that the Defendant does Lupum auribus tenere And so the Judgment was arrested But we find that soon after when the Judges of that Court were chang'd the same Plaintiff brought a new Action for the same Cause And it was adjudged for the Plaintiff That the Action would lie but the Judges acknowledged it was the first Precedent I suppose it was upon pleading Not Guilty Perhaps the Court might have been of another Opinion had the Defendant pleaded specially and justified according to the Opinion of Judge Dodderidge The Case is Cro. Car. 15 Latch 79. The allowing of such Actions of Conspiracy or upon the Case or of Indictments or Informations for what is said or done in a Course of Justice and especially by way of Discovery of Treasons would prove of a mischievous Consequence And would be an occasion of multiplying Actions against the Parties to the Suits against Councel the Attorneys the Witnesses and so Suits would be infinite As in this present Case Should an Action be adjudg'd to lie against the Defendant for what he has acted by Authority of Parliament what a multitude of Actions would be stirred up by it If the Speaker be liable to this Information for what he has done by the same Reason he would be liable to the Actions of the several great Persons that are said to be defamed by the Printing of Dangerfields Narrative And if the Speaker be liable who acted but by Command of others and as their Minister how much more would all those Persons be ilable by whose Command he so acted And how many Narratives have there been printed wherein several great Persons were severely reflected on and how many Votes of the like Nature have there been Printed So that there would arise a Multitude of Suits In Sir Drue Druries Case 6. Rep. 74. The Justices in judging of that Case give a very good Rule and Caution They say That Judges ought to have good Consideration in all Cases depending before them not only of the present Cases but also of the Consequences What general Prejudice may ensue upon them either to the King or Subject The Case before you exceedingly requires that Consideration The Prejudice to the King will be that he will not be Safe for by this means Men will be discouraged from discovering Treasons The Subjects will receive Prejudice by the multitude of Suits that will arise by it This mas suffice to be said in maintaining the first Proposition That no Information or Action lies for what is said or done in a Course of Justice The Minor Proposition is That what is here done by the Defendant in this Case was done in a Course of Justice and in a Legal Proceeding and that in the highest Court of the Nation in the Court of Parliament and done according to the Law and Custom of Parliament This I must make out in the next Place In the making this out I am under a Necessity of speaking of the transcendent Power of the High Court of Parliament and I must assert these Positions following 1. That the House of Commons was originally and from the first Constitution of the Nation the Representative of one of the three Estates of the Realm and a part of the Parliament 2. That what is done by either House according to the Law and Usage of Parliament is properly and in the Judgment of Law the Act of the whole Parliament And that what concerns the One must of necessity concern the Whole not meerly by Consequence but by an immediate Concernment as being One and Entire 3. That what hath been acted in our present Case by the Defendant as Speaker and by the House of Commons whose Minister he was and by whose Command and Order he did What he did was done according to the Law and Usage of Parliament As to the first That the House of Commons was from the first Constitution of this Kingdom a part of the Parliament There has been an Opinion that hath been stifly maintained by some Divines and others of late That the House of Commons originally were no part of the Parliament at least not as now elected and consisting of Knights Citizens and Burgesses but that their Beginning was in the forty ninth Year of King Henry 3. when that King had given a total overthrow at the Battle of Evesham to Symon Montford Earl of Leicester and the Barons And that to ballance the Power of the Barons that King caused the Knights Citizens and Burgesses to be chosen and to make a Part of the Parliament And from hence some Unquiet Innovating Writers quorum res spes ex adulatione pendent and who would destroy Foundations and remove our Ancient Land-marks and the Ancient and Just Limits and Boundaries of Power and Authority Persons of necessitous Estates or of greedy and ambitious Appetites which drive them upon devising how to do some acceptable Service to those that maintain them Or at the best out of unsetled Judgments and too much Zeal which carries them to a contrary extream These Men conclude That therefore all the Power and Priviledge the House of Commons claims is not by Prescription but that they depend upon the King 's Royal Will and Pleasure and had their Original by his meer Concession and not by Ancient Inherent Right nor Original Constitution and therefore may be resumed at Pleasure It was one of the Articles against Dr. Manwaring in the Parliament 3 Car. 1. for which he was Impeached by the Commons and Sentenced by the Lords in Parliament That to Subvert Scandalize and Impeach the good Laws and Government of this Realm and the Authority of the High Court of Parliament and to avert his Majesties Mind from calling of Parliaments and to alienate his Royal Heart from his People he did in his Sermons and in his Books printed endeavour to persuade the King That his Majesty was not bound to observe the Laws of the Realm concerning the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects That Authority of Parliament was not necessary for raising of Aids and Subsidies His Sentence was Imprisonment during pleasure and but 1000l Fine for this high Offence not 20000l as hath been of late times He was to acknowledge his Offences as it should be set down by a Committee in writing at the Bars of both Houses He was suspended from his Ministry Disabled to preach at Court. His Books were to be call'd in and burnt in London and both the Universities Power limited by Law is safest It may be thought Potestas minor sed tutior diuturnior Ea demum tuta est Potentia quae viribus suis modum imponit To encounter these new and upstart Opinions I shall mention an Author or two whom all sober men reverence that are of a contrary Judgment to these new Authors And they are either Eminent Lawyer or Divines And I am the more encourag'd to do it because His Majesty that now
his Treatise of the manner of Enacting Laws in Parliament Fol. 125. reports this Case of Thorp at large It is time now to come to higher Authorities that is to Resolutions of Parliament in this point And first the Resolution of the House of Commons in maintenance of their own Right or at least a claim of their Right I have it out of an Author that is very far from being a friend to the House of Commons and 't is a Clergy-man too I mean Dr. Heylin in the Life of Archbishop Laud Fol. 89. He reports that the House of Commons made a Protestation in 1621. against all Impeachments other than in the House for any thing there said or done Let me present you with the like claim made by the Lords which seems to run something in the form of an old Act of Parliament In Sir Rob. Cott. Abr. 11. R. 2. nu 7. In that Parliament all the Lords as well Spiritual as Temporal being present claimed their Liberties and Franchises viz. That all weighty matters in the same Parliament which should be afterwards moved touching the Peers of the Land ought to be determin'd judged and discussed by the Course of the Parliament and not by the Civil Law nor yet by the common Laws of the Land used in other more Courts of the Realm The which Claim and Liberties the King most willingly allow'd and granted thereto in full Parliament says that Roll. Now as I have before prov'd the Liberties and Franchises of the Parliament in the right of them are entire and due to both Houses for both make up the Parliament Mr. Seld. in his Title of Honour Fol. says That a thing granted in full Parliament signifies an Act of Parliament Now for an Act of Parliament full in the point and then I can go no higher It was in the Case of Richard Strode one of the Burgesses for Plympton in Devonshire in the Parliament of 4 H. 8. for agreeing with the Commons House in putting out Bills as it is reported there which seems to resemble the Printing or Publishing mention'd in our Case Those Bills so put out were against the Abuses of the Tinners who were a great and numerous Body of men who by these Bills took themselves to be scandalized and slandered After the Parliament was risen this Richard Strode for what he had so done in Parliament was presented and found guilty in the Stannary-Courts and condemn'd to forfeit 40. l. a moderate fine He was for this imprison'd in a Dungeon within a Castle and fed with Bread and Water When the Parliament met again he Petition'd the Parliament for remedy and that the Judgments had against him and the Executions might be made void which was done accordingly by Act of Parliament And it was further Enacted That all Suits Accusations Condemnations Executions Fines Amerciaments Punishments pass'd or had or thereafter to be pass'd or had upon the said Strode and to every other person that was in that Parliament thus far it is a private and particular Act but the reason of this and the Justice of it extends to all like Cases but then it goes farther Or that of any Parliament hereafter shall be for any Bill speaking reasoning or declaring of any matter concerning the Parliament to be communed or treated of these are very large and general words be utterly void and of none effect And it goes farther yet And that any person vexed or troubled or otherwise charged for any Cause as aforesaid shall have an Action of the Case against every person so vexing contrary to this Ordinance and recover treble damages and costs Here now is an Action given against one for what they shall do in a course of Justice But it is because it is suing in an inferior Court that has no jurisdiction in the matter This Act takes away all jurisdiction in such Parliament Cases from all other Courts I know that in the Case of Denzill Hollis afterwards the Lord Hollis Mr. Seld. and others 3 Car. I. the Judges being consulted upon some Questions propounded Res. That that Act of Strode's was a particular Act and extended to Strode only and no doubt it was a particular Act in a great part of it and in that part extended to Strode only But if the Judges meant that no part of that Act was a general Law then I must crave leave to say 1. That their opinion was extrajudicial it was delivered upon their being consulted with about Questions propounded to them and therefore hath not that weight And I must take the liberty to appeal to the very words of the Statute it self and to any man of reason and honesty to use his reason aright that shall read them and I must offer some reasons against their opinion and cite some good Authority in that point and then leave it to this Court to judge of it The words and persons and time mention'd in the latter part of that Act are general It speaks indeed first of Strode in particular but then it hath these words every other person It mentions that Parliament in particular but then it proceeds to speak of any Parliament that there-after shall be Then the things also are general that the Act extends to not onely to indemnifie Strode for what he had said or done in parliament but then the Indemnity extends to every other person for any Bill Speaking Reasoning or Declaring of any matter concerning the Parliament The words of the Royal Assent to this Bill are such as are constantly used only to general Acts viz. Le Roy veut whereas to a particular Act the Royal Answer is Soit droit fait al parties And this Act of 4 H. 8. is enrolled as general Acts use to be But a private or particular Act is always fil'd but never enroll'd for this latter distinction we shall find it in the Case 33 H. 6. fol. 17 18. for authority in this question Sir E. C. in his 4th Instit. fol. 19. holds this Act of 4 H. 8. in the latter part of it to be a general Act. It is indeed commonly said Boni Judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem But I take that to be better advice which was given by the Lord Chancellor Sir Francis Bacon to Mr. Justice Hutton upon the swearing him one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas That he would take care to contain the jurisdiction of the Court within the ancient Mere-Stones without removing the mark I find but one Resolution in all our Books that I can meet with that seems to make against us in this point and maintains a jurisdiction in this Court for a Misdemeanor or Conspiracy suppos'd to be done by some particular Members of the House of Commons in the House in time of Parliament It is reported by Mr. Justice Croke in his Reports of the time of King Charles fol. 181. but it is more fully reported in a late Book entitled Memorials of the English
and at the Trial in giving of Evidence to the Jury he did indeed speak those Words but averr'd that they were pertinent to the Matter and were part of his Instruction It was resolv'd upon a Demurrer That the Plea was good the Words being pertinent though they were false And there is a further Reason given by the Court in that Case viz. The Words appear not to be spoken out of Malice And no Actions of this sort nor will any Indictment of this Nature lie unless there be Malice in the Defendant and where there is any justifiable occasion of speaking words that a man in discharge of his Function or Calling is led by the Subject-Matter of Discourse as a Preacher or Pleader or the like to speak words in such Case it shall be presumed they were not spoken out of Malice In the Case of an Attorney Sir E. C. in his 2d Instit. in his Exposition of the Stat. of Articuli super Chartas 28E 1. c. 10. tells us That in the very next year after the making of that Stat. viz. 29 E. I. Will. de Weston brought an Action of Conspiracy in the Kings Bench against William of Hempswell Parson of Newton and John of Malden Parson of Askerby for causing the Plaintiff to be cited before the Arch-Deacon of Linc. for a Trespass whereof he had been acquitted in the King 's Court. John of Malden pleaded That he was Communis Advocatus pro suo dando and so justify'd as an Attorney and it was found the Parson was Communis Advocatus and so not guilty of the Conspiracy In the Case of a Witness For what he says as a Witness or for what is said against him to disable him from being a Witness or to take off his Credit no Action of Slander will lie 35 H. 6. 14. In an Action of Conspiracy one of the Defendants justify'd as being a Witness to the Jury Crok 432. In the King's Bench Weston against Dobneet in an Action for Slander There was a Suit in the Spiritual Court and the Plaintiff that brought the Action of Slander was produced as a Witness in that Cause and the Defendant in that Suit in the Spiritual Court put in Exceptions against him That he had been perjur'd and therefore ought not to be used as a Witness Thereupon Weston the Witness brought this Action for that Slander And after Arguments the whole Court held that the Action of Slander did not lie for this manner of Slander because it was in a course of Justice and not ex Malicia In a Writ of Conspiracy One of the Defendants pleaded that he was one of the Indictors Judgment si Actio And the Plea is allow'd 20 H. 6 5. 33. Nay though it be not in a course of Justice in a Suit of Law yet if a man be in the doing of his Duty and in discharge of his Function and his lawful Calling and in discoursing of a Subject proper for his Function and enforcing of every mans duty of avoiding of any Sin and in pursuit of it tells a Story which he takes up upon trust and does not know it to be false and it prove at last to be utterly untrue and an innocent person is highly slandered by it yet he shall not be subject to an Action of Slander for it The occasion of speaking shall clear him from the Malice without which the Action will not lie In the Book of Martyrs written by Fox there is a Story of one Greenwood who lived in Suffolk that he had perjur'd himself before the Bishop of Norwich in testifying against a Martyr that was burnt in Queen Mary's time and says Fox this Greenwood afterwards by the just judgment of God had his Bowels rotted in him and so he died This Story by Fox in his Book of Martyrs was utterly false of Mr. Greenwood and after the Printing of that Book of Martyrs Mr. Greenwood was living in that very same Parish One Prist a Parson happen'd to be Presented to the Living of that Parish where this Mr. Greenwood then dwelt and 27. Eliz. in one of his first Sermons happen'd to inveigh against the Sin of Perjury to which his Text did lead him and the better to deter the People from the Sin of Perjury he told this Story out of Fox's Book of Martyrs and named the very Man Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Greenwood himself was then in the Church and heard this Story told of himself but the Preacher knew it not but thought the Story to be true Greenwood brings an Action of Slander against Prist the Preacher and upon the Trial of the Cause before the Lord Chief Justice Wray the Case appearing to be thus he directed the Jury to find for the Defendant for that it appear'd it was not done out of Malice And Ch. I. Popham affirm'd it to be good Law it being a Matter deliver'd after his occasion as Matter of Story This Case is cited by Sir E. C. in Sir Henry Mountagu's Case before mentioned Crook f. 90. With this agrees the Case of the Lord Cromwel against Denny a Vicar 4 Rep. 13. b. in an Action de Scand Magn. There is a Case in many Circumstances of it much resembling our Case It was the Case between Smith and Crashaw and others M. 20 in the Kings Bench in Sir Palmer's Rep. 315. An Action upon the Case is there brought against the Defendants for maliciously causing the Plaintiff to be indicted of Treason upon which Indictment the Grand Jury found an Ignoramus To this Action the Defendants pleaded Not Guilty and were found Guilty It was moved in Arrest of Judgment That to accuse one for Treason was not Actionable for the Safety of the King and State For if a Man be subject to an Action for it it will be a means that Treason shall be smothered and Men will not expose themselves to Actions by making such Discoveries J. Houghton held the Action would not lie upon an Ignoramus found for by that the Party is not acquitted but may be Indicted again and Convicted But he holds That if he be Indicted and upon Trial Legitimo modo acquietatus then he shall have an Action upon the Case in Nature of a Conspirary for now he is absolutely acquitted and cleared of the Accusation and never can be Indicted again for that particular Fact. Dodderidge agrees with Houghton and puts this Case If an Action of Conspiracy be brought against a Man For Indicting the Plaintiff of Treason The Defendant may Plead Specially and that is the safest way of Pleading That he heard the Plaintiff speak such and such Treasonable Words and that he thereupon complained to a Justice of Peace who committed the Plaintiff upon it and this says he shall excuse him Ley Chief Justice inclines too against the Action and gives a strong Reason Because says he it is Misprision to Conceal it and yet if we allow of this Action it shall be Dangerous too to discover it so
sacred Authority of any Court that it hath an absolute power that it is the highest Court in the Realm is acknowledged by our most Learned and gravest Writers and Historians for I would not wholly omit them though I do not need them but I relie only and put all the stress of my proofs and arguments upon my Authorities in Law. Cambden in his Britannia Summam sacrosanctam Authoritatem habet Parliamentum Knighton de eventibus Angliae l. 1. fo 2681. col 1 2. He calls it the Highest Court of the Realm So it is call'd in Trewinnard's Case in Dier 60 61. Sr. Thomas Smith in his Common-Wealth of England l. 2. c. 2. fo 50 51. In Comitiis Parliamentariis posita est omnis absolutae potestatis vis Sir R. Cotton in his Posthuma edit at Lond. pag. 345. cited by Mr. Pryn in his Preface to Sir Robert Cotton ' s Abr. The Parliament controlls all Inferior Courts and all Causes of difficulty cum aliqua dubitatio emergit referr it to the Parliament To shew their power and jurisdiction upon Erroneous proceedings in other Courts by authorities in Law which confirms one of my Reasons In Trewinnard's case it is said that though the Parliament erre it is not reversible in any other Court This is spoken in a case where the then occasion was upon a Judgment given only by the House of Commons in a case of Priviledge Agreeable to this is 21 E. 3. fo 46. Br. Abr. tit Error plac 65. in the latter end of that case and 7 H. 6. Br. Abr. tit Error plac 68. by Cottesmore and 1 H. 7. fo 19. Br. Error plac 137. Error in Parliament shall be revers'd in Parliament non aliter for there is not an higher Court. 1 H. 7. fo 19 20. By all the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber for a Judgment in the King's-Bench Error must be sued in Parliament and as the Parliament shall correct the Judgments so they are to correct the Judges that give corrupt and dishonest Judgments These are the words and the opinions of the Lord chief Justice Vaughan in his Reports fo 139. in Bushel's case Such says he in all ages have been complained of to the King in the Star-Chamber which is a Court now dissolv'd by Parliament or to the Parliament He there mentions many Judges those 44. that were hang'd in King Alfred's time before the Conquest for corrupt judgments and those in the time of E. 1. E. 3. and R. 2. for their pernicious resolutions He vouches the Journals of Parliament and instances in the Judgment of Ship-money in the last King's time and the particular Judges impeach'd Sir E. C. in his 12 Rep. fol. 64. the words are spoken by Sir E. C. but as that Rep. says with the clear consent of all the Judges The King hath his Court that is to say in the Vpper House of Parliament in which he with his Lords is the Supreme Judge over all other Judges For if Error be in the Common-Pleas that may be revers'd in the King's-Bench and if the Court of King's-Bench erre that may be revers'd in the Upper House of Parliament by the King with the assent of the Lords Now though this is spoken of the Lords House only yet it must be again remembred that the Parliament as I prov'd before is one entire Body and that their power in the right of it is entire though as to the exercise of it it is distributed into parts and is divided Not can the House of Lords exercise any power as an House of Parliament or as a Court for Errors without the House of Commons be in being at the same time Both Houses must be Prorogu'd together and Dissolv'd together like the Twins of Hippocrates they live and die together and the one cannot be in being without the other also at the same time be in being too 2. Inst. 408. Matters of difficulty were heretofore usually Adjourn'd to Parliament but says he 't is now disused And 2. Inst. 599. Courts at variance properly complain to the Parliament 4. Inst. In the Chapter of the Court of the Kings-Bench Errors in the Kings-Bench in matters that concern their Jurisdiction and other Cases there excepted in the Act of 27 Eliz. Cap. 8. cannot be Revers'd but in the High Court of Parliament 4. Inst. Fol. 67. There is a Court Erected by the Statute of 14 E. 3. Cap. 5. Stat. 2. For redress of delays of Judgments in the Kings great Courts consisting of a Prelate Two Earls and Two Barons to be chosen in Parliament by that Statute If the Case before them be so difficult that it may not well be determin'd without assent of the Parliament it does not say by the House of Lords only then shall the tenor of the Record be brought by the said Prelate Earls and Barons into the next Parliament and there a final Judgment shall be given Si obscurum difficile sit Judicium ponantur judicia in respectu usque magnam curiam Rot. Parl. 14. E. 3. Num. ult Sir Jeffery Stanton's Case 25. E. 3. Cap. 2. The Chapter of Treason in the 2. Inst. Fol. 21. The Judge or Court in some Cases is to forbear going to Judgment till the Cause be shewed before the King and his Parliament whether it ought to be judged Treason or not That this Court proceeds by the ordinary Rules of the Common Law but that High Court of Parliament proceeds not by that Law but by a Law peculiar to that High Court which is called Lex Consuetudo Parliamenti and consists in the Customs Usages and Course of Parliament and therefore this Court nor no other inferior Court can for this very Reason judge or determine of what is done in Parliament or by the Parliament If this Court should take upon it to proceed in such cases it would justly be said of it as a thing very irregular Metiri se quemque suo modulo ac pede verum est Sir Rob. Cott. Abr. 20. R. 2. nu 14 15. Sir Tho. Haxey delivered a Bill to the Commons in Parliament for the honour and profit of the King and of all the Realm complaining of the outragious Expences of the Kings House and namely of Bishops and Ladies Here the Camb. Dr. I have before mention'd would take occasion again to complain of the sauciness of this Bill K. R. 2. was offended with the Commons for preferring this Bill to the King for it seems they had entertain'd this Information from a particular hand as was done in our Case from Dangerfield and they proceeded upon it K. R. 2. said it was an offence against his Dignity and Liberty and said he would be free therein And Sir John Bussey the Speaker to the Parliament as that Roll of Parliament calls him is charg'd to declare the Name of him who Exhibited that Bill By this it appears the King could not take notice of what was done in the Commons-House or deliver'd to them but by
Newly Printed for Timothy Goodwin at the Maiden-Head against S. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet AN Enquiry into the Power of Dispensing with Penal Statutes together with some Animadversions upon a Book writ by Sir Edward Herbert Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common-Pleas Entituled A short Account of the Authorities in Law upon which Judgement was given in Sir Edward Hales's case By Sir Robert Atkins Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas THE Power Jurisdiction and Priviledge OF PARLIAMENT AND THE ANTIQUITY OF THE House of Commons ASSERTED OCCASION'D By an Information in the Kings Bench by the Attorney General against the Speaker of the House of Commons As also a Discourse concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IN THE REALM of ENGLAND Occasion'd by the Late Commission in Ecclesiastical Causes By Sir ROBERT ATKINS Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas LONDON Printed for Timothy Goodwin at the Maiden-Head against S. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet 1689. IN THE KINGS BENCH TRIN. 36 CAROL II. BY INDICTMENT Middles THe Kings Attorney informs the Court That W. W. Esq being a Pernicious and Seditious Man and Contriving and Practising Falsly Maliciously and Seditiously to disturb the Peace and Quiet of the Kingdom And to stir up Sedition and to procure Ill-Will between the King and his Subjects And to bring the D. of Y. into Contempt with the King and his Subjects In order to the Compassing of all these The ninth of November 34 Car. 2 In the Parish of S. Martins in the Fields in the County of Middlesex He the said W. W. did with Force and Arms Falsly Vnlawfully Vnjustly Wickedly Maliciously Scandalcusly Seditiously and Devillishly for his own Lucre Cause and Appoint a certain False Scandalous Seditious and Infamous Libel entituled The Information of Thomas Dangerfield Gentleman to be Printed and Published In which Libel among other things are contained as followeth The Information of Thomas Dangerfield Gentleman c. the Contents of it have been read and need no Repetition In Contempt of the Law and to the ill Example of others and against the Peace and the Kings Crown and Dignity And the King's Attorney prays Process against him That he may be brought in to answer it The Defendant pleads to the Jurisdiction of this Court and says That by the Law and Custom of Parliament The Speaker of the House of Commons sitting the Parliament according to the Duty of his Office as Servant to the House ought and ever has accustomed to Speak Sign and Publish such Proceedings of that House and in such manner as he shall be ordered by the Commons so assembled And that such Speaking Signing or Publishing according to the Law and Custom of Parliament are the Act and Doing of the Commons themselves and hath ever been so accepted and taken and not as the Speakers own Acting or doing And that the Speaker for such Speaking Signing or Publishing by him made or done sitting the Parliament and by their Order ought not to answer in any other Court or Place but in Parliament He further says That at the Sessions of Parliament at Westminster the 15th of March 31 Car. 2 held by Prorogation One William Viscount Stafford and others were impeached by the Commons before the Lords according to the Law and Custom of Parliament of High Treason For a most execrable Conspiring to kill the King And to Alter and Subvert the Ancient Government and the Laws of the Realm And to Suppress the true Religion established in this Kingdom And to root up and destroy the Professors of it And that afterwards in the Sessions of Parliament held by Prorogation at Westminster 21 Octob. 32 Car. 2. The said Viscount Stafford at the Prosecution of the Commons was Tried and Convicted and Attainted in due Form of Law by the Temporal Lords then assembled in Parliament for the High Treasons of which he was so Impeached by the Commons As by the Record of Parliament does appear He further says That in the opening of that Session The King in his Speech to the Lords and Commons charged them to pursue a further Examination of that Conspiracy with a Strict and Impartial Enquiry And the King then told them That he did not think himself nor them secure till that matter was throughly done He further says That in the same Sessions of Parliament last mentioned which continued at Westminster till 10 Jan. 32 Car. 2. both Houses of Parliament in pursuance of his Majesties said Direction made a Strict and Impartial Enquiry after that Conspiracy And upon that Enquiry in the same Sessions of Parliament last mentioned the said Thomas Dangerfield in the said Information named did upon his Oath exhibit to the Lords in Parliament the said Libel entituled The Information of Thomas Dangerfield Gentleman as his true Information of that Conspiracy And delivered it to the Lords which was and is there Recorded as by the Record thereof in Parliament does appear And he also delivered it to the House of Commons in the same Parliament at the Bar of that House And the said Commons then ordered That that Information among others then before given in at the Bar of that House touching the said Plot should be entred in their Journal And that all the said Informations should be printed being first Perused and Signed by their Speaker And that the Speaker should name and appoint the Persons that should print them And that Thomas Dangerfield should have the Benefit of the Printing of his Information And the Defendant further says That he was a Member of the House of Commons during all the Sessions of Parliament last mentioned and was duly Elected and Made their Speaker and was so all that Sessions And that by virtue of and in pursuance of the said Order as Speaker of the House afterwards during that Session sc. 10 Nov. 32 Car. 2. in the Parish of S. Martins in the Fields in the said County of Middlesex He did Peruse the said Information so exhibited by the said Thomas Dangerfield to the Commons and he Signed it by putting to it his Name viz. William Williams Speaker of the House of Commons And then and there appointed Thomas Newcomb and Henry Hills being the Kings Printers to Print that Information according to the said Order of the House of Commons And thereupon the said Information afterwards and during that Session sc. 10 Nov. 32 Car. 2. was printed by those two Printers And that the said Thomas Dangerfield had the Benefit of that Printing according to the Order of the House Which Setting to of his Name and Appointment of the said Printers to Print the said Information are the same Causing and Appointing of the Printing and Publishing of the Libel in the Attorney General 's Information mentioned Absque hoc That he is Guilty of the Premises in the said Attorney General 's Information specified on
Point Mr. Pryn in his Preface to Sir Cotton's Abr. is of an Opinion by himself that tota Communitas signifies the whole Baronage But it appears by the Body of the Letter there written that Communitas is distinguished from the Majores Sir Sir Cotton's Abridgement 6 E. 3. fol. 12. in the upper part It is said the Lords and Great Men by the Mouth of Sir Henry Beaumont Mr. Hakewell in his aforesaid Treatise speaking of William Trussel says the Commons aswered by his Mouth 13 E. 3. 2 R. 2. Numb 16. Sir Cotton's Abr. fol. 174. The Commons return their Answer to the King by Sir James Pickering their Speaker 17 R. 2. Numb 17. Sir R. Cott. Abr. 353. The King advising with the Commons concerning a Peace with France return their Answer by Sir John Bussey their Speaker Mr. Hakewell in his Book before cited fol. 205. 7 H. 4. says that Sir John Tiptoft while he was Speaker signed and sealed the Deed of Entailing the Crown with these words Nomine totius Communitatis Mr. Elsing in his Treatise of Parliaments fol. 125. tells us that what was spoken by the Speaker is entred in the Rolls as spoken by the Commons But take what is done by the Defendant to be his proper acting yet he acting only as a Minister and Servant to the High Court of Parliament by the ordinary Rules of Law in Cases of Officers he is not suable nor any way punishable for it This is Resolved in the Rutland's Case 6 Rep. 54. and the same Case likewise Reported in Moor's Rep. 765. That an Officer or Minister executing Process which is erroneously awarded as where a Capias is awarded against a Peer the Officer is to be excus'd for he must not dispute the Authority of the Court but obey And in that Case the Secondaries of the Counter and the Serjeants in London were excus'd and held not guilty of any offence So in the Case of the Marshelsea 10 Rep. 76. Where the distinction is If the Court have a Jurisdiction the Officer is excus'd though the Process be Erroneous Qui jussu Judicis aliquod fecerit non videtur dolo malo fecisse quia parere necesse est Keilwey 99. a Med. by Brudnel and the Lord Dier in Trewinnard's Case fo 60. b Where a Writ of Priviledge in case of a Parliament-man Arrested is granted where it ought not to be and the Sheriff by virtue of that Writ discharged the person Arrested Yet the Sheriff saith that Case is not chargeable in an Action for this Parere necesse est What that necessity is we may see in that Case of Trewinnard Dier fo 61. a Med. if the Sheriff refuse to execute the Writ And as a fair warning to Sheriffs and other Officers not to resist or disobey the Commands and Orders of the House of Commons the Lord Dier mentions what punishment was inflicted upon the Sheriffs of London in the Case of Geo. Ferrers They were committed to the Tower for their contempt in not letting a Parliament-man taken in Execution to go at large when the Serjeant at Arms of the House of Commons came for him without a Writ Nay the Lord Dier says in the latter end of that Case of Trewinnard that if the Parliament err'd he speaks it of the House of Commons yet there is no default in the Sheriff When the late King being in Person in the House of Commons and sitting in the Speaker's Chair ask'd the then Speaker Whether certain Members whom the King named were then in the House The Speaker answer'd readily and wisely and with a good presentness of mind which arose from the Genius of that House That he had neither Eyes to see nor Tongue to speak but as the House was pleased to direct him III. POINT As to the last Point That for matters done in or by the Parliament as the matters in our Case are neither the King's-Bench nor any other Court but the Court of Parliament it self can by Law take Cognizance of it This is the great Point of the Case I shall first offer to prove it by Reasons and then I shall back and enforce those Reasons by many Authorities and those of the highest sort 1. Reason The Parliament gives Law to this Court of the Kings-Beneh and to all other Courts of the Kingdom and therefore it is absurd and preposterous that it should receive Law from it and be subject to it The greater is not judged of the less 2. The Parliament is the immediate Court for Examining the Judgments of the Court of King's-Bench and if they be erroneous they reverse them and if this Court should against Law take upon them to proceed in this Cause and give Judgment the Parliament when it Meets no doubt will set it aside as Erroneous And no Man does in the least doubt but they have power to do it and there is as little doubt but they will do it therefore it is wholly in vain for this Court to take Cognizance of it and it cannot be revers'd elsewhere it being in a matter of Jurisdiction See the Statute of 27 Eliz. c. 8. The Preamble reciting that Erroneous Judgments given in the King's-Bench are only to be reform'd by the High Court of Parliament which Court of Parliament was not in those days 〈◊〉 often holden as in Ancient time it had been Neither yet in respect of the greater Affairs of the Realm could they well be consider'd of and determin'd in Parliament c. There is an Exception of Errors that concern'd the Jurisdiction of the King's-Bench those remain as before and in the Errors that are referr'd to the Judges of the Common-Pleas and Barons of the Exchequer by 27 Eliz. c. 8. the Jurisdiction of the Parliament is to Examine them c. 3. This Court as all the Courts of Common-Law Judge only by the ordinary Rules of the Common-Law But the proceedings of Parliament are by quite another Rule The matters in Parliament are to be discuss'd and determin'd by the Custom and Usage of Parliament and the Course of Parliament and neither by the Civil nor the Common-Law used in other Courts 4. The Judges of this and of the other Courts of Common-Law in Westminster are but Assistants and Attendants to the High Court of Parliament And shall the Assistants judge of their Superiors 5. The High Court of Parliament is the dernier resort and this is generally affirm'd and held but it is not the last if what they do may yet again be examin'd and controll'd 6. The Parliament is of an absolute and unlimited power in things Temporal within this Nation I shall now proceed to Authorities that are full to this Point and do second and back those Reasons that I have offer'd wherein I shall not observe any method by reducing or ranking of them under these Reasons that I have offer'd because some of the Authorities justifie several of these Reasons all at once That the Parliament hath the highest and most
the jurisdiction of the Court. Et dicit quod si quis eorum speaking of the Lords of Parliament deliquerit erga Dominum Regem in Parliamento aliquo in parliamento debet corrigi emendari non alibi in minori curia quam in Parliamento Vnde non intendit quod Dominus Rex velit in curia hic de bujusmodi transgressione contemptu factis in Parliamento responderi Note the Plea as to the offence is very general not only restrain'd to the offence of absenting from the Parliament but to any trespass or offence in Parliament Si quis deliquerit And it would be a little improper to call absence from Parliament offence committed in Parliament for it looks like the quite contrary But in a just sence any offence committed by a Member relating to the Parliament though done out of the House is termed an Offence in Parliament So Printing any thing by Order of Parliament though it be done and executed in another place yet it may be said to be done by the Parliament and in Parliament if it be by their Order and in time of Parliament We may note further that this is a prosecution only against one particular Person for a particular Offence and Contempt charg'd upon him But in our Case the prosecution is against the very Speaker of the Parliament and is in effect a prosecution against the Parliament for it is against him for what he did by command and order of Parliament and sitting the Parliament And though the Attorney-General reply'd to the Bishops Plea that the King might sue in what Court he would yet the Bishop rejoins upon him and maintains his former Plea and there it rests so that as Sir E. C. observes that the Bishops Plea did stand and was never over-rul'd agreeable to the resolutions of former times So this I. may claim as an authority on our side And though Mr. Plowden the Lawyer to the like Information put in against him and others 1 and 2 Philip and Mary pleaded that he remain'd continually from the beginning to the end of the Parliament and travers'd the absence whereby he passes by the advantage of the Plea to the jurisdiction yet this is no Authority against us for he might think fit Renunciare juri pro se introducto having so true an occasions of clearing himself from that scandalous imputation of being absent from doing his duty in Parliament which certainly is a very high breach of Trust and he might be impatient of lying under it and therefore thought it best to traverse it to clear his Reputation in that point yet I must confess I should never have advis'd it nor was there any further prosecution against him I will mention but one most excellent Record more and it is a Record out of the Parliament Rolls 27 E. 3. Num. 9. Sir Cotton's Abridgem and with that I will Conclude I take it to be very pertinent and I am sure it is very seasonable Among the Petitions of the Commons One is They pray the King that he will require the Archbishop and all other of the Clergy to Pray for the Peace and good Government of the Land. And for the King 's good will towards the Commons The King's Answer is The same prayseth the King. And I wish with all my heart it were the Common-Prayer I have but one Prayer more to make and that is That this Court will allow the Defendant's Plea. A DISCOURSE Concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IN THE Realm of England Occasioned by the Late COMMISSION IN Ecclesiastical Causes By Sir Robert Atkyns Kt. of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late One of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas LONDON Printed for Tim. Goodwin at the Maiden-Head against St. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street MDCLXXXIX A DISCOURSE Concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IN THE Realm of England Occasioned by the Late COMMISSION IN Ecclesiastical Causes THE Preamble acknowledges That the King justly and rightfully is and ought to be Supream Head of the Church of England and is so recognised by the Clergy in their Convocations And it is Enacted That the King and his Successors shall be taken c. the only Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England And shall have and enjoy annexed to the Imperial Crown all Jurisdiction c. Authorities c. to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging And that the King and his Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm shall have full Power and Authority from time to time to visit repress redress reform order correct restrain and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed repressed ordered redressed c. Any Usage Custom foreign Laws foreign Authority Prescription or any thing to the contrary notwithstanding Note This Act doth not make the King to be the Supream Head of the Church of England but acknowledges that he ever hath been so as it is recited by the Statute made in the same Parliament of 26 H. 8. c. 3. the Act for the First-Fruits See the Preamble towards the latter Part being the first Paragraph See also the Oath prescribed by the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 1. for the Succession Paragraph the 11th in Mr. Keeble's Edition of the Statutes at large very full to this purpose to shew that the Act of 26 H. 8. cap. 1. gave the King no new Title but only acknowledged that he ever had a Right to it and that the Bishop of Rome had but usurped it And as the Act of 26 H. 8. cap. 1. gave the King no new Title so it gave him no new nor further Authority in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things nor over Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Persons than what he had before Therefore it is to be enquir'd what jurisdiction or Authority the King had before the making of that Act and how the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was of right and duly before exercis'd and administred viz. in what Courts by what Rules Laws or Canons and by what Persons It is clear in Law that the King himself merely in his own Royal Person could never take to himself the Hearing of any Cause Ecclesiastical or Temporal and adjudg and determine the Cause himself For by the Law and Constitution of the Realm the King hath committed all his Power Judicial to divers Courts some in one Court some in another as is held in Sir Ed. Cokes 2d Institutes fol. 186. at the lower end of that folio and in the middle of fol. 187. All Matters of Judicature and Proceedings in Law are distributed to the Courts of Justice and the King doth judg by his Justices See the Reports that pass by the Name of Sir Ed. Cokes 12th Reports fol. 63. the Case of Prohibitions Which is true as to Ecclesiastical Causes as well as Temporal for every Man knows that there
or lawfully may be Reformed Redressed Corrected c. In Sir Edw. Cokes 12 Rep. fol. 49 It was Resolved Trin. 6. Jae Per totam Curiam in the Court of Common-Pleas there being then Five Judges of that Court Coke being Chief Justice That the High Commissioners by vertue of their Commission and that Act of Parliament ought to proceed according to Ecclesiastical Law. Secondly If their Commission gave them any Power which was not allowed or warranted by that Act of Parliament it was not Legal which proves that such Power cannot be exercis'd by a Commission under the Great Seal merely without an Act of Parliament See Drakes Case in Justice Croke's Reports of the time of King Charles fol. 220. There it is also Resolv'd That the King by his Commissioners cannot alter the Ecclesiastical Law nor the Proceedings of ☞ it And if the Word Lawfully had not been in that Act of 1. Eliz. yet it must have been so intended and the Judges of the Common Law who are proper Judges Expositors and Interpreters of Acts of Parliament would have so understood it as appears by the Resolution of the Judges in the Case in the same 12. Rep. of the Lord Coke fol. 84 85. and little regard therefore was given by the Judges to Commissions under the Great Seal which the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Abbot said had been made in like Cases in the Times of King Hen. VIII and Ed. VI. In the last Case ibidem fol. 85. the Chief Justice Coke says He had seen the Commission made to Cromwell by King Hen. VIII to be Vice-gerent and other Commissions to others by his appointment and he refers to the Commission at large inserted in his Book of Precedents See in the same 12. Rep. of Sir Edw. Coke f. 88. Excellent Rules to be observ'd upon such extraordinary Commissions viz. They ought to be solemnly read for they may possibly contain many things against the Law as the Commission in that Case mentioned did The Commissioners may every one of them require Copies of the Commission The Commissioners ought to Sit in an open Place and at certain Days Note also That such Commissions ought not to be kept secret but they ought to be Enrolled in the Chancery That the Subjects may be under a known Authority See Sir Coke's 4. Instit. fol. 332. the middle of that fol. And upon irregular and illegal Commissions in Ecclesiastical Causes the Remedy is by Prohibition out of the Courts at Westminster In the same 4 Instit. fol. 340. the Author hath this Note Nota Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester was depriv'd at Lambeth by Commission from King Edward the VI. made to Ten Persons proceeding upon it ex Officio mero mixto vel promoto omni appellatione remotâ summarie de plano absque omni forma figura Judicii sola Facti Veritate inspecta The Author passes no Opinion upon it Quaere by what Law this was warranted It must be rare and extraordinary otherwise Sir Edw. Coke would not have so specially mention'd it but a Facto ad Jus non valet Argumentum Note That part of the Act of 1 Eliz. viz. the 18th Paragraph before verbatim transcribed viz. of the Queen Eliz. and her Successors granting such Letters Patents or Commissions in Ecclesiastical Causes is repealed by the Act made 16 Car. 1. cap. 11. See it in Mr. Keeble's Book of Statutes at large See the last Paragr or Clause in that Act of Repeal of 16 Car. 1. It is Enacted That no new Court shall be erected or appointed which shall have The like Power or Jurisdiction as the High Commissioners had or pretended to have but that all such Letters Patents Commissions and Grants and all Powers and Authorities thereby granted and all Acts Sentences and Decrees to be made by vertue or colour of them shall be Void Note The late Act of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. in Mr. Keeble's Book of Statutes does declare that the Ordinary Power of Arch-Bishops and Bishops was not taken away by that Repealing Act of 17 Car. 1. cap. 11. as this last Act dates it But by this Act of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. in the second Paragraph The aforesaid Repealing Act of 17 Car. 1. and all the Matters and Clauses therein contained excepting what concerns the High Commission Court or the new Erection of some such like Court by Commission are Repealed See the third Paragraph also of the Act of 13. Car. 2. That the High Commission Court shall not be Revived So that I conceive no such Commission nor Letters Patents can now be granted but the Repealing Act of 16 or 17 Car. 1. stands in force against it By what Law or Rules Cromwell in the Time of King Henry VIII and by what Instructions he acted does not appear the Commissions to make him Vicar General which was surely in Imitation of what had been used by the Pope in the time of his Usurpation or that of Vice-gerent in Ecclesiastical Matters which seems to be new and prime Impressionis are not now to be found of which Dr. Burnet in the History of the Reformation of the Church of England makes some probable conjectures fol. 181. and wherein consisted the difference between those two Authorities and Titles and the Commissions for the exercise of them is not easy to find out But the thing then principally design'd was to suppress the religious Houses belonging to the regular Clergy which were great Supports to the Popish Hierarchy not at all to impeach the Lawful Power and Jurisdiction of Episcopacy for we find at the same time as Cromwell's Commissions were in force and had been then but newly passed That Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury made his Metropolitical Visitation under which as I conceive most properly falls the Conusance of any contempt or abuse committed by any of his Suffragan Bishops if not in a Provincial Synod Archiepiscopi Jurisdictioni subsunt immediate suffraganti See Lind. Provin The exclusion of the Pope in the Time of King Hen. VIII made no diminution of the Power or Jurisdiction of the Clergy as to determining of Ecclesiastical Causes or making Canons Constitutions and other Synodical Acts as is rightly observ'd by Dr. Heylin in his Introduction to the History of Laud late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury upon this ground it is that to this day they exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in their own Names and under the distinct Seals of their Offices the Statutes that made some Alteration in the matter being all repealed See Dr. Heylin's Introduct aforesaid ibid. fol. 341. The Legislative Power in Matters Ecclesiastical continues in the Convocation for making Canons and Constitutions confirmed by the King and Parliament Discipline and the Admonition still resides in the Bishops and those under them In Case of any Irregularity in the Metropolitan Resort must doubtless be to the Head of the Church upon Earth the King as it was in the Case of Arch-Bishop Abbot who shooting at
have been from the first Constitution of the Kingdom certain Courts and Jurisdictions erected within this Realm for deciding and determining of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Causes Selden's History of Tithes fol. 412. All this is excellently well set forth by the Preamble of the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. concerning Appeals That as the King hath ever been the Supream Head of the Realm which Word Head is by way of Metaphor and must have relation to some Body therefore the Statute in the Preamble proceeds to tell you what the Body is to which the Head relates viz. The Body Politick of the Realm consists of all sorts and degrees of People within this Realm divided by Names of Spiritualty and Temporalty The Statute proceeds to mention the plenary Power Authority and Jurisdiction the King hath within this Realm in all Causes It shews us how that Power is distributed and by whom to be exercised Not by the King in Person nor at his Will and Pleasure in any arbitrary Way but as that Preamble further iustructs us The Body Spiritual hath Power in all Causes Divine and Spiritual to determin and to administer all such Offices and Duties as to their rooms Spiritual doth appertain the like is declared as to Temporal Causes to be in the other Part of the said Body Politick call'd the Temporalty And both their Authorities and Jurisdictions do concur in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other The Preamble of this Stat. of 24 H. 8. c. 12. of Appeals further shews how that this Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Jurisdiction had been confirmed and defended by several antient Acts of Parliament against the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome and that long before the Reformation of Religion Then comes the Enacting Part which does Ordain That all Causes determinable by any Spiritual Jurisdiction whether they concern the King himself as the Case of the King's Divorce or any of the Subjects shall be heard examined discussed clearly finally and definitively adjudged and determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority and not elsewhere in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal of the same as the nature of the Cases shall require Then the same Statute shews us in what Courts and by what Steps and Method Suits and Proceedings concerning Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Matters ought to be handled See Paragraph 5 6 7 8 9 10. It begins with the Arch Deacon's Court which is infimi gradus and proceeds gradually from the Arch-Deacon to the Diocesan from him to the Metropolitan and at last it mentions the Convocation as the Supreamest Note That further Appeals have been given by several Acts of Parliament as by 25 H. 8 c 19. from the Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan to the King in Chancery which is by Commission of Delegates c. And it hath been Resolved That though the Acts of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. and of 25. H. 8 cap. 19. do upon certain Appeals make the Sentence definitive as to any further Appeal yet the King as Supream Head may grant a Commission of Review See the Case of Halliwell against Jervois Sir Francis Moores Reports fol. 462. and in the same Reports fol. 782. in the Case of Bird against Smith and in Sir Edw. Cokes 4th Institutes fol. 341. And as the Kings Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction are by the Fundamental Laws of the Realm distributed into several Courts which are mentioned and confirmed by the said several Acts of Parliament and may not therefore be exercised by any other but by such Courts and in such Method and Manner as by Law and the said Acts of Parliament it is provided So also those Courts cannot proceed Arbitrarily but by the known and setled Ecclesiastical Laws Constitutions and Canons that are in force By the Act of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. Entituled An Act for restoring to the Crown the Antient Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical and Spiritual c. the seventeenth Paragraph in Keeble's Book of Statutes It is Enacted That such Jurisdictions c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power or Authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all manner of Errors c. Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities shall for ever by Authority of this Present Parliament be united to the Crown By the 18th Paragraph of that Act the Queen and her Successors have Power by vertue of this Act by Letters Patents under the Great Seal to assign c. as often as they shall think meet and for such time such Person or Persons as the Queen c. shall think meet to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions Ecclesiastical or Spiritual and to Visit Reform Redress Order Correct and Amend all such Errors c. Abuses Offences Contempts and Anormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or lawfully may be Reformed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or Amended and such Person or Persons so to be named c. shall have full Power by vertue of this Act and of the said Letters Patents to exercise use and execute all the Premises according to the Tenor and Effect of the said Letters Patents See Sir Edw. Cokes 4. Inst. in his Chapter of Ecclesiastical Courts fol. 324 325. and see the 3d. Observ. fol. 326. observe the Words viz. It was Enacted out of necessity c. and ibid. Necessity did cause this Commission and it was not to be Exercis'd but upon necessity for it was never intended That it should be a continual standing Commission c. That the main Object of that Act was to deprive the Popish Clergy Almere's Case and Taylor and Massie's Case left to the proper Diocesan Upon the last recited Clause in that of 1. Eliz. was grounded the late Court call'd The High Commission Court From which Act it may be observed and collected That it needed an Act of Parliament to give such Authority to the Queen to grant such Letters Patents or Commission and that without an Act of Parliament such Commission could not have been granted For if the Queen by her meer Prerogative and Supream Power in Ecclesiastical Causes could have granted such Commission an Act of Parliament had been unnecessary And the express Words of the Act are That the Queen c. shall have power by vertue of this Act and the Law had as hath been before observ'd distributed the Kings Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction into several Courts So that without a new Law the like Power could not be put into any other hands in Derogation of those ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts Secondly Note This Act makes no new Crimes nor Offences but gives the Commissioners or Patentees Power to Visit Reform Redress c. all such Errors c. Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power can