the Regal only and that the Regal privileges should be sent to the King but the Episcopal and Papal should be kept but my Author thinks the last were also sent After this when any office in the University was void the King appointed the Successors so that it is found that even one of the Bedles was so placed This Instance doth sufficiently manifest the Kings absolute power over the Universities in taking into his hands at his pleasure all or any part of their privileges and restoring them when he thinks fit as he did these Anno 1541. 33 H. 8. The King (a) F. F. fol. 107.6 appointed Rules about the Election of the Proctors and ordered several other things relating to the better Governing of the University Anno 1543.35 H. 8. The King restores their privileges conditionally The King restored the Liberties to the University which he had retained from the Year 1522. yet so as the Vice-Chancellor Tresham entred into a Recognizance of 500 l. that the University should exercise none of the privileges granted Anno 1523. by the means of Cardinal Wolsey Thus I have given an Abridgment of what the Laborious Mr. Wood hath related concerning the Kings or Popes Grants of privileges to the University or what I have met with other where relating to this business and shall now proceed in my designed Method referring the Reader for later Charters to the Arcives of the University and the Act of Parliament for Incorporating both Oxford and Cambridge CHAP. IV. Concerning the Visitations of the Universities and particularly of that of Oxford SECT I. Concerning the Kings Supremacy and Power in Ecclesiastical Causes and Visitations §. 1. First what Authority the Kings of England used before the Reformation IT cannot be expected that I should discuss the Controversie here how far the Popes power was exercised in England in matters Ecclesiastical or in things to be done in Ordine ad Spiritualia The Curious may have recourse to the Learned Marca de Regno Sacerdotio the Concordata the Regalia of France and Sir Roger Twisdens Historical Vindication if he would be satisfied in the bundaries of the Ecclesiastical and Secular power ☞ It will be sufficient for my purpose to shew first that long before the Reformation several Kings of England permitted no Canons or Constitutions of the Church or Breves and Bulls of the Apostolic See to be executed here without their Allowance and that in several particulars wherein the Pope in other places by the Canons or the Plenitudo potestatis exercised a special Jurisdiction either some of our Ancientest Kings did the same or if they apprehended any diminution of their Crown or Dignity to attend their exercise by any power not derived from their selves they prohibited them ☞ And Secondly Secondly What power they have exercised since the Reformation That since the Supremacy hath been Established by Acts of Parliament in the Crown The Kings of England may according to the Laws in force not only exercise all the powers they could as Sovereign Princes but likewise whatever the Pope de Jure if not de facto could or did do in the outward Regiment of Ecclesiastical matters and consequently whatever was done in Visitations by the Authority of the Popes Metrpolitans or Dioecesan Bishops may now be done by the Kings of England as Supreme Ordinary §. 2. Before I enter upon this Subject I desire it may be noted These Instances are produced to Induce the Subjects obedience to the King whose Authority ought to be well considered that I bring not the Instances to induce a belief that the Popes according to the Canons of the Church did not oppose some of the practices of the Kings I mention But to shew how Incongruously the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College acted who knowing these things and that later Laws had devolved upon the King even the power of the Pope exercised here inforo externo should dispute the Kings Authority in a matter so manifestly appertaining to his Royal Dignity ☞ For Brevities sake I pass the Saxon times King William the 1st for the sure Establishing his Conquest is noted by Eadmerus (a) Histor novorum lib. 1. fol. 6. to which he adds de hujusmodi personis Episcopes Abbates alies principes per totam tenam Justituit de quibus Indignum Judicaretur si per omnia suis legibus non obedirent Idem to have Introduced the Norman usages of his Ancestors tho' he calls them new here Among which he reckons that none in his Dominions should own the Pope but by his Command nor receive his Letters unless shewed first to him and if the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury called and praesided in a General Council of the Bishops he allowed nothing to be appointed or forbid unless they were accommodated to his Will and were first ordained by him nor suffered any of his Barons or Officers to undergo any Ecclesiastical Censure but by his precepts So that I think it not so strange What King William Rufus did Upon the Shism none more fit then the King to resolve whom to adhere to that during the Schism his Son William Rufus claimed as other Princes did a Right to declare to which Pope he would adhere some consenting to Pope Vrban others to Clement Therefore the King demanded of Anselm from which of those Popes he would receive his Pall and the Arch-Bishop Answered him he would receive it from Pope Vrban But the King (a) Rex dixit illum prō Apostelico nondum accepisse nec suae vel paternae Consuetudinis eatenus extitisse ut praeter suam licentiam aut Electionem Aliquis in Regno Angliae Papam nominaret quicunque sibi hujus dignitatis Potestatem vellît praeripere Unum foret ac si coronam suam sibi conaretur Auferre Eadm fol. 25.47 told him that he had not yet received him for Pope nor had it been his or his Fathers Custom hitherto that any should be received as Pope in England without his Licence and Election and whoever would take from him this Power of his Dignity should be esteemed by him as one that endeavored to take from him his Crown And when Anselm Answered that he would not in any thing depart from obedience and subjection to Pope Vrban The King in great wrath protested (b) Nequaquam fidem quam sibi debebat simul Apostolicae sedis obedientiam contra suam voluntatem posse servari fol. 26. N. 1. None to go to Rome but with the Kings leave that the Arch-Bishop could not keep alike or together the Faith which he ought to the King and the obedience to the Apostolic See contrary to the Kings Will. When in the same Kings Reign the Arch-Bishop was sollicitous to have leave to go to Rome and Visit the Successor of St. Peter for the being better instructed in the Government of the Church He received Answer (c) Sed si Iverit pro certo noverit
the many Authorities might be brought to prove this more particularly pa. 129. to 137. here the curious may find several Collected by the Author of the Church of England's Behavior under a Roman Catholic King to which may be added the Act declaring the making and Consecrating of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of this Realm to be good lawful and perfect The ground of which Statute was some Mens questioning whether the same were duly and orderly done according to Law or not The Act lays this for a Foundation Some Paragraphs in the Act 8 Eliz. c. 1. explained 26 H. 8.1 That King Henry the 8th was justly and rightly re-cognized and acknowledged to have the Supreme Power Jurisdiction Order Rule and Authority over all the Estate Ecclesiastical of the Realm and after Recites how the Kings and Queens of this Realm had full power and Authority by Letters Patents c. from time to time to Assign Name and Authorize such person or persons as they shall think meet and convenient to excercise use occupy and execute c. all manner of Jurisdictions Privileges Preheminences and Authorities in any wise touching or concerning Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or Jurisdiction within this Realm c. Then follows That the Queen being lawfully Invested in the Imperial Crown of this Realm c. and having in her Majesties Order and disposition all the said Jurisdictions Powers and Authorities over the State Ecclesiastical and Temporal The Queens power in matters Ecclesiastical Supreme and absolute c. hath by her Supreme Authority at divers times sithence the beginning of her Reign caus'd divers and sundry grave and well Learned Men to be duly Elected Made and Consecrated Arch-Bishops and Bishops c. and after Fellows which is to be noted that in her Letters Patents for the same she hath not only used such words and Sentences as were accustomed to be used by King Henry the 8th and King Edw. the 6th in their Letters Patents made for such Causes but also hath used and put into her Letters Patents divers other general words and Sentences whereby her Highness by her Supreme Power and Authority hath dispensed with all Causes or doubts of any Imperfection or dis-ability that can or may in any wise be objected against the same c. so that to all those that will well consider of the effect and true intent of the said Laws and Statutes and the Supreme and absolute Authority of the Queens Highness and which she by her Majesties said Letters Patents hath used and put in Ure c. it is and may be very evident and apparent that no cause of simple ambiguity or doubt can or may justly be objected From hence it is easie to infer Considerable Inferences resulting from this Statute that there is in the Crown such a Supreme and absolute power in Ecclesiastical matters as the King may dispense with Acts of Parliament even in such a concern as Consecration Confirmation or Investing of any person c. Elected to the Office or Dignity of any Arch-Bishop or Bishop within this Realm for if there had been no variation by the Queens Letters Patents from the Form and Methods in the Acts of King * 25 H. 8. c. 20.5 6 E. 6. c. 16. sect 3. u. 4. Hen. the 8th or Edw. the 6th or that of Queen Elizabeth 1 o. Cap. 2. there had been no need of Inserting general words or dispensations in the Queens Letters Patents This Note Answers all that can be alleged concerning Mr. Farmers Incapacity Hence may be noted if the Queen could by her Supreme power and Authority thus dispense with dis-ability in Bishops much more may the King with dis-abilities occasioned by College Statutes which at pleasure he can alter and abolish But to return to the 25th of H. 8. Observations upon this Statute by Judge Hoberts Reports fol. 156. The power granted to the Arch-Bishop by the Act is in Ordinary matters such as usually the Pope or Prelates of the Realm dispensed with and in un-wonted Cases also which it seems by the Letter of the Act to be of vast extent so that my Lord Hobert saith that tho' it seems to give power over all Dispensations granted from Rome wonted and un-wonted and all dispensations generally Yet it must have construction such as were allowable and allowed by the Laws and Practice of this Realm for else it should make our Yoke heavier than before Yet I cannot conceive but the power may be extended further than the ordinary power the Popes or Prelates practised See the Statute sect 17.18 where greater power seems to be implyed worthy consideration otherwise there needed not to have been such provision made that in un-wonted Cases the King or Council should allow them and if the Arch-Bishop refused the King might appoint two Prelates or other persons to grant them and it is probable that this Act may be construed to other purposes than a Faculty-Office only §. 6. Some further observations upon the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. But I shall conclude this matter with the following Observations upon this Statute which I take to be clear and undeniable First That the Pope did here by his Bulls and Breves grant Dispensations in various Cases Erected Constituted and Visited Colleges and Abrogated their Statutes as I have cleared in the foregoing Chapter Secondly That by this Act the Popes General or Universal power and Authority in England in all Cases was Totally abolished and taken away from him as to the excercise of it Thirdly That some part only of that general power and Authority which was excercised by the Pope was by that Act Vested Lodged and Delegated in and to the Arch-Bishop as the dispensing power for Marriages Bastardy c. and other matters there expressed which was properly to be called the Popes ordinary power and was so lodged and delegated in the Arch-Bishop to save the King from trouble in such ordinary and common Cases but not to take away the Kings ordinary power Supremacy Fourthly That the Popes extraordinary power which he exercised in England is as well abolished here by this and other Acts as his ordinary power But so much of the Popes Authority and power either ordinary or extraordinary as was at any time excercised by him here in England and which is not by the said Statute Vested and Delegated in the Arch-Bishop is by a necessary Construction revived and revested in the King and re-united to the Crown by all those Acts which declare the Kings * See. Stat. 24 H. 8. cap. 12.25 H. 8. c. 20. 21.26 H. 8. c. 1. c. 3. c. 13.31 H. 8. cap. 9.37 H. 8. c. 17.1 Eliz. c. 1. c. 4.8 Eliz. c. 1. Supremacy yea tho' the Statutes had been silent therein for that the Crown by this and other Acts is entirely remitted and restored to all it 's Ancient Jurisdictions and Prerogatives exercised by the Popes from whence our Law
pag. 158. 159. The Kings power of Visiting § 16. pag. 159. The Kings power in Ecclesiastical matters and his being Supreme Visitor pag. 160. SECT II. Who Exercised Jurisdiction by way of Visitation or otherwise over the Universities from the 11th of King John to the Year 1390. 14 Ric. 2. pag. 161. The Pope and Legat Suspend Offenders § 1. pag. 161. Cardinal Otho Visits by Legatin Authority § 2. pag. 163. The Bishop of Lincoln Ordinary Visitor of the University of Oxford § 3. pag. 164. 165. The Bishop of Lincoln sometimes opposed § 4. p. 166. The Arch-Bishop of Canterburys Visitation of Oxford § 5. pag. 167. Disputes betwixt the Bishop of Lincoln and the University and the Arch-Bishop with both about Visitation § 6. pag. 168. 169. The University subject to several Visitations pa. 169. The disturbance the Dominicans made in the University of Oxon for setling which the King and Pope shewed their Authority § 9. pag. 171. 172. Appeals to the Pope § 10. pag. 174. 175. Differences betwixt the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Lincoln about Visitation and the King Interposeth his Authority § 11. pag. 172. Disturbances in Queens College and the proceedings of the Local Visitor and the Kings Orders thereupon § 12. pag. 175. Arch-Bishop Courtneys Visitation § 13. pag. 176. SECT III. Who Visited the Vniversity of Oxford after the 13th of King Richard the Seconds time to the beginning of King Henry the 8ths Reign pag. 178. The King redresseth certain grievances complained of by both Universities § 1. pag. 179. What is to be observed from thence § 2. pag. 180. The Kings Mandate to extirpate Lollards out of the University § 3. pag. 181. Arch-Bishop Arundel Visiting by the Kings leave Commands the Univesity to obey § 4. pag. 182. The Kings power not lessened by such Visitations pag. 184. Arch-Bishop Arundels Visitation resisted § 5. pa. 185. The King hears the Cause of the Universities claiming exemption and determins it pag. 186. An account of this whole matter in Parliament § 6. pag. 186. The King may deprive the University of privileges for dis-obedience pag. 187. An account of a latter Visitation 12 H. 4. § 7. pag. 188. The Reason why the Author hath given so large an account of this Controversie § 8. pag. 189. Mr. Pryns mis-application of the Records about this pag. 189. The King gives Sentence for the Arch-Bishop of York against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and gives leave to the Bishop of Lincoln to Visit § 9. pa. 191. The Visitation of the Metropolitan and Diocesan by the Canons § 10. pag. 191. 192. CHAP. V. COncerning the Visitations of the Vniversity of Oxford since the Renouncing the Popes Supremacy in England pag. 193. SECT I. Concerning the Visitations in the Reigns of King Henry the 8th and King Edward the 6th pag. 193. The Charters and Bulls of the University of Oxford Surrendred to the King and Cardinal Wolsey for him and the Kings Visiting the University § 1. pag. 194. The usual Method of proceeding in Visitations of the Universities pag. 194. 195. The Commission of King Edw. 6th to Visit the University of Oxford § 2. pag. 196. The Kings Supremacy and Authority to Visit pa. 196. The places and persons to be Visited § 3. pag. 197. The punishments are Deprivation Sequestration of profits and Ecclesiastical Censures c. § 4. pag. 198. Several other powers granted to the Visitors § 5. pag. 199. Other powers § 6. pag. 200. Further powers given § 7. pag. 200. 201. Command to Sheriffs to Assist Non-obstante c. § 8. pag. 201. What may be observed from this Commission § 9. pag. 201. to 205. What the Commissioners did in this Visitation A Suspension of the Execution of Statutes § 10. pag. 205. 206. A new Book of Statutes made § 11. pag. 206. The severe proceedings of the Commissioners § 12. pag. 207. SECT II. The Visitation in Queen Maries Reign pag. 208. Queen Maries Visitation by Bishop Gardyner § 1. pag. 208. Cardinal Pools Visitation § 2. pag. 209. The Questions proposed pag. 210. The Cardinal appoints new Statutes § 3. pag. 210. The Cardinal Visiting as the Popes Legat. pag. 211. SECT III. The Visitations in Queen Elizabeths Reign pag. 212. Queen Elizabeths Inhibition § 1. pag. 212. Queen Elizabeth appoints Visitors § 2. pag. 212. The Heads of Colleges and others Expelled § 3. pag. 213. Letters about the Visitation of Cambridge by Dr. Parker after Arch-Bishop of Canterbury § 4. pag. 215. Some observations concerning that Visitation pag. 218. An account of the Visitation of Merton College § 5. pag. 218. Observations upon it pag. 219. Secretary Cecils Letter about Visitation § 6. pag. 220. Disturbances about the Election of a President in Corpus Christi College and the Queens Mandate for Electing § 7. pag. 221. The Queen appoints Visitors Ibid. What the Earl of Leicester did as Chancellor § 8. Ibid. SECT IV. A further account of the Visitations of the Vniversities or single Colleges together with the Alteration Abrogating or new Imposing of Statutes of the Vniversities by the Sovereign pag. 223. An account of what is to be Treated of in this Section The Reason why Princes should have a greater power over Universities § 1. pag. 223. 224. Queen Elizabeths Letters Patents for confirming the Statutes of the University of Cambridge altered by her § 2. pag. 225. A Controversie betwixt Dr. Humfreys President and some Fellows of Magdalen College § 3. pag. 227. An account given of it in the first paper § 4. pag. 228. The second paper § 5. pag. 231. to 236. The third paper § 6. pag. 236. to 240. Abstract of Secretary Walsinghams Letter about this matter and the Bishop of Winchesters Answer § 7. pag. 241. Observations from these strict Statutes § 8. p. 242. 243. The Case of Mr. Wilson chosen Rector of Lincoln College § 9. pag. 244. Dr. Fulks Letter about the Queens appointing Visitors of Cambridge § 10. pag. 246. Necessity by Visitation to alter Statutes tho' the University have power to do the same Ibid. Statutes about Apparel § 11. pag. 248. Concerning the need of confirmation of the Spiritual Jurisdiction to the Chancellor c. pag. 248. The Kings appointing constitutions of the University without Visitors § 12. pag. 249. Concerning some Visitations in King Charles the firsts time pag. 250. Concerning Arch-Bishop Lauds Visitation of the Universities jure Metropolitico pag. 250. 251. King Charles the firsts determination concerning the Arch-Bishops Visitation of the Universities § 13. pag. 252. Considerations thereupon pag. 253. The Form of a Commission from King Charles the 2d for Visiting a free Chappel § 14. pag. 254. Inferences from this Record pag. 255. The Conclusion of this Section pag. 255. The Opinion of an eminent Lawyer as to the Kings power over Corporations Colleges c. pa. 255. 256. The Opinion of several Judges in this
thereunto but also be so far Lord over them that when he seeth cause he may abate or totally remit the Penalty Incurred by the breach of them and dispense with others for not observing of them at all yea generally Suspend the Execution of them c. §. 2. Why the Author Treats not largely on this subject But I foresee it will be alleged that what is urged thus in General and in Theory is to be applyed to the Constitution of the Government of England otherwise it reacheth not the point in Question concerning the Kings power of dispensing with College Statutes To which I Answer first That the Kings power in dispensing with Penal Laws in General having by Solemn Judgment in the Kings Bench been determined and several Treatises published to clear the point of Law and there being so lately a * Jus Coronae Treatise Writ by a Judicious person wherein the Kings power in that matter is Learnedly discussed I may be excused from treating more particularly of that § 3. Observations on the 25 H. 8. C. 21. I shall therefore only note a few observables from the Statute of the 25 of King H. 8. Chapter the 21. Entituled in Kebles Edition 1684. An Act concerning Peter-pence and Dispensations but Originally Entituled otherwise as may be seen in the * 1 2 Phil. M. c. 8. sect 10. Act of Repeal in Queen Maries time and the * 1 Eliz. c. 1. sect 8. Act of restoring it in Queen Elizabeths time to which I shall add the explication of another Act 8 Eliz. Cap. 1. and some few other remarks upon that Head. The Foundation of this Act is grounded upon an Hypothesis The Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. is founded upon the usage of a dispensing power that a dispensing power is needful in Government and altho' it be the constant Opinion and Judgment of the Courts of Law and all Lawyers that the principal intendment of that Act was to Abolish the Popes power and Authority in England in granting Licences Dispensations Faculties c. Yet from this Act many particulars may be observed I must refer the Reader to the Act it self which will shew not only the allowed usage of a dispensing power by the Popes and Prelates in matters of Ecclesiastical Cognizance by sufferance as the Act Styles it of our Kings but that the Original Right of such dispensations was in the King and so continues It is then First to be noted from the Act The Pope excercised a dispensing power that the Pope claimed by Usurpation as it is there Styled and persuaded the Subjects that he had a power to dispense with all Human Laws yea and Customs of all Realms in all Causes which he called Spiritual But the same Act saith that such claim of the Pope was in Derogation of the Kings Imperial Crown and Authority Royal contrary to Right and Reason The power excercised by the sufferance of the King and in derogation of the Royal Authority Therefore in the close of this Section it is added that because it is now in these days present seen that the State Dignity Superiority Reputation and Authority of the said Imperial Crown of this Realm by the long sufferance of the said unreasonable and un-charitable usurpations and exactions practised in the times of the Kings most Noble Progenitors is much and sore decayed and diminished c. Therefore remedy is provided c. From hence I think with submission Nota. it must be owned that if the Pope usurped this power in derogation of the Authority Royal then that power must be owned to be originally in the King otherwise in the Construction of the Act it could be no Usurpation §. 4. The Ecclesiastical power originally in the King according to this Act. ☞ Besides it 's the general Opinion of the greatest Lawyers of England that according to the Constitution of our Laws all Ecclesiastical power and Authority in England is Originally in the King so derived from him or if otherwise it is adjudged Usurpation and encroachment It being an undeniable Maxim That no person hath power or Jurisdiction in England but the King or what is derived from him and this power of the King cannot be disposed away nor abolished but by express words in an Act of Parliament Yea so Sacred are the Prerogatives of the Crown that tho' in some Cases the Kings of England have by Act of Parliament departed with their Prerogatives So the Statutes of the 23 H. 6. about Sheriffs and 31 H. 6. about Justices of Assize are frequently dispensed with Coke 12 Rep. 14. Hoberts Reports Colt and Glovers Case p. 146. and yielded not to dispense with the contrary by a non-obstante yet such Acts have been judged void So my Lord Hobert upon this very Statute saith that he holds it clear that tho' this Statute says that all Dispensations c. shall be granted in manner and form following and not otherwise yet the King is not thereby restrained The Kings prerogative not restrained by Acts of Parliament on several Cases but his power remains full and perfect as before and he may still grant them as King for all Acts of Justice and Grace flow from him as 4 Eliz. Dyer 211. The Commission of Tryal of Pyracy upon the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 53. is good tho' the Chancellor do not nominate the Commissioners as that Statute appoints yet it is a new Law and Mich. 5. and 6 Eliz. Dyer 225. the Queen made Sheriffs without the Judges notwithstanding the Statute of 9 E. 2. and Mich. 13. and 14 Eliz. Dyer 303. The Office of Aulnage granted by the Queen without the Bill of the Treasurer is good with a non-obstante against the Statute 31 H. 6. cap. 5. For these Statutes and the like saith the Reverend Judge were made to put things in Ordinary Form and to ease that Sovereign of Labor but not to deprive him of Power He further adds that notwithstanding the excercise of the Popes Authority yet the Crown always kept a Possession of it's Natural power of Dispensations in Spiratualibus as 11 H. 4. so to retain Benefices with Bishoprics and 11 H. 7. to have double Benefices I might add to these to Reservation in the Statute 2 R. 1 Hen. 4. cap. 6. 2. c. 4. saving to the King his Regality to be found in the Parliament Roll in the Kings Confirmation of Liberties which Sir Ed. Coke 4. Instit 51. complain of for being un-printed as also of King Henry the 4th that he will by the Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal aforesaid and at the request of the said Commons be Counselled by the Wise Men of his Council in things touching the Estate of him and of his Realm saving always his liberty that is his Prerogative for that is properly the King Liberty §. 5. Where to find Arguments for the dispensing power I shall not trouble the Reader with
Books say it was Robbed or derived Because such powers being taken away from the Pope and such as had Authority under him and neither settled in any Court or person by the Statute can re-vest or re-sult to none other but the King as Supreme in all Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal Causes which by Sufferance or Usurpation as the Act saith the Pope had excercised Fifthly By the several Acts and Instances whereby the Kings of England since the making of this Act of the 25th King Henry the 8th have exerted their Supreme Authority it is clear that the Crowns Re-assumption of what the Pope had exercised hath been according to the Laws in being of which I now proceed to give Instances in the Kings dispensing with College Statutes of which I shall give some few in several Cases of many hundreds which are to be found in the Paper Office or Secretaries Books §. 7. An account of the Queens Mandate about Electing of a Master of St. Johns College in Cambridge The first Instance I think fit to Insert is as followeth The Course that was held in the last Election of the Mastership of St. Johns College in Cambridge First Bundel Ecclesiastic Universities Paper-Office The Statute of that College appointeth the Twelfth day after the Vacation to be the day of their Election and no other Secondly The greater part of the Fellows of the College were made for Mr. Alvey a Senior Fellow Thirdly The Lord Treasurer being Informed that Alvey was an unfit Man set down an Inhibition in the Queens Name to defer the Election which Inhibition was obeyed Fourthly The 12th day being passed and no further power left to the Fellows to Elect The Lord Treasurer sent a Letter the second time in the Queens Name Nominating Dr. Clayton and Dr. Stainton Commanding the Fellows to choose one of them and no other Fifthly By Authority of those Letters they choose Dr. Clayton By this proceeding it is manifest that the King may not only by a Mandate of Inhibition stay the Electors from making any choice but nominate the person to be Elected altho' by College Statutes the day of the Election and the Electors were appointed §. 8. The Bishop of Londons Testimony that the King hath dispensed with College Statutes Before I enter upon the particular Mandates I shall produce the Testimony of George Montague Bishop of London in his Letter a Copy of which the Honorable Sir Joseph Williamson afforded me out of the Paper-Office directed to Sir Edward Conway Principal Secretary of State as followeth Right Honorable THe Noble and Vertuous Lady the Lady Denbigh hath layed a Command upon me to deliver my knowledge whether the King hath at any time by his Letters dispensed with the Local Statutes of any College by a Non-obstante and upon a search it appears that his Majesty hath sent Letters of that nature to divers Colleges If this Information may promote her desires and give you satisfaction I shall be right glad and will ever remain London Decemb. 10th 1623. Your Honors Friend to Command and humble Servant Geo. London §. 9. A Mandate dispensing with Incapacities to receive Degrees I now proceed to give some Extracts of Mandates wherein the King dispenseth with College Statutes in one of which Dated December the 11th Anno 1624. the persons within named being some ways Incapacitated to take their respective Degrees were dispensed with as followeth Trusty and Well-beloved We Great you well In a Bundel Docketed Ecclesiastic Universities in the Paper-Office at Whitehall We are Graciously please of Our Royal Favor to Gabriel More Harrington Butler George Bursey and Michael Gilbert to advance them to such Degrees as they are capable of and well deserve by their Learning and diligent Studies tho' in some respects not qualified Therefore Our pleasure is that notwithstanding any Statute or other Ordinance to the contrary you forthwith Create Gabriel More a Dr. in Divinity and you also admit Harrington Butler and George Bursey to the Degree of Master of Arts and Michael Gibert Bachellor of Arts in such Form as is usual in like Case and these Letters shall be your Warrant In a Mandate for one William Morley to be a Schollar of the College of St. A Mandate for a Schollar of St. Mary Winton College without examination Mary of Winton College Oxon without Examination are these words and tho' we have a favorable Eye to your freedom that are the Electors yet in this Our so Extraordinary Recommendation We expect your Dutiful respects to this Our Princely Pleasure and Command so that this Our Will be not dis-appointed for any respet whatsoever Directed to Our Trusty and Well-belove Dr. Princock Warden of St. Mary Winton College in Our University of Oxford and Our Trusty and Well-beloved Dr. Love Warden of St. Mary Winton College near Winchester the under Warden School-Master of the College and two Posers of the Schollars for the Election In a Mandate Dated 3 o. Regni Caroli 1. A Mandate dispensing with the Incapacity by reason of the County For one Gregory Isham I find these words But because We understand that the Country where he was Born layeth some formal Incapacity upon him We are pleased hereby to Dispense therewith and do require that his Country may not be any Impediment to him in that Election Ibid. notwithstanding any Statute or Order to the contrary And these Our Letters shall be sufficient Warrant in that behalf §. 10. The acknowlegement from St. Johns College in Cambridge of the Kings power in dispensing with College Statutes March the 28th Bundel Eccles Universities 1630. c. 1633. In a Letter of the Master and Fellows of St. Johns College to the Earl of Holland the Chancellor about their choosing Dr. Digby according to his Majesties Letters Dr. Beale being then Master I find they allege that he was not capable by some Statutes having not performed some things the Statutes required They write thus Yet his Sacred Majesties Request would have been tye enough upon his most Dutiful and Obedient Servants to have endeavored the accomplishment of his Royal desire had we been enabled thereunto by Dispensation with those opposite Statutes which otherwise we stand obliged by Oath to observe Which plainly shews that if a Dispensation had been obtained or inserted in the Mandate the King had been obeyed I find that the Master and Fellows of Christ College in Cambridge In the Paper Office Ecclesiastica Academica without date being desirous to Capacitate one Norton then but Senior Sophister for a Fellowship sent him with Letters Testimonial to Oxford whereupon he obtained his Bachellors Degree and so was Elected Fellow A Senior Sophister may take Bachellor of Arts Degree by dispensation The Relation saith that the Arch-Bishop hearing of it expressed some displeasure and said he would call him to an Account for his taking the Oath for Bachellor having not full time and being not dispensed with
more plausibly In the first place it is urged that no Commission can be granted under the Broad Seal to Visitors to place and dis-place Members of Colleges but so as they must proceed according to Legal discretion viz. by the Laws and Statutes of the Land and Local Statutes of the Colleges By this Allegation they would Insinuate that the Lords Visitors did not proceed according to such Laws and Statutes nor could proceed summarily as in the latter part of the Objection they Insinuate To this I reply The Kings Prerogative a part of the Law of the land See chap. 4. §. 1. 2. here that the Kings Prerogative in such Cases is to be taken and accepted as a Fundamental of the Laws of the Land and I hope I have sufficiently cleared the continued use of the Kings of Englands exercising this power in granting Commissions to Visit the Universities and particular Colleges c. Amongst the Patents 26 E. 3. There is a Commission directed to several Commissioners to Visit St. Mary Magdalen College in Rippon which by the Foundation of that College was under the Visitation of the Arch-Bishop of York and to enquire of the several mis-carriages of the respective Members and whether they consumed or wasted any of the Lands or Goods of that College and to return the same to the King who would take care therein So in the Parliament Rolls (a) Rot. Parl. 40 E. 3. n. 12. the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge complained in Parliament of the Fryers Mendicants of both the said Universities how Injurious they were to the Ancient Immunities of the Universities and how faulty and offensive they were to them and it was declared and resolved in Parliament that the King had sole power to redress those Controversies at his Will and Pleasure In the Plea (a) Placit 15 E. 2. n. 10. Rolls 15 Ed. 2. It is declared that the King hath an absolute power to punish contempts and the offences against him as Supreme Ordinary without proceeding in the Common and usual Course of Judicial proceedings ☞ Conformable to this King Henry the 8th granted his Commission for the Visitation of Monasteries and dis-placing several Monks and other Regulars for their mis-carriages as the Inquisitive Reader may find in Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation and that by his Sovereign and Supreme Authority without Act of Parliament So King Edward (b) Rot. Pat. 3 E. 6. 1 part the 6th Commissioned Cranmer Ridley and others to proceed de plano in a summary way against Bonner by the Examination of Witnesses against him and so to Imprison Suspend or Deprive him as they saw cause in pursuance of which Commission they Deprived him of his Bishopric So Queen Mary (c) Rot. Pat. 1 Mariae part 7. granted Commission to the then Bishop of Winchester and others to Impower them to proceed in a summary way to the Deprivation of the then Arch-Bishop of York and other Bishops So Queen Elizabeth (d) Pat. 24 June 1 Regni granted Commission to the Earls of Derby and Northumberland and others to Visit all the Clergy in the North to place and displace them as they saw cause §. 11. Inferences from the foregoing Records By all which Authorities See chap. 4.5 6 and 7. here the Opinion of Parliaments the Antiquities of Presidents and frequent Instances in later days which I have abundantly produced in the foregoing Chapters I hope I have convincingly cleared that the King in all Ages by his Prerogative hath Regulated and Reformed Universities and Colleges punished their offences placed and dis-placed their Members without anything of the Ceremony of Westminster Hall and have been advised by their Judges and Learned Council that it was their Prerogative to proceed by their Commissioners Delegated by them in a summary way to the Suspension and Deprivation of the Bishops and Clergy nor can it be denyed but the Bishops of England have great Free-holds Temporalities and Honorable Baronages to lose by such Deprivations and such were more considerable in the Eye and esteem of the Law than the Exhibitions Headships or Fellowships of any College ☞ Hence it may be noted The Kings of England exercising the power of supension and deprivation by Commissioners upon Bishops Abbots Priors c. may well do it on Members of Colleges that since our Kings have exercised such a power over Monasteries Colleges purely Religious Arch-Bishops and Bishops they may much more exercise the like over Universities and Colleges since whatever power they or their Founders had or have it was never given them by any Statute or any part of the Common Law it being the Kings sole Prerogative to Constitute Coporations or Bodies Politic sole or Aggregate Ecclesiastical or Civil under several and distinct qualifications conditions and trusts and the Universities and Colleges derive their Existence from the Royal bounty of the Prince who made them Corporations Constituted them by the direction of their respective Founders Bodies with Heads and Members to be Governed by such Rules and Statutes as the Founder by the Kings Licence should appoint But it was never certainly Intended that the King by such Grant or Licence should Delegate such Authority to Founders Visitors or the Members of Colleges See chap. 4. sect 1. here whereby to injure his Prerogative or determin the Supremacy which the Law of the Land had Annexed to his Imperial Crown as at large I have cleared before That the King is Supreme Head and Visitor in all Ecclesiastical and Civil causes See cap. 4. here hath been fully proved and that from the King all Judges Ecclesiastical and Temporal derive their Authority And sure a Delegation of power from the King can be no Bar or Estople to the King to exert his Prerogative that he thereby can be concluded from Delegating power to others to correct and reform misdemeanors and offences in Communities created by him or his Ancestors or to supervise the Actions and Management of his Judges Ecclesiastical Local Visitors or persons Commissioned by him As to Dr. Thomas Coveneys Case I shall consider it when I come to Treat of Appeals §. 12. Whether Colleges be of Temporal or Spiritual nature ☞ Concerning the Temporal Estates of the Fellows and the profits of the Fellowships being Free-holds that alters not the Case of the Kings power of Visiting for altho' it is disputed by Learned Authors whether Colleges be of a Lay or Spiritual nature yet it is most clear that they have undergone Visitations the reason of which is because they are the Nurseries of Learning and Piety Qualifications of great Moment to the well-being of Government and consequently require the Princes special care since upon the purity or impurity of these Fountains much good or bad must be derived to the Sovereign and Subject And altho' in the Universities some Studies relate not at all to Divinity as Civil Law Physic c. yet the Body of the Students
Civil Law that the Prince (b) Princeps Rescribens contra jus si sit certificatus de ipso facto videtur quoad hoc illud jus tollere Lancelottus de Attentatis par 2. q. 4. Limit 18. n. 6. Re-scribing that is Re-inforcing his Mandate contrary to Law that is contrary to such Statutes that he hath power to Abrogate if he be certified of the special Fact seems as to that particular to Abrogate the Law or Statute It is clear also that a mandate may either be by Epistle or Message which shews that the Fellows of the College were to receive the Kings Answer by my Lord President See here p. 8. when they delivered their Petition against Mr. Farmer that the King would be obeyed as a Re-inforcement of the former Mandate seeing the words of the Law are Ideo per nuncium quoque (c) L. obligatio Mandat §. 2. Ideo Mandati vel contra per Epistolam Mandatum suscipi potest and what part they are to Act that receive such Mandates is clear by what we find thus expressed Qui Mandatum (d) L. si quis alicui 27. §. 2. qui Mandatum F. Mandati vel contra suscepit si potest id explere deserere promissum Officium non debet alioquin quanti Mandatoris Intersit damnabitur Si vero Intelligit explere se id Officium non posse Id ipsum quam primum poterit debet Mandatori nunciare Vt is si velit alterius operâ Utatur quod si cum possit nunciare Cessaverit quanti Mandatori Intersit tenebitur Si aliqua ex causa non poterit nunciare securus est The Sense of which is that he that receives a Mandate if he can do it ought not to defer the performing of it otherwise he shall be condemned or punished so deeply as the concern of him that sends the Mandate is but if he understands that he cannot fulfil the Command he ought upon the first opportunity by Message to relate this to him that sends the Mandate that he may employ another and if when it is in his power he surcease from doing of it he shall make satisfaction to him that sent the Mandate as much as he is Interested But if for some cause he cannot return this Message he is excused That the signification of the Kings pleasure in this case is sufficient appears in that Rule often inculcated by our (a) Si de voluntate apparet de potestate non est disputandum Id. a. cap. 4. 12. n. 5. Author if the will and pleasure of the Prince appears we are not to doubt of the power As to the Second Question §. 5. ☞ That this Mandate included a prohibition to choose any other person besides him that was named in the Mandate seems clear to me by the known Rule Intus existens prohibet alienum If therefore the Fellows were bound to choose him whom the King appointed by his Mandate See this replyed to in the Answer to the first Objection cap. 7. sect 1. parag 7. then surely they could choose no other and that is enough to make a prohibition For the person who is bound to choose one Commanded surely cannot choose another for he hath no liberty to choose any but him for whom the Mandate was directed so that there seems no Medium but either to obey and then the liberty of all other choice is taken from him which amounts directly to the prohibition of all other persons This was what Dr. Tho. Smith prudently advised the Morning of the Election here pa. 7. or he should Suspend all Election till he had prevailed with the King to have re-called his Mandate and this had been tho' not exquisite Dutifulness yet a more civil respect to the King. But in the Civil Law we find that those things (a) Mandato contineri ca videntur sine quibus Mandatum explicari non potest l. Invitus 19. Tit. de procurat are Judged to be contained in a Mandate without which the Mandate cannot be explained Now I think it is impossible to explain the positive Mandate to choose Mr. Farmer without understanding that by that the choice of all other persons was forbid which is still made apparent by another Law (b) Mandato aliquo ea quoque Mandata Intelliguntur quae ex co consequuntur l. Indebit 47. de condit Indebit that in any Mandate those things also are understood to be Commanded which follow naturally or consequenter upon it as it doth in this Case that if Mr. Farmer by vertue of the Kings Mandate was to be chosen none other could be chosen or what is aequivalent all other persons without a revoking of that Mandate were forbid to be chosen Upon this supposition therefore that an Inhibition was in the Case it is easie to conclude how great a Crime it was in the Fellows to dis-obey for it was no less than to dispute the Kings Sovereignty and Jurisdiction than which there can be no Crime greater but open Rebellion for there is but that difference betwixt one that draws the Sword to resist the Kings Authority and one that by Vote and obstinacy doth it but that one is Armed and the other un-armed for the denying the Authority is alike in both Therefore we Read in Lancelottus that he that contravenes (c) Contra veniens Inhibitionem incurrit paenas Inhibitione contentats Idem n. 17. dehinc videmus quod Inhibitione contra veniens videtur Judicem in sua Jurisdictione contra venire De Attentatis par 2. c. 20. n. 10. an Inhibition is said to contemn the Judge in his Jurisdiction and the like must be said of the dis-obeyer of the prohibition of a King now what a Crime the contempt of a King is may best be learnt from the punishments the Laws of all Nations inflict upon the Transgressors a measure of which because those unfortunate Gentlemen have felt by their persisting to the last in so great an obstinacy I shall not at present touch upon §. 6. As in an Inhibition Is qui Inhibet co ipso videtur velle quod si contra fiat Actus non valeat Idem Ampl. 10. fol. 375. Non solum Regula procedit in Inhibitione expressa verum in Inhibitione Tacita pro ut est illa quae resultat ex a vocatione causae quam princeps ex certa scientia facit quoniam per hujusmodi avocationem videtur Princeps Judici partibus Inhibere Idem Amp. 4. n. 2. the Prince or Superior that forbids by that very Act seems to will that no Act shall be valid which is against it so a Command to do any thing must be a forbidding of doing the contrary as Lancellottus observes The Civilians do further distinguish betwixt an Express and a Tacit Inhibition as when a Prince doth avocate the Cause from any Court for when a Prince doth this of his certain knowledge he lays an Inhibition on the