That which we have to desire of your Lordship and the Court is this We have now heard this Information Read and 't is plain we could know nothing of this before the Warrant of Commitment being only in general for a Libel and this being a Case of the greatest Consequence peradventure that ever was in Westminster Hall that I think I may boldly say it is a Case of the greatest Consequence that ever was in this Court and it being a matter of this Nature that these Great and Noble Persons my Lords the Bishops are here taxed with that is for making a Seditious Libel contained in such a Petition as though it was a Libel to Petition the King We do beg this of your Lordship that it being of this great Importance to the end we may come prepared to say what we have against it We may have an Imparlance till the next Term. Mr. Finch Pray my Lord favour me with a Word on the same side for my Lords the Bishops You Lordship sees now how necessary the trouble we gave you before in making our Objections against the reading of the Information was and what the drift and aim of the Kings Councel was in the desiring the Information to be read first for now it is read What is it that they desire of your Lordships They desire that my Lord Arch Bishop and my Lords the Bishops being in Custody and brought here in Custody they may be now so Charged with this Information as to Plead presently This my Lord we oppose and with humble Submission we ought to have time to Imparle and a Copy of the Information that we may consider what we have to Plead to it for however we come here into Court whether legally or not legally yet ought we in the one and in the other Case to have time to Consider of our Defence And my Lord till of later time this Practice which the Kings Counsel now calls the Course of the Court was never used nor was any Man required to Plead immediately and my Lord if the Practice of the Court has not been anciently so as I do believe they will scarce shew it to be Ancienter than a few years last past then with humble submission though the Course of the Court have been so for some little time past yet it is not in the power of the Couâ—… as we humbly Conceive to make a Course in prejudice of all the Priviledges that the Kings Subjects are by the Antient Rules of Law intituled to they cannot make a new Law in prejudice of any Right or Priviledge which the Subject hath and call it the Course of the Court Now that this which we desire for my Lords the Bishops is the Right and Priviledge of the Subject is most manifest for there might be many Defences that a Man may have to make to an Accusation of this Nature which it is impossible for him to know at the first hearing of an Information read and yet which would be necessary for him to make use of or at least it would be impossible for him to make use of in such a manner as the Law doth allow of and require It may be the Pleas which he has to Plead may be such as that he has not time to put into form there may be Matters upon the hearing the Information read that it would be necessary for him to give answer to which he knew not of before and therefore may neither have Materials ready nor be capable of putting them if he had them ready into such Form as the Law requires They tell you on the other side that if a Man be brought into Court by Legal Process he may be Charged with any Information whatsoever that they are not tied to the Fact alleadged in the Commitment but finding the Party under a Legal Imprisonment they can exhibit an Information against him for any other Offence Then my Lord would I fain know which way any Man alive can be prepared to make his Just and Legal Defence for he knows not his Accusation for tho' he think it may be for that for which he was Committed yet it may prove otherwise and then he can be no way provided with Materials for his Defence but he must lose all Advantages which the Law gives him for his Defence My Lord if this be the course of latter times yet you will not take that to be such a Law as is binding to all future times and we are sure the King's Counsel cannot shew that this was the Ancient Practice for that was quite otherwise L. C. Iust. Mr. Finch you were not here I suppose when this Question came in debate in this Court lately in the Case of a very great Person 't was urged very earnestly and very learnedly by one that stands by you we upon that Debate asked Sir Samuel Astry what the Course of the
aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury of Lambeth in the County of Surrey William Bishop of St. Asaph of St. Asaph in the County of Flynt Francis Bishop of Ely of the Parish of St. Andrew Holbourn in the County of Middlesex Iohn Bishop of Chichester of Chichester in the County of Sussex Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells of the City of Wells in the County of Somerset Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh of the Parish of St. Andrew Holbourn in the County of Middlesex and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol of the City of Bristol did consult and conspire among themselves to diminish the Regal Authority Royal Prerogative Power and Government of our said Lord the King in the premises and to infringe and clude the said Order and in prosecution and execution of the Conspiracy aforesaid They the said William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol on the said eighteenth day of May in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King aforesaid with Force and Arms c. at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid falsly unlawfully maliciously seditiously and scandalously did frame compose and write and caused to be framed composed and written a certain false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel in writing concerning our said Lord the King and his Royal Declaration and Order aforesaid under pretence of a Petition and the same false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel by them the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Franois Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol with their own hands respectively being subscribed on the day and year and in the place last mentioned in the presence of our said Lord the King with Force and Arms c. did publish and cause to be published in which said false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel is contained The humble Petition c. prout before in the Petition to these words reasonable construction in manifest contempt of our said Lord the King and of the Laws of this Kingdom to the evil example of all others in the like case offending and against the Peace of our said Lord the King his Crown Dignity c. Whereupon the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King prays the Advice of the Court here in the premises and due Process of Law to be made out against the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol in this behalf to answer our said Lord the King in and concerning the premises c. T. Powys W. Williams To this Information the Defendents have pleaded Not Guilty and for their Trial have put themselves upon their Country and his Majesty's Attorney-General likewise which Country you are Your Charge is to enquire whether the Defendents or any of them are guilty of the matter contained in this Information that hath been read unto you or Not Guilty If you find them or any of them Guilty you are to say so and if you find them or any of them Not Guilty you are to say so and hear your Evidence Cryer make Proclamation Cryer O yes If any one will give Evidence on behalf of our Sovereign Lord the King against the Defendents of the matters whereof they are impeached let them come forth and they shall be heard Mr. Wright May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury this is an Information exhibited by his Majesty's Attorney-General against the most Reverend my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Six other Honourable and Noble Bishops in the Information mentioned And the Information sets forth That the King out of his Clemency and benign intention towards his Subjects of this Kingdom did put forth his Royal Declaration bearing date the fourth day of April in the third year of his Reign entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience and that afterwards the twenty-seventh of April in the fourth year of his Reign he published another Declaration both which have been read to you and for the further Manifestation and Notification of his Grace in the said Declaration bearing date the twenty-seventh of April last his Majesty did order That the said Declaration should be read on the twentieth and twenty-seventh of the same month in the Cities of London and Westminster and ten miles about and on the third and tenth of Iune throughout the whole Kingdom and that the Right Reverend the Bishops should send the said Declaration to be distributed throughout their respective Diocesses to be read accordingly But that the said Archbishop and Bishops the eighteenth of May in the said fourth year of his said Majesty's Reign having conspired and consulted among themselves to diminish the King's Power and Prerogative did falsly unlawfully maliciously and scandalously make compose and write a false scandalous malicious and seditious Libel under pretence of a Petition which Libel they did publish in the presence of the said King the Contents of which Libel you have likewise heard read To this they have pleaded Not Guilty You Gentlemen are Judges of the Fact if we prove this Fact you are to find them Guilty Mr. At. Gen. May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury your have heard this Information read by the Clerk and it has been likewise opened to you at the Barr but before we go to our Evidence perhaps it may not be amiss for us that are of Council for the King now in the beginning of this Cause to settle the Question right before you as well to tell you what my Lords the Bishops are not prosecuted for as what they are First I am to tell you and I believe you cannot your selves but observe that my Lords are not prosecuted as Bishops not much less are they Prosecuted for any point or matter of Religion but they are Prosecuted as Subjects of this Kingdom and only for a temporal Crime as those that have injured and affronted the King to his very Face for it is 〈◊〉 to be done in his own Presence In the next place they are not Prosecuted for any Noâ—…easance or not doing or omitting to do any thing but as they are Actors for ceâ—…ring of his Majesty and his Government and for giving their Opinion in Matters wholly relating to Law and Government and I cannot omit here to take notice that there is not any one thing which the Law is more iealous of or does more carefully provide for the prevention and punishment of than all accusations and arraâ—…ents of the Government no Man is allowed to
place where it was done Mr. Sollicitor General Here is a great deal of Prevarication in this matter and I would observe to your Lordship how they do use the Court ill in it pray my Lord What is it we are upon we are proving that these seven Lords the Bishops signed this Paper and I think we have proved it sufficiently out of their own Mouths But say they it was not signed in the County of Middlesex but in the County of Surrey All this is but Imagination and they would have the Court to imagine it too For how do they prove it They would have your Lordship and the Jury believe That it was signed elsewhere because my Lord Archbishop has not been out of his House in some Months before it is all but Inference and Argument and Imagination But still Gentlemen do you answer what I objected to you Does it not lie in their Power to shew where it was signed Here are six more besides the Archbishop where was it signed by them Here are six of the Bishops that it does not appear where they signed it but they confess at White-Hall in Middlesex that they did set their Hands Mr. Serjeant Levinz Ay they did so and what then Mr. Solicitor General Ay and ay too if they did so the Presumption and Common Intendment upon such Evidence is That is was done in the Place where it was owned and the rather for that Reason that I said before That it lies in their Knowledge and therefore it is incumbent upon them to prove That it was not in the County of Middlesex So that this Objection I take rather to be an Invention of the Counsel than the Truth of the Fact because they that can make this out do not And as to what they say of my Lord Archbishop That he has not been out of Doors for so long who can prove such a thing Certainly my Lord was able to come for any thing that appears he has been here twice and he was able to come to the Council-Board But when all is done my Lord Archbishop is certainly able to put this matter out of doubt for he may easily prove it if the Fact be so and that will satisfie the Court and every Body That it was signed by him at Lambeth if he designs to deal sincerely with your Lordship and the Court and the Jury but certainly it is not to be proved by a Circumstance such a one as this is but he ought to give your Lordship and the Jury Satisfaction about this Fact He ought to say 'T is true I did sign it but it was at Lambeth-House that indeed would be a down-right Stroke to us But to go upon a Supposition That because my Lord Archbishop was not out of his House for so long together therefore they are all not Guilty is a very hard and foreign Inference My Lord there 's another Matter that they insist upon and that is about the Publication that is as plain as any thing can be that here is a full Proof of a Publication for if the Paper be Libellous where-ever that Paper is that is a Publishing where-ever the Paper travels how far soever it goes it is a Publication of it by these Persons that signed it I believe no body thinks that this should fly into the King's hand but some body brought it to him and certainly my Lord if your Opinion should be that this Paper is Libellous then where ever it is it is a Publishing which is our offence where-ever it is found it is a Publâ—…tion for there is the mistake of these Gentlemen they fancy that unless there was a Publick Delivery of this Paper abroad nothing can be a Publication but I rely upon it they setting their Names to it made it their Paper and where-ever it was afterwards found that did follow the Paper where-ever it went and was a Publication of it it was in their Power being their own Contrivance it was made and formed by themselves and no body will believe when it was their own Hands that they put to it that any body else could have any power over it for ought appears no body else was at work about it and when there were so many Learned Prelates that had signed such a Paper no one can believe they would let it go out of their Hands but by their Consent and Direction Is not this a Proof of the Publishing Do they give your Lordships any Evidence that they had stifled this Paper If they had so done they had said something but will any body believe that this thing was done in vain Can any body assign a Reason why so solemn a thing as this should be done to no end and purpose Why a Paper should be framed that rails at the Kings two Declarations Why a Paper that gives Reasons why they could not read it in their Churches and signed with such Solemnity by all these Noble Lords we submit this to you in point of Law and the Law is plain in it that if this Paper be Libellous and it is found in the County of Middlesex there is a Publication of that Libel I shall mention to your Lordship that Case of Williams which is reported in the Second Part of Roll's Reports Mr. Finch made use of it in the Case of Sidney it was the great Case relied upon and that guided and governed that Case as I apprehend from the Verdict and Judgment that was given in it This Case was 15 Iacobi It seems Williams was a Barrister of the Inner-Temple and it seems being an high Catholick for Opinion and Judgment he was expelled the House and he being so expelled being a sort of a Vertuoso wâ—…ote a Book called Baalam's Ass and therein he makes use of the Prophecy of the Prophet Daniel and he makes Application of it according to his own particular fancy He writes there That this World was near at an end and he said Those ill days were come that that Prophecy had spoken of and because of the Impurity of Prince and Priest and People and other things that happened those were the worst of days and therefore the last and that certainly we had the worst Prince that ever was in the World when he wrote this Book what does he do He was a little more close than my Lords the Bishops and pins it up or seals it up and it was brought to the King and what is this more than the Case before your Lordship They indeed say I do this by way of Advice to the King so said he I do this by way of Advice to the King for God forbid that any of this should happen to the King and so what he does was by way of Advice and he prayed God to avert it from him here was as good a Prayer as there is in this Paper and there was a good design he made use of the Prophet Daniel and applied his words Well what was done upon it This was
the question is from whom the King had it I am sure they must shew that some body else did it and unless they doe show that I hope there is no manner of question but it came from them and they did it though no man Living knew any thing of this matter but whom they thought fit to communicate it to yet still they putting the King upon the necessity of shewing this Power in order to his obtaining satisfaction for it or else he must remain under the indignity without reparation it ought to be put upon them to clear the Fact for if he does not produce it then must the King put up the highest injury and affront that perhaps a Man can give the King to his face by delivering a Libel into his own hands and if he does produce it then say they that is not our publication we prove it to be your writing and signing and we prove it to come from the hand of the King against whom it was composed for we say it is a Libel against his Majesty his Government and Prerogative if then all those cases that have been cited be Law then sure there never was a stronger case in the World than this and I hope the Law goes a little farther in the case of the King than it does in the case of a private Man no Man must think by policy to give private wounds to the Government and disparage the Administration of it and then when he is called in question about it says he pray prove that I published it or else you shall not punish me for it we prove you framed it and writ it and signed it and we prove it came to the King's hand of whom it was composed must we produce two Witnesses of the delivery of it to the King surely there will be no need of any thing of that Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord we have reduced it now to a very narrow question for as Mr. Attorney has said my Lord there is no doubt but that my Lords the Bishops are the Authours of this Paper there is no doubt but they signed it and there is no doubt but that their signing of it though it were at Lambeth as they say is a publishing of it but however this is plain and manifest that this Paper was published and that this Paper was publiâ—…d in Middlesex that is as plain too now then there is nothing left but this question whether my Lords the Bishops who framed the thing who wrote the thing who signed the thing were not the occasion or cause of its publication or privy or consenting to it my Lord I will reduce it to a very plain point for we are upon a rational question before a rational Court and a rational Jury whether these Lords did all of them in the County of Surry consent to the publishing of this Paper in Middlesex for it is published in Middlesex that we see and if they are guilty of that part of the Information of causing it to be published now what do they say to it say they it is agreed that it is published in Middlesex but it is not proved to be published by us Lord Ch. Iust. No they do not say so they agree it was in Middlesex but not published Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Solicitor they do agree it was in Middlesex but not published to be sure not by them Lord Ch. Iust. Mr. Solicitor I 'll tell you what they stand upon they say you ought to prove it to be delivered to the King by the Bishops or some body employed by them for upon that went the Resolution that was in William's case that he sent it to the King but here is no body that proves that it was delivered to the King in this case so that how it came to the King Non constat Mr. Sol. Gen. There will be the question between us whether this be not a publication Sir Rob. Sawyer Pray Mr. Solicitor prove your case before you argue it Lord Ch. Iust. First settle what the case is before it be either proved or argued Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I 'll put you the case here does appear in Middlesex a Paper that is a Libel in it self and this Libel is proved to be written and formed by these persons this Libel coming into Middlesex the question is whether they are privy to it I say in point of presumption it must come from them Lord Ch. Iust. I cannot suppose it I cannot presume any thing Mr. Sol. Gen. My Lord I speak of that which is a common presumption a natural presumption what we commonly call a violent presumption which is a legal presumption and has always been allowed for Evidence now whether there be not such a presumption in our Case as to induce your Lordship and the Jury to believe that it cannot be otherwise or at least to put the labour upon them to shew how it came out of their Studies and how it came to the King's hands for it is in their power to shew the truth of this matter how it was if they do not the presumption will lie upon them that the Paper came to the King that is plain enough and its coming to the King's hands is a plain proof of a publication in Middlesex and who should bring it to the King but these Gentlemen in whose power it was there is no Man undertakes to say he lost it then what else is to be believed but that it came from them I speak of common supposition and belief they may very well shew it if it were not so all that we can say in it is here is a Paper in Middlesex this you agreed was once your Paper and in your power pray shew what became of it it lies upon you to clear this doubt Mr. Recorder My Lord there is but this question in the case the question is not whether the owning it be a publication but whether here be any Evidence that they did deliver it to the King now if they did deliver it to the King that will be agreed to me to be a publication Mr. Ius Holloway No doubt of it if you can prove it Mr. Recorder Pray Sir spare me that they did it you have this Evidence first that they were the Authours of this Paper by their own Confession that this was in the County of Middlesex and that when they were asked concerning it they owned it to be their hand Writing now whether you can in the least question after all this their delivering of it to the King or that it came to the King's hands without their knowledge or consent is that which lies before your Lordship for your Judgment Lord Chief Iustice. I will ask my Brothers their Opinion but I must deal truly with you I think it is not Evidence against my Lords the Bishops Mr. Iust. Holloway Truly I think you have failed in your Information you have not proved any thing against my Lords the Bishops in
a scandalous matter but it only contains their Reasons whereby they would satisfy his Majesty why they cannot comply in a Concurrence with his Majesty's Pleasure and therefore they humbly beseech the King and beg and request him as the words of it are that his Majesty would be pleased not to insist upon their distributing and reading of this Declaration so the Petitioners on behalf of themselves and the whole Clergy of England beg of the King that he would please not to insist upon it Gentlemen you may observe it that there is nothing in this Petition that contains any thing of Sedition in it and it would be strange this Petition should be Felo de se and by one part of it destroy the other it is laid indeed in the Information that it was with intent and purpose to diminish the King's Royal Authority but I appeal to your Lordship the Court and the Jury whether there be any one word in it that any way touches the King's Prerogative or any tittle of Evidence that has been given to make good the Charge It is an Excuse barely for their non-Complyance with the King's Order and a begging of the King with all Humility and Submission that he would be pleased not to insist upon the reading of his Majesty's Declaration upon these grounds because the Dispensing Power upon which it was founded had been several times in Parliament declared to be against Law and because it was a Case of that Consequence that they could not in Prudence Honour or Conscience concur in it My Lord Mr. Attourny has been pleased to charge in this Information that this is a false malicious and seditious Libel both the falsity of it and that it was malicious and seditious are all Matters of Fact which with Submission they have offered to the Jury no proof of and I make no question but easily to demonstrate the quite contrary For my Lord I think it can be no question but that any Subject that is Commanded by the King to do a Thing which he conceives to be against Law and against his Conscience may humbly apply himself to the King and tell him the Reason why he does not that thing he is commanded to do why he cannot concur with his Majesty in such a Command My Lord that which Mr. Attorney did insist upon in the beginning of this Day and he pretended to cite some Cases for it was that in this Case my Lords the Bishops were not sued as Bishops nor prosecuted for their Religion truly My Lord I do not know what they are sued for else the Information is against them as Bishops it is for an Act they did as Bishops and no otherwise and for an Act they did and do conceive they lawfully might do with relation to their Ecclesiastical Polity and the Government of their People as Bishops The next thing that Mr. Attorney offered was that it was not for a Non-feasance but for a Feasance it is true my Lord it is for a Feasance in making of the Petition but it was to excuse a Non-feasance the not reading according to the Order and this sure was lawful for all the Bishops as Subjects to do and I shall shew it was certainly the duty of my Lords the Bishops or any Peer of the Realm to do the same in a like Case It was likewise said they were prosecuted here for affronting the Government and intermedling with Matters of State but I beg your Lordship and the Jury to consider whether there is one tittle of this mentioned in the Petition or any Evidence given of it the Petition does not meddle with any thing of any Matter of State but refers to an Ecclesiastical Matter to be executed by the Clergy and to a Matter that has relation to Ecclesiastical Causes so that they were not Busybodies or such as meddled in Matters that did not relate to them but that which was properly within their Sphere and Jurisdiction But after all there is no Evidence nor any sort of Evidence that is given by Mr. Attorney that will maintain the least tittle of this Charge and how he comes to leave it upon this sort of Evidence I cannot tell all that it amounts to is That my Lords the Bishops being greived in this manner made this Petition to the King in the most private and respectful manner and for him to load it with such horrid black Epithets that it was done Libellously Maliciously and Scandalously and to oppose the King and Government 't is very hard 't is a Case of a very extraordinary Nature and I believe my Lords the Bishops cannot but conceive a great deal of trouble that they should lie under so heavy a Charge and that Mr. Attorney should draw so severe an Information against them when he has so little Proof to make it out My Lord by what we have to say to it we hope we shall give your Lordship and the Jury Satisfaction that we have done but our Duties supposing here has been a sufficient Evidence of the Fact given which we leave to your Lordship and the Jury My Lord we say in short That this Petition is no more than what any Man if he be Commanded to do any thing might humbly do it and not be guilty of any Crime And my Lord as to the Matter of our Defence it will consist of these Heads First We shall Consider the Matter of this Petition Secondly The Manner of the delivering it according as they have given Evidence here and Thirdly the Persons that have delivered this Petition And we hope to make it appear beyond all question that the Matter contained in this Petition is neither false nor contrary to Law but agreeable to all the Laws of the Land in all Times We shall likewise shew you though that appear sufficiently to you already that the Manner of delivering it was so far from being Seditious that it was in the most secret and private manner and with the greatest Humility and Duty imaginable And then as to the Persons we shall shew you that they are not such as Mr. Attorney says who meddle with Matters of State that are of out their Sphere but they are Persons concerned and concerned in Interest in the Case to make this humble application to the King. And when we have proved all this Matter you will see how strangely we are blackned with Titles and Epithets which we no ways deserve and of which God be thanked there is no Proof For my Lord for the Matter of the Petition we shall consider two things The First is The Prayer which is this They humbly beg and desire of the King on behalf of themselves and the rest of the Clergy that he would not insist upon the Reading and Publishing of this Declaration Surely my Lord there is nothing of Falsity in this nor any thing that is contrary to Law or unlawful for any Man that is pressed to any thing especially by an Order of
Records in Parliament mentioned in their Petition and produce several Ancient Records of former Parliaments that prove this Point and particularly in the Time of Richard the Second concerning the Statute of Provisors where there were particular Dispensations for that Statute the King was enabled to do it by Act of Parliamentâ—… and could not do it without L. C. Iust. Pray Sir Robert Sawyer go to your Proofs and reserve your Arguments till afterwards Sir Rob. Sawyer My Lord I do but shortly mention these things so that my Lord as to the Matter of this Petition we shall shew you that it is true and agreeable to the Laws of the Land. Then my Lord as to the manner of delivering it I need say no more but that it is plain from their Evidence that it was in the most private and humble manner And as my Lord President said Leave was asked of the King for them to be admitted to present it Leave was given and accordingly they did it We come then my Lord to the third thing the Persons these noble Lords and we shall shew they are not Busie-Bodies but in this Matter have done their Duty and medled with their own Affairs That my Lord will appear First By the general Care that is reposed in them by the Law of the Land They are frequently in our Books called the King's Spiritual Judges they are intrusted with the Care of Souls and the Superintendency over all the Clergy is their principal Care. But besides this my Lord there is another special Care put upon them by the express Words of an Act of Parliament for over and above the general Care of the Church by virtue of their Offices as Bishops the Act of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. makes them special Guardians of the Law of Uniformity and of that other Law in His Late Majesty's Reign where all the Clauses of that Statute of 1 Eliz. are revived and made applicable to the present State of the Church of England Now in that Statute of 1 Eliz. there is this Clause And for the due Execution hereof the Queen 's Most Excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do in God's Name earnestly require and charge all the Archbishops and Bishops and other Ordinaries that they do endeavour themselves to the utmost of their Knowledges that the due and true Execution hereof may be had throughout their Diocesses and Charges as they will answer before God for such Evils and Plagues wherewith Almighty God may justly punish his People for neglecting this good and wholsome Law. This is the Charge that lies upon the Bishops to take care of the Execution of that Law and I shall pray by and by that it may be read to the Jury Mr. Soll. Gen. That is very well indeed To what purpose Sir Rob. Sawyer So that my Lord by this Law it is plain that my Lords the Bishops upon pain of bringing upon themselves the Imprecation of this Act of Parliament are obliged to see it executed and then my Lord when any thing comes under their Knowledge especially if they are to be Actors in it that has such a tendency to destroy the very Foundations of the Church as the Suspension of all the Laws that relate to the Church must do it concerns them that have no other Remedy to address the King by Petition about it For that Mr. Attorney my Lord has agreed That if a proper Remedy be pursued in a proper Court for a Grievance complained of though there may be many hard Words that else would be scandalous yet being in a regular Course they are no Scandal And so it is said in Lake's Case in my Lord Hobbart My Lord we must appeal to the King or we can appeal to no body to be relieved against an Order of Council with which we are aggrieved and it is our Duty so to do according to the Care that the Law hath placed in us Besides my Lord the Bishops were commanded by this Order to do an Acâ—… relating to their Ecclesiastical Function to distribute it to be read by their Clergy And how could they in Conscience do it when they thought part of the Declaration was not according to Law Pray my Lord What has been the reason of His Majesty's consulting of his Judges And if His Majesty or any the great Officers by his Command are about to do any thing that is contrary to Law was it ever yet an Offence to tell the King so I always look'd upon it as the Duty of an Officer or Magistrate to tell the King what is Law and what is not Law. In Cavendish's Case in the Queen's time there was an Office granted of the Retorn of the Writs of Supersedeas in the Court of Common Pleas and he comes to the Court and desires to be put into the possession of the Office The Court told him They could do nothing in it but he must bring his Assize He applies to the Queen and she sends under the Privy Seal a Command to sequester the Profits and to take Security to answer thâ—… Profits as the Judgment of the Law should go But the Judges there return an Answer That it was against Law and they could not do it Then there comes a second Letter reciting the former and commanding their Obedience The Judges returned for Answer They were upon their Oaths and were sworn to keep the Laws and would not do it My Lord The like was done in the time of my Lord Hobbart We have it reported in Anderson in a Case where a Prohibition had gone There came a Message from Court that a Consultation should be granted and that was a Matter wherein there were various Opinions whether it was Ex Necessitate or Discretionary but there they return'd That it was against Law for any such Message to he sent Now here my Lord is a Case full as strong My Lords the Bishops were commanded to do an Act which they conceived to be against Law and they decline it and tell the King the reason and they have done it in the most humble manner that could be by way of Petition If they had done as the Civil Law terms it Rescribere generally that had been lawful but here they have done it in a more respectful manner by an humble Petition If they had said the Law was otherwise that sure had been no Fault but they do not so much as that but they only say it was so declared in Parliament and they declare it with all Humility and Dutifulness So that my Lord if we consider the Persons of the Defendants they have not acted as Busie-Bodies and therefore as this Case is when we have given our Evidence here will be an Answer to all the Implications of Law that are contained in this Information For they would have this Petition work by Implication of Law to make a Libel of it but by what I have said it will appear
the Noise of them in your several Countries and God be thanked they were but Noise without any worse Effects To cure the Distempers and compose the differing Minds that are yet amongst us I set forth my Declaration of the 26th of December In which you may see I am willing to set Bounds to the Hopes of some and to the Fears of others of which when you shall have examined well the Grounds I doubt not but I shall have your Concurrence therein The truth is I am in my Nature an Enemy to all Severity for Religion and Conscience how mistaken soever it be when it extends to Capital and Sanguinary Punishments which I am told were began in Popish Times Therefore when I say this I hope I â—…hall not need to warn any here not to inferr from thence that I mean to favour Popery I must confess to you there are many of that Profession who having served my Father and my self very well may fairly hope for some part in that Indulgence I would willingly afford to others who dissent from us But let me explain my self lest some mistake me herein as I heard they did in my Declaration I am far from meaning by this a Toleration or Qualifying them thereby to hold any Offices or Places of Trust in the Government Nay further I desire some Laws may be made to hinder the Growth and Progress of their Doctrine I hope you have all so good an Opinion of my Zeal for the Protestant Religion as I need not tell you I will not yield to any therein not to the Bishops themselves nor in my liking the Uniformity of it as it is now established which being the Standard of our Religion must be kept pure and uncorrupted free from all other Mixtures And yet if the Dissenters will demcan themselves peaceably and modestly under the Government I could heartily wish I had such a Power of Indulgence to use upon Occasion Sir Geo. Treby Pray Sir read that out distinctly Clerk reads I could heartily wish I had such a Power of indulgence to use upon Occasion as might not needlesly force them out of the Kingdom or staying here give them Cause to conspire against the peace of it My Lords and Gentlemen It would look like Flattering in me to tell you in what degree I am confident of your Wisdom and Affection in all things that relate to the Greatness and Prosperity of the Kingdom If you consider well what is best for us all I dare say we shall not disagree I have no more to say to you at present but once again to bid you heartily welcome Mr. Finch The next thing we shall shew you is that after the King had made this Speech and wished he had such a Power of Indulgence to use upon Occasion there was a Bill in the House of Lords brought in to enable the King to dispense with several Laws We shall shew you the Journal where it was Read and Committed but further than that it went not L. C. I. What Use do you make of this Mr. Finch Sir Rob. Sawyer You may easily apprehend the Use we shall make of it The King in his Speech says He wish'd he had such a Power the House of Lords thought he had not and therefore they order'd a Bill to be brought in to enable him Read the Journal of the Lords of the 13th of March 1662. Clerk reads Die Veneris XIII o die Martii 1662. After some Debate whether the House should be put into a Grand Committee for the further Debate of the Bill concerning His Majesty's Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs it was put to the Question viz. As many of your Lordships as would have this House adjourned and put into a Committee to consider of the said Bill say Content others Not Content Passed in the Affirmative And then the Lord Chamberlain of the Houshold was directed to take the Chair as formerly which he did accordingly And after Debate the House was resumed after the Grand Committee had appointed a Sub-Committee touching the said Bill Sir Rob. Sawyer This is all in the Journal of the House of Lords about this Matter We will now shew you the Bill it self Clerk reads An Act concerning His Majesty's Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs WHereas divers of His Majesty's Subjects through Error of Judgment and mis-guided Consciences whereunto the Licentiousness of these late unhappy Times have much contributed do not conform themselves to the Order of Divine Worship and Service established by Law and although His Majesty and both Houses of Parliament are fully satisfied that those Scruples of Conscience from whence this Nonconformity ariseth are ill grounded and that the Government of the Church with the Service thereof as now established is the best that is any where extant and most effectual to the Preservation of the Protestant Religion Yet hoping that Clemency and Indulgence may in time wear out those Prejudices and reduce the Dissenters to the Unity of the Church and considering that this Indulgence how necessary soevever cannot be dispensed by any certain Rule but must vary according to the Circumstances of Time and the Temper and Principles of those to whom it is to be granted and His Majesty being the best Judge when and to whom this Indulgence is to be dispensed or as may be most consistent with the publick Peace and without just Cause of Offence to others and to the end His Majesty may be enabled to exercise it with universal Satisfaction Be it Enacted by the King 's Most Excellent Majesty by Advice and with the Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority thereof That the King's Majesty may by Letters Patents under the Great Seal or by such other Ways as to His Majesty shall seem meet dispense with one Act or Law made the last Session of this present Parliament Intituled An Act for the Uniformity of Publick Prayers and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies and for Establishing the Form of Making and Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deueotis in the Church of England and with any other Laws or Statutes concerning the same or requiring Oaths or Subscriptions or which do enjoin Conformity to the Order Discipline and Worship established in this Church and the Penalties in the said Laws imposed or any of them And may grant â—…fences to such of His Majesty's Subjects of the Protestant-Religion of whose inoffensive and peaceable Disposition His Majesty shall be perswaded to enjoy and use the Exercise of their Religion and Worship though differing from the publick Rule the said Laws and Statutes or any Disabilities Incapacities or Penalties in them or any of them contained or any Matter or Thing to the contrary thereof notwithstanding Provided always and be it Enacted That no such Indulgence Licence or Dispensation hereby to be granted shall extend or be construed to extend to the Tolerating or Permitting the Use or
intrusted in him to the Peace and Establishment of the Church of England and the ease of all his Subjects in general Neither does he pretend to the Right of Suspending any Laws wherein the Properties Rights or Liberties of any of his Subjects are concerned nor to alter any thing in the established Doctrine or Discipline of the Church of England But his only design in this was to take off the Penalties the Statutes inflicted upon Dissenters which he believes when well considered of you your selves would not wish executed according to the Rigour and Letter of the Law neither hath he done this with any thought of avoiding or precluding the Advice of his Parliament and if any Bill shall be offered which shall appear more proper to attain the aforesaid Ends and secure the Peace of the Church and Kingdom when tendred in due manner to him he will shew how readily he will Concur in all ways that shall appear good for the Kingdom Sir Rob. Sawyer Turn to the 26th of February 1672. Clerk read Die Mercurii xxij February 1672. Mr. Powle Reports from the Committee appointed to consider of an Answer to return to his Majesties last Message upon the debate of the House an Answer agreed by the Committee and drawn up and put into Writing which he read in his place and then delivered the same in at the Clerks Table where it was twice read and is as followeth viz. Most Gracious Sovereign WE your Majesties most Humble and Loyal Subjects the Knights Citizens and Burgesses in this present Parliament Assembled do render to your most Sacred Majesty our most dutiful Thanks for that to our unspeakable Comfort your Majesty has been pleased so often to reiterate unto us those gracious Promises and Assurances of maintaining the Religion now Established and the Liberties and Properties of your People and we do not in the least Measure doubt but that your Majesty had the same gracious Intention in giving Satisfaction to your Subjects by your Answer to our last Petition and Address Yet upon a serious Consideration thereof We find that the said Answer is not sufficient to clear the Apprehensions that may justly remain in the minds of your People by your Majesties having claimed a Power to suspend Penal Statutes in Matters Ecclesiastical and which your Majesty does still seem to assert in the said Answer to be intrusted in the Crown and never questioned in the Reigns of any of your Ancestors Wherein we humbly conceive your Majesty has been very much Misinformed Since no such Power ever was claimed or exercised by any of your Majesties Predâ—…ssors and if it should be admitted might tend to the interrupting the free Course of the Laws and altering the Legislative Power which hath always been acknowledged to reside in your Majesty and your two Houses of Parliament We therefore with an unanimous Consent become again most humble Suiters unto your Sacred Majesty That you would be pleased to give us a full and satisfactory Answer to our said Petition and Address and that your Majesty would take such effectual order that the Proceedings in this Matter may not for the future be drawn into Consequence or Example The Answer to his Majesties Message was again read by Paragraphs and the several Paragraphs to the last were upon the question severally agreed The last Paragraph being read and the Question being put that the Word unanimous should stand in the Paragraph The House divided The Noes go out Tellers Lord St. Iohn Mr. Vaughan for the Yeas 180. Sir Richard Temple Sir Philip Howard for the Noes 77. And so it was resolved in the Affirmative The Question being put to agree to the Paragraph it was resolved in the Affirmative Resolved c. That the whole Address be agreed to as it was brought in by the Committee Sir Rob. Sawyer Now turn to the Lords Journal and there your Lordship will see that the King does Communicate this Address to the Lords and desires their Advice Read the 1st of March 1672. Clerk reads Die Sabbati primo die Marcii 1672. His Majesty this Day made a short Speech as follows My Lords You know that at the Opening of this Session I spoke here to your Satisfaction it has notwithstanding begotten a greater disquiet in the House of Commons than I could have imagined I received an Address from them which I looked not for and I made them an Answer that ought to have contented them but on the contrary they have made me a Reply of such a nature that I cannot think fit to proceed any further in this Matter without your Advice I have commanded the Chancellor to acquaint you with all the Transactions wherein you will find both me and your selves highly concerned I am sensible for what relates to me and I assure you my Lords I am not less so for the Priviledg and the Honour of this House Afterwards the Lord Chancellor read the several Papers of Addresses of the House of Commons and his Majesties Answer thereunto and opened his Majesties proceedings upon them The Address of the House of Commons was read Sir Rob. Sawyer Pass over that you have read it already Clerk reads The next his Majesties Answer to the Address of the House of Commons was read as follows Sir Rob. Sawyer That hath been read too Clerk reads Then was read the Reply of the House of Commons to his Majesties Answer as followeth Mr. Finch You have read that likewise Clerk reads Upon this it is ordered that the Lord Treasurer Duke of Buckingham Earl of Bridgwater Earl of Northampton Earl of Bristol Earl of Berks Earl of Bullingbrook and the Earl of Anglesy do forthwith withdraw and consider what humble Thanks is fit to be given to his Majesty for his great Favour in communicating this Business to this House and report the same And accordingly the said Lords Committees did withdraw themselves for that purpose The Lords being returned the Duke of Buckingham reported what the Committee had prepared to present to his Majesty by way of Thanks which was read as followeth We the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled do unanimously present to your Sacred Majesty Our most humble Thanks for having been pleased to Communicate to us what has passed between your Majesty and the House of Commons whereby you have graciously offered us the means of shewing our Duty to your Majesty and of asserting the Ancient Just Rights and Priviledges of the House of Peers The Question being put whether to agree with the Committee It was resolved in the Affirmative Ordered that his Majesty be desired that his Speech and the Papers read this day may be entred into the Journal Book of this House The Lord Treasurer the Duke of Buckingham and the Lord Chamberlain are appointed to attend his Majesty presently to know his pleasure what time and place this whole House shall wait upon him to present the humble Thanks of this House for his great Favour shewed this day
Parliament is High Treason Mr. Sol. Gen. I carry it not so far Sir we have a Gracious Prince and my Lords the Bishops find it so by this Prosecution But what says that Case It is Printed in 3 Books in Noy 100. in Moor 375. and in Mr. Just. Cro. 371. says that Case The King may make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical Mr. Iust. Powel But how will you apply that Case to this in hand Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. I will apply it by and by Sir. I would first shew what it is there is a Convention of the greatest Men in the Kingdom Mr. Iust. Powel Indeed Mr. Sollicitor you shoot at Rovers Mr. Sol. Gen. There iâ—… the Lord Privy Seal the Archbishop of Canterbury and a great many others it is the greatest Aâ—…embly we meet with in our Books and all of them are of this Opinion That the King may make Orders and Constitutions in Matters Ecclesiastical My Lord there is another Authority and that is from the Statute 1 Eliz. which erected the High Commission Court and that Statute was not Introductory of a New Law but Declaratory of the Old Law The King by his Proclamation declares his Sense to do such and such a thing the Court and all Persons there give their Judgment and Opinion upon that Statute That they looked upon it as the grossest thing and the soulest affront to the Prince for any Man to bring into Question that Power of the King in Matters Ecclesiastical 't is said to be a very High Crime Why then my Lord what is done in this Case Mr. Iust. Powel Mr. Sollicitor Pray when you are applying apply that other part of the Case too which says that it was a heinous Offence to raise a Rumor that the King did intend to grant a general Toleration and is there any Law since that has changed it Mr. Sollicitor Mr. Sol. Gen. In the main Judgment goes another way as for that part it was personal to the Prince that then was of whom they had Scandalously reported that he intended to do such a thing they look'd upon it as a Scandal to King Iames that it was a sowing Sedition and stirring up People against the Government and that will come up to our Case for as some Men do it on the right side others do it on the left and whoever he be that endeavours to bring a dislike of the King in the People that is moving Sedition against the Prince but that is personal to the Prince himself and does not go to his Successors Now my Lord I come to that which is very plain from the Case of De Libellis Famosis If any Person in any Paper have Slandered the Government you are not to Examine who is in the Right and who is in the Wrong whether what they said to be done by the Government be Legal or no but whether the party have done such an Act. If the King have a Power for still I keep to that to Issue forth Proclamations to his Subjects and to make Orders and Constitutions in matters Ecclesiastical if he do Issue forth his Proclamation and make an Order upon the matters within his Power and Prerogative and if any one would come and bring that Power in Question I say that is Sedition and you are not to Examine the Legality or Illegality of the Order or Proclamation and that I think is very plain upon that Case in the Fifth Report for it says If a Person does a thing that is Libellous you shall not Examine the Fact but the Consequence whether it tended to stir up Sedition against the Publick or to stir up Strife between Man and Man in the Case of private Persons as if a Man should say of a Judge He has taken a Bribe and I will prove it this is not to be sent in a Letter but they must take a regular way to Prosecute it according to Law. If it be so in the Case of an Inferior Magistrate what must it be in the Case of a King to come to the Kings Face and tell him as they do here that he has Acted Illegally doth certainly sufficiently prove the matter to be Libellous What do they say to King they say and admit that they have an aversness for the Declaration and they tell him from whence that aversness doth proceed and yet they insinuate that they had an inclination to Gratify the King and Embrace the Dissenters that were as averse to them as could be with due tenderness when it should be settled by Parliament and Convocation Pray what hath their Convocation to do in this matter L. Ch. Iust. Mr. Sollicitor General I will not interrupt you but pray come to the Business before us Shew us that this is in diminution of the Kings Prerogative or that the King ever had such a Prerogative Mr. Sol. Gen. I will my Lord I am observing what it is they say in this Petition They tell the King it is inconsistent with their Honor Prudence and Conscience to do what he would have them to do and if these things be not reflective upon the King and Government I know not what is this is not in a way of Judicature possibly it might have been allowable to Petition The King to put it into a course of Justice whereby it may be Tryed but alas there is no such thing in this matter It is not their desire to put it into any Method for Tryal and so it comes in the Case De Libellis Famosis for by this way they make themselves Judges which no Man by Law is permitted to do My Lords the Bishops have gone out of the way and all that they have offered does not come home to justify them and therefore I take it under Favour that we have made it a good Case for the King we have proved what they have done and whether this be Warrantable or not is the Question Gentlemen that you are to try The whole Case appears upon Record the Declaration and Petition are set forth and the Order of the King and Council When the Verdict is brought in they may move any thing what they please in arrest of Judgment They have had a great deal of Latitude and taken a great deal of Liberty But truly I apprehend not so very pertinently But I hope we have made a good Case of it for the King and that you Gentlemen will give us a Verdict Mr. Iust. Holloway Mr. Sollicitor there is one thing I would seign be satisfied in you say the Bishops have no Power to Petition the King. Mr. Soll. Gen. Not out of Parliament Sir. Mr. Iust. Holloway Pray give me leave Sir Then the King having made such a Declaration of a General Toleration and Liberty of Conscience and afterwards he comes and requires the Bishops to disperse this Declaration this they say out of a tenderness of Conscience they cannot do because they apprehend it contrary to Law and contrary to their
is not to be expected that I should repeat all the Speeches or the particular Facts but I will put the Jury in mind of the most Material things as well as my Memory will give me leave but I have been interrupted by so many Long and Learned Speeches and by the length of the Evidence which has been brought in in a very broken unmethodical way that I shall not be able to do so well as I would Gentlemen thus stands the Case It is an Information against my Lords the Bishops his Grace my Lord of Canterbury and the other Six Noble Lords and it is for Preferring Composing Making and Publishing and Causing to be Published a Seditious Libel the way that the Information goes is special and it sets forth That the King was Graciously pleased by his Royal Power and Prerogative to set forth a Declaration of Indulgence for Liberty of Conscience in the Third Year of his Reign and afterwards upon the 27. of April in the Fourth Year he comes and makes another Declaration and afterwards in May orders in Council that this Declaration should be Published by my Lords the Bishops in their several Diocesses and after this was done my Lords the Bishops come and present a Petition to the King in which were contained the Words which you have seen Now Gentlemen the Proofs that have been upon this you 'll see what they are the two Declarations are proved by the Clerks of the Council and they are brought here under the Great Seal a Question did arise whether the Prints were the same with the Original Declarations and that is proved by Hills or his Man that they were Examined and are the same then the Order of Council was produced by Sir Iohn Nicholas and has likewise been read to you then they come to prove the Fact against the Bishops and first they fall to proving their Hands they begun indeed a great way off and did not come so close to it as they afterwards did for some of their Hands they could hardly prove but my Lord Archbishop's Hand was only proved and some others but there might have been some Question about that Proof but afterwards it came to be proved that my Lords the Bishops owned their Hands which if they had produced at first would have made the Cause something shorter than it was The next Question that did arise was about the Publishing of it whether my Lords the Bishops had Published it and it was insisted upon That no body could prove the Delivery of it to the King it was proved the King gave it to the Council and my Lords the Bishops were called in and there they acknowledged their Hands but no body could prove how it came to the King's Hands Upon which we were all of Opinion That it was not such a Publishing as was within the Information and I was going to have directed you to find my Lords the Bishops Not Guilty But it hapned that being Interrupted in my Directions by an Honest Worthy Learned Gentleman the Kings Council took the Advantage and informing the Court that they had further Evidence for the King we staid till my Lord President came who told us how the Bishops came to him to his Office at White-hall and after they had told him their Design That they had a mind to Petition the King they asked him the Method they were to take for it and desired him to help them to the Speech of the King And he tells them he will acquaint the King with their Desire which he does and the King giving leave he comes down and tells the Bishops that they might go and speak with the King when they would and says he I have given Direction that the Door shall be opened for you as soon as you come With that the Two Bishops went away and said they would go and fetch their other Brethren and so they did bring the other Four but my Lord Archbishop was not there and immediately when they came back they went up into the Chamber and there a Petition was Delivered to the King. He cannot speak to that particular Petition because he did not Read it and that is all that he knew of the Matter only it was all done the same Day and that was before my Lords the Bishops appeared at the Council Gentlemen after this was proved then the Defendants came to their Part and these Gentlemen that were of Councel for my Lords let themselves into their Defence by notable Learned Speeches by telling you that my Lords the Bishops are Guardians to the Church and great Peers of the Realm and were bound in Conscience to take care of the Church They have Read you a Clause of a Statute made in Queen Eliz. time by which they say my Lords the Bishops were under a Curse if they did not take care of that Law. Then they shew you some Records One in Richard the Seconds time which they could make little of by reason their Witness could not Read it but it was in short a Liberty given to the King to Dispense with the Statute of Provisors Then they shew you some Journals of Parliament First in the Year 1662. where the King had Granted an Indulgence and the House of Commons Declared it was not fit to be done unless it were by Act of Parliament And they Read the King's Speech wherein he says he wish'd he had such a Power and so likewise that in 1672. which is all nothing but Addresses and Votes or Orders of the House or Discourses either the King's Speech or the Subjects Addresses but these are not Declarations in Parliament that is insisted upon by the Councel for the King That what is a Declaration in Parliament is a Law and that must be by the King Lords and Commons the other is but common Discourse but a Vote of the House or a Signification of their Opinion and cannot be said to be a Declaration in Parliament Then they come to that in 1685. where the Commons take notice of something about the Souldiers in the Army that had not taken the Test and make an Address to the King about it but in all these things as far as I can observe nothing can be gathered out of them one way or other it is all nothing but Discourses Sometimes this Dispensing Power has been allowed as in 〈◊〉 2. time and sometimes it has been denied and the King did once wave it Mr. Sollicitor tells you the Reason There was a Lump of Money in the Case But I wonder indeed to hear it come from him Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord I never gave my Vote for Money I assure you L. Ch. Iust. But those Concessions which the King sometimes makes for the Good of the People and sometimes for the Profit of the Prince himself but I would not be thought to distinguish between the Profit of the Prince and the Good of the People for they are both one and what is the Profit of the Prince
shaken It is the business of the Government to manage Matters relating to the Government it is the business of Subjects to mind only their own Properties and Interest If my Interest is not shaken what have I to do with Matters of Government They are not within my Sphere If the Government does come to shake my particular Interest the Law is open for me and I may redress my self by Law And when I intrude my self into other Mens business that does not concern my particular Interest I am a Libeller These I have laid down for plain Propositions now then let us Consider further Whether if I will take upon me to contradict the Government any specious Pretence that I shall put upon it shall dress it up into another Form and give it a better Denomination and truly I think it will not I think 't is the worse because it comes in a better Dress for by that Rule every Man that can put on a good Vizard may be as Mischievous as he will to the Government at the bottom so that whether it be in the form of a Supplication or an Address or a Petition if it be what it ought not to be let us call it by its true Name and give it its right Denomination It is a Libel Then Gentlemen Consider what this Petition is This is a Petition relating to something that was done and ordered by the Government Whether the Reasons of the Petition be true or false I will not Examine that now nor will I Examine the Prerogative of the Crown but only take notice that this relates to the Act of the Government The Government here has published such a Declaration as this that has been read relating to Matters of Government And shall or ought any body to come and impeach that as Illegal which the Government has done Truly in my Opinion I do not think he should or ought for by this Rule may every Act of the Government be shaken when there is not a Parliament de Facto sitting I do agree That every Man may Petition the Government or the King in a matter that relates to his own private Iâ—…erest but to meddle with a matter that relates to the Government I do not think my Lords the Bishops had any Power to do more than any others When the House of Lords and Commons are in Being it is a proper way of applying to the King there is all the openness in the World for those that are Members of Parliament to make what Addresses they please to the Government for the rectifying altering regulating and making of what Law they please but if every private Man shall come and interpose his Advice I think there can never be an end of Advising the Government I think there was as an instance of this in King Iames's Time when by a Solemn Resolution it was declared to be High Misdemeanour and next to Treason to Petition the King to put the Penal Laws in Execution Mr. Iust. Powel Brother I think you do Mistake a little Mr. Iust. Allybone Brother I dare rely upon it that I am Right it was so declared by all the Judges Mr. Soll. Gen. The Puritans presented a Petition to that purpose and in it they said if it would not be granted they would come with a Great Number Mr. Iust. Powel Ay there it is Mr. Iust. Allybone I tell you Mr. Sollicitor the Resolution of the Judges is That such a Petition is next Door to Treason a very Great Misdemeanour Mr. Iust. Powel They accompanying it with Threats of the Peoples being Discontented Mr. Iust. Allybone As I remember it is in the Second Part of the Folio 35 or 37 where the Resolution of the Judges is That to frame a Petition to the King to put the Penal Laws in Execution is next Door to Treason for say they no Man ought to intermeddle with Matters of Government without leave of the Government Mr. Serj. Pemberton That was a Petition against the Penal Laws Mr. Iust. Allybone Then I am quite Mistaken indeed in case it be so Mr. Serj. Trinder That is not Material at all which it was Mr. Pollixfen They there threatned unless their Request were granted several Thousands of the King's Subjects would be Discontented Mr. Iust. Powel That is the Reason of that Judgment I affirm it Mr. Iust. Allybone But then I 'll tell you Brother again what is said in that Case that you hinted at and put Mr. Sollicitor in mind of For any Man to raise a Report that the King will or will not permit a Toleration if either of these be disagreeable to the People whether he may or may not It is against Law for we are not to measure things from any Truth they have in themselves but from that Aspect they have upon the Government for there may be every Tittle of a Libel true and yet it may be a Libel still So that I put no great Stress upon that Objection That the Matter of it is not False and for Sedition it is that which every Libel carries in it self and as every Trespass implies Vi Armis so every Libel against the Government carries in it Sedition and all the other Epithets that are in the Information This is my Opinion as to the Law in General I will not Debate the Prerogatives of the King nor the Priviledges of the Subject but as this Fact is I think these Venerable Bishops did meddle with that which did not belong to them they took upon them in a Petitionary way to contradict the Actual Exercise of the Government which I think no private particular Persons or single Body may do L. Ch. Iust. Gentlemen of the Jury Have you a Mind to Drink before you go Iury. Yes my Lord if you please Wine was sent for for the Iury. Iury-man My Lord we humbly pray that your Lordship would be pleased to let us have the Papers that have been given in Evidence L. Ch. Iust. What is that you would have Sir Mr. Soll. Gen. He desires this my Lord That you would be pleased to direct that the Jury may have the use of such Writings and Statute Books as may be Necessary for them to make use of L. Ch. Iust. The Statute Book they shall have Mr. Soll. Gen. But they can have no Papers but what are under Seal Mr. Serj. Levinz They may have them by Consent and they may have a Copy of the Information L. Ch. Iust. They shall have a Copy of the Information and the Declarations under Seal Mr. Pollixfen If they have those and the Lâ—…bel as they call it they will not need a Copy of the Information M. Attorn Gen. My Lord we pray that your Lordship would be pleased to ascertain what it is they shall have L. Ch. Iust. They shall have a Copy of the Information the Libel and the Declarations under the Great Seal Mr. Soll. Gen. But not the Votes of the House of Commons nor the Journals for