Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	act_n	law_n	parliament_n	2,185	5	6.6353	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B01664	The Bishop of St. David's case		1699 (1699)	Wing B3024; ESTC R170667	2,952	3

The Bishop of St. David's CASE THE Bishop having bin libel'd against before the Archbishop of Canterbury for matters of an heinous nature supported with great Clamours thought it for his reputation not to insist upon his Privilege of Peerage to prevent any Proofs which could be made in the Cause But since the Archbishop has given Sentence not only without sufficient proof of the pretended grounds but a Sentence of Deprivation which no Archbishop before him ever pronounced of his sole Authority against a Bishop 't is humbly submitted to the consideration of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament whether a waving Privilege can amount to a submission to the being divested of Peerage and whether however that would give a new Jurisdiction over any Lord of Parliament in prejudice of the Right of the House of Lords This the Bishop humbly hopes may induce their Lordships to examin the Circumstances of his Case which he chearfully submits to such equal and proper Judges Robert Lucy an avowed Enemy to the Bishop having caus'd many scandalous Reports to be rais'd of him and by indirect Practices prevail'd upon some to swear against him and kept others from witnessing the Truth dress'd up a Libel with many Articles which fall under these Heads 1. Simony 2. Extortion 3. Falsification 4. Misapplying the Revenue of the Church 5. Breach of a Canon in the manner of exercising Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 6. Disaffection to the present Government But the Sentence is only upon the 3 first Heads the Archbishop it seems being satisfied that the others were added only to increase the Load or else as he was restrain'd by prohibition 1. The first suppos'd Instance of Simony was in relation to the preferring his Nephew Mr. John Medley to several Places in the Church taking a Bond of him in the Penalty of 200 l. for the Payment of 100 l. after he was collated to the Archdeaconry of St. David 's and for some time receiving Rents of that and other of Mr. Medley's Preferments But that 100 l. was plainly prov'd to be part of 500 l. which the Bishop advanced for the Marriage Portion of Mr. Medley's Sister of which the Bishop freely gave 400 l. and her Brother undertook to give 100 l. And such Profits belonging to Mr. Medley as the Bishop received were only till he was reimburs'd the Mony he had laid out upon Mr. Medley's account and tho the Bishop had some of the Places in commendam by virtue of a Faculty to retain'em yet he let Mr. Medley have all the Profits from the beginning of the Bishop's holding them in his own right Certainly it ought not to be believ'd on slight grounds that the Bishop who had given such proofs of his Affection to his Nephew and his Sisters who had not the least Objection against him for the dispoling Church Preferments to any other Person and had given Demonstrations of his generous regard to Merit in Strangers and the greatest abhorrence of corrupt Bargains should seek his own Profit in advancing his Nephew agreed to be a Person very deserving And how apt soever Men may be to think hardly of the Bishop his Nephew was prov'd to be a Person of a strict Life and Conversation and very charitable no way ambitious of Preferment and one that would have abhorred it upon Simoniacal Terms Another suppos'd Instance of Simony was his taking a Sum of Mony for the Lease to a reputed Clergyman of a Rectory which the Bishop held in commendam This of it self could be no more Simony than letting out Tythes to a known Lay-man for a Sum in hand but the aggravation was thought to lie in the Bishop's promising under his hand to resign the Rectory when desired by his Lessee For which there was not the least Footstep of any prior Agreement and the Promise was freely made by the Bishop after he had receiv'd his Mony for the Lease 2. As to the imputation of Extortion whether the Fees taken by him and his Officers were more than were allowable by the Custom of the Diocess seems a matter properly triable at Common Law besides 't was fully proved that he and his Officers did not in any particular take more than was usual and really took less than his Prosecutor Mr. Lucy and his Father and succeeding Bishops of that Diocess did in like cases 3. The falsification or crimen falsi laid to his Charge was as if he had ordained Persons without requiring the appointed Oaths and Subscription and yet had in this matter certisied under his Episcopal Seal contrary to the truth Of the pretended abuse of the Seal no proof was offer'd and only one witness deposed positively about the imputed Omissions at an Ordination But besides that a single Witness is not enough to six such a Charge upon a Bishop that Witness was upon several Accounts prov'd incompetent However the Archbishop supposing these matters to have been sufficiently prov'd Tho. Arch. Judex antedictus pronounced Sentence of Deprivation for those Causes and this he did by his single Authority as the only Judg tho with the Assistance of some Bishops who were not all satisfied with it This some imagin that the Archbishop may do as succeeding the Pope in Spiritual Authority whereas that is allowed him by special Act of Parliament only for Dispensations 25 H. 8. c. 21. and they much limited but the Pope himself never judg'd Originally in such Causes as that in question arising here otherwise than as he by his Legats presided in Councils The Ist Statute which takes away Appeals to the Pope 24 H. 8. c. 12. expresly provides That the Spiritual Causes there mention'd shall be examin'd adjudg'd and determined in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal as the Natures Conditions and Qualities of the Cases and Matters shall require And if by the Law and Usage of the Kingdom all Deprivations of Bishops except such as were by Act of Parliament or Commissioners so authoriz'd were to be by judgment of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Councils the House of Lords must necessarily be the Court which is to examine adjudg and determine concerning the Bishop's Case 'T is evident 25 H. 8. c. 19. that neither the Statute 24 H. 8. nor the Statute 25 H. 8. which provides for Appeals in Cases not mention'd in the former makes any provision concerning Appeals in Cases which belong to none but the Lords in Parliament If the archbishop judg in a Cause which belongs to them it 's absurd to urge that by those Statutes there can be no Appeals but to Delegates since a Petition to the Lords in this matter comes not by way of Appeal but Complaint of the Archbishop's usurping upon their Jurisdiction The only question now is whether the Bishop's waving Privilege and appealing to the Delegates shall prejudice him to which the answer is plain That it shall not oust the Lords of their Jurisdiction Becase of their Interest in their fellow Peers 't was resolv'd in the Case of Lord Gray of Ruthin Journal of the House of Lords Feb. 10. An. 1640. and afterwards repeated in another Case That 't is not in the power of a Peer to drown or extinguish his Honour by Surrender Grant Fine or any other Conveyance to the King And fully to remove the Objection here 't is provided by Act of Parliament That if any of the Peers of his own accord will answer and be adjudged eisewhere than before the Peers in Parliament Rot. Parl. 15. E. 3. n. 7. this shall not turn to the prejudice of other Peers or of himself in any other Case To which may be added That whatever Precedents there have been for trying Bishops in Capital Cases by common Juries because by reason of the Canons receiv'd here they are not to judg of Temporal Peers in such Cases yet this being a Case wherein a Bishop was never judg'd but in a Council and the matter being such as infers a forfeiture of his Barony Vid. 25 E. 3. c. 6. which is a Temporalty we may here apply the declaration of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Parl. 11 R. 2. upon the criminal Appeals then brought and may conclude that the matter is to be judg'd only in Parliament Et ne per auter ley que ley et cours de Parl Rot. Parl. 11 B. 2. et qil appertient as surs du Parl. estre Iuges en tiel case