authorised by them may be said to represent them and so he did but yet it shews that the Bishops as Bishops and Clergy men could not be there in their persons and that rather than they should be there present such an unusual thing should be admitted as that one Layman who else was no Peer nor had place in the House of Peers to vote there should be chosen by them to have all their Proxies put together and united in him to be disposed of by him as he should think good For it was never done but in this one Parliament there never was in no Parliament before or after such a Procuratorship or Proxy given And in this Parliament of 21. R. 2. it was thrice done first here to Sir Thomas Percy then the Parliament being adjourned to Shrewsbury it was there given it seems by vote only to William le Scrope Earl of Wilts for the words are Sur ce les ditz Prelatz Clergie nomerent ordenerent en Parlement per bouche William le Scrope Conte de Wilts commettant donant a luy pleine poair aussi avant en manere come feust comys a Mr. Thomas le Percy per devant Hereupon the said Prelates and Clergy named and appointed in Parliament by word of mouth William le Scrope Earl of Wilts and gave him the same power as full and in the same manner as before had been granted unto Sir Thomas le Percy Now Percy had it by Commission enrolled which happily was to make it more authentick because he was but a Commoner The third time it was done was in the business between the two Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk when by this Parliament sitting then at Shrewsbury that whole matter was referred to the King to be by him determined by the advice of certain Lords and Commoners there named and to them were joyned the Earls of Worcester and Wilts Procurators for the Clergy This I must say argues a great unanimity in the voting of the Prelates which it seems hath ever been but I must say it was most Unparliamentary never practiced but in that one Parliament of the 21. R. 2. which whole Parliament is repealed and all it did Nulled and made Void by Act of Parliament 1. H. 4. so as it cannot be urged as a Precedent to infer any thing upon it nor can it make any thing to prove a right in the Bishops of being personally present in matters of that nature but rather in my opinion strongly the contrary And one thing more would be observed which is that it seems by the Record that the whole Clergy of England joyned in making this Proctor and not only the Prelates who were Members of the House of Peers which seems very strange But more than all this whatever was done this Parliament signifies nothing the whole Parliament stands repealed by 1. H. 4. and all done in it declared Null and Void 1. H. 4. The Commons had desired that Sir William Rikhill who had been a Judge in the Common Pleas and had been sent by R. 2. to Calais to take the Confession of the Duke of Glocester who soon after was there murthered might be put to answer upon what account he did it He was under arrest for it and was brought into Parliament before the King and the two Houses the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons then assembled together The whole matter was examined the conclusion was saith the Record Sur ceo chascun Sr Temporel esteant en plein Parlement examine severalment sur la response du dit William dit quil avoit fait loyalnent quil ny avoit en luy aucun coupe Hereupon every Lord Temporal being in full Parliament severally asked concerning the answer of the said William said he had carried himself Loyally and that he had committed no fault There was no charge no impeachment against him so the Bishops might be and were present at his examination as the Commons also were but they must have no hand in giving any Judgment upon it because it might have been a preparatory to an Accusation and an Impeachment if he had not given so good satisfaction as it seems he did in the account he gave of his employment That Parliament Iohn Hall a Servant of the Duke of Norfolk's who had helped to murther the Duke of Glocester at Calais was tried before the King and the Lords Temporal The Record saith Il sembla au Roy a toutz les Srs. Temporels quil avoit deservi davoir si dure mort come la Ley luy pourroit donner Et sur ceo toutz les Srs. Temporelz per assent du Roy adjuggerent quil seroit treinez del Tower-hill jusques a les fourkes de Tyburn c. It seemed to the King and to all the Temporal Lords that he deserved as cruel a death as the Law could inflict And hereupon all the Temporal Lords with the assent of the King gave Iudgment that he should be drawn from Tower-hill to the Gallows at Tyburn c. there to be hanged c. 2 H 4. The first Writ de Haeretico comburendo was agreed upon only by the Lords Temporal it was in the Case of William Santre our St. Stephen the Protomartyr of England the Record is Item cest Mesquerdy un Brief fust fait as Meir Uiscountz de Londres per advis des Srs. Temporelx en Parlement de faire execution de William Sautre Item this Wednesday a Writ was framed by the advice of the Lords Temporal in Parliament directed to the Mayor and Sheriffs of London for the execution of William Sautre I doubt not but the Bishops and Clergy of those times were the chief promoters of this though not appearing to be Actors in it Which yet would not have been a direct condemnation of him as his Judges nor any thing to be determined by them tending to his conviction but only an advice given to the King to make it his Act under the Broad Seal to order his execution yet they then were not to have a hand even in a matter of this nature The same Parliament the Earls of Kent Huntington and Salisbury the Lord le Despencer and Sir Ralph Lumley who for levying War against the King had been taken and executed were by the Lords Temporal declared and adjudged Traitors and their Estates to be forfeited the names of the Lords that made this Declaration and gave this Judgment are there set down the Prince of Wales the first and the Lord le Scroope the last five and twenty in all Not a Bishop amongst them so much as to declare and judge it a Treason though the persons who had committed it were dead before So as it seems they must not have a hand neither in the Antecedent what is Preliminary and Preparatory to the death of a Man nor in the Consequent what is to be done after so far from being the Judges to try or condemn him 5. H. 4. The Earl
a Statute Law of the Land as much as any other can be which we have in our printed Statute Books The first time was at a Great Council which was then their Parliament at Clarendon about the 10 of H. 2. where were made that which they call the Constitutions of Clarendon which were not new things then first made but a recapitulation of some things that had been in use and practice in former times Matthew Paris and Gervasius Dorobornensis recite them at large other ancient Historians more succinctly There were of them sixteen in number Matthew Paris gives the best account of them and of the whole proceeding in that affair He tells you how the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons and other great ones Aliis Proceribus being present Facta est Recognitio sive Recordatio partis Consuetudinum Libertatum antecessorum suorum A Recapitulation or a Rehearsal was made of the Liberties and Customs of their Ancestors in the time of H. 1. and of other Kings so it was not a new Law and but then enacted but it was indeed a Declaration of what was the Law before yet then more solemnly enjoyned In regno observari ab omnibus teneri To be in the Kingdom observed and kept by all men and this in regard of differences oft times arising between the Kings Justices and the Clergy Propter dissensiones discordias saepe emergentes inter Clerum Iusticiarios Domini Regis that Popish Clergy being still apt enough to encroach upon the Civil power which made it the more necessary to revive and re-establish the old Law and Custom of the Kingdom Sixteen Articles were then agreed upon one of which the eleventh runs thus Archiepiscopi Episcopi universe Persone Regni qui de Rege tenent in Capite habeant possessiones suas de Rege sicut Baroniam inde respondeant Iusticiariis Ministris Regis sequantur faciant omnes Consuetudines Regias Et sicut ceteri Barones debent interesse Iudiciis Curie Regis quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem The Archbishops Bishops and all the dignified Clergy of the Land that hold of the King in Capite shall hold their possessions from the King as a Barony and answer for their Estates unto the Kings Iustices and Ministers and shall observe and obey all the Kings Laws And together with the other Barons they are to be present at all Iudgments in the Kings Courts till it come to require either loss of member or life And this Article as well as the rest they are sworn to observe See how the Author expresseth it Hanc Recognitionem sive Recordationem de consuetudinibus libertatibus iniquis Archiepiscopi Episcopi Abbates Priores Clerus cum Comitibus Baronibus Proceribus cunctis juraverunt firmiter in verbo veritatis promiserunt viva voce tenendas observandas Domino Regi heredibus suis bona fide absque malo ingenio in perpetuum This Recognition or Recordation of these wicked Customs and Liberties did the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors and the whole Clergy together with the Earls Barons and all the Great men swear to and firmly promise upon the word of truth by word of mouth that they should be kept and observed to the King and his Heirs in true faith without any evil meaning for ever Now can there be a more solemn establishing and a stronger confirmation of any Law to have it inviolably observed and obeyed by the whole Nation that this we find here where besides the authority of the Parliament for these great Councils were the Parliaments of those times there is an Oath which is the greatest Obligation that mankind is capable of making even God a party to it to see it obeyed and punish the transgressors And from whom have we the testimony of these transactions to assure us of the matter of Fact From Matthew Paris a Monk one that would not be partial for the Lords Temporal in relating matters to give them more power in Judicature and less to the Lords Spiritual than of right belonged to each and looking upon this exclusion of the Prelats from the power of Judging in such cases to be some diminution of their Omnipotency which they were so ambitious of he therefore ranks it amongst the Consuetudines iniquas the wicked Customs of the former times So we have here Testimonium irrefragabile an irrefragable and invincible testimony upon which we may build our faith and have a certain assurance that there was really such an usage in ancient times and that it was then in that 10. year of H. 2. again ratified and confirmed since these Monks have so recorded it and transmitted it to posterity The second time time that this received a Confirmation in Parliament was the 11 of R. 2. which I mentioned before when the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the other Bishops upon their withdrawing then from the Parliament in regard matters of Bloud were to be there agitated and determined In quibus non licet alicui eorum personaliter interesse as they say In which it was not lawful for any of them to be present in person did therefore enter a Protestation with a Salvo to their right of Sitting and Voting in that and all other Parliaments when such matters were not in question which Protestation of theirs was at their desire enrolled in full Parliament as the Record saith Par commandment du Roy assent des Seigneurs Temporelz Communes By the Kings command with the assent of the Lords Temporal and Commons So indeed it was here a perfect and compleat Act of Parliament and if it had not been a Law be-before would than have been made one But it was a Law before and this needed not to make it more a Law than it was before yet certainly what was here done must be of some signification and add some weight that it may be said at least that it seems to enforce some greater compliance with it and to heighten the offence of such as will not conform to it And by the way let me desire to be well understood what I mean by saying This would make it a Law if it was not one before I do not mean the Protestation would be a Law for a Protestation Modo Forma cannot be a Law but the subject matter of it was then enacted which did consist of two Particulars the one That the Prelates had a right and a Priviledge to sit and vote in Parliament in all other businesses the other That they had no Right nor was it lawful for them to be present in Parliament when such businesses were in question Which one would think they might look upon as a Right and Priviledge to be exempt from being obliged to attend in such Cases Cases of Bloud As the Lords Temporal who are Peers of the Realm challenge it to be their Right and Priviledge not to be returned in Juries
upon the Trial of Commoners Though to speak the truth I doubt those Prelates did not much desire this Priviledge but the Salvo to their Right of sitting in all Parliaments to have been what they aimed at most in their Protestation and which they would have to be enrolled but the one could not be without the other and upon no terms would they admit the least scruple should be of their right to sit in Parliament which their withdrawing at that time might seem else to call in some question as they thought and therefore they would make that Protestation For that Popish Clergy was very ambitious and loved to have the rule over all persons and things we see it by Matthew Paris how he branded those Constitutions of Clarendon with terming them Consuetudines iniquas and the Archbishop Becket himself after he had sworn to them repented him of it and enjoyned a severe Penance to himself and suspended himself from the Office of the Altar for several months till he had the Popes Absolution This makes me doubt if the Clergy was of another mind in Richard the Seconds time and if they could not have been well enough contented to have continued sitting as Judges in all Cases if the Canon Law had not debarred them but that being they would make that Protestation consisting as I say of those two parts both which being so approved of by the Parliament and there enrolled became then and so continue to be the Law of the Kingdom For in those times all Laws were so made Only the substance of the Law was agreed upon in Parliament by King Lords and Commons and entred in the Journal Book And the Kings Justices did afterwards draw it up into form and then publish it to be the known standing Law of the Kingdom But that was not needful here because it was not a new thing that did then receive its first being Neither I say was it new before in Henry the Seconds time it appearing by what was then transacted that it was in usage in Henry the Firsts time only it was ratified in that Great Council of Clarendon under Henry the Second with a little more solemnity and the addition of an Oath for the better observance of it And we may carry it yet a little higher to Edward the Confessors days as appears by his Appeal against Earl Godwin in a Great Council which was their Parliament and how long it had been the use and practice before that God knows In E. 4 th time it was the declared Law of the Land you have it in the Year-Book of 10 E. 4. Term. Pas. n. 35. the words are Quant un Sr. est endite ceo serra maunde en le Parliament la le Seneschal d' Engleterre le mettra a respondre il dira De rien culpable se sera trie per Pares suos donque les Seigniors Espirituelx que ne poient consent al mort de home ferront un Procurator en le Parliament donque le Seneschal doit examiner primes le pluis puisne Seignior que est sil soit culpable issint separatim a toues les Seigniors queux sont la c. When a Lord is indicted it shall be returned into Parliament and there the Steward of England shall put him to answer and he shall say Not guilty and this shall be tried by his Peers and then the Lords Spiritual who may not consent to the death of any man shall make their Procurator in Parliament and then the Lord Steward shall ask the youngest Lord if he be Guilty and so severally all the Lords that are there c. This I alledge to shew that even by the Law of the Land the Bishops cannot be Judges in a Case Capital it is true here is mention made of their making a Proctor which was Error Temporis the Errour of those times grounded upon what was so lately done as they looked upon it though irregularly done in the last Parliament of R. 2. whom they considered as their last lawful King and in truth he was so the three Henries that came between being but Usurpers and therefore they had it seems a deference for what was then done though as I have already said it was never done before nor is it in truth a thing very practicable and not at all Parliamentary to have one man or two men as we see it was also done that Parliament represent the whole Bench of Bishops And more than all this as I have already observed which it seems was not then thought of that whole Parliament of R. 2. stands repealed and all that was done in it declared by a subsequent Act of Parliament to be Null and Void But this is but by the way my intent in quoting this Book Case is onely to shew that the Bishops were not excluded Judging in Capital Cases by the Canon Law alone but that the Law of the Land did likewise confirm it and the Courts of Westminster did so conceive of it So I think I may well conclude and with some confidence affirm that Bishops now are not to be Judges to Sit and Vote in Parliament in any Trial or part of a Trial that is in any circumstance which doth any ways lead or conduce to such a Trial of any Capital Offender but the whole Judgment is singly and wholly in the Lords Temporal and to them onely such Judgments do belong as was challenged by them in the Case of the Earl of Northumberland 5 H. 4. and is so declared to be in several other Cases upon the Rolls of Parliament And having thus delivered you my opinion and my grounds for that opinion I submit it to your judgment and rest SIR Your Humble Servant POSTSCRIPT SIR AS I was closing my Letter two Papers were brought me one in Written hand the other Printed which maintain an Opinion clean contrary to mine I shall tell you what they say and give my Answer to it then leave it to you to determine who is in the right The written Paper to prove their right of Judicature in all Cases none excepted declares Bishops to be Peers of the Land and a Third Estate in Parliament and therefore are not to be excluded from being Judges in all Cases as well Capital as other To prove them Peers of the Land he urges Statute Law and Common Law for the Statute Law he alledges the 25 of Ed. 3. c. 6. and the 4 of H. 5. c. 6. First For the Statute Law let me tell you It is not every expression Obiter upon the By that is in the Preamble of a Statute as this is of Bishops to be called Peers in these Statutes that makes a thing pass for Law except it be by way of Declaration declaring it to be a Law or reciting it as a Law before made And then I shall shew you how these two particular Statutes run and what they are That of the 25 E. 3. it is true hath in
should be done in derogation or restriction of the power of their Holy Father the Pope saying they were sworn to his Holiness and to the Court of Rome These were likely to make a good Third Estate of an English Parliament And is it not then a wonder that any Engiish man should desire to bring Popery in again for Bishops to controule both King and Parliament Would it not set even Monarchy it self one degree lower Sure it would But this is by the way Consider further that if they had had such a power of being a Third Estate in the days of Queen Elizabeth those good Acts for a Reformation in Religion had never pased and the Reformation had never been 1 Eliz. The Bill for restoring the first Fruits and Tenths to the Imperial Crown of England which passed February 4. The Bill for restoring the Supremacy to the Crown and repealing divers Acts made to the contrary which passed March 18. The Bill giving authority to the Queen upon avoidance of a Bishoprick to take some part of the Temporalties into her hands recompensing the same with Impropriate Parsonages which passed April 7. All the Bishops present were against the passing of these Bills And before that in Edward the Sixths time they were against the Bill for Priests to marry which passed Feb. 19. 2 E. 6. So the Bill for ordering Ecclesiastical Ministers giving power to Six Prelates and Six other men learned in the Laws to set down the form and manner of their Consecration which passed Ian. 25.3 E. 6. The Bill for nominating thirty two Persons to peruse the Ecclesiastical Laws which passed Ian. 31. The Bill for abolishing and putting away divers superstitious Books as Legends Missals Processionals and the like and taking away Images out of Churches and Chappels which passed also that Parliament All these good Bills the Bishops were against yet they passed into Laws and were the foundation of our Reformation which had they been a Third Estate had never been laid for those Bills had not passed But you will say perhaps that we need not fear such mischiefs and inconvenience from our Protestant Bishops and I grant it nor do I urge these things with any such apprehension I only shew you what the Popish Bishops did then and that if they had been a Third Estate such mischiefs would have followed upon it and thence to infer That they were not in those times so accounted and that our Protestant Bishops cannot then pretend to it now They then and These now having Place and Vote in Parliament upon the same terms But then we have good Authority to inform us which are truly the Three Estates King Iames seems to make it clear in a Speech he made at the Prorogation of the Parliament in the year 1605. the words are these As for the thing it self that is the Parliament it is composed of a Head and a Body The Head is the King the Body are the Members of the Parliament This Body again is subdivided into two parts the Vpper and the Lower House The Vpper House compounded partly of Nobility Temporal men who are Heritable Counsellours to the High Court of Parliament by the honour of their Creation and Lands And partly of Bishops Spiritual men who are likewise by the virtue of their Place and Dignity Counsellours Life Renters or Advitam of this Court. The other House is composed of Knights for the Shires and Gentry and Burgesses for the Towns But because the number would be infinite for all the Gentlemen and Burgesses to be present at every Parliament therefore a certain number is selected and chosen out of the great Body serving only for that Parliament where their Persons are the Representation of that Body You see that wise King makes the Body to consist of Two Parts the Upper House or the House of Lords to be one of those parts consisting of Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual who together make one part And the House of Commons another part It is true he calls neither of them an Estate but most certain he cannot be thought to understand the Spiritual Lords to be an Estate by themselves making them to be but a Part of one of the Parts of that Body For by the same reason he may be said to make the House of Commons consist of two Estates saying it is composed of Knights of the Shires and Burgesses for the Towns But King Charles the First is plainer in his expressions in his Answer to the Nineteen Propositions sent to him from the two Houses Iune 2. 1642. He tells them That neither one Estate should transact what is proper for two nor two what is proper for three And in that same Answer he saith a little after It is most unreasonable that two Estates proposing something to the Third the Third should be bound to take no advice whether it were fit to pass but from those two who did propose it Nothing can be clearer than this to shew what the opinion of that good King was concerning the three Estates in Parliament And 2 H. 4. n. 32. It is so declared by the House of Commons even to the King himself and to the Lords That the three Estates of Parliament are the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons who should all be at an Vnity among themselves and therefore hearing there were some differences between the Lords they humbly prayed the King to compose them And Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester sometime Lord Chancellor an ancient Parliament-man in Henry the Eighths time who well understood the constitution of Parliaments in his Letter to the Lord Protector in Edward the Sixths time which Letter is in the second Volume of the Book of Martyrs Printed in 1641. p. 7. doth acknowledge it and saith That the three Estates make a Law and compares the three Estates in Parliament to the three Christian Vertues Faith Hope and Charity and saith That it were the same absurdity and untruth to say the Higher House and the Lower House exclude the King in the Office of making Laws as it would be in Religion to say that Faith excludeth Charity in the Office of Justification Here you have the Testimony of a Bishop I confess a Popish Bishop as you may see by his application of this Simile to make Charity that is works of Charity to have a part in Justification But I meddle not with his Divinity As to that which he saith of the Estates in Parliament he is in the right and he was one that knew well enough what was due to the Order of Bishops even to the full extent of it and would not have shortned it the breadth of one hair yet he makes them not an Estate by themselves but as joyned with the Lords Temporal Then for the Common Law you have Finch in his Book of Law dedicated to King Iames the first Chapter of the second Book p. 21. who saith the very same thing in very plain terms His
words are these Lassemblie de ceux trois Estates c ' est assavoir Roy Nobilitie Commons qui sont le Corps del Realme est appel une Parlement lour decree un Act de Parlement car sans touts troys come si soit fait per Roy Seigniors mes rien parle del Commons nest ascun Act de Parlement The Assembly of the Three Estates that is to say King Nobles and Commons who are the Body of the Realm is called a Parliament and their Decree is an Act of Parliament for without all three as if it were done by the King and Lords and no mention of the Commons it is no Act of Parliament Can any thing be plainer You see now with how little appearance of truth the Writer of that Paper takes upon him to declare Bishops to be either Peers of the Land or one of the Three Estates and what ill Topicks he hath chosen to prove them to have right of Judicature in all Cases Criminal and Capital for that is his Assertion upon it For what he cites out of some Year-books that in some pleadings their Counsel calls them Peers will not make them so nay should the Judges themselves stile them Peers as perhaps they might complement the potent Clergy of those days it could not alter the Law of the Land which makes Commoners their Peers seeing they are to be tried by Commoners As for matter of Fact to prove that they have Judged in Capital Cases he cites the Protestation in the eleventh of R. 2. and then their making their Procurator and so Judging by Proxy in the 21 of R. 2. To which I need say nothing in this Postscript having so largely in my Letter treated of it Then he gives many Precedents of their voting in Bills of Attainder which is all Not to the purpose for that is not in Question Acts of Attainder are Laws and every Freeman is supposed to give his Consent to every Law either by his Representative or in Person if a Member of Parliament And Bishops being Members may I think claim to do it Personally So I have done with the Paper and come to the Printed Book stiled The Honours of the Lords Spiritual asserted And Six Chapters are taken up in blazoning their Honour which no body endeavours to take from them nor do I think it to be any part or degree of Honour to judge men to death It is certainly an employment which in my opinion no body will envy to any that hath it Then for those great Places which the Bishops enjoyed here in England mentioned in the fifth Chapter I no ways wonder at it we know that Popish Clergy had ambition enough to covet to have the whole rule and in those blind and superstitious times power enough to obtain what they had a mind to both Prince and People in a manner awed by them who yet sometimes would complain and break out a little as Scholars sometimes rise against their School-masters So 45 E. 3. The two Houses joyn Countes Barones Communes and represent to the King how the Government of the Kingdom had been a long time in the hands of the Clergy Per ent grant mischiefs dammages sont avenuz en temps passe pluis purroit eschier en temps avenir al disherison de la Coronne grant prejudice du Royalme Whereby great mischiefs and damages have happened in times past and more may fall out in time to come to the disherison of the Crown and great prejudice to the Realm And therefore they humbly pray the King that he would employ Laymen So 20 R. 2. The Commons complain That the King kept so many Bishops about him in his Court and advanced them and their followers Therefore you see it was not always pleasing to the Kingdom But all this is by the By though that Author takes a great deal of pains to enlarge himself upon this Subject which is not at all to our purpose nor deciding the point in question one way or other In his two last Chapters the seventh and the eighth only he toucheth upon it He first gives this for a Rule That it was the common usage and right of the Bishops in ancient times to sit and vote in Parliament in all Cases as well Criminal as otherwise either by themselves or their Proxies As for their Proxies as I have already said it was never done but in one Parliament which Parliament is repealed and all that was done in it of no signification And besides as I have already told you in my Letter if that Parliament had not been repealed yet that unparliamentary Nonsensical action of the whole Bench of Bishops and all the Clergy with them empowering one Man as they did Sir Thomas Percy to give one Vote for them all shews the manifest indispensable unlawfulness of their being Personally Present that rather than that should be such an Irrational Unprecedented thing should be admitted of which is my Answer to all that he saith and to the Precedent that he quotes out of the 21 of R. 2. Now let us examine what he saith of their being in Person present at such Trials He quotes Bromptons Chronicle reciting among the Laws of King Athelstan this concerning Bishops I will cite Brompton's words right as they are Episcopo jure pertinet omnem rectitudinem promovere Dei viz. seculi It appertains of right to a Bishop to promote that which is right both concerning God and the World A little after he saith Debet etiam sedulo pacem concordiam operari cum seculi Iudicibus He ought likewise diligently together with the secular Iudges to promote Peace and Concord After he saith Debent Episcopi cum seculi Iudicibus interesse Iudiciis ne permittant si possint ut aliqua pravitatum germina pullulaverint The Bishops ought to be present in Iudgments with the Secular Iudges not to suffer any buds of wickedness to sprout if they can hinder it Then he tells you what they must do in their Judgings see that every man have right that rich men do not oppress poor men nor Masters their Servants and the like and to look to Weights and Measures that there be no cozening nor cheating but that they may live like Christians Here is nothing of judging a Capital Crime far from it His next Authority is out of Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary upon the word Comes there it is Comes presidebat foro Comitatus non solus sed adjunctus Episcopo hic ut jus divinum alter ut humanum diceret alterque alteri auxilio esset consilio Presertim Episcopus Comiti Nam in hunc illi animadvertere sepe licuit errantem cohibere The Earl did preside in the County Court not alone but joyned with the Bishop He to deliver what was Gods Law the other what was Mans Law And that the one should help and counsel the other especially the Bishop to do it to the Earl for