Leges ignotas Judicare de eis quas Nesciebant How it was in Parliament while there were only Barons by Tenure would be more enquired But of later times Commons have adjudged Commons and have joyned with the Lords in adjudging Lords of which there are divers Cases cited in the Fourth Part of Institutes Cap. 1. pag. 23. It may be considered that many Kingdoms and Common-wealths that were not Kingdoms in all Ages did consist of Three Estates as of Three Principles in Nature or Bodies Natural which might occasion the Phrase of Tribe in many other besides the Romans who in Three Estates were not so Ancient as the Grecians or Aegyptians that I speak not of the Gauls Britans or the Eastern Nations And if any would observe it might be possible to find the Prophets hinting a Trinity in divers Kingdoms or Estates and that not only for moulding but for overthrowing them Besides the Three Captivities or Three overturnings of the Iewish State and the Three blows of the Goat on the Ram in Daniel as alluding to the Three great Battles which did break the Persian Empire And why may not the Sacred Trinity be shadowed out in Bodies Politick as well as in Natural And if so our Three Estates may be branched as our Writs into Original Iudicial and Executive as shadows of the Being Wisdom and Activity Divine If I may not grant yet I cannot deny Original Power to the Commons Iudicial to the Lords Executive to the King as the Spirit to the Body or if you will the Head or Fountain of Sense and Motion But he must see by two Eyes and hear by two Ears as I touched before yet his very pardoning although it be by Law much limited doth seem to speak his Power Executive And so his Writs do speak aright Because my Courts have so and so judged Therefore I do so and so command the Judgment shall be executed And if any will assert the Militia to this Power Executive I shall also grant it to the King So that it may be alwayes under the Power Original and Judicial This might belong to the Lords and that to the Commons And the plain truth is I do not find more Arguments to prove the Judicial Power to belong to the Lords than I do for rhe Legislative in the Commons And as it seemeth to be above so below also it may be much disputed That the Legislative Judicial and Executive power should be in distinct Subjects by the Law of Nature For if Law-makers be Judges of those that break their Laws they seem to Judge in their own Causes which our Law and Nature it self so much avoideth and abhorreth So it seemeth also to forbid both the Law-maker and Iudge to execute And by express Act of Parliament it is provided That Sheriffs be not Justices where they be Sheriffs But if Execution be alwayes consonant to Judgment and This to the Law there is still most sweet Harmony and as I may say a Sacred Unity in Trinity represented That the Commons should have most Right to the Power Original or Legislative in Nature I shall leave to be disputed by others I shall only touch some few Particulars which have made me sometimes to suspect that by our Laws and Model of this Kingdom it both was and should be so How the Roman Historian found the Judicial power given to the Lords by our Old Ancestors I did observe before he is as plain for the Legislative in the Commons Nay to the Lords themselves he saith in Judging was adjoyned a Committee of Commons both for Counsel and Authority Ex plebe Comites consilium simul Authoritas And again he sheweth how the Lords did sit in Council about the less Affairs but of greater all both Lords and Commons So also that those things which the Commons did determine Quorum Arbitrium penes Plebem apud Principes pertractentur they should be debated with the Lords for their Advice but not their Legislative Votes And the Mirror a good Comment on Tacitus in this sheweth how our Lords were raised out of the Commons and giveth them a power Judicial but where is their Ligislative Nay the Modus of Parliament will not only tell us that the Commons have better and stronger Votes than the Lords but that there may be a Parliament without the Lords as well as Prelates For there was a time in which there was neither Bishop nor Earl nec Baro so the Irish Modus and yet there were Parliaments without them but never without the Commons So that if the Commons be not summoned or for Cause Reasonable cannot or will not come for Specialties in which they blame the King Parliamentum tenebitur pro Nullo quamvis omnes Alii status plenarie ibidem interfuerint And the Kings Oath is to confirm the Just Laws which the Commons not the Lords but Commons shall Elect or Choose quas Vulgus Elegerit So in Latine and in French of Edw. 2. and Edw. 3. Les quiels la Communante aur ' eslu And in English of Hen. 8. and other Times which the Commons of the Realm shall choose And if we look into the Old Writs of Summons we shall find the Commons called ad consentiendum faciendum and the Old Writ addeth quod quilibet omnes de Comitatu facerent vel faceret Ii personaliter interessent As it is in the Modus of Parliament with sufficient intimation that without the Commons nothing could be done which the late Writs express thus Ita quod dicta Negotia Infecta non remaneant pro defectu potestatis c. But the Lords are called de quibusdam arduis tractaturi consilium Impensuri only as Counsellors not as Law-makers For the very same words are in the Writs for the Judges and others coming to Parliament although they do not Vote in making Laws This may also shew us how the Lords themselves did Elect the Knights of Shires and by Statute of Rich. 2. are to contribute to the charges of the County Knights who were to sit and Vote in Parliament as Law-makers for the whole County whereas the Lords were there but as Judges and the Kings Counsellors And is it probable they should retain to their own Persons that for which they delegated others who were there to do quod quilibet omnes facerent personaliter even all that all the Lords themselves should do as Freeholders not as Lords or the Kings Patentees who might so be his Councellors or Iudges rather than Law-makers this was more left it seems to the Commons who for this and other Reasons should not be Common Iudges as I think in private Causes or of private Persons but of Iudges or of such as the Mirror speaketh of whom elsewhere there was no Common Justice to be had But if the Lords had not a Legislative Right why did the Commons send up the Bills to them how came the Lords to joyn with the Commons in Passing of Acts
Parliamenti sedebunt nullus stabit sed quando loquitur ut omnes audiantur à Paribus And again Nullus solus potest nec debet recedere à Parliamento sine Licentia Regis omnium Parium Parliamenti hoc in pleno Parliamento Ità quod inde fiat mentio in Rotulis Parliamenti It may be possible That Bracton and Fleta with others may use the Phrase Pares in such a sence when they say That the King or his Commissioners should not judge and determine of Treason but Pares Which may be added to the 25 th of Edw. 3. reserving Treason to Parliament where of Old it seemeth only determinable so that The Mirror would not have it Endicted but by Accusation and in full Parliament as in King Edmund's Time c. Cap. 2. Sect. 11. and in Edw. the 3 d it was enacted That Offences of Peers and great Officers and those who sued against the Laws should be tryed in Parliament And although now the Phrase be given to all the Lords of Parliament yet it was most or only proper to the Earls whom by Law and custom the King styleth Consanguineos and he might style them his Peers or Companions as in Latine Comites So Bracton Comites dicuntur quasi Socii Regis qui habet Socium habet Magistrum and in another place A Societate Reges enim tales sibi Associant ad consulendum regendum Populum Dei and the like is in Fleta Comites à Comitiva dicuntur qui cum viderint Regem sine Freno Frenum sibi apponere tenentur c. which is also in Bracton The Mirror is yet clearer although the King had no Equals yet because himself or his Commissars might not be Judge it was provided by Law that he should have Companions to hear and determine all his Torts c Aux Parliaments and those Companions were called Countees Earls from the Latine Comites So also Sarisberiensis cited before in Hen. 2. Comites à Societatis participatione dici quisquis ignorat ignarus est literarum c. some will have them Comites Socii in Fisca because of old some Earls had a third part of profits accrewing by Pleas and Forfeitures in their Counties as the Laws of the Confessor and Mr. Selden in his Comes but he will also grant their name à Comitiva potestate rather than from such Communion of profits That the old Sheriffs also who were Vice-Comites did come to Parliament appeareth in the Ancient Writs and Histories and yet the Barons seem to be the Kingdoms Iudges and the present Earls may seem to sit in Parliament but onely as Barons who are now all Peers and Lords and Parliament But although the Lords were the great Iudges of the Kingdom and of all Members thereof yet it is well known that in full Parliament as old as Edw. 3. they did not only acknowledge but protest that they were not to Iudge the Commons in Cases of Treason and Felony being not their Peers How it was in Rich. the Second may be seen at large in the Rolls and Records now printed in Edward the Second the Commons proceeded by the Judgment of the Lords for which also the Fructus temporum cited before may be added to all in the Road. Appeals and Writs of Error were from the King to the Lords in Ecclesiasticals that touched the King they were to the Spiritual Prelates Abbots and Priors of the Upper House by Act of Parliament in 24 Hen. 8. till which it may be Temporal Lords had also Cognizance of such as well as Temporals And Writs of Error in the Parliament were Judged by the Lords for they came from the Kings Court his Bench or his Exchequer and if Errors had been in the Common Pleas or below it they should not be brought into Parliament but to the Kings-Bench and from the Kings-Bench as from the King not otherwise they came to the Lords and although there was a formal Petition for removing the Record from the King it was but of Course and the King could not deny it Which we found granted by all the old Lawyers and Historians as I shewed before and by the grand Master and Patron of Law King Edw. 1. in Britton because none may Judge in his own Cause Therefore in Causes where our self shall be Party we do consent que N. Court soit judg Sicome Counts Barons in Temps de Parliament In the Laws of Hen. 1. one of the Chapters beginneth thus Iudices sunt Barones Comitatus qui liberas in eis terras habent for in those times Barons were by Tenure only not by Patent that I know till Beauchamp of Holt in Rich. 2. nor by Writ that I can find till the Barons Wars but K. Johns Charter is to Summon Comites Barones Regni majores sigillatim per literas N. But all that hold in Capitae by general Summons forty days before the Parliament and that Negotium procedat ad diem assignatum secundum consilium eorum qui presentes fuerint quamvis non omnes submoniti venerint and the Summons of Delinquents or Suitors in Parliament was to appear and abide the Judgment of the Court not of the King but of his Court for the King is Father and not Judge of his People in his proper Person as was shewed before and all the Books agree that he must Commit his Jurisdiction unto Judges in the Courts of Justice and when he might assume great Offices into his own Hands by Parliament in Edw. the third all Judges were expresly excepted and the Judges Oaths and several Acts of Parliament require them to proceed according to the Law notwithstanding the Kings Command or Seal against it and the Register affordeth a Writ to Supersede or Revoke any such Seal from the King himself to any of the Judges And the Lord Chief Justices as the Lord Chancellor and Treasurer were Chosen by the Kingdom as we found before in the time of Hen. 3. how much more then should the Lords of Parliament be made by Parliament for else they be the Kings Commissioners So the Roman saith our German Fathers chose their Lords in Common Council to be Judges in iisdem Conciliis Eliguntur Principes qui Jura reddunt De Minoribus consultant Principes de Majoribus Omnes And Caesar also observeth that their Princes or Lords were their great Judges sed Principes Regionem atque Pagorum inter suos jus dicunt Controversiasque minuunt Yet Tacitus will also tell us that with those Princes they did joyn Commons Centeni ex Plebe Comites which were perhaps the Fathers of our County Hundreds And in K. Williams Edition of the Confessor's Laws when he inclined so much to them of Norwey Universi Compatriotae Regni qui Leges Edixerant came and besought him not to change their Old Laws and Customs of their Ancestors because they could not judge from Laws they understood not quia durum valde foret sibi suscipere
Officer Virtute Officii or if by private Man yet upon some emergent Necessity or such Reason that I or others may not Judg much less Condemn but in Parliament For it may be possible perhaps but I hope not probable that some Parliament-men may design or consent to such a dangerous Treason or Felony that it may be the Duty of Officers or others to detain or secure them till the Cause be heard in Parliament and Resistance of any that detain upon suspicion of Treason hath been adjudged Ground enough to Justifie Detention and Securing till there be a legal acquitting And that species of Treason which is against the Kingdom or the Kingdoms Army may so much concern a General that it cannot be wondered if he should be the Accuser or Attacher who is the Kingdoms Sheriff and intrusted with the Posse Regni which he ought to manage for the best Advantage of the Kingdom prout melius visum est in Honorem Coronae Utilitatem Regni as the Confessor's Laws de Heretochiis and yet he is no Judg of this but must submit it to the Courts of Justice and in special to the Parliament when ever it concerneth any of that Body Representative I say not that the House should not or need not demand their Members and the Cause of any such Detention which still ought to be submitted to the Judgment of Parliament but I think it may be possible to suppose such a Case as cannot soon be heard and adjudged and in such Case I do not know it is absolutely Necessary for the House to sit still and to refuse to act at all till all their Members be restored For by this it might be possible for a few mischievous Persons still to keep the Parliament in such a perpetual Imployment or rather Idleness that they should do nothing but Dispute their own Priviledg and breach thereof Whereas it may be such a Case that should make them that be Free to be more active in the publick Service Ne quid Detrimenti capiat Resp. while some cannot and others will not come to do their Duties Yet if any be Zealous to spend their Time or rather the Kingdoms in Disputing an airie empty Species of Priviledg which themselves may reflect or refract at Pleasure every Moment I may not Condemn or Judg them But when the Sea breaks in I should fear it a Madness in my self to sit and frown with a Spanish Gravity chafing at those that broke down the Banks till the Waves come in and drown me with my Friends and Country I do not deny but that by the Law and Custom of Parliament 40 may be an House of Commons as well as 400. Yet to speak freely I could believe it to be the Duty of such 40 to call in their fellow Members especially when the Work is great and weighty And I must confess I should somewhat wonder to see 40 sit alone about the greatest Matters possible without so much as calling the rest or sending Writs for new Elections The Modus of Parliament telleth us that as the King might not absent himself but in the Case of Sickness and then he must lie in the same City or Mannor without Consent of Parliament so also there was great Caution against the Members absenting themselves so that it was expressed in the old Writ of Election that they should not depart from Parliament without Consent of Parliament But I know not whether the Crime may be so great in those that desert their Trust as it may be in those who permit them so to do But I will suppose the House of Commons is both Full and Free which we may and should for ought I know till they declare it otherwise Yet when they are freest they have Limits for they be not Infinite Nay when they are most Free they are most bound to good Orders and to right Reason They which bring them to this at any time though by any Army of Arguments or any thing else that is Reasonable are so far from enslaving them that indeed they make them Free compleatly Free and when they are set Free they are the more Inexcusable if they be not Rational for when Men are Slaves they may be the more excused for acting without or against Right Reason which to Man is the Natural Law of Liberty Which is not a Power to act quicquid Libet what we list for this may be Licentious and a Lust or Passion may enslave a Man as much as any Chain or Fetter but quod Licet what is Iust and Rational or as some of the Schools express it by the Wills following the Dictates of the Understanding or Right Reason rather than by a blind irrational Indifference or Power to Contradict its own Acts or to suspend its own Acting which is not found in all no not in the best Agents in their best Acts about the chiefest Good most Free and yet most Necessary and wherever such Indifference or such Suspension is it is a Stain or Spot and may be Slavery rather than an Ornament or Badg of Liberty For it ariseth from some Darkness in not discerning what is best or from some Inconstancy or Inability to follow it which without Suspence should be always Embraced and followed by Right Reason But what is this Reason is it only Discourse as the Schools use to express it who yet find somewhat higher in Man even a kind of Intuition which the old Philosopher did make the highest Sphear of all in Man's Soul Concentrical to Good when both Reason and Fancy were Excentrical But to me the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Reason seemeth to be the first used of Proportion in the Mathematicks Mother of all Analogy and of most Learning to the Ancients so that those were called Rational Agents which acted in Proportion So the same old Philosopher that saith God ever acteth in Geometrical Proportion placeth Reason in a Mean between two Ends or Objects and the Master maketh Reason to be Mistress both to Art and Prudence this is Proportion in the Moral that in the Natural Part of Actions and describeth Virtue by a mean Proportion which he calleth Reason as a Wise Man would define it As the Sacred Writer of the Number of a Man that is perhaps Rational a Logarithm or a piece of true Algebra which we may Translate Mans Numbring For of all Visible Creatures Man only was found to use Numbers and Proportion But what is this Proportion which Denominates an Agent to be Rational Is it between the Actor and the Object and do Rationals only observe a Difference of Objects whereas Natural Agents go on alike to all Eodem modo ad Extremum posse But Rationals still do or still should act in Proportion suitable to themselves and to their Objects also which is two or three times observed by the Prophet Esay in describing Reason in that of Ploughing and Threshing and of Punishing with that of the
a Common Council in his time and before In the same Laws this William whom some call the Conquerour granteth that Cities Burroughs Castles Hundreds and Wapentakes should be so kept and watched as the Sheriffs Aldermen c. should best order for the good of the Kingdom per Commune concilium by such Common Council and a little after giveth this Reason Because they were founded for publick defence of the Kingdom and People thereof idcirco observari debent cum omni libertate integritate ratione a very happy Trinity And for Service with such Arms as were by Common Council assessed The same King called the Conqueror hath indeed such a Law That all Earls Barons Knights c. should have and keep themselves in Arms and Horses as it became and behoved them So much of this Law the King's Declaration cited for the Commission of Array But the following Words of that Law quite dash such Array for the Close of all is according to what they ought to us by their Fees and Tenure to do by Law sicut eis statuimus per commune Concilium Totius Regni Even by Parliament for the Common Council of the whole Kingdom These Laws of King William with the Additions and Emendations of the Confessor's were afterwards confirmed by King Henry the 1 st as appeareth by his Charter not only in the Exchequer but in other Places also besides that we have in Matthew Paris a Copy of which was kept in every County And the same Charter was again confirmed by King Iohn they know it may be proved and again by King Henry the 3 d. and so it came into the great Charter and by Consequence Confirmed in more than thirty Parliaments In which also there hath often been most especial Care of this touching the Militia being one of the main Causes of those Statutes entituled Confirmationes Chartarum and of those De Tallagio non concedendo except by common Consent in Parliament besides many later Statutes in King Edward the 3 d. and Henry the 4 th with other Times I deny not that in Henry the 4 th there did issue out a Commission of Array But it is as true that in the last Parliament of the same King Henry the 4 th it was again declared as the undoubted Right of this Kingdom not to be charged with ought for Defence of the Realm or Safeguard of the Seas but by their own Will and Consent in Parliament By which we may learn how to interpret all the Precedents acted by the King for his Array and by how much the more is it true that some Commissioners of Array have been confirmed by Parliament which is always needful to Confirm any such Array Which yet is not proved ever to be Paralelld in any Parliament for ought I can find For in all yet seen there is no such boundless Authority given to two or three Strangers or others to compel all Men but themselves to provide and bear Arms how and when and where it shall seem good to such Commissioners Which at once seemeth to Dissolve all Laws of Liberty Which by the Mirrour with other old Lawyers is chiefly placed in this not to be tyed to any Man but by ones own Consent In explaining of which they are Large in shewing how the Tenures of the Crown were appointed for Defence of the Kingdom and none tyed to Service but according to this Tenure which was assessed by Common Consent And if such Commissions of Array might be Legal from the King Escuage is so far from the worst or hardest Tenure as it was commonly thought that it would prove the best and easiest in all the Kingdom For if the Escuage be uncertain by Tenure None that hath read so much as Littleton can be Ignorant that by the Commom Law and Custom of the Kingdom it is not to be assessed by the King or any other but by Common assent in Parliament which hath now done much to settle this also And if Certain then is the King as really limited as the Tenant So that the King cannot command or require his Tenant but according to his Tenure expressed Not when he will For it must only be in time of War and this is not to be determined by the King but by the Courts of Iustice. When they are open as appeareth by all the Law-Books in the Case of Roger Mortimer Thomas Earl of Lancaster and divers others Nor in all times of War but only in a Voyage Royal to which Escuage is most properly tyed and this must not be determined by the King who may be a Child Sick Incomposed nor by his Marshal or Constable but by the Courts of Justice Nor in a Voyage Royal as long as the King may please But according to the Tenure usually forty Days for each Knights Fee and it hath been demurred in Law when those forty Days should begin They are Littleton's own Words and very Pregnant as if he thought that by Law the King could have no Host or Muster but by Consent of the Commons and he was as like to know our Laws as most Men living now Nor is the Tenant to serve but according to his Tenure in Gascoyn Wales Ireland Scotland to which Escuage proper but rather from the Scute or Shield and the Books have divers Cases where the King hath required Service denyed by Limits in Tenures which the Courts of Iustice especially Parliament in all Ages did determine Nor is the King to determine how the Knights shall serve him whether in Person or not For this is by Law at the Tenants Choice And if the Knight or his Proxy will not attend or stay out his Time yet cannot the King proceed against him but in a Court of Iustice and not by Marshal Law Yet the Marshal's Certificate is a Legal Evidence that the Tenants did not appear in Service but his Reasons must be heard with all just Pleas. Nor with what Arms or Horses the Tenants may serve all is expresly limited if the Tenure be certain and if not Certain it must as all Lawyers know be assessed by Parliament which did also at first establish that which now is Certain Nor would it be difficult for a mean Historian to shew how in all Ages the Militia was as well disposed and managed as it was Moulded by Common Consent which is very considerable and the rather because all that wrot for the Array did most or only run out in this That the King had the sole disposal of the Militia not attending that if this had been proved which never was that I know yet this was only but half and it may be the least half of the Question For by that strange Commission of Array the King did not only challenge the Right of Disposal of the Legal Militia already setled but also of Moulding and Making a new Militia not yet made or ever thought of that I could learn by any of our Ancestors If I were forced to enter the
men Trustees to the whole Kingdom and Neighbours to the Fact or Party or both To which also there must be a legal proof by lawful Witnesses or else the Charge will not suffice And in such Indictments from the Commons the Lords are the Tryers and the King may seem as the Iudg but in other Courts also the Judgment goeth of course upon the Verdict and must be entred per Curiam as adjudged by the Court although there be but one Judge or tho' his Mouth pronounce not the Sentence But we are not yet come to debate the King's Consent to the Lords Judgment an Indictment from the Commons It is also to me very considerable how the House of Commons could or ever did Indict I cannot deny them to have been a Court and a Court of Record although some have seemed to question it and their Records are not so ancient as some others But I have not fully understood how they ever did make or receive a Formal Legal Indictment when as they did not give a single Oath much less Empannel a Iury or Enquest Yet some there be that without a Writt or any written Commission did and might do this Virtute Officii But they be known chosen sworn Officers of the Kingdom for such Purposes as the Peeples Bayliffs Coroners Sheriffs Escheators and some Officers about the Forest who by the Common Law did Summon and Empannel Juries But so did not the House of Commons How then did they Indict Of all Crimes committed in the House they are and were so much the sole Iudges that they seldom use to complain much less to Indict any other And for any thing done abroad I hope they do not use to take Rumours and Reports though from their own Members to be sufficient for or equivalent to a legal Indictment on Oath Seeing their scarce is or can be any Case so notorious but it may be pleaded unto by somewhat of Law or Necessity And although I should yield the Commons to be the Masters of the Law in making it yet they pleased to allow others to be Iudges in their Laws And if they reassume this also yet it may be more easie to judge of some Law than of any Fact at least as it may be cloathed so as a curious search or Enquest may be requisite to lay it clear and naked Neither can I see how it may be necessary to proceed against any by force or illegal Process when it is easie as well as just to go rightly as to do right For who can imagine a Case so dark and intricate but it may be contrived so that particular men may be Accusers and others Witnesses with a clear and real distinction between Indictors Tryers and Iudges most of all in Cases notorious and evident For in such there may be less fear of the Iuries Verdict against Evidence or of the Iudges Sentence against the Verdict Or if this should happen in a Tryal is there not a most heavy doom appointed by Law for all Iurors that forswear themselves and goe against their Evidence Is there not a clear way of Relief by Writ of Attaint Is it not worse than Death to forfeit all Estate and be thrown into Prison while both Wife and Children must be turned out of Doors and All For his House must be pulled down his Ground be plowed up and his Trees rooted out with loss of Franchise and with a perpetual Brand of Villany This is the Common Law for a perjured Iuror and that also in Petty Cases how much more might it be just in Case of Life and Death And for Corrupt Iudges our Law is very severe altho' we have much lost the Custom of the Grand Eyres in this also King Alfred be long since dead who hanged 30 or 40 more unjust Judges than Cambyses flead And for that the Mirror may be a good Comment on some Passages in Alfred's Life by Asser And if it be true that Horn lived to the end of K. Edward it is much wonder that on such occasion he did not also mention some of those Judges by him so punished when there was scarce any left but good Iohn of Mettingham and Elias of Bechingham And of this the Dissertations of Fleta may be added to all before as that of Sir William Thorp and the Great Judg in the third Part of Institutes about corrupt Iudges and the Iudge's Oath It is very considerable how curious the Iews were in Creating or rather Ordaining of Judges For indeed the Phrase of Ordination seemed to be first raised from Them For which I have little to add to Mr. Selden on the Eutychian or Alexandrian Antiquities as old as St. Mark the Evangelist Nor can it be denied but the Jewish Judges and Magistrates had a very good Right and so used as we find in the Books of Moses and the Kings and Tirshatha's to Read and Expound the Law Moral as well as Iudicial Nay in this they seemed to have some advantage of the Priests or Levites that had work enough most times in that which was but Ceremonial This may Expound those Pieces of Scripture Old and New where we find some explaining Scripture being neither Priests nor of the Tribe of Levi. And the Iews Punishments of evil Judges are severe and most remarkable nay where all others were again restored to their Offices after Corporal Punishment their Lord Chief Iustice or President of their Sanhedrim or any Chief Iustice could never be restored again after such punishment no not to be as one of his inferour Colleagues So just he ought to be and circumspect by daily experience added to his own wisdom Our Laws are so just and so good in themselves that there could not be be so much cause of complaints in all our Gates for such were the Iews Courts of Iustice if our Judges were such as they should and might be And yet I cannot deny but that there be very great abuses among the Lawyers and Attorneys or Solicitors but if the Judges were as just and wise as they may be inferiour Officers would soon amend or comply for Love or Fear so much as would prevent Complaints and many of their Causes But it is the work of a God and not of a Man to reform abuses in all Courts of Justice Hercules did never cleanse so great so foul a Stable or a Stall yet in this also a wise and just Parliament will do much and will need none of my help or advice How tender all should Delegates be in making Delegates But in nothing should they be more tender or more circumspect then in this of making Judges For in these of all Delegates our law is most scrupulous Before the Statute of Merton those that held by suit Service were bound to appear in Person because the Suitors were Judges in causes not their own but by that Statute they had power given to make Attorneys but it was only ad Sectas faciendas to make or follow
tenens to the Sheriff and he standeth when the King dieth When also so many think there is no Sheriff but it may be more considered I must not stay in the Court of Peepoudres incident to every Fair or Market as a Court Baron to a Mannor although it be a Court of Record and a Writ of Error lyeth on its judgment for which Iones and Hall's Case in the 10th Part of Reports and in the 4th Institutes I need not speak of Writs of Error from the Common Pleas to the Kings Bench from the King's Bench to the Exchequer-Chamber and from thence as from the King's Bench also to the Parliament or of the known Statute of Henry the 6th making it Felony to steal withdraw or avoid Records or any parcel of Record But of no Records is the Law more punctual than in of extraordinary Cases of Oyer and Terminer which were more private oft and less fixed being transient on emergent Cases which yet being heinous seemed to require most exact Records especially because there might be Appeal so just and needful if the Judges exceeded but one tittle of their Commission If it were discontinued or expired then the Indictment and all Records were to meet in their proper Center at the King's Bench but in other Cases Records of Oyer and Terminer were sent into the Exchequer So in Edw. the 3d. As in Elizabeth Results on charitable uses and the like were to the Chancery by Act of Parliament The great Seal was the Soul to inform and actuate the Body of Records in all exemplifications from the Rolls in all Writs Pattents or Commissions and the rather also that by this nothing of moment might be hudled up but duly weighed and considered while it passed so many hands and judgments as it should before the Sealing Nor shall I add that an Act of Parliament it Self is not pleadable in a Court of Record but from Record or under the Seal whence the old custom was to remove the Records of Parliament by a Writ of Certiorari into the Chancery thence by the Lord Chancellor into the Kings Bench and thence by a Mittimus into the Common Plea and Exchequer with an usual Writ commanding all the Courts to keep and observe such Acts of Parliament which of Old were Proclaimed by the Sheriffs and were put under the Seal as we may see by the Proclamation now printed among the Statutes of Edw. the 3d. and they were not hudled into Print in those Days not of such vertue in Print as on Record and under the Seal For there were not then such Printers or Copiers that without much caution our fore-Fathers durst trust with all their Lives and Estates which by one dash of a Pen the change of a not a with a to a for or a from might be soon destroyed or enslaved Much less then should a Court of Record be Created but by Record yea and that be shewed under the Seal also For when the Seal was moulded our Ancestors ordained that no Jurisdiction should be grantable but under the Seal which should be known and obeyed by all the People as the Mirror discourseth at large In Edw. the 4th it was resolved by all the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber that no man could be a Iudg or Iustice by Writ which was also Sealed but by open Pattent or a publick Commission But the Lord Chief Iustice of England hath of late no such Commission or Pattent yea a Sealed Writ and of Old he was also Created by Pattent till about the end of King Henry the 3d. if good Authors deceive me not It seemeth also somewhat disputable whether he were not included in the Statute of Henry the 8th for Commissions to the Judges by Letters Pattent under the Seal However the words are plain enough for Iustices of Eyre which of Old were also by Writ as those of Oyer and Terminer but now not to be but by Comission or Pattent under the Great Seal Which Commission should also be read and shewed in Court lest there be some kind of Demurrer or exception unto jurisdiction which hath been in some Cases at the Kings Bench and may be by Law to all now Judges by special Commission except it be produced under the Seal if the old Books deceive us not who do do not onely ascribe all jurisdiction to the Seal but in all legal exceptions ever admit of that to the Iudg if he be a Party or have not jurisdiction or be otherwise incompetent That the Parliament also will never Erect or Create any Court of Record but by Record and open Commission under the Great Seal I do the rather believe because the Seal is so proper and peculiar to the Parliament being made by common consent of which the Mirror and others at large and by such common consent used and committed to the special care of the Chancellor or Lord Keeper of England as he was called for keeping that which our Fathers esteemed as the Kingdoms Key or Clavis It is well known how King Henry the 3d. was brought to acknowledg That among all great Officers the Lord Keeper or Chancellor did especially belong to the Choice of the Parliament and Ralph Nevil among others refused to yield up the Seal to the King when it was demanded saying that he had received it by the Common Councel of the Kingdom and without their Warrant he would not deliver it of which both Matthew Paris and Matthew of Westminster From the continual use of this Seal in Parliament it is the Law and Custom of the Kingdom that the Lord Keeper shall have place in Parliament still to be there with the Sael although he be often no Peer and have no Vote but for making and Sealing of Charters Pattents Commissions and Writs framed by Parliament For although the Register made or continued by Parliament be now so full that there be little need yet the framing of New Writs was a great work of Old Parliaments as appeareth in the Books and Statutes as in that of Westminster the 2d de Casu consimili And as if the Parliament had made no Laws at all but onely New Writs the Old Modus brancheth out all the Laws of Parliament into Originals Iudicials and Executives which all know to he the Division of Writs Those especially de Cursu drawn by the Cursitors for Brevia Magistralia were let to be framed by the Masters of Chancery as appeareth at large in Bracton and Fleta and in the Oath of the Six Clerks or other Clerks of Chancery in Ed. 3 with that of Ed. 1. de casu continili in which Statute it is asol provided that if the Masters could not agree in framing such a new Writ they might if they saw cause respit the Parties till the next Parliament that so it might be formed by Advice of all the great Lawyers of the Kingdom Yet besides this of making and sealing of Writs there was another work and great use of the Masters of Chancery
in Parliament Which was the Receiving of Petitions As the Rolls of most times witness It being the old Mode and others accounted it somewhat against Reason that Petitions should be taken and brought into the House by those that were to debate and determine them and so might at pleasure keep them Out or too hastily might press them in Whereas they were to be filled up in course and so to be debated as they were received which was therefore entrusted to the care of known and sworn Officers of the Kingdom Although of late their work in Parliament be so strangely degenerate from that it was of old when also beside Receivers there were some appointed for Tryers of Petitions who as it seemeth were to enquire of matter of Fact expressed in the Petition that it might be cleared and rightly stated before it came to be debated in full Parliament I do not deny but these Triers of Petitions were most frequently some of the Bishops and other Barons But by this I am not convinced that the Lords had by Right and Legislative Power or were the sole Determinors of all Petitions as some would infer or that they were the sole Judges except also the Petty Jury that are Tryers of Fact shall be esteemed the sole Judges of Matters of Law And yet I shall not deny but Petitions concerning abuses or errors in Judicature were often deermined by the Lords as the great Judges but of error in the King's Bench as Judges above the King as was shewed before or from the Exchequer In Queen Ellzabeths Time for the seldom meeting or great Affairs of Parliament the Writs of Error from the King's Bench were by special Act of Parliament to be brought before the Judges of the Common Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer and by them to be determined But with these express Limitations as the Law shall require other than for Errors to be assigned or found for or concerning the Iurisdiction of the said Court of Kings Bench or for want of form in any Writ Process Verdict c. and that after all the Records and all concerning them be remanded to the King's Bench as well for execution as otherwise as shall appertain and with this express Proviso That any Party agrieved by such Iudgment in the Exchequer shall and may sue in Parliament for a further and due Examination By which I do not see such Parties agreed were absolutely tied to Petition the Lords onely although it were onely in a Case judicial Yet I deny not but in Edward the 3d. there was a Committee made of a Bishop two Earls and two Barons to hear and determine all Petitions complaining of Delays or Grievances in Courts of Justice But with great Limitations so that they must send for the Records and Judges which were to to be present and be heard and then by good advice of the Chancellor Treasurer Judges and other of the Council to make an Accord yet so that all be remanded to the Judges before whom the Cause did first depend who were then to proceed to Judgment according to the Accord of the said Committee And in Case it seemed to them to be such as might not well be determined but in full Parliament that then the said Records or Tenors should be brought by the said Commitee to the next Parliament it being the Common Law of the Kingdom and so expressed in all the old Books that all new unwonted difficult matters of consequence should still be brought and submitted to the Judgment of full Parliament so that all our Iudges did and ought to respit such Causes till the next Parliament of which there be almost innumerable Precedents in all the Rolls Nay in Richard the 2d there was a Committee of Lords and Commons appointed to hear and determine all Petitions present in that Parliament But afterwards it was adjudged and declared That such a Commission ought not to be given committing or betraying the High Power of Parliament into a few private hands as we may learn out of Henry the 4th beside other times Yet the Modi of Parliament admit that some extraordinary Cases where the Estates could not agree or the greater part of the Knights Proctors Citizens c. There by consent of the whole Parliament the Matter might be compromised to 25. chosen out of all Degrees and to fewer till at length it might come to 3. who might determine the Case except that being written it were corrected by Assent of Parliament and not otherwise And this seemeth to be the Law of Nature and right Reason That Delegates should not delegate others which was one reason why the Commons never made Pracies as the Lords did Nor might any Committee so determine but there might be Appeal from it to the Parliament Nor doth the Parliament it Self conclude so but that there may be Appeal from its self to its self even to its Iustice if it erre or at least to its mercy by some motion or Petition In one Parliament of Richard the 2d it was Enacted that no man condemned by Parliament should move for Pardon but another Parliament 10 years after did annul this Branch as unjust unreasonable and against the Law and Custom of Parliament For from this which is the highest here there still lieth Appeal from its Self to its Self For which also by the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom there were to be frequent Parliaments that so the errors or omissions of one being still human and therefore errable might be corrected and amended in another By express Statutes of Edw. the 3d. we are to have Parliaments once every year and oftner if need be They were of Old three or four times a year as may be found in all the Old Historians speaking of the great Feats in the Militia in King Alfred's Time they were to be twice a year and that at London as the Mirror affirmeth which we compared with the Laws of the Confessor And I speak also of King Edgars and Canutes Laws for the Celeberrimus Conventus ex qualibet Satrapta which the Great Iudg applieth to the Parliament Eternity it self would be a Burthen unto him that is not pleased with his Being so would Omnipotence to him that is unhappy in his acting It was therefore goodness in God to limit man as well in Doing as in Being It was also the Wisdom of our Ancestors to bound and limit out the Being Acting and continuing not onely of other Judges but also of Parliaments Yet the Old Modi of Parliament agree in this That a Parliament should not be Dissolved till all Petitions were discussed and answered and that after all there should be Proclamation made in some open place whether any had a Petition or just Address to the Parliament and if none replied then it was to be Dissolved I need not shew the Care of our Ancestors or former Parliaments for most strict observation of their own good Orders and Customs of Parliament which are such so just and reasonable that they well deserve a peculiar Discourse by themselves and suppose it not impossible to clear them more by the practice and consent of most Ages in this Kingdom which might also be useful for the Times to come And although it might be possible to find some of their old custome fit to be changed yet my hope is they will retain and observe such Rules of right Reason good Orders and Customs as may still make this an Happy Nation and that they will be mindful of their great Trust for which they are accountable And however it may be in this World yet they also must be judged at his coming who shall bring every Work into Iudgment with every secret Thing whether it be good or whether it be evil And I am not ashamed both to long and pray for his coming who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords The Prince of Salem that is Peace as well as King of Righteousness Melchizedek the Lamb upon the white Thone All the Creation groaneth and the Spirit and the Bride saith come Lord Iesus come quickly FINIS