all was well in Ireland p. 44. you say That on the Death of King Richard I. King John in the Twelfth Year of his Reign went again into Ireland Anno 1210 and then it was that Mat. Paris saith the 20 Reguli came to him to Dublin and did him Homage p. 45. you say That Henry III. came to the Crown Anno 1216 and the same Year sent over the Charter from Bristol the 12th of November And in p. 46. you say He sent them another in the February following from Gloucester p. 52. you say That Henry III. in the Twelfth Year of his Reign sent over a Writ to Hugo de Burgh to Summon the States of Ireland In all this time we hear nothing of Wars Tumults Heats or Rebellions but quite contrary For p. 49 and 50. you set forth a Writ which you have from Mr. Petit or rather a Letter written by King Henry III's Queen Anno 38. of his Reign wherein she desires his Subjects of Ireland to assist the King with Men and Money to defend his Land of Vascony which was then Invaded by the King of Castile Thus far I quote you from your own Book and now you tell us p. 96. That the People of Ireland could not Assemble with conveniency to make Laws at Home by reason of Heats of Rebellions or Confusion of Times and that this caused them to come to England to do it as appears by the Writ you mention p. 95. which was in the Ninth Year of Edward I. who succeeded his Father Henry III. Really Sir you have given me so much trouble to run over your Book again to shew how inconsistent you are in your Discourse about this Matter that I could almost be angry with you But I am willing to take this pains not to convince you that you are in an Error I imagine that will be labour lost a Gentleman of your Parts must needs know it already but to make it plain lest any Body else should be drawn aside by what you write Well then on the Credit of this Writ I will grant you that Ireland came to England for Laws in the Ninth of Edward I. And then I hope you will not oppose this Ancient Precedent because it is of your own producing But to get clear of this you tell us p. 96. That these Laws were made by your own Representatives And to prove that this was so in the Reign of Edward III. for you say its plain 't was so in Edward I.'s time you tell us There were Knights Citizens and Burgesses elected in the Shires Cities and Buroughs of Ireland to serve in Parliament in England and so served accordingly And to prove this you tell us p. 97. That amongst the Records of the Tower of London Rot. Claus 50 Edw. 3. Parl. 2. Membr 23. We find a Writ from the King at Westminster directed to James Butler Lord Justice of Ireland and to R. Archbishop of Dublin his Chancellor requiring them to issue Writs under the Great Seal of Ireland to the several Counties Cities and Boroughs for satisfying the Expences of the Men of that Land who last came over to serve in Parliament in England And in another Roll the 50 Edw. 3. Memb. 19. on complaint to the King by John Draper who was chosen Burgess of Cork by Writ and served in the Parliament of England and yet was denied his Expences by some of the Citizens care was taken to reimburse him Pray what use will you make of these Records to prove that the Kingdom of Ireland is not subject to the Legislative Power of the Parliament of England I think you have brought the Matter home and have mistaken the side for instead of proving that it is not you have proved positively that it is and particularly that from the Ninth of Edward the First to the Fiftieth of Edward the Third the Representatives of Ireland came over to sit in the Parliament of England and how long before or how long after they did so I cannot tell The Writ you mention of Edward I. hath reference to Statutes made before that time at Lincoln and York which I judge must be in the Days of Henry II. Richard I. or King John because I do not find that any Parliament was held in either of these Places from the beginning of our statute-Statute-Books and then where is your separate Kingdom of Ireland under King John And why have you so often asserted That there was never any Law made in England to bind Ireland till the Modern Instances you mention Pray what means all the Clamour you have made against our late Kings and the Parliaments of England for infringing your Liberties and breaking through the very design of setling Communities and putting you in a worse Condition than you were in the state of Nature You are very much beholding to the ingenious Mr. Lock for the fineness of your Argument about the State of Conquest c. in the former part of your Book which I do not at all blame you for because I think no Man can handle a Subject smoothly whereon he hath treated that doth not follow his Copy but I blame you for not applying those excellent Arguments more fitly But to return to the Matter P. 58. You confessed there was no Parliament in Ireland before King Henry III.'s time and you have not any where shewn that it was settled there during his Reign and now you acknowledge that Ireland sent Representatives to sit in the Parliament of England in the Reigns of Edward I. Edw. II. and Edward III. his Successors where Laws were made to bind it Pray then why do you exclaim against their putting this Power in Execution still To this you say p. 97. It must be allowed that the People of Ireland ought to have their Representatives in the Parliament of England And this you believe they would be willing enough to embrace but this is a Happiness you cannot hope for I have before told you that you are represented there already but you are willing some Representatives should come over from Ireland to sit there you say they did so once and you are willing they should do it again pray why did you not continue that great Happiness you now so much prize To this you Answer p. 98. This sending of Representatives out of Ireland to the Parliament in England on some occasions was found in process of time to be very troublesome and inconvenient I cannot but observe what a Hodge-podge you would make by the wrong Inferences you endeavour to draw from every thing only because you would cloud the Truth you allow you once sent Representatives to the Parliament here but you would now have this to be only upon some occasions I hope it was not on occasion of Wars and Tumults during the prosperous Reigns of Edw. I. and Edw. III. if it was you do not tell us what Wars and Tumults they were 'T is much that Edward III. who extended his Arms to
Civil and Ecclesiastical State were setled there Regiae sublimatis authoritate Solely by the King's Authority and their own good Wills as the Irish Statute 11 Eliz. Cap. 1. expresses it What the Irish Statutes express I think hath no great Weight in this Debate the Question is by what Power the People of Ireland for so I will now call them threw off that Subjection they once owed to the Legislative Power of England If they think their bare Denial is enough to warrant them free from such a Subjection the People of England may expect the like on the same Argument if because they are not present at our Elections I will answer that in the following Discourse We proceed now to pag. 39. To see â—â— what farther Degrees the Government of Ireland grew up conformable to that of England which are your own Words you say that about the twenty third year of Henry II. which was within five years after his return from Ireland he created his younger Son John King of Ireland at a Parliament held at Oxford and from this you would infer Page 40. That by this Donation of the Kingdom of Ireland to King John Ireland was most eminently set apart again as a separate and distinct Kingdom by it self from the Kingdom of England but you do not set forth that Grant and our statute-Statute-Books are not so old this had been necessary for many reasons you say Page 40. That by this Donation King John made divers Grants and Chartes to his Subjects of Ireland does this alone shew a Regal Authority and might it not have been done by a Lord-Deputy still subject to the Crown of England Pray let me ask you was he at his return to England which you say was a little after his first going over received here by his Father as a Brother-King and did he take Precedence of his elder Brother Richard 'T is much this young King had not punished his Subjects of Ireland for being angry at his deriding their long Beards at which you say they took such Offence that they departed in much Discontent I say 't is much he had not punished their Undutifulness but rather chose to come away in a Pet and thereby to abdicate his new Kingdom for you do not shew that he left the Administration of the Government with any one else All that can be said in his Defence is that he was young about Twelve Years old pag. 39 and perhaps the obstinate Humour which the Barons of England afterwards found in him might grow up with him and become an Infirmity of Age and during King John's being in England did the Kingdom of Ireland govern its self For if his Father King Henry the Second sent over any other to succeed him all your Argument is lost But after all I find his granting Charters is not of such moment as to prove him a King for this he did to the City of Bristol whilst he was Earl of Moreton which I believe was long after the time you mention and I find by the exemplification of that Charter that his Son King Henry the Third in his Inspeximus confirms it as granted by his Father King John when he was Earl of Moreton without mentioning that he was then also King of Ireland and Princes do not use to abate any thing of their Titles especially when they are of so great Importance as this No body doth believe that King John whilst Earl of Moreton had such a Royal Authority in Bristol as to discharge it from an obediential Subjection to the Legislative Power of England The Statute Primo G. M. Cap. 9. ss 2. saith Ireland is annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of England as well by the Laws of this Kingdom as those of Ireland and I am sure there is a great deal of difference between being part of the Imperial Crown of England as Wales is and a separate Kingdom as Scotland is I find likewise that Henry the Third never wrote himself more than Lord of Ireland and 't is strange if Ireland was established a separate Kingdom in John Earl of Moreton and his Heirs that the Title had not been continued in his Son and how comes it to pass that we have ever since been at the Charge of supporting that Kingdom with our Treasure without keeping a separate Account of our Expences laid out on it which doubtless we should have done had we thought it a separate Kingdom But to proceed on searching Sir Richard Baker's Chronicle I cannot find that he takes any Notice of King Henry IId's sending over his Son John about the Twenty Third Year of his Reign as you say Page 39. which 't is much he should omit seeing it was on so memorable an Occasion as his being made King of a separate Kingdom by his Father in a Parliament at Oxford but he saith that in the Thirty First Year of his Reign he sent his Son John over to Ireland to be Governour there and afterwards in the Reign of Richard I. Son to Henry II. and Brother to this John he speaking of the great Kindnesses shewed by the said King Richard I. to his Brother John hath these Words To whom he made appear how much the Bounty of a Brother was better than the Hardnesses of a Father and afterwards he names the several Earldoms which he conferred on him viz. Cornwall Dorset Somerset Nottingham Darby and Lancaster then treating of Affairs in England during the King's Absence on his Voyage to the Holy Land saith he left William Longshamp Bishop of Ely in chief Place of Authority at which his Brother was disgusted whom he calls there Duke John and in another Place he says that the King after his Return from the Holy Land took from him all the great Possessions he had given him and afterwards the said John submitted himself to the King his Brother Now does this agree with the Honour and Dignity of a King who had a separate Kingdom or were the Grants of those several Earldoms from his Brother which you see were liable to be taken away again at the King's Pleasure to be accounted a greater Largess than the Bounty of his Father if he had made him King of a separate Kingdom and setled it in Parliament as you affirm Besides if any such thing was done by Henry II. in the Twenty Third Year of his Reign it appears if Baker be in the right that that Grant was recalled for he saith plainly that he sent him over in his One and Thirtieth Year to be Governor of Ireland How indeed saith to be Lord of Ireland but neither of them mention any thing of what was done in the Parliament at Oxford Well suppose it to be Dominus Hiberniae on which Word you seem to build so much pag. 40 41. Is this Title any thing greater than Lord Lieutenant or Lord Justice which hath for ought I can perceive been used ever since Does a Title granted in a Patent from the King
discharge any Persons or the Places they govern from Obedience to the Legislative Authority of England If it doth I should think That granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Talbot would go a great way in it which you give us pag. 33. in these Words Dilecti fidelis nostri Johannis Talbot de Hallom shire Chevaler locum nostrum tenentis terrae nostrae Hiberniae which you interpret pag. 32. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and it is not to be doubted but Henry IV. thought he had not divested himself of his Regal Authority in Ireland thereby for though we do not find any Statutes made in his Reign to bind that Kingdom yet we do in the Reign of his Son Henry V. and those Kings who succeeded him if then John Earl of Moreton was never created King of Ireland nor That made a separate Kingdom in the Parliament at Oxon as you alledge but do not prove then all your Arguments drawn thence pag. 41 42 43 44. beginning with this Paragraph Let us then suppose that c. fall to the Ground As for its being annext to the Imperial Crown of England by several Acts of Parliament both here and there which you mention pag. 43. I do agree to the Reason you give for it pag. 44. as one viz. That it should not be alienated or separated from the Kings of England But I hope you will not draw any Inference from this that Ireland therefore is not subject to our Legislative Power it seems to me a greater Argument that it is and those Acts made in Ireland look like an Acknowledgement of it seeing the Members there knew the Opinion of the Parliament of England by their continued Practice of making Laws to bind it I am the longer on this Subject of Henry the Seconds making his Son John King of Ireland and That a separate Kingdom because I find you insist upon it as a thing unquestionable through your whole Book and I am willing to clear it here to prevent often Repetitions I will proceed with you to King John's going over into Ireland after he became King of England pag. 44. for which you quote Mat. Paris who saith Cum venisset ad Dublinensem civitatem occurrerunt ei ibidem plusquam 20 Regul'â— illius Regionis qui omnes timore maximo praeteriti Homagium ei fidelitatem fecerunt Fecit quoque Rex ibidem construere Leges Consuetudines Anglicanas ponens Vice cometes aliosque ministros qui populum Regni illius juxta Leges Anglicanas judicarent This you know was long after that Amicable Concession or Original Compact you mention pag. 37. to be made between Henry II. and the People of Ireland and long after the same King John was made King of Ireland by his Father and yet your Author says fecit quoque Rex ibidem c. which I English thus He appointed Officers to govern them by the English Laws wherein he caused them to be instructed So that here is a second original Compact if you will call it so viz. That they must be govern'd by the English Laws and Customs and now I think we are agreed the Matter viz. That they were to be govern'd by the English Laws Let us see then where we differ for I am very willing to part Friends with a Gentleman of your Parts your Fault is that you would willingly make more from things then was ever intended by them Page 45. You proceed to speak of a Magna Charta granted by Henry III. to Ireland dated at Bristol the 12th of November in the first year of his Reign which you say is agreeable to the Magna Charta granted to England I have not seen it nor have you set it forth so I can say nothing to its Contents I will only ask you whither it doth discharge Ireland from being subject to the Legislative Power of England which is the matter in hand and if it does whether it was confirmed by Parliament I will not differ with you whose Seals were put to it whether the King 's own or the venerable Persons you there mention if it doth not discharge from Obedience to Laws made by the Parliament of England and was not confirmed by them I examine no farther And I do not remember I ever heard of a Parliament held at Bristol nor doth this seem to be one because you say it was by advice of his Council of England whose Names are particularly recited which I therefore take to be the Privy Council in opposition to the great Council or Parliament of England and the rather because I find this was the usual Form of granting Charters in those days I shall only Note that this you say was eight years older then that which he granted to England Page 46. You set forth another Charter sent them by the said King in February following the Substance whereof you give us Page 47. Volumus quod in Signum fidelitatis vestrae tam praeclarae tam insignis libertatibus Regno nostro Angliae a Patre nostro nobis concessis de gratia nostra dono in Regno nostro Hiberniae Gaudiatis vos vestri Haeredes in Perpetuum This was made by advice of his Common Council and Sealed with their Seals as it follows in the same Page Quas distincte in Scriptum reductas de communi Concilio omnium sidelium nostrorum vobis mittimus signatas sigillis Domini nostri G. Apostolicae sedis Legati fidelis nostri Com. W. Maresc Rectoris nostri Regni nostri quia sigillum nondum habuimus easdem processu temporis de majori Concilio proprio sigillo signaturi Teste apud Glouc. 6 Febru So that here you see there is a difference between the Communi Concilio and the Majori Concilio but neither do you set forth nor can I guess what those Liberties were being before our Magna Charta of England as you confess p. 45. and does appear by our Statute-Books the latter being made the Ninth Year of his Reign and this you say in the First But I cannot allow of your Paraphrase on it p. 48. Here we have a free Grant of all the Liberties of England to the People of Ireland I differ with you in this because the Grant you mention doth not say they shall enjoy all the Liberties of English Men but all those Liberties which had been granted by his Father and himself to his Kingdom of England what those were you do not set forth and it can have no Reference to our Magna Charta besides it seems strange he should ex mero motu then grant those Priviledges to Ireland which if I mistake not cost England afterwards a great deal of trouble to bring him to acknowledge to be their right But be this as it will I do not see how it signifies much to the question in hand except it be allowed that the King by Charter can discharge the Subjects of England from Obedience to the Legislative Power Nor can I see
then upon be considered which was this as I find it in his Abridgment pag. 271. R. C. by his Guardian bringeth an Assize the Defendants say the Plaintiff ought not to be answered quia est Aliagena natus 5 Novemb. An. Dom. Regis Angliae c. tertio apud E. infra Regnum Scotiae ac insra ligeanciam Domini Regis Regni sui S. ac extra ligeanciam Regni sui Angl. Here the Debate being about a Post natus in Scotland Sir Edward Cook brought the Quotation you mention for the sake of the last words thereof sed personae eorum sunt subjecti Regis sicut Inhabitantes in Calesia Gasconia Guyan who had been ever accounted Denizens and makes the Note you mention viz. which is to be understood unless they be especially named on the other part of that quotation Nostra Statuta non ligant c. because he would not be thought of Opinion with the former Judges Et non obligantur per Statuta in Anglia which you mention pag. 91. And this having no relation to the Case he was then upon he thought it needless to give the Reasons for this his dissent in Opinion from them which makes you call him Magisterial c. But afterwards pag. 117. you say that in another place of the same Report he gives this colour of Reason for his former Assertion That though Ireland be a distinct Dominion from England yet the Title thereof being by Conquest the same by Judgment of Law might by express words be bound by the Parliaments of England From this you would raise an Argument p. 118. between the Opinion given by the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber pag. 91. and the now Opinion of the L. Chief Justice Cook But I shall leave you to reconcile those venerable Judges and proceed to my own Argument because I think I have already spoken to every thing you therein mention only I can't but stand amazed at your what shall I call it in this Assertion pag. 118. I challenge any Man to shew me that any one before him or any one since but from him hath vended this Doctrine when your self had told us before pag. 92. That the Lord Chief Justice Hussy and the other Judges were of the same Opinion when the Case of the Merchants of Waterford which is the same you now quote was argued the second time in the Exchequer Chamber And in pag. 80. you tell us This was a Doctrine first broached directly by Will. Hussy Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in England in the first year of Henry VII and of late revived by the Lord Chief Justice Cook I wonder how you can make such bold Challenges which need no farther trouble then perusing your own Book to answer I hope I have now vindicated my Lord Chief Justice Cook whose Name you say pag. 116. is of great veneration with the Gentlemen of the Long Robe if so I may likewise hope they will give me thanks for doing it so many years after his death The next Case you mention is that of Pilkinton 20 Hen. 6. pag. 122. This you say is for you It is too long to transcribe but the Substance of it is this There were Letters Patents granted by the King to A. for an Office in Ireland formerly granted to P. by the same King's Letters Patents whereupon P. brings a Scire Facias against A. to shew cause why his Letters Patents should not be repealed A. pleads That Ireland had time out of mind been a Land separate and distinct from England was govern'd by its own Customs had a Parliament and made Statutes and by one of those Statutes P. had forfeited his Office Hereupon P. demur'd in Law and it was debated by five of the Judges of England who differ'd in their Opinions about it Well what will you infer from this doth any one doubt whether Ireland hath a Parliament and Customs among themselves that govern them Did the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England come any way to be called in question here if not 't is nothing to our Matter Yes you say pag. 124. Two of the Judges said That if a Tenth or a Fifteenth be granted the King by the Parliament of England that shall not bind Ireland c. Perhaps it may not 't is according as the Act is worded we see our ordinary Acts for raising Taxes are not extended to Ireland But doth this show that the Parliament of England hath not Power to make Laws which shall bind Ireland Besides suppose two Judges of five had positively said they could not was their Opinion to be taken against that of the Parliament of England shewn by their constant practice for Five hundred years I profess I cannot see how this Case reaches the Matter we are upon As to the Merchants of Waterford's Case pag. 125. it hath been spoken to before so I shall pass it by now The next is the Prior of Lanthonies in Wales 5 Hen. 6. This you say is for you pag. 125. I think 't is not but it lyes on me to give my Reasons therefore I will abreviate it The Prior of Lanthony brought an Action in the Common Pleas of Ireland against the Prior of Mollingar Judgment went against the Prior of M. who brought a Writ of Error in the King's Bench of Ireland where the Judgment was affirmed He then appeals to the Parliament of Ireland who revers'd both Judgments The Prior of L. removes all into the King's Bench in England but the King's Bench refused to intermeddle having no Power over what had passed in the Parliament of Ireland he then appealed to the Parliament of England where you say it doth not appear by the Parliament Roll that any thing was done on this Appeal save receiving the Petition Well what would you draw from this I think it proves nothing to our Matter if it doth the Conclusion must be against you For it appears by this quotation That the Prior of L. two hundred and seventy years since thought that an Appeal lay from the Parliament of Ireland to the Parliament of England and it doth likewise appear That the Parliament of England received his Petition But as to your Inference against the Power of the Parliament of England because nothing was done therein it may as well be concluded That they cannot judge Appeals brought before them by a Writ of Error out of the King's Bench of England because many times no Proceedings follow thereon which every Body knows may be let fall after the Petition is received at the Pleasure of the Parties concerned As to what you say of the Civil and Ecclesiastical State of Ireland p. 127 128 129. I think I have given a full Answer to it already so shall not repeat I will only add That 't is a wrong method to draw Arguments against the Power of the Parliament of England from Acts made by the Parliament of Ireland No doubt the Titles of those Kings and Queens you
A VINDICATION OF THE Parliament of ENGLAND In answer to a BOOK WRITTEN By WILLIAM MOLYNEUX of Dublin Esq INTITULED The Case of Irelands being bound by Acts of Parliament in England stated By JOHN CARY Merchant in Bristol Nolumus Leges Anglicanas mutari LONDON Printed by Freeman Collins and are to be sold by Sam. Crouch in Cornhill and Eliz. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall 1698. To the Right Honourable John Lord Somers Baron of EVESHAM And Lord High Chancellor of ENGLAND I Humbly make bold to Present Your Lordship with this little Tract being an Answer to a Book Entituled The Case of Ireland 's being bound by Acts of Parliament in England stated Written by William Molyneus of Dublin Esquire The Reason which induced me to intermeddle in a thing so much out of my Profession as Matters of Law are was that I had formerly amongst other things discours'd on the State of Ireland in my Essay on Trade and offer'd it as my Opinion That except that Kingdom was bound up more strictly by Laws made in England it would soon destroy our Woollen Manufactory here Wherefore I proposed to reduce it with respect to its Trade to the state of our other Plantations and Settlements Abroad which I supposed the only Means we had left to help our selves and to render Ireland more useful to this Kingdom This I humbly presented to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty and also to the Honourable the Commons of England then sitting in Parliament which I presumed to do because I thought I had Faithfully and Impartially discoursed on the Subjects I undertook at least I knew I had endeavoured to do so and supposing that Book might give some beginning to the Bill for Encouraging the Woollen Manufactures in England and restraining the Exportation of the Woollen Manufactures from Ireland I found my self obliged to consider the Arguments which might be brought against Ireland 's being bound by Statute Laws made in England What Success that Bill will have I know not but I very much fear if something of that nature be not done we shall soon loose that part of our Woollen Manufacture now left which will tend to the Ruining our Poor the Lessening the Value of the Lands of England and depriving us of a great Number of People who will be necessitated to leave this Kingdom and go over to Ireland to follow their Employments there and all this without rendring the Gentlemen of Ireland any sort of Advantage that may not be made up to them another way This I humbly conceive may be done and Ireland encouraged on another Manufacture no way Detrimental to the Interest of England and carried on by such Methods as may become profitable to both Kingdoms Till this be done I very much fear both will be uneasie I humbly beg your Lordship's Pardon for my Presumption and that you will be pleased to accept what I here offer as from a Person who truly Honours your Lordship and so much the more because you have always Asserted the Rights and Powers of Parliaments I am with all Dutiful respect Right Honourable Your Lordship 's most Humble and most Obedient Servant JOHN CARY A VINDICATION of the Parliament of England 's Power to Bind Ireland by their Statute-Laws in Answer to a Book written by William Molyneux of Dublin Esq SIR YOUR Book Entituled The Case of Ireland 's being bound by Acts of Parliament in England Stated I have seen and read over with some thought and because I cannot agree with you in your Opinion I design this as an Answer to shew you the reason why I differ from you But before I proceed farther I shall premise and grant with you That Ireland hath long had a Parliament and I am apt to think that your mistake arises from this that you Build too much on the Name not considering the Power that Parliament Legally hath For this is no more then our Foreign Plantations and great Corporations in England have in the former the Governours represent the King the great Men or Council the Lords and the Commons are represented by such as they elect and send from their several Districts In the latter these three Estates are likewise Represented by the Mayor Aldermen and Common Council of the several Cities or Corporations these make Laws for their better Order and Government yet all subservient to the great Council or Parliament of this Nation from whose Jurisdiction those Priviledges do not in the least set them free but they pay a due Obedience to their Laws especially those made with an Intention to bind them The Dispute now between you and me is Whither Ireland can be bound by our English Acts of Parliament This you deny and I affirm I will therefore proceed to enquire into your Arguments And because I intend as much Brevity as possible I can I will pass by all that in your Book which I apprehend doth not concern the Matter in Dispute Your Stile is good and your Language like a Gentleman but with this fault that under that you sometimes endeavour to cloud your Design and represent it to the Reader quite different from your own Intention Page 4 You tell us That the Subject of your present Disquisition shall be how far the Parliament of England may think it reasonable to intermeddle with the Affairs of Ireland and bind you up by Laws made in their House This you might have informed your self from our Statute-Books which begin with the Laws of Henry III. about Five hundred years since and you will find that in that King's Reign and ever since in the Reigns of his Successors the Parliament of England have thought it reasonable to Bind up Ireland by Laws made here so often as they saw there was occasion and no doubt they did the same or at least had Power so to do in the Reigns of Henry II. Richard I. and King John who all preceded King Henry III. and Reigned after Ireland came under the English Government Now were that all the Question in Dispute I could soon answer you that what the Parliaments of England did Five hundred years past and have done ever since the present Parliaments think reasonable to suppose themselves impowered to do because they make Precedents of former times their Rule and Government so that 't is not the Will but the Power of the Parliament of England in this Matter that you Dispute and this appears more plainly in your next Paragraph where you call it a pretended Right founded only on the imaginary Title of Conquest or Purchase or on Precedents and Matters of Record I do not think it very material for me to consider on which of these imaginary Titles as you call them they pretend to this Power the Question will not turn on that 't is enough if I assert and prove that the Parliaments of England did exercise this Power ever since Ireland hath been under the English Government and I think it will lye on you to
35. This Ordinance and Act the King willeth to be observed from henceforth through his Realm of England and Ireland What think you of the Statutes made at Westminster 11 Edw. 3. Anno 1337. which I recited before where cap. 3. all Foreign Clothes are prohibited to be brought into Ireland and cap. 5. Clothworkers are invited to settle in Ireland and are encouraged thereto by Franchises promised them What think you of the Statute of the Staple mentioned before made 27 Edw. 3. Anno 1353 In the Preamble of which Statute Ireland is mentioned and cap. 1. bears this Title Where the Staple for England Wales and Ireland shall be kept whether Merchandizes of the Staple shall be carried and what Customs shall be paid for them Which Chapter shews That the Parliament of England had Power of raising Money by laying Customs on Commodities in Ireland At this Sessions were made Twenty eight Acts or Chapters call them which you will and all point at Ireland But I cannot pass by this last Statute of 27 Edw. 3. without making observation on its Preamble which I here give you verbatim Edward by the Grace of God c. To our Sheriffs Mayors Bayliffs Ministers and other our faithful People to whom these present Letters shall come greeting Whereas good deliberation had with the Prelates Dukes Earls Barons and great Men of the Counties that is to say of every County one for all the County and of the Commons of our Cities and Boroughs of our Realm of England summoned to our great Council holden at Westminster the Monday next after the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle the 27th Year of our Reign of England and of France the 14th For the damage that hath notoriously come as well to us and to our great Men as to our People of our Realm of England and of our Lands of Wales and Ireland because that the Staple of Woolls Leather and Wool-fells of our said Realm and Land have been holden out of our said Realm and Lands and also for the great Profits which should come to the said Realm and Lands if the Staple were holden within the same and not elsewhere to the Honour of God and in Relief of our Realm and Lands aforesaid and to eschew the Perils that might happen of the contrary in time to come by the Counsel and common Consent of the said Prelates Dukes Earls and Barons Knights and Commons aforesaid we have ordained and established the things under written Here the King is called King of England and France without mentioning Ireland but we find the Laws made in that Sessions to be binding to his Lands of Wales and Ireland as I have before observed The King also takes notice of the Summons sent to the Prelates Dukes Earls Barons and great Men of the Counties and Commons of Cities and Boroughs of his Realm of England summoned to his great Councel holden at Westminster c. without mentioning any thing of Ireland though it was bound by the Laws made in that Sessions By all which it doth appear to me That Ireland was lookt on in those days as an Appendix to the Kingdom of England all one as Wales and yet the Laws of that Sessions were received in Ireland Why did not the Parliament of Ireland if there was then any make an early Protestation against this irregular Proceeding and condemn it as an Encroachment on their Priviledges which had been much better then for you to undertake this Task three hundred and fifty years after But to proceed What think you of the Statute made at Westminster 34 Edw. 3. Anno 1360 the Preamble is These be the things which our Lord the King the Prelates Lords and Commons have ordained in this present Parliament holden at Westminster the Sunday next before the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul to be holden and openly published through the Realm and yet the Title of cap. 17. is Merchandize may be carried into and brought out of Ireland By which it appears That the Parliament of England made Laws to regulate the Trade of Ireland in those early days and that the Bill relating to the Woollen Manufactures now depending before the present Parliament is not a Modern Instance of that Power Cap. 18. of that Sessions hath this Title They which have Lands in Ireland may carry their Goods thither and bring them again From both which I make this observation That the Preamble saith These are to be holden and published openly thorough the Realm and the 17th and 18th Chapters shew that Ireland is part of that Realm In the 4th of Henry 5. cap. 6. an Act was made but is now Ob so I find nothing but its Title in the Statute Book which is this If any Archbishop Bishop c. of Ireland Rebel to the King shall make collation of a Benifice to any Irish-man or bring any Irish-man to the Parliament to discover the â—ounsel of English-men to Rebels his Temporalities shall be seized until he hath made Fine to the King By which it doth appear That the Parliament of England took notice there was a Parliament in Ireland and made Laws to bind that Parliament All these Statutes bound Ireland and doubtless many more there are had I time to look after them but I mention these because they come within the compass of your old Precedents being before the Second of Henry 6. But before I speak to your old Precedents give me leave to mention one Statute more viz. 1 Hen. 6. cap. 3. which though I do not produce as a Precedent binding Ireland yet it will serve to show what opinion the Parliament of England had of Ireland in those days the words are these Forasmuch as divers Manslaughters Murders c. and divers other Offences now late have been done in divers Counties of the Realm of England by People born in the County of Ireland repairing to the Town of Oxford c. I will make no Paraphrase on them they are easie to be understood by any English Reader and this is a Modern Statute in respect to the time of Henry II. when you say Ireland was made a separate Kingdom and settled by him on his Son John in a Parliament at Oxon whereas this Parliament calls it a County Well then let us see what you say against these Ancient Precedents you have produced before we come to the Modern Instances as you call them These Statutes you say pag. 86. especially the two first meaning Statutum Hiberniae and Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae being made for Ireland as their titles import have given occasion to think that the Parliament of England have right to make Laws for Ireland without the consent of their chosen Representatives Surely every Body I think is of that Judgment that hath lookt into the matter no you dissent from it and for this gives several Reasons The first is pag. 86 87 88. which I am obliged here to transcribe The Statutum Hiberniae 14 Hen. 3. as
established these Acts under-written willing and commanding that from henceforth they be firmly observed within this Realm The Preamble of the Statute of Westminster made the 13th of Edward I. runs thus Whereas of late our Lord the King in the Quinzim of St. John Baptist the Sixth Year of his Reign calling together the Prelates Earls Barons and his Council at Gloucester and considering that divers of this Realm c. ordain'd certain Statutes right necessary and profitable for his Realm whereby the People of England and Ireland being Subjects unto his Power have obtain'd more speedy Justice c. Our Lord the King in his Parliament after the Feast of Easter holden the 13th Year of his Reign at Westminster caused many Oppressions of the People and Defaults of the Laws for the accomplishment of the said Statutes of Gloucester to be rehearsed and thereupon did provide certain Acts as shall appear here following Here I cannot but observe That the King and Parliament of England thought Ireland a part of this Realm and subject to their Legislative Power and that it was concerned in the Statutes of Gloucester before-mentioned though not named therein Now whose Judgement shall we take the King and Parliament who lived in those Days or yours Four hundred Years afterwards I shall only mention one more which is in the 21 Edward 1. we find there a Statute made De iis qui ponendi sunt in Assisis and at the end thereof I find this Sect. 6. Rex c. quia ad communem utilitat◠〈◊〉 â—opuli nostri Regni de communi Concilio ejusdem Regni Statuerimus c. Now all these are accounted Statutes or Acts of Parliament and so called in the Books which shows that it is not the Name but the Modus of passing them which is the essential part of a Statute Law Besides if you please to peruse your own Quotations p. 48 and 49. you there acknowledge the Parliament to be called Generale Concilium Commune Concilium Great Council or Parliament I now come to your last Argument against this Statute p. 89. That King Edward I. held no Parliament in the 17th Year of his Reign This seems very doubtful even to your self for it follows If this were a Parliament this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae is the only Act thereof that is extant and may not that be Henry III. granted the Magna Charta in the Ninth Year of his Reign you allow this to be a Statute or Act of Parliament and yet we do not find any other Law past that Year and but one single Act in his Fourteenth Year One in the Ninth of Edward I. and many other Instances may be made of this nature But after all I do not see how the stress of the Matter lies on this Foundation suppose this to be no Act of Parliament as you say what then shall we want Antient Precedents which name Ireland What think you of the Statute of Merchants which I have mentioned before 13 Edw. 1. this was made before that of the Seventeenth Year which you so much contend about and Ireland is expresly named in that Statute The Sum is this you say it is not a Statute I say it is and the Books call it so I have also given my Reasons why I think it so not that I think it material to our Debate but because if Statutes should be rejected for the Reasons you reject this I fear a great part of our old Acts of Parliament and even Magna Charta it self must be expunged out of the Statute Book I come now to your third Antient Precedent the Staple Act made in the Second of Henry VI. Cap. 4. This is expired so I find only the Title in the Statute Book which is this All Merchandizes of the Staple passing out of England Wales and Ireland shall be carried to Calice as long as the Staple is at Calice The Reason you give why this Law doth not bind Ireland is grounded on the Opinion of the Judges of England whereof you give this account p. 90. That by the Year Book of the Second of Richard III. it doth appear that the Merchants of Waterford having Ship'd off some Wool and consign'd it to Sluce in Flanders the Ship by stress of Weather put into Calice and Sir Thomas Thwaits Treasurer there seized the said Wool as forfeited whereupon a Suit was commenced between the said Merchants and him which was brought before all the Judges of England into the Exchequer-Chamber where the Questions were two one of which was Whither this Staple Act binds Ireland I have Abbreviated what you Write but I think I have done it fairly to which the Judges gave this Answer p. 91. Quod terra Hibernia inter se habent Parliament ' omni modo Cur prout in Angl. per Idem Parliament ' faciunt Leges mutant Leges non obligantur per Statuta in Anglia quia non hic habent Milites Parliamenti c. But in p. 92. you confess from the Year Books of 1 Henry 7. That when the aforesaid Case came a second time under the Consideration of the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber we find it Reported thus Hussy the Chief Justice said That the Statutes made in England shall Bind those of Ireland which was not much gainsaid by the other Judges notwithstanding that some of them were of a contrary Opinion the last Term in his Absence What a strange Argument is this The Judges say you gave their Opinion who were those Judges You name only Hussy and he was against it But you say all the Judges of England in the former Term it could not be all because Hussy was not there and afterwards he gave his Opinion quite contrary And as you confess p. 92. all the Judges submitted to it so that here is the Judges Opinion at one time against their Opinion at another and will you bring this to overthrow the Authority of the Legislative Power of England But suppose Hussy and the rest of the Judges had agreed with the first Opinion what would you draw from this Have the Judges Power to question the Parliament in the Exercise of their Legislative Authority I know they are often advised with in the making of an Act but when it is once past I presume their business is to give their Judgments according to it or to Explain it where the Sence is doubtful but not to go against the express Words of an Act much less to question the Parliaments Power to make it Your second Argument against this Statute's binding Ireland is a Note in a Book made by Brook in Abridging this Case That Ireland is a Kingdom of it self and hath Parliaments of its own p. 92. Certainly you have very light Thoughts of Parliaments if you think that Notes in Books should abridge their Power The third is a Comment of your own on the whole p. 93. wherein you draw a Comparison of Ireland with Scotland and conclude That
with the King into Ireland do become there the Supream Court of Judicature How will your Judges in Ireland take this at your Hands Whether it be so or no I will not undertake to confute you But as to your former Arguments That Writs of Error lie before the King not the Court and Application is made to the King of Ireland who is in England they are pretty ludicrous Distinctions and if allowed I cannot see why the Judges of England may not extend their Jurisdictions to Scotland on the same Arguments I have so much Honour for them that as I was willing to grant it them in Ireland as full as you pleased so I shall be loth to argue against extending their Power to Scotland also if they can find any Precedents to warrant it If this be Law I think they have been asleep in the Four last Reigns 't is true they were Reigns of Trouble but now we have Peace they will have time to look into that Matter on this Hint you have given them I perceive you are fully perswaded of it if they are as easily perswaded too the Business is done But I believe the Judges of the King's-Bench in England will not call Causes before them out of Scotland because the King of England is King of Scotland on your Opinion that they may do it be you as fully perswaded of this Matter as you will But whither are we going from our Argument I undertook to prove That the Parliament of England can rightfully make Laws to bind Ireland and you have put me upon proving That the King's-Bench in England hath a Jurisdiction over the King's-Bench in Ireland I confess you have made this Task easie to me for besides the weakness of your Arguments to the contrary you grant it p. 139. but you do it with great Caution and desire that no Advantage may be taken thereby to prove the Parliament of Ireland Subordinate to the Parliament of England this I think you needed not have feared for I know no Body would ever have raised it as an Argument against you or will use it now you have brought it The Parliament of England's Power over Ireland was long before the Dates of the Writs of Error you mention which were all in the Days of King Charles I. 'T is true you imply there were some much earlier but all we have said of this Matter seems to me but Labour lost and nothing to the Argument we are upon nor can I conclude with you p. 140. from the Prior of Lanthony's Case that the Judgement of the Parliament of Ireland was never questioned in the Parliament of England that very Case seems to me to show the contrary which I leave to the Reader to judge As for the English Act of Parliament p. 140 141. made the 25th of Henry VIII I cannot see what use you make of that neither against the Jurisdiction of the Parliament that made it You say It was received in Ireland and confirmed in Parliament there by the Act of Faculties made the 28th Year of the same King's Reign It may be so and what then All I can say to it is that we have trifled a long time on things spoken to before therefore let us proceed to something new if you have it to offer I very well know Sir that it becomes me to treat you with Respect both as you are a Gentleman and a Stranger to me but I cannot but admire at the Pains you take of quoting so many Cases and then applying them so ill I confess I can hardly pardon you this Fault Your Book seems to be written by different Hands I am afraid this latter part is added without your consent by such as design'd Mischief to you or the Matter you are handling P. 142. You come to your Sixth Article proposed viz. The Reasons and Arguments that may be farther offer'd on one Side and t'other in this Debate The First is Conquest the Second Purchase by sundry Expences to reduce Rebellions and carry on Wars in Ireland both formerly and of late the Third is Strength and Power which you say England makes use of to make Laws for securing its Trade from Ireland and maintaining those Laws when made these you descant on p. 142 143 144 145 146 147. but I am tired and shall not give my self the Trouble to consider what Reasons may arise from these or any of them for the Parliament of England's putting this their Power in Execution I never proposed either of them as a reason from whence it sprung which is the Argument we are upon The last thing you mention is Ireland's being look'd on as a Colony from England p. 148 149. and therefore subject to its Laws This you think a very extravagant Opinion I am sure none of the Arguments you there bring against it make it appear to be so however I shall not wander again upon this Subject having as I hope sufficiently proved That the Parliament of England hath made Laws to bind Ireland ever since it hath been in our Possession You say your self p. 39. That the Parliament at Oxford in King Henry II's days made the King's Son John King thereof which shews they had then a power over it and it doth not appear by their Actions since that they ever gave it up and can the Authority of the Parliament of England over Ireland be better set forth than by saying they settled the Sovereignty over it in whom they pleased 'T is true you do not prove it nor is it at all probable yet the Argument is good against your self to shew they had then a power to do it As for the remaining part of your Book from p. 149. to the end where you endeavour to set forth Reasons drawn from the Justness of your Cause why the Parliament of England should not put this Power in Execution which they have had and exercised from the beginning over Ireland it doth not become me to give Answer to it The great Wisdom of the Nation knows when 't is convenient for them to do it and when not they have not made me Arbitrator in that Affair but are themselves the proper Judges However I hope I may adventure to say I have proved in the foregoing Discourse That it is not against the Rights of Mankind nor against the Common Law of England nor against the Statute-Law of England nor against the several Concessions made to Ireland nor is it inconsistent with the Regalities of a Kingdom depending on England as Ireland doth nor against the King's Prerogative nor the Practice of former Ages nor the Resolution of the Judges and that it doth not destroy Property nor create Confusion These are the Heads you again repeat but have been answer'd already Therefore on what hath been said I cannot conclude with you That the exercise of this Legislative Power over Ireland which you call Assumed in your last Pages 171 172 173 174. will be any ways inconvenient for the Kingdom of England but seeing you are pleased to submit this to the Wise Assembly of English Senators I humbly leave it to them also whether on the Reasons you have offered they will desist for the future But I cannot admit of your Comparison with the breaking of the Edict of Nants by the French King it does not appear to me you were ever exempted from their Jurisdiction nor can I believe the Gentlemen of Ireland will be drawn aside by your Clamours to call this an Invasion on their Rights and Liberties or be perswaded thereby to shake off their Allegiance to the King of England which you groundlesly suggest No doubt the Parliament of Ireland is a Prudent Assembly and know well enough how to make Laws for the Interest of that Kingdom which therefore you think cannot be in the least prejudicial to this Yet you see Poyning's Act 10 Hen. 7. which you mention p. 173. is still kept on foot as a light to their feet perhaps if this good Guide was laid aside they might be apt to stray which I do not find the Crown of England willing to give up much less do I believe that the Parliament of England will surrender their Antient undoubted Power to make Laws to bind that Kingdom However let not my Opinion discourage your humble Application to them which will be a better way than disputing their Power And thus I have made an Essav at answering your Book which boldly strikes at the Power of our English Parliaments a Constitution I much honour and though they do not stand in need of such weak Pens as mine yet I have made use of my Sling and Stone till a better Champion undertakes their Cause I have only engaged you with your own Weapons and thrown back those Darts on your self which you cast at them I confess my own weakness to handle a Controversie of this nature which I had never undertaken had I not thought the weakness of your Arguments had given me an Incouragement It is reported of the Son of Craesus though Dumb before yet when he saw his Father like to be slain his dutiful Affection being stronger then the Cords that bound his Tongue cryed out Noli occidere Patrem You complain often in this Discourse of the breaking in on the Liberties of Ireland for which I see no reason and I hope it will not appear so to indifferent Men when the thing is rightly considered I have given you my Thoughts on this Subject but whether they will make a better Impression on you then your Arguments have made on me I cannot foresee therefore shall leave what hath been said on both sides to be scan'd by the Judicious Reader Bristol June 16. 1698. John Cary.