the King for that office the best of those they know which are many times most unfit But this may be remedied when his Majesty shall please to give leave to the Clergy of the Diocess to choose their own Diocesan their Choice notwithstanding submitted to the Kings approbation and Confirmation which was permitted by Justinian the Emperor and was in use in several of the best Ages of the Church or by some other method which may be advised by his great Council whereby the greatest assurance may be given that the best and fittest persons be preferred to Bishopricks for the Common people are envious and suspicious and what ever may be done by bad means they always think is so But if Bishops were promoted to their Sees with the gratulations and applauses of the whole body of the Clergy of the respective Diocesses all that passeth under their advice and consent would likely meet with the general satisfactions of the people as it would well deserve as long as the Clergy can have any Authority with them That is as long as the Nation continues Christian But the general Corruption of Manners and decay of Piety is the great and truest cause why the Bishops unenvied enjoy no part of that honour that our Ancestors Wisdome and Piety conferred upon their order conformably to all other the Ancient Christian Governments But when Virtue and Piety shall recover their esteem the reverence of the Clergy will return We are not like long to expect this happy Change for Vice is now arrived to a Plethora and like to burst by its own excesses And we well hope that the mischiefs which we suffer will cure that evil from whence they spring and prevent the greater Calamities that it further threatens However it becomes all good men to assist to support the present Government which is the cheapest the surest and the next way to arrive at a happy constitution of things This was the design of the Author of the Grand Question After the publication of that Book I laid by all thoughts of publishing this Treatise But perceiving that notwithstanding what he hath said the Right yet remains controverted and a Book is since printed wherein several things are objected in prejudice of this Right and more is expected I did review these Papers wherein I found I had prevented those objections and with a little application they would appear insignificant I did resolve to make this publick And besides that I apprehended some things material to the Question were omitted by the Grand Question that a several way of speaking things to the same purpose hath its advantage Our great Courts affect to have several arguments on the same side in great Causes and our Reporters publish them Besides herein several things are occasionally discourst of which makes it of further usefulness to the publick Our adversaries also were treated too kindly by him and had deserved sharper reflections than he makes upon them for their false and perverse Reasonings and ought to lose that reputation which they abuse to the hurt of the Government And further I thought it not for the honour of our faculty that never fails to supply the worst cause with Advocates That a question of this Nature wherein both Church and State Religion and our Civil Policy is concerned and the Right thereof not only clear and evident in it self but also useful to the State should have not one of the Robe to plead for it The friends of the Cause will not grudge to read two Books for the Right as well as several against it and the Adversaries of our Cause ought to suffer the like trouble themselves which they occasion to others These Considerations did induce me to publish this Treatise I am well pleased that I am ingaged in a good Cause that was suited to one of my slender Abilities Right is so strong an Argument for it self that it wants only light to discover it Whereas an unrighteous cause stands in need of disguisings and shadowings and all the Artifices and fetches of the Wit of abler men to give that a Colour at least which is destitute of Law and Right THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THe Nature of the Right the obligation to use it the obvious indications of it and the benefit which may be reasonably expected in the exercise of it How it came to be drawn into question and how it can be fairly determined how it hath been opposed and upon what Reasons and Evidence the Right doth rely Chap. II. The general prejudice against this Right from an Opinion conceived that the Clergy ought not to intermeddle in Secular Affairs remov'd That Bishops have been employed in the greatest trusts by Emperors not hindred by the Church but this hath been envy'd to them by the Pope Chap. III. The Precedents that are produc'd from the Parliament Rolls against this Right are considered They prove not pertinent at most but bare Neglects not Argumentative or concluding against the Right Chap. IV. This Right cannot be prejudic'd by non user The Nature of Prescription that the Right in question is not prescriptible The Original of this Right that it is incident to Baronage The Bishops when made Barons and for what reason That all Offices whether by Tenure or Creation are Indivisable Chap. V. Bishops never pretended the Assise of Clarendon when said to be absent Bishops sat in Judgment upon Becket and his Crime and Charge Treason by which it is demonstrated that the Assise of Clarendon only put them at liberty but not under restraint from using their Right of Judging in Capital Causes Chap. VI. Bishops sat in Judgment upon John Earl of Moreton after King John the Bishop of Coventry c. for Treason Chap. VII An Opinion prevail'd and continued long that no Judgment in Parliament where the Bishops were absent was good and their absence assigned for Error to reverse Judgment in Treason in Parliament prov'd by the Petition of the Commons 21 R. 2. upon their protestation made 11 R. 2. And by that protestation it is evident they had a Right and that they saved it by that protestation They pretended they could not attend the matters then treated of by reason of the Canon But alledged no Law for their absence Chap. VIII Of Canons Canon law What effect Canons can have upon a Civil Right The Canons prohibiting the use proves the Right Chap. IX Bishops made their Proxies in Capital Causes which proves their Right and their thereby being virtually present and the lawfulness of making Proxies and such as they made Chap. X. A Repeal of the Parliament 21 R. 2. No prejudice to what the Bishops did in making their Proxies The Opinion of Bishops presence being necessary in Parliament continued in time of H. 5. Chap. XI Bishops actually exercised this Authority in 28 H. 6. in the Case of William de la Pool Duke of Suffolk Opinion of the Judges that Bishops ought to make Proxies in the Tryal of a
Fortunes to their Children but what they themselves could deserve viz. Hate and Infamy All Usurpation and Encroachment of Power is to be opposed where it can be lawfully as the greatest Mischief and the Ministers to the Designs hated and detested as the most pernicious and loathsome Vermine CHHP. XV. BUt to return agreable to this Policy of Sovereign Princes who had the Donation of Bishopricks of advancing Bishops to the highest secular Dignities and Trust William the Conqueror did create Bishops into Barons and exacted the Services and Counsells of Barons in the Great Council of the Kingdom by putting their Lands under Tenure by Barony he gave them no new Endowments but as a Conqueror he confirmed their Ancient Possessions under a new reserv'd Tenure and annex'd to their Order a Secular Honor a successive Baronage Since the Conquerour the title of Baron took the place of that of Thane which was likewise a Feudal Honour in the Saxons time By William the Conquerour Baronies were feudal and in congruity to the State of the Lay Nobles he made the Bishops feudal Barons for there was no other than feudal Nobility at that time It will not be amiss nor time mispent here to give a short account of the Government in the Conquerours time of the Baronage by him introduced and the policy thereof and of the change made in the Baronage of England in after time Because from thence we must derive the Bishops Right now in question which is included and virtually contained in their Right of Baronage Hereby it will appear that the Bishops were of the Barones majores and of the Barones majores the first in Dignity that they became feudal Barons in the Conquerour's time and when the reason of our Baronage changed and no man continued a Baron ratione tenurae it cannot with reason be said that the Bishops are Barons onely for the sake of their Lands which our Adversaries do insist upon for that they think it is an abatement to the Honour of Peerage and a prejudice to their Right in question but because it has been said before by men of Authority in the Law and grown up to be a vulgar error we will now discharge the mistake by affixing here the History and Reason of the change It was the policy of the first William for some are so critical they will not call him Conquerour to create new Tenures upon all the great Possessions of the Realm and impose upon the principal men to hold their Lands of him in capite under such Services that were necessary in peace and war for State and Justice and by putting all the considerable men of the Realm under Oaths of Fealty incident to those Tenures besides the Oaths of Allegeance he provided for the establishment of his Conquest or his possession of the Crown without title The principal men of the Realm both Ecclesiastical and Lay hereby were not onely obliged to support but to become part of the Government and were obliged to be Ministers of Justice and also Members of the great Council of the Kingdom or Parliament which was now to be made up principally of his Dependents by which he changed the constitution of the great Council in the Saxons times in the balance of that equal sort of Government the consequent mischiefs whereof this Kingdom laboured under untill we recovered it again by an equal representative of the Commons in Parliament in the time of King Henry the Third The power of the Baronage proved equally oppressive to the people and came in that time to be reduced irreverent to the Crown By this policy the Conquerour intended to establish his Conquest to secure to himself and his posterity the Imperial Crown of England imagining that otherwise he should have been but a precarious King He had now turn'd the Kingdom upon the matter into one great Mannor and kept his Courts called the Curia Regis in the nature of a Sovereign Court Baron now become more frequented and solemn than that Court was before the Conquest thrice in every Year at stated Times and Places viz. at Easter at Winchester at Whitsuntide at Westminster and at Christmas at Gloucester at these times and places all his Tenants which were all the considerable Free-holders of England attended of course and upon a General Summons at any other time or place appointed by the King as his Affairs did require they were bound likewise to attend In these Courts the Suitors swore Fealty did renew and confirm their Obligations to the Crown and the King became more assured of their Allegiance by their Personal Attendance and by his Royal Entertainments of them at such times In these Courts they recognized their own Services and the Rights of the King their Lord and assessed Aids and Estuage Prestations due to the Crown by their Tenures upon themselves to which in general they were obliged by their Tenures In these Conventions the Right of the Suitors the King's Tenants were adjudged as Private Lords had Judgment of the Right of Lands in pretence held of them in Fee in their several Manors as they have to this day But if Right was not done by the Lord the Cause was to be removed to this Curia Regis the King being Lord Paramount of whom all Estates mediately or immediately were held Which appears by the Form of the Writ of Right now in use which we will transcribe N. B. precipimus tibi quod sine dilatione plenum Rectum teneas A. de B. de uno Messuagio L. in I quae clamat tenere de te per liberum Servitium unius denarii per annum pro omni servitio quod W. de T. ei deforciat nisi feceris Vicecomes faciatne amplius inde Clamorem audiamus pro defectu Recti The Common Pleas was not then a Court and at this time the Appeal and resort to the King was in this Court if Justice was not done by the Lord or Sheriff So that the greatest part of the Justice of the Nation was administred in those Assemblies But it must not be understood that this vast Convention was a Court of Judicature for every Cause neither that it was formally a Parliament without some farther Act of the King for erecting that Convention into the great Council of the Nation But in this Curia Regis they were obliged to answer the King's Writs of Summons Writs of Commission and obey his Appointments in the Ordinary Administration of Justice in which the Capitalis Justiciarius or Justitia was to preside That this was not a Judicature the vast numbers of those that made it the inequality of the Persons considered under the Common Reason of being Tenants in Capite and Barons whereby they became indifferently members of the Curia Regis besides the neglect that must necessarily be presumed in the greatest part of such a Body to the business of Jurisdiction and judging of Rights without particular Designation thereto do sufficiently argue and evince But
recited upon which our Adversaries do so much ground themselves from the Cognisance of the Lords Spiritual and they could not be present when any such Case was agitated or moved all the Grandees were Notoriously Willfully and Knowingly and in the face of the whole World perjured to the Eternal infamy of our Nation Could the whole Nation be ignorant of its own Laws and Constitutions made and sworn to but a few months before and neither the King Lords Spiritual or Temporal or Commons understand them 120 men at least for about that number were the Bishops and regular Barons in H. the 2ds time and not less now come into the highest Judicature in the greatest Cause that ever was agitated It was in the Case of Becket disputed whether we should have a Civil or Ecclesiastical Soveraignty and there sit Judges and no body except against them in October if excluded by the Statute made in February before though the King and the Nobles had reason to suspect them on Becket's side and they unwilling themselves to Judge and they under an Oath not to sit and the Temporal Lords under an Oath not to admit them or allow them to be there And yet not a word of this matter in all the Historians of that time Thomas of Canterbury his friends to a man who were forward enough to reproach the Judges sure when they condemned the Sentence and applauded the Criminal and made a Pater patriae a Martyr and Saint of this Notorious Church Rebel He therefore that can believe that the Bishops were not rightful and unexceptionable Judges in capital Causes in Parliament in the time of H. 2. may believe that a whole Nation may become of insane Memory at once go to bed a Monarchy and wake into a Common-wealth without any notice or observation of a Change And now that the Assise of Clarendon is of our side I hope will be admitted and that the Bishops not only may but ought to be present in capital Causes in Parliament for the words of the Statutes are That the Archiepiscopi Episcopi universi personae qui de Rege tenent in Capite habeant possessiones suas de Rege sicut Baroniam sicut caeteri Barones debent interesse Judiciis Curiae Domini Regis cum Baronibus So that now they were declared to be Judges as the other Barons in that they ought to be present in all Causes Only they were favoured so much in decent regard to their Order that they were not required to be present at the Sentence of Death and multilation of Member for as much as they are the Ministers of Gods pardon and the Publishers of the Doctrine of Faith and Repentance they ought to comport with their office and express their Commiseration to the greatest Sinner and to have some reluctancy against the Sentence of Condemnation and to that purpose is that Indulgence given them in the quousque perveniatur ad mutilationem membrorum vel mortem But the Assise of Clarendon having I will not say left them but required them to be Judges this exception of Quousque c. being only an Indulgence as aforesaid upon the Reasons aforesaid they remain entire Judges in Capital Causes and may depart from that Indulgence and ought so to do when Justice is necessary and the offences more than ordinarily Publick and will be pardoned and escape with impunity to the hazard of the Government except they interpose For if the Assise of Clarendon had not left them entire Judges of Right only at liberty as to the pronouncing of Sentence they had not remain'd Judges for the office of a Judge cannot be divided he that hath not an Authority to judge the Cause can be reckoned and accounted no other than a ministerial assistant to the process in such matters as the Court shall award Therefore Bishops in that they have intermedled as Judges in such Causes they have continued and avowed their Right of judging and in that they have withdrawn at the Sentence they have used that Liberty But to leave nothing for an after objection Evasion or Cavillation it shall be in our Adversary's choice Whether this Curia Regis mentioned in the Assise of Clarendon as also the Court that tryed Thomas Becket was the Curia Regis wherein the ordinary Justice of the Nation was at that time administred or the Parliament If it was the Curia Regis and not the Parliament was intended in the Assise of Clarendon in which the Priviledge and Indulgence under the Quousque was allowed to Bishops Then the Assise of Clarendon is unduly urged against the Bishops judging in Cases of blood in Parliament for that all Laws of Priviledge and exemption are stricti Juris and not to be extended beyond the Letter of the Law the single instance or the enumerated Cases and consequently by the Assise of Clarendon the Bishops have no leave to withdraw in Cases of blood in Parliament If the Court wherein Thomas Becket was tryed was the Curia Regis then the Bishops judging in that Court in that Cause doth most clearly declare that being a Case in point that the quousque in the Assise of Clarendon was an Indulgence and Priviledge which they might use or wave as they then did But this cannot be denyed that the Bishops are and were Barons ever since the Conqueror of which and of the Curia Regis we shall hereafter give an account and whatever was the business and office of Baron was consequently the office and business of a Bishop of Common Right and still is except any Legal restraint was put upon them by any Law which was not done by the Assise of Clarendon as we have proved by the reason of the making of that Law the Interpretation of that Law at that time Nor was that Law or any other Law hitherto pretended but only the Canons of the Church against the Right and Duty of Bishops in Capital Causes in Parliament or if they will have it in the Curia Regis CHAP. VI. AND now we proceed further to shew how this Right and Authority of the Prelates hath been used and acknowledged in after-times Roger de Hovedon hath remembred in the Life of Richard the First who succeeded Henry the 2. That before the arrival of Richard the First in England who had been in Captivity in the Empire that one Adam de St. Edmond Agent to John Earl of Morton returned into England being sent to fortifie the Castle of Earl John against the King his Brother and was apprehended by the Lord Mayor of London with several papers of instructions and Commissions of Earl Johns for that purpose Hoveden tells us That the Mayor cepit omnia brevia sua in quibus mandata Comitis Johannis continebantur tradidit ea Cantuariensi Episcopo qui in crastino convocatis coram eo Episcopis Comitibus Baronibus Regni ostendit eis literas Comitis Johannis earum tenorem statim per commune Concilium
Regni definitum est quod Comes Johannes disseiseretur de omnibus Tenementis suis in Anglia Castella sua obsiderentur This is a Cause of Treason for that Richard the First immediately upon the demise of the Crown was King It can be no objection that this was not a formal Parliament for whether it was or no it seems the Bishops power in that Cause was allowed That it was Commune Concilium Regni and had the Nature of a Parliament And that the Bishops therein had a parity of Authority with the Temporal Lords But soon after his return King Richard held a Parliament at Notingham Hoveden mentions the Bishops that were present by Name In which Parliament our Historian tells us That the King Petiit sibi Judicium fieri de Comite Johanne fratre suo qui contra fidelitatem quam ei juraverat Castella sua occupaverat terras suas transmarinas destruxerat foedus contra eum cum inimico suo Rege Franciae contra eum inierat And the like Justice he required against the Bishop of Coventry for that he had adher'd Regi Franciae Comiti Johanni inimicis suis and it was thereupon adjudged Judicatum saith Hoveden quod Comes Johannes Episcopus Coventrensis peremptoriè citarentur si intra quadraginta dies non venerint nec Juri steterint Judicaverunt Comitem demeruisse regnum Episcopum Coventrensem subjacere judicio Episcoporum in eo quod Episcopus erat Judicio Laicorum in eo quod ipse Vicecomes Regis extiterat You see here the Bishops zeal and Loyalty that they adjoyn'd the censure of the Church which they had power of as Bishops to a Civil punishment which they with the Temporal Barons had Authority to pronounce against One of their own Order who was guilty of a design to engage a Nation in a War by opposing the lawful Successour to the Crown and this being so great a Cause We hear nothing here of any scruple the Canon gave them nor mention of any Priviledge of an Ecclesiastick to be exempt from the Judgment of the secular Court In the same Parliament Giraldus de Canavilla was accus'd of harbouring of Pirats and Praeterea saith Hoveden appellaverunt eum de Laesurâ Regiae Majestatis in eo quod ipse ad vocationem Justitiariorum Regis venire noluit nec juri stare de praedictâ receptatione raptorum neque eos ad Justitiam Regis producere sed respondet se esse hominem Comitis Johannis velle in Curiâ suâ Juri stare Hoveden tells us all that were present at this great Council Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Galfridus Arch-Bishop of York Hugh Bishop of Durham Hugh Bishop of Lincoln William Bishop of Ely William Bishop of Hereford Henry Bishop of Worcester Henry Bishop of Exeter and John Bishop of Carlisle Earl David Brother of the King of Scots Hamelinus Earl de Warrenna Ranulfus Earl of Chester William Earl of Feriers William Earl of Salisbury and Roger Bigot Let any one judge if it was likely that the Bishops did withdraw in the Case of Earl John or the said Bishop when besides them there were but six Barons present at that Parliament What manner of great Council would this Parliament have been that had consisted but of six Barons of what Authority would such a Parliament have been in the absence of the King and a troubled Estate of the Kingdom CHAP. VII IN the time of Edward the Second in the two Judgments against the Spencers the Right of the Bishops to judge in capital Causes in Parliament was carried so high in opinion that their presence was thought necessary to give Authority and validity to the Judgment of the House of Lords in such Cases and their absence was assigned for Error for Reversal of those Judgments for an Error that appears in the irregularity of the Proceedings is an allowable Cause for vacating the Judgment by the same Court that gave it And so far did that Opinion prevail that the presence of the Lords Spiritual was necessary to give Authority to a Judgment of that House that for this Cause because the Prelates were absent that Judgment was reversed Which opinion did arise upon this mistake that because the Lords Spiritual was one of the two States that made the House of Lords nothing could be done without their concurrence But though they are a distinct State from the Temporal Lords they make but one House and they are both there under one Notion and Reason viz. as they are both Lords Spiritual and Temporal the Baronage of England But let any man tell me that can whether if the Lords Spiritual had not been understood Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes it could have been a question whether their absence could avoid the Judgment in the Case of the Spencers much less that such an opinion should prevail that the Judgment should be as it was for that reason reversed And tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was set aside and the Judgment affirmed in 1 E. 3. Yet the publick Recognition of the Bishops Right in the Reversal remains an undeniable Testimony to their Right of sitting Tho' the Reversal of that Judgment was not warrantable for the reason of the Bishops absence as it could not have been reversed by reason of the absence of as many Temporal Barons if there remained enough besides to make a House to give the Judgment And yet we find the Reversal of the Reversal reversed in 21 R. 2. and the Family of the Spencers restored in the person of the Earl of Glocester So prevalent was the opinion that the Bishops Concurrence was necessary in all capital Judgments in Parliament at that time For this see Sir Robert Cottons Abridgment fol. 373. Yet it is observable that the consequence from the Bishops being a third State and an Essential constituent part of that House to a necessity of their presence in all judicial matters even of Capital Offences and Treason did so stick with that Age for they then in that Age did no more know what three States served for or that they both made but one House than some in our time can tell how to find them For that very Reason in 21 R. 2. the first Petition that the Commons made in that Parliament to the King was for that diverse Judgments were heretofore undone for that the Clergy were not present The Commons prayed the King that the Clergy would appoint some to be their Common Proctor with sufficient Authority thereunto The Prelates therefore being severally examined appointed Sir Thomas de la Piercy to assent The words of which Petition and the procuratory Letters for greater Authority and more satisfaction I have thought fit to transcribe Nos Thomas Cantuar. Robertus Eborac Archiepiscopi ac Praelati Clerus utriusque Provinciae Cantuar. Ebor. jure Ecclesiarum nostrarum Temporalium earundem habentes jus interessendi in singulis Parliamentis Domini nostri Regis
as many of them as were most proper to judge or assist in the Judgment as the Case did require were appointed by the King or his Capitalis Justiciarius And that it was so in Fact appears by that Famous Cause wherein Arch-bishop Lanfranck recovered against Odo Bishop of Baieux Earl of Kent Eadmerus Hist Nov. l. 1. f. 9. tells us That there was Principum Conventus an Assembly of Barons at Pinneden in Kent and that the Kings Precept was Rex quatenus adunatis primoribus probis viris non solum de Comitatu Cantiae sed de aliis Comitatibus Angliae Querele Lanfranci in medium ducerentur examinarentur determinarentur disposito itaque saith he principum Conventus apud Pinneden Gaufridus Episcopus Constantiensis vir ea tempestate praedives in Anglia Vice Regis for Odo Bishop of Baieux one of the Litigants was at that time the Justiciarius Angliae justitiam de suis querelis strenuissimè jussus fecit where we see Godfrey at the King's Precept took so many Barons of that Country or of any other where any of the Lands lay as Assistants to him For our Historian saith that Lanfranck though Godfred pronounced the Judgment did recover judicio Baronum qui placita tenuerunt The probi homines were such by whom the truth of the matter might be better understood and did probably enquire of it who did accord and agree the Judgment to be right Lanfranc did recover ex communi omnium astipulatione judicio as our Historian also informs us I might cite many more Records of the Method of the Administration of Justice in this Curia Regis but I should be too long in this matter not being strictly necessary to the Question in hand though the understanding of the Nature of this Court and the Constitution of the Government at this time will many ways inserve to the clearing the Right thereof In this Court Peers were tryed all Pleas of the Crown heard and whatever is now the Business of the Courts of Common Pleas and Exchequer was dispatch'd in this Curia Regis Here Fines were levyed as appears by a Record furnished to us by Sir Hen. Spelman in his Gloss f. 279. the word Fines There men famous for their Skill in the Law did attend and by this Judicature some place was assigned them where they were to hear such Causes as were referred and sent down to them and it is very possible that Fines may be levyed i. e. Concord made of the thing in pretence that was referred to them and it may be true that in a Charter of a Grant of Conusance of Causes Words may be conteined for excluding the Intromissions of the Justices of the one Bench and the other For such Charters never want words These matters are produced by Sir Edward Coke in his Preface to the Eighth Report to prove that the Common Pleas was a Court before the Magna Charta of King John for that these matters are in time before that Charter but these Justices were no other than Ministers to the Curia Regis They were not such Justices as now make that Court all Common Pleas being now appropriated to their Judicature For the Writs before that Charter were returnable coram me vel Justitia mea Glanvil l. 1. cap 6. but after that Charter they were returnable coram Justiciariis meis apud Westmonasterium Bracton l. 2. cap. 32. But before this all Common Pleas were adjudged in the Curia Regis and that Court did send down the Cause to such as did attend that Court to receive its References By Magna Charta cap. 11. it was provided Communia placita non sequantur Curiam nostram sed teneantur in aliquo certo loco And now Writs were made returnable there the Common Pleas were taken out of the Jurisdiction of the Curia Regis one Judicature was appointed for all Causes between the Subjects and one place of Attendance for Litigants By this Provision Justice was administred without Noise and Tumult the Administration of it committed to men of Skill and to such who might be answerable for their Judgments and from whom it might be appealed But after Magna Charta made by King John and confirmed by H. 3 9. the Authority continued of the Justitia or capitalis Justiciarius to him was the resort for Writs from whence all Judicial Authority was still derived He did direct and bound the Justice of the Court of Common Pleas by such Formula's as were allowed in the Curia Regis where the Chancellor and his Colledge of Clerks did attend for the forming of Writs according to the nature of the Complaint with the Allowance of that Court but the Authority of this Court ceasing and the Office of this great Justiciary about the end of H. 3. we find in the Statutes of Glouc. 6 E. 1. c. 7. Laws for a Writ of Entry to be granted to the Reversioner where Tenant in Dower Aliens in Fee though her Alienation was a Forfeiture of that Estate at Common Law But it seems there had been no such Writ yet formed and the Chancellor had no such Power of forming a new Writ That Statute provides that in that Case there shall be a Writ of Entry thereof made in Chancery which is called A Writ of Entry in casu proviso And for that Power might not be wanting in the Chancellor to issue out new Writs where no Writs before formed were fitted to the Case So that Writs in Cases of like reason had been granted by W. 2. cap. 24. it was provided quotiescunque evenerit in Cancellaria quod in uno casu reperitur Breve in consimili casu cadente simili indigente remedio concordent Clerici de Cancellaria in Brevi faciendo Whereas in the full Authority of the Court of the Curia Regis no Right could have failed of a Remedy For Jura sunt matres Actionum But Derivative Authorities are always stricti Juris no Rights are now remediable but where they are in a Parity of Reason or Analogy with such Rights as had received relief in the time of that Great and Original Judicature So inconvenient are those Reformations that reform by pulling down Want of Authority to do Right is a greater Fault in Government than the allowance of a Power that may be abused to Wrong and Oppression But this is the true reason why we have so many Causes irremediable at Common Law petitioning for relief at this day in our Court of Chancery though if the Statute of Westm 2. before-mentioned were well improved the Defects of our Law would not be so shameful and notorious By what hath been said it appears that the Common Pleas was not an Original Court or a Court of ordinary Jurisdiction in the First Constitution of the Government and such it remains and continues to this time For that Court cannot proceed to Judgment in any Cause without an Original Writ out of Chancery though a late Statute makes their
pleaded in Bar upon which the Defendant will be certainly relieved in Chancery may notwithstanding it hath not heretofore be hereafter allowed in our law-Law-Courts we should be in a great measure restored to our easie expedite cheap and certain Justice which the Methods of our Common law-Law-Courts hath most excellently provided until a Parliament sometime or other may consider whether it be not fit to take it quite down by inabling Courts of Law to do true Right in all Causes that shall come before them For nothing renders the Chancery tolerable but the mo exemplary Virtue and Great Endowments of our present Lord Chancellor in which he is not like to have a Successor But to return to the Curia Regis it was not only the great Judicature of the Nation formally but it was also materially our Parliament too That this Curia Regis was not without any more the Parliament of these times is evident first that the Curia Regis was summoned by a general Writ of Summons directed to the Sheriffs in this Form viz. Rex Vicecomiti Northamptoniae c. praecipimus tibi quod summoneri facias Archiepiscopos Episcopos Comites Barones Abbates Priores Milites Liberos homines qui de nobis tenent in Capite c. Rot. Claus 26 H. 3 M. 7. Dorso This must necessarily be this Curia Regis in Distinction to a Parliament For that in the Grand Charter of King John made in the last year of his Reign it was granted that Ad habendum Commune Concilium Regni de auxilio assidendo aliter quà m in tribus praedictis casibus i. e. Those cases of Aid to make the eldest Son a Knight to marry the eldest Daughter and of Ransom and de Scutagiis assidendis faciemus summoneri Archiepiscopos Episcopos Abbates Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas nostras Et praeterea faciemus summoneri in generali per Vicecomites Ballivos nostros omnes alios qui in capite tenent de nobis At present we make no other use of this Grand Charter than to prove it a distinctive mark of a Parliament where the Summons are personal to the Bishops Earls and the greater Barons This Charter of King Johns declares the ancient usage of summoning the greater Barons by special Summons to them severally directed for that the Kings before him as Sir Henry Spelman in his Glossary p. 80. Propter crebra bella simultates quas aliquando habuêre cum his ipsis majoribus suis Baronibus alios etiam eorum interdum omitterent aegrè hoc ferentes Proceres Johannem adegêre sub magno sigillo Angliae pacisci ut Archiepiscopos Episcopos Comites majores Barones Regni sigillatim per Literas summoneri faceret By which it was provided that all the Barons should have pro more Summons to the Parliament that non of those great Barons should want his several Summons and they had anciently several Summons for in a general Summons no body was excluded By which it doth appear that the Council at Northampton wherein Thomas of Becket was brought in judgment was a Parliament and not the Curia Regis for that the Bishops had their several Writs of Summons which appears in that Fitz Stephens tells us as matter of observation that Thomas of Canterbury had not his Writ of Summons but was cited as a Criminal to answer which we before observed And this was but necessary that when the Tenents in capite or Barons which principally at least made the Parliament were to be consulted about some arduous Affairs that they should have notice and a solemn intimation thereof and their presence required and enjoyned by Writs to them particularly and personally directed Besides that it was agreeable to all the forms of Government then in use to have their ordinary and extraordinary Council For Omnes Germanicae Originis Reges atque Imperatores duplici Concilio antiquitùs utebantur altero statario qui Senatus dicitur ad res quotidianas altero evocato concilium aut conventus ordinum ad res momenti majoris as Grotius assures us Neither can it be denied by any man of modesty who hath heard any thing of the state of our Government before the Conquest and that knows that many ancient Burroughs send Burgesses to Parliament by Prescription and will consider the Records produced by Mr. Petit in his very learned and elaborate Book called The Ancient Right of the Commons of England to prove the Right of ancient Burroughs to send Members to Parliament who represent them but that such though not Suiters to the Curia Regis were Members de jure of the great Council of Parliament But the truth is they are not mentioned in any Record or History of any Parliament from the beginning of the Conquerours Reign to the end of Henry 3. as a distinct part of the Parliament of England their Numbers and Qualities were little and mean of no consideration in comparison to that great Body of the Baronage that constituted our Parliaments in that time but our Parliaments seem by the style used in Histories and Records to be onely the Baronage of England William the First in the fourth year of his Reign Consilio Baronum suorum saith Hoveden pag. 343. fecit summoneri per universos Consulatus Angliae Anglos nobiles sapientes sua lege eruditos ut eorum jura consuetudines ab ipsis audiret Those who were returned shewed what the Customs of the Kingdom were which with the assent of the same Barons were for the most part confirmed in that Assembly which was a Parliament of that time saith Mr. Selden Titles of Honour pag. 701. Amongst the Laws of Hen. 1. published by Mr. Abraham Whelock cap. 2. I find thus Forestas communi consensu Baronum in manu mea retinui sicut pater meus eas habuit And after Lagam Regis Edwardi vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus pater meus emendavit consilio Baronum suorum The Parliament is styled Commune Concilium gentis Anglorum and at the same time Commune Concilium Baronum and also Clerus Populus Matth. Paris fol. 52 53 54. And this is sometimes called Communitas for that it represents the whole people and involves their consent Which appears by 48 H. 3. Pars unica M. 8. D. Haec est forma pacis à Domino Rege Domino Edwardo filio suo Praelatis Proceribus omnibus Communitate Regni Angliae communiter concorditer approbata And that Communitas Regni hath no other sense than commune concilium Regni and used as a comprehensive term of them that made it is evident for that it is said in the second Record Si videntur communitati Praelatorum Baronum And again Per consilium communitatis Praelatorum Baronum Further Magnates Vniversitas Regni sometimes used for the Parliament Matth Paris 659,666 And after King John's Charter wherein it was
and Officials to whom Custom hath given some Powers and Authoririty which cannot be check'd and controul'd by the Bishops themselves they are not to account neither are they answerable for the Lay-Zeal that hath made the Condition of Excommunicants so very afflictive For whatever some men please to think the Laity have out-done the Ecclesiasticks in the Excesses of intemperate Zeal as they are most apt and prone by their Ignorance to Superstition No man can pass under the Admonitions of the Church and be suspended from the Holy Mysteries until he hath made Satisfaction for his disorderly walking or Spiritual Pride in breaking Order but he is presently given up by the Laity to Satan I mean he suffers beyond the first Intention of the Church in her Discipline Severities enacted by the Law of the State which if reversed by that Authority that established them and a civil Process were enacted for the Ecclesiastical Courts in Causes of a Temporal Nature which are appointed by Law to their cognizance I persuade my self we should hear of no more Complaints against them in the Exercise of the Power of the Keys For we observe that they exercise the Power of the Keys with deference to the Secular Magistrates They never presume to excommunicate the Prince least they should thereby lessen his Authority and shock the Government For that all Government is established by the Honor and Reverence of the Governor according to that Saying of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dissolution of Government doth easily follow the Contempt of the Governor As Kings are not subject to Penal Laws nor to be coerced by Penalties So true it is also what Balsamo hath noted ad 12 Canonem Synod Ancyranae Imperatoriâ unctione penitentiam tolli Neither do they presume in Reverence to the King to excommunicate his Counsellors and Ministers of State and Justice For so it was declared amongst other of the Avitae consuetudines of this Realm by the Assize of Clarendon Nullus qui de Rege teneat in Capite nec aliquis dominicorum ministrorum ejus excommunicetur nisi prius Dominus Rex conveniatur In which our Bishops are agreable to the Ancients Hildebert Cenoman after Bishop of Tours who lived about the eleventh Century says he Apud Serenissimum Regem opus est exhortatione potius quam increpatione Concilio quam praeceptis doctrinâ quam virgâ Ivo Bishop of Chartres in his Apology for communicating Gervasius saith thus Quos culpatorum Regia Potestas aut in gratiam benignitatis receperit aut mensae suae participes fecerit eos etiam Sacerdotum populorum conventus suscipere in Ecclesiastica Communione debebit ut quod principalis pietas recipit nec à Sacerdotibus Dei alienum habeatur Thus while the Bishops are not guilty of mean and unfaithful flatteries they do not participate of the pride of the Bishops of Rome or the irreverence and sawciness of a Presbyterian Consistory against their Princes and Governours Neither do they call up any criminal cause originally to their examination but pronounce the sentence of Excommunication on such onely as first are civilly convict of a crime save that matters of Incontinency are by the Common Law submitted to their Censure for that by the venerable gravity of the Judge and by the more private examination of such offences the modesty of the Nation is best preserved which is a surer defensative against the rifeness of such crimes perhaps than the sharpest punishments If they do excommunicate any man without a just cause or do not absolve the Excommunicate when he hath made his satisfactions the Bishop is compellable by the Authority of the Kings Courts to assoil the man under the pain of having his Temporalities seized into the Kings hands though he is not restored without the Episcopal Absolution For it is fit they should finally judge in their own proper Province and they must not they cannot relax the Laws of Christ nor administer the power of the Keys of binding and losing by any other measures for any power on earth But against this power of the Kings Courts they do not dispute or declare but have recognized it by their submission and they can submit to the penalties without complaining of this civil constitution Nay in the general order they approve it though in a particular case perhaps they do not because they cannot obey Our Bishops do not encroach any Temporal Authority in ordine ad spiritualia that stale pretence by which the Bishop of Rome hath arrived to his exorbitant power and by which the Scotch Presbyters would have acquired the like over Kings and Governours Their Authority always administers to and assists but never thwarts or contradicts the Temporal They have accommodated their power of the Keys to the vindication of our established Government against the attempts of Arbitrary Power to which their Allegeance to the King and the regard of the publick Peace did oblige them For such Attempts are mostly the ruin of those that make them always bring the Government it self into the greatest danger and sometimes prove the ruin both of the Government and the Nation This was required of them as an indispensible duty they being a principal part of the Government and the present Bishops Successours to all their Rights have no reason to decline their example if they have the like cause The Bishops anciently were sturdy opposers of King John when he designed to put this Kingdom into vassallage to the Pope and thereupon he writes to the Pope thus as followeth In conspectu paternitatis vestrae humiliamus ad gratias multiplices prout meliùs scimus possumus exhibendas pro cura sollicitudine quam ad desensionem nostram Regni nostri Angliae paterna vestra benevolentia indesinenter apponit licèt duritia Praelatorum Angliae inobedientia impediant vestrae provesionis effectum Pat. 17 Joannis R. M. 15. as I find it related by Mr. Petit in his book entituled The ancient Right of the Commons of England asserted About the 24 H. 3. Edmund then Archbishop of Canterbury at a Synod held at Westminster the King being present Candelis acceptis projectis ac extinctis Chartam Libertatum violantes vel sinistrè interpretantes excommunicantur Mat. Paris p. 151. About 13 years after viz. in 37 H. 3. Boniface then Archbishop of Canterbury the sentence of Excommunication is again repeated against those Qui Ecclesiasticas Libertates vel antiquas Regni Consuetudines in Chartis communium Libertatum de Foresta concessas quascunque arte vel ingenio violaverunt Fleta l. 2. c. 42. Dors Claus 37 H. 3. membr 9. Additament ad Mat. Paris p. 117. Which Sentence of Excommunication was ratified and confirmed in a Parliament held that year as followeth Noverint universi quòd Dominus Rex Angliae illustris Comes Norfolk Mareschallus Angliae H. Comes Hereford Essex J. Comes de Warewico Petrus à Sabaudia ceterÃque magnates Angliae
AN ARGUMENT FOR THE Bishops Right In Judging in CAPITAL CAUSES IN PARLIAMENT For their RIGHT unalterable to that Place in the GOVERNMENT that they now enjoy With several Observations upon the Change of our English Government since the Conquest To which is added a Postscript being a Letter to a Friend for Vindicating the Clergy and rectifying some mistakes that are mischievous and dangerous to our Government and Religion By THO. HUNT Esquire In Turbas Discordias pessimo cuique plurima vis Pax quies bonis artibus indigent Tacit. Hist l. 4. LONDON Printed for Thomas Fox at the Angel and Star in Westminster-Hall 1682. THE PREFACE THis Argument for the Bishops Right of judging in Capital Causes in Parliament for their being one of the three States of the Realm and that their Right is unalterable by Law was written above two years since and prepared for the Press time enough to be made publick against an expected Session of Parliament in October 1679. But the Parliament being prorogued from that time until January the Author was willing to respite the Publication to advise with his second thoughts and again to review what he had written in a case of this weight and moment and the rather for that he had but a short time allowed him for its composure Since that there has been published by an excellent person a Book in vindication of their Right of judging called The Grand Question sufficient to give satisfaction if the world were just and impartial and disposed to make right Judgment in the Cause It may well be reasonably expected that Christian People should not be only just but favourable to any pretence of a Christian Bishop to any secular trust that does not lessen the dignity of the Office and seems unworthy of his Character which as it exempts him from mean and sordid offices and affairs of an inferior and more private concernment so it commends him to the Government of matters of a more publick and universal influence such as require the most improved wisdom and learning and a noble virtue It seems to me most unreasonable that those that are the great and principal Expounders of the Christian Law which gives Law to all Laws and instructs men to discharge their several Offices both publick and private that those who are the great Guides of our Consciences and by whose Directions and Institutions we form our Judgments in the greatest intricacies and doubts that perplex humane affairs that the Guides of a Religion which is formed all to life and practice for the making Governments equal and private men good and obedient which is little else but an Obligation to Justice and Charity and principally pursues that which is the end design and whole business of Government I say it seems to me most absurd and incongruous that this Order of men at any time ought to be shut out of that Council and Court where Laws are made and Rules given for the Government of a Christian Common-wealth where the most difficult and intricate causes are to be heard and determined and where an unlimited power remains of censuring the Actions of the greatest men and the administration of publick affairs and the safety of the Nation are consulted which cannot be long preserved but by pursuing the dictates of a wise Religion Such is the Christian Religion if any other we should dishonour it by comparing it to the best Paganism became despicable and abandoned soon after its publication Yet Tully in his Oration ad Pontifices magnifies the wisdom of the Romans as Divine in advancing the Pagan Priests to the highest places in their Common-wealth by which the Common-wealth he saith was preserved Cum multa Divinitùs Pontifices à Majoribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt tum nihil praeclarius quam quod vos eosdem Religionibus Deorum immortalium summae Reipublicae praeesse voluerunt Vt amplissimi clarissimi Cives Rempublicam bene gerendo Religiones sapientèr interpretando Rempublicam conservarent Such an Opinion more duly and with better reason our Ancestors conceived of the advantage that might accrue to the Nation by advancing the Prelates of the Church into the Civil Government Thereupon they have made them necessary to it and framed the Government in a sort to depend upon them and left it scarce able to maintain it self without them in its present constitution The Temporal Barons will soon find themselves unable to maintain their own dignity and to sustain that province that is allotted to them in the Government unassisted with the Interest and authority of the Prelates the Spiritual Barons a mighty Power if they be as they ought to be of venerable esteem with the people If the present Bishops are not all so happy as to possess such an esteem we know what cause to assign for the same viz. the unhappy Schism that hath too long continued in our Church hath for its own Justification after they are almost sham'd out of the scruples which first caused the separation sought occasions against the Persons of the Bishops and rather than they will want faults to complain of the Order it self must be loaded with all the faults of all the Bishops in all Countries and Ages and they adventure now to disparage their persons for the sake of their office But sure it is a folly that can fall upon no people but such who by the evils they feel or fear are vext out of their understanding to suppress any Office that is necessary to any Common-wealth in any form of Government for the faults of the Officers for the time being But too true it is that a form of Government while established may be so utterly misunderstood by the most when it is not or not duly administred that a true and exact description of it and a discourse of the Offices and Functions of the several parts of the Government would be taken by them for some Vtopian Common wealth or no better please them than a description of the strength of an impregnable Fort once the Security of the Nation when invested by the Enemy A Lecture of a learned Physician of the Vsus Partium will not give sight to a blind Eye nor motion to a withered hand and no body is warmed or comforted by a painted fire But God be thanked we are not yet destitute of the benefits of a good Government Another cause I apprehend may much lessen the Bishops in the esteem of the People and make them want that Reputation that is necessary to every Governour in proportion to his Charge is their manner of promotion The Ministers of State whose business it ought to be to understand the true Characters of men that are preferred to that Office are often mistaken however in this Course they seem not to be promoted for their own Merit but at the pleasure of the great Courtiers and at best the Ministers of State can do no more than recommend to
Peer in Parliament Of what consideration decency can be Chap. XII Their Sitting in Judgment not so much against the reason of the Canon as their assent to Bills of Attainder which was never condemned And the Nature of an Act of Attainder Chap. XIII Over-ruling a Plea of pardon doth not condemn the Criminal and therefore they may judge of such Plea Though they are not to be present at the making of a Judgment of Condemnation Quousque perveniatur in Judicio further explain'd And that which follows upon another thing is not always caus'd by it XIV Bishops one of the three Estates of all the Realms of Christian Europe And how they came to be advanc't to that dignity and trust The convenience of their not being divided in a distinct house from Lay Peers They cannot be detruded from that dignity no more than the Government can be chang'd which no Law can do Six Bishops of the twelve Peers of France and their Aristocratical power That all Governments are lawful that are lawfully establish't Chap. XV. William the Conqueror agreeable to all the Princes of that time put Bishops under Tenure by Baronies and all Baronies at that time feudal with the reason of his Policy and the inconvenience it produced Of the Curia Regis which consisted of the Baronage in which the Capitalis Justitiarius Angliae did preside Of the administration of Justice in that time And that the Baronage of England upon special Writs of Summons became a Parliament An account how all our present Courts derived out of it Of the Court of the High Steward and of the Court of Chancery and the reasons of its rise and growth and how inconvenient it is And how we recovered out of the inconveniencies of that Constitution of Parliament by representatives in the time of H. 3. And that this it being allowed can give no countenance to those that are desirous to change our present and better Constitution That in all this Change the Bishops suffered no diminuion But when the ancient reason of Baronage failed they are after to be considered under the new reason of Baronage Chap. XVI The remembrance of the old reason of Baronage became a prejudice in the Judges upon which T. Furnival Plea allowed that he held not per Baroniam An Entail of Baronies with lands after allowed The reason of Nobility changed and no man now Noble by his Acres Many men Summoned to Parliament and yet not Noble No prejudice to the immovable Right of Bishops to have Summons to Parliament and that objection answered Kings may erect new successive Nobility in Clergy-men That Bishops are of a distinct sort of Nobility and under that and other reasons they are considered as a distinct State Chap. XVII Of the three States which make the Government under the King that he is none of them The Objections against this answered And the reasons of their being distinct and the several Offices and Expectances in the Government that make them so That the several Orders of Peers make but one Baronage and in that there is a great trust and honour greater belongs to Bishops than Lay Barons in our present constitution Their Character and qualifications commend them to the highest trust and render them fittest Judges Chap. XVIII The Reason of Tryals per Pares and that the Bishops are competent upon that reason in Parliament though not so fit to be of the High Stewards Court The Law of M. Charta not Lex scripta Bishops ought to be tryed by their Peers How that Right came to be discontinued and that in Parliament they ought still to be Tryed by their Peers Chap. XIX The unreasonableness of maintaining an Opinion upon a single Objection against a matter evidently proved that Questions of this nature should be considered with candor and not opposed with meer possibilities Chap. XX. Several alterations in the Government since the Conquest that the Alteration in what concerns the Baronage the Bishops Right is to be considered in analogy to the Change That changes of Government for the better cannot again be altered but our zeal is required to defend the Government made better and they deserve ill that go about to reduce us to our old mischiefs by their Antiquity Chap. XXI The advantage of the Change in the constitution of our Parliament in the change of granting Subsidies And how the Lords are bound by a Bill of Aids Chap. XXII The beneficial Change that hath been made by the clause praemunientes in the Bishops Writs of Summons to Parliament which gives Authority for the Convocation By this we are discharged of Provincial Councils and Canons of the Church kept distinct from Laws of the State The Church kept in peace from rending Questions and Religion is conducted not by Laws but by Canons not force but perswasion which commends our Episcopal Government Chap. XXIII The danger we avoided of having our Baronage of England ambulatory and fixing of it in Families and an indefectible Succession in which the Right of the Peer-age of Bishops is established Chap. XXIV The advantages the Adversaries seek to their cause by aspersing the Bishops Remembrance of all the faults in all times committed by any of the Order that many of those faults are principally due to the Papal Vsurpation and the neglect of Kings to defend the Rights of their own Bishops and are all the Vitia Temporum the times of Popery Chap. XXV How inculpably our Bishops have been in administration of their Ecclesiastical Authority how faithful in their Temporal Trust and Asserters of the Rights of the people They have not been irreverent to Kings nor have they encroached any power in Civil matters in ordine ad spiritualia That the power that they challenge is meerly spiritual and they challenge nothing of Divine Right but the exercise of their Ministry which they cannot lay aside Mr. Selden's Arguments for Erastianism answered The Church of England doth not tye her self always to think and enjoyn as she doth at present The moderation of the Church in opinions her apprehensions of Schism just and great They are not answerable for the ejectment of the Nonconformists nor for the scandalous Lives of their Clerks nor their Chancellors nor abuse of Excommunications Why matters of Incontinency are committed to their censures They have exercised the power of the Keys against the Infractors of M. Charta and how it hath been guarded with the denunciations of the Church we have reason to expect as much from our Bishops to support the Government of Laws Chap. XXVI We have as much reason that the Protestant Bishops should be as constant to the Reformed Religion as Popish Bishops obstinate for Popery An Apology for their Vnanimity in Voting Their dependance not so great upon the Crown as to oblige them to disserve their Prince The King bestows nothing upon them but what is the Churches the great expectation the Government hath of their fidelity and performances That which advanced them must
continue them great The contempt of the Bishops and Clergy the great cause of our evil State at present out of which we cannot recover but by an excellent Clergy and a high esteem of them with the people The Postscript ERRATA PAge 13. Line 18. read they p. 15. l. 15. r. Taxeotam Buleutam p. 19. l. 9. r. Blaesensis p. 23. l. 4. r. can p. 44. l. ult dele as p. 51. l. 22. to but add not l. ult to usage add other p. 57. l. 29. r. hucusque p. 130. dele in p. 165. l. 8. r. here p. 167. r. interpolatis p. 180. l. 3. dele them to r. send l. 29. to fit add to mention p. 206. l. 29. r. injurious p 240. l. ult dele near POSTSCRIPT P. 32. l. 1. r. he made his natural Sons first noble l. 7. r. Eufame p. 34. l. 1. r. is not subject p. 42. l. 25. r. decedents p. 45. l. 30. r. he p. 46. l. 8. r. more cruel p. 58. l. 18. r. futility p. 59. l 26. r. being What else is escaped the Reader is desired to correct by reason of the Authors absence from the Press The Argument CHAP. I. IN this question the Constitution of the Government is concerned and the Right of a most principal constituent part and that in a matter of the highest Trust which if truly a Right can be no more relinquished as the Nature of this Right is than a trust can be betrayed a duty and a Right denyed to be paid and performed or the Constitution of the Government changed For of such a Nature doth appear to be the Right in pretence and Controversy of the Lords the Bishops to have judgment in the House of Lords in Capital Causes For by their being made Barons they owed their judgments in such Causes as a service to the King at first by their Tenures in Baronage for though since they are become Barones Rescriptitii or Barons by Writ their duty is not abated And besides the Cognisance of such Causes become their own Right being a part of and belonging to the dignity and office of a Baron And it likewise became an appointment in the Government in which the whole Community have their Interest for that is principally provided for and procured in all Governments whose greatest concern it is to have Justice done against all Criminals and to have great and wise just and good men in the Administrations of Justice and other great offices of the Government The people of England did anciently understand the benefit of this Constitution when nothing but the Baronage of England the Lords Spiritual and Temporal could resist the Torrent of Arbitrary Government And it may be easily understood too that nothing but the Baronage of England is able to support the Throne For that Monarchy unless so supported is the weakest and most precarious and dependent Government in the World except it be supported with an Army and turned into a Tyranny That the Throne should be established by Natural and gentle provisions and the Government fixed is every mans greatest interest If the Lords Temporal have more under command and a larger Potestas jubendi yet the Lords Spiritual out-did them Authoritate suadendi and had more voluntary obedience The Lords Spiritual have several Advantages as they are Novi homines men chosen out of Thousands for an excellent Character and Spirit and need not want any accomplishments if duely chosen and preferred for the discharge of the greatest Provinces that are to be managed by wisdome and integrity and therefore they cannot be well wanted in any Ministries in the Government to which they are bespoken and have a legal designation Since this Authority by the very opening of the Cause doth appear probably belonging to the Bishops and if so that it cannot without breach of their duty that they owe to all the parts of the Government and the whole Community depart from it it may surely be insisted upon disputed and maintained by them without blame or imputation But so unhappily it falls out that the very disputing and contending of this Matter by reason of the unseasonableness of the dispute and the delays that were thereby given to the most important business of the Nation to the great hazard as some think of the summ of Affairs was very mischievous to the publick And now both parties are charging one another with all the mischiefs and the delays that this Controversy hath given to publick proceeding or can with any probability be thought to have occasioned And there are not men wanting on either side within doors and without that are forward enough to charge all those mischiefs as deserved by their oppoposite party which may eventually happen hereupon Who sees not how fatal this Controversy is like to prove to one or other of the Litigants and to the Government in consequence if this Cause cannot be duely heard and considered and be determined upon its own Merits without undue Censures and Reflections on either side Since at last the contenders themselves must be the Judges and give judgment in the Cause or it can never be quieted and have an end I am sure passion is no equal Judge and Arbiter and men angred and provoked have not the same sentiments of the same things as when calm and serene And because there is no common Judicature it ought to be considered by both parties with all equality of judgment and an exact pondering and weighing of the reasons offered on either side for that otherwise it can never be fairly decided but must for ever remain a Controversy to the immediate overthrow and destruction of the Government or over-ruled by the force and Power of a most dangerous consequence in the course of time to the Government and will be a laying of the Axe to the very root of the Tree and will put the Government it self into a State of War between the several constituent parts of it and given an occasion for one part to usurp upon another until the tone and frame of Goverment become changed and at last fall into ruine I am very well aware of the gravity of the Question and its importance the high honour and regard that is due to the House of Commons in Parliament what commendations are due to them in their persons for their zeal and endeavour by all means if it be possible to save the Nation Religion and Government And what a great Capacity that House in its very constitution in the first designation of the Government and by their mighty growth in power and interest in the Course of time have in procuring the publick good and that they cannot have any interest divided from the common Weal I must do them right and with the greatest clearness and satisfaction I determine with my self that their zeal for public Justice against unpardonable offences in their judgment and a prejudicate opinion they had conceived of the Spiritual Lords unindifferency how duely will appear by
and by gave the first occasion to this Question which was the true causa suasoria of their denyal to the Bishops a Right of Succession and judgment in that noble question Whether a Treason of State can be pardoned And that put them upon the search of Precedents an Oracle that will alwayes give a Response agreeable to the Enquirrer and Consulter For I am sure there is nothing so absurd and irregular that rude Antiquity and the miscarriages in humane Affairs in length of time will not furnish a Precedent for And these Precedents such as they were reported which we are hereafter to consider by their diligent Members became a causa justifica and the matter in pretence to warrant their proceedings that a great reason of State did seem to them to require And now whether the Lords Spiritual can be Judges in Capital Causes in Parliament is become a Question Though the Bishops Right to judge in capital Causes in Parliament seem to be clear and materially demonstrated from what is visible and obvious to the most vulgar observation of the constitution of the Government every body knows how the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal are placed in the stile of Acts of Parliament and in the Heralds order in the House of Lords The Arch-Bishops give first their Votes even before Dukes The Suffragan Diocesans after the Viscounts and before the Barons And in the same order did the Bishops stand in the publick Census in the times of the Saxons as may be seen in Sir Henry Spelman his Glossary in the word Alderman The great Authority Power and Rule that was intended the Prelates should have in all the great concernments of the Kingdom that were to make the business of the House of Lords may be best understood from the high place that hath been alwayes alotted to their Order in that House for Publick and civil honours are alwayes appointed and adjusted to the dignity of the Ministers offices and Services that are to be performed to the Government Such a solecism was never enacted by an Order of State That those persons that were less in power and under abatement and restraint of Authority should be preferred to those in place that had plenary power in the same Courts It is well known too That the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was originally honoured with the first Writ of Summons to Parliament Since the Conquest there never was an English Bishop that had not his several Writ of Summons to Parliament Though the number of Temporal Barons have been reduced and many of the Regular Barons dismist of that honour for that their office was nothing in the Church and nothing but the possessions of the Abbots preferred them to that State Nothing seems too big or too high for so great and publick a character of the Bishops or out of the intendment of their trust that can ever be the business of a Parliament The greater the matters are that are agitated there the more necessary is the assistance of the Bishops for he that in any affair is most trusted is to be most concerned and by how much the affairs are of greatest moment in the same proportion they are more strictly obliged and required to assist in the management thereof We all know what sort of criminal prosecutions those are that are made in Parliament and what great consideration they are of that they are alwayes the symptoms of a very sickly State and the results of very great disorders in the Common-Wealth In these Cases if in any the Lords Spiritual cannot be wanted The neglecting to interpose in any one single prosecution that is Parliamentary hath proved the occasion That their Right of Session is now brought into Question For to speak the truth it is not very consistent with the Reverence that is naturally due to the Prelates to think that a Trust and Authority of so high a nature should be committed to them and they should at any time find reasons to neglect it But for what omissions they have been guilty of though upon a general consideration without examining the particular Causes and Reasons men not friendly to their Order may thus censure them we shall make a fair Apology as we shall meet with them and as they fall in to be considered in this Discourse We are now to give you some account how this comes now to be a question for the very questioning thereof makes some prejudice against the Right and there is scarce any thing so certain and true in Nature but if once put under dispute that can recover again into a general certainty and assurance It hath scarce escaped any mans observation that hath been acquainted with the business of the Courts of Law That the greatness of the pretender and the value of the Interest and Right in pretence doth cause a point of Law to be contended which would never else have been stirred especially if the Right be invidiously possessed by another Besides these three considerations which are foreign to the true Right I protest there is nothing to my apprehension of any moment offered in Print to continue it a Question I find Two Books Printed upon this Question both of them tending to disgrace the Bishops Right of judging in capital Causes in Parliament One in Octavo called A Letter of a Gentleman to his Friend shewing the Bishops are not to be Judges in Parliament in Cases Capital He begins with a Preface containing some matters and reasons against Bishops intermedling at all in secular affairs and after that he tells us That the Law of Parliament is best declared by usage gives us several precedents wherein he supposes the Bishops absent and concludes they were so for want of Right and Authority to be there And to give some Authority to his Precedents of omission as he would have them He tells us of the Assize of Clarendon an Act of Parliament made 10 Hen. 2 that excluded the Bishops in such Causes and of a Protestation made by all the Bishops in the 11 R. 2. whereby they renounce all Judgement of Right in such Causes upon the obligation they were under to the Canon Law and to render it impossible they should have any such Right and to make them incompetent Judges he adventures to say and prove after his manner That the Bishops are not Peers and to prepare the way for their remove out of that House he adventures to broach an opinion That the Bishops are not one of the three States nor an essential part of the Government There is another Book in Folio called A discourse of the Peerage and Jurisdiction of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament This Author pursues the same design upon the same grounds with some peculiar reasonings of his own If therein I give him satisfaction in what he hath peculiar without mentioning distinctly of them I am sure he will thank me for it But we will consider the Octavo's Preface examine his Precedents and shew that they are
the Jurisdiction of Bishops Novel 83. he decrees the like for Clerks as well for matters Civil as for Ecclesiastical Crimes reserving others to his officers and furthermore in case the Bishops cannot or will not take cognisance of them he refers them to his Magistrates Nay the Emperours proceeded further and did give Jurisdiction to Bishops not only over Clerks but also over Laymen Constantine the Great whose Law the Canonists ascribe to Theodosius made a very favourable constitution in behalf of Bishops whereupon he gives them the Cognisance of all civil Causes betwixt Lay-men upon the bare demand of one of the Parties albeit the other did not consent unto it in such sort as the Magistrates are bound to desist from the Cognisance of it as soon as one of the parties shall require to be dismist and sent thither whether it be at the beginning or middle or end of the suit Arcadius and Honorius derogating from this Law will have it to be by the joint consent of both parties and that by way of Arbitrement The same Emperours together with Theodosius do ordain That there shall be no appeal from the Episcopal Judgment and that their sentence shall be put in execution by the Serjeants and Officers of the Judges The two last Justinian would have to be observed for as for that of Constantine he did not insert it in his Books which Gratian hath confest in his decrees and whereas in the Code of Theodosius the inscription of the Title runs thus De Episcopali Judicio Justinian instead of it hath put De Episcopali audientia to shew that it is not properly any Jurisdiction that is bestowed upon them but a friendly and arbitrary composition to abridge process After this the Emperor Charles the Great in his Capitulary renewed the Law of Constantine and gave the same jurisdiction therein contained unto all the Bishops repeating the same Law word for word which the Popes have not forgot in their Decrees where they have inserted the Constitution of Constantine under the name of Theodosius just as Justinian did in his Books the Responses and Commentaries of Lawyers to give them the strength of a Law But I know there is a Question made by very Learned men Whether that Law of Constantine is not supposititious But whether it be or be not we have alledged enough without it to prove that Christian Emperors and the ancient Christian Church was not of the opinion of this Author and that his Citations so much as they are true are nothing to his purpose The cause or reason of those two Laws expressed in the Laws are For that the authority of Sacred Religion invents and finds out many means of allaying Suits which the Tyes and Forms of captious Pleadings will not admit of That the judgments of Bishops are true and uncorrupted That this is the choaking of those malicious seeds of Suits To the intent that poor men intangled in the long and lasting snares of tedious Actions may see how to put a speedy end to those unjust demands which were proposed to them But the Pope his Decretals the Court of Rome and other Ecclesiastical Courts are of old complained of as the source of Iniquity and injustice and of all the shufflings and tricks that ever could be invented in matter of pleading and that all Papal Christendome hath groaned miserably under them and I wish that we may never hear duly of any such complaints of our Ecclesiastical Courts It is worth observing how the Church and Common-wealth did Actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their several interests The Common-wealth endeavour'd to engage Bishops in the highest secular affairs and in their supream Judicatures and so the people would have it not doubting of such administrations as they might fairly expect from the Bishops ability Authority and Religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as she could and so far as she might she used her Restraint only in prohibiting them from medling for their own private gain in Temporal affairs Can. 14. Arles clericus turpis lucri gratia aliquid genus negotii non admittat but they did not take from them all opportunities both of doing good to their people and securing the Secular power of which they became part to their own assistance and without refusing their services to the Prince when required from which practice of the Church the Pope took advantage to put his peremptory restraints upon the Bishops and Clergy from intermedling in Secular affairs to make them the more submitted and dependent upon himself the better to arrive to his Ecclesiastical Monarchy The Dignities and favours that Bishops received at the Courts of Princes was the envy of the Pope and matter of quarrel against them and Petrus Blissensis upon such an occasion makes an Apologie to Pope Alexander the Third in an Epistle writ in the Name of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in defence of the Bishops of Ely Worcester and Norwich who attended then at Court upon the service of the King which because he hath been an Author produced by the other side in this Cause and because what he says for their being admitted into the Councels of Princes contains so many advantages to the Church and State I shall here transcribe Non est novum quod Regum Conciliis intersint Episcopi sicut enim honestate sapientia caeteros antecedunt sic expeditiores efficaciores in Reipub. administratione censentur quia sicut scriptum est minus salubriter disponitur regnum quod non regitur consilio Sapientum in quo notatur eos consiliis regum debere assistere qui sciant velint possint patientibus compati terrae ac populi saluti prospicere erudire adjustitiam Reges imminentibus occursare periculis vitaeque maturioris exemplis informare subditos quadam Authoritate potestativa praesumptionem malignantium cohibere He proceeds in his discourse and brings the examples of Samuel Isaiah Elisha Jehojada Zachary who were Priests and Prophets respectively and yet imployed in Princes Courts and Councels of Kings and adds Vnum noveritis quia nisi familiares Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi supra dorsum Ecclesiae hodie fabricarent peccatores immaniter intolerabiliter opprimeret Clerum praesumptio laicalis then he adds advantages to Religion and policy hereby Istis mediantibus mansuescit circa simplices judicarius rigor admittitur clamor pauperum Ecclesiarum Dignitas erigitu relevatur pauperum indigentia firmatur in Clero libertas pax in populis justitia libere exercetur superbia opprimitur augetur laicorum devotio religio fovetur diriguntur judicia It is well known and I will not be so impertinent as to go about to prove that the chief Ministers of Religion have been the greatest men in Civil Government in all Nations and in all Religions as well as in ours and as certain it is this Author will never find reason or precedent of
Authority or weight enough to perswade the contrary or an alteration therein notwithstanding that complaint which he tells us was made in the 45 of E. 3. fol. by the two Houses Counts Barons and Commons to the King how the Government of the Kingdom had been a long time in the hands of the Clergy Per cet grant mischiefs dammages sont avenuz en temps passe pluis purroit eschire en temps avenir al disherison de la Coronne grant prejudice du Royalme Whereby great mischiefs and damages have happened in times past and more may fall out in time to come to the disherison of the Crown and great prejudice to the Realm And therefore they humbly pray the King that he would imploy Laymen This they had too much reason to desire then when the Pope had advanced his Authority over them and put them under Oaths of Canonical obedience which rendred them less fit to be intrusted in the Government of this Kingdom who were become Subjects of another Empire usurping continually upon us which will never be our Case again if the Bishops can help it CHAP. III. ANd now we proceed to the Precedents of which the Octavo Book principally consists which seem as that Author and the other in Folio would have it to be not only a discontinuance of the Right of the Bishops to judge in Capital Causes but an argumentative proof that they never had any because it can as they say be never proved to be otherwise Immemorial time I confess is a great evidence of the right whether In non user or user and a fair reason to allow or deny the pretence and therefore we will now consider the Precedents As for the argumentative and discoursive parts of those books they will fall in to be answered by way of Objection when we are discoursing and proving the affirmative part of the Question and will best be reproved by being placed near the light of our reasons for establishing the Right of the Prelates If we do not give some satisfaction to these Precedents whatever we shall say I know can signifie no more than an Argument to prove a thing not true which is possible de facto testified by unexceptionable witnesses for such the Precedents will be taken until exceptions are made to their Testimony The Precedents produced by the two Authors are mostly the same only the Octavo hath more than what the Folio Book hath recited The first case that the Octavo produceth against the Lords Spiritual their Right of being Judges in Parliament in Capital Causes is that of Roger Mortimer Earl of March Simon Beresford and others who were no Peers and yet tryed in Parliament and no Bishops present and we agree it probable for his reason because there is mention made of Counts Barons and Peers and Peers being named after Barons could not comprehend the Bishops And because we think it reasonable when the orders of that House are particularly enumerated that the order omitted should be intended absent but we will not allow but that Peers is and so is Grants comprehensive of Bishops Nor will we when the entry is General intend the Bishops absent except he cannot otherwise prove them absent which we mention in the entry once for all as just and common measures between us in this dispute It will appear true what we affirm of the words Peers and Grants by what follows And if we should not insist upon their being present when nothing appears to the contrary we should do wrong to the Cause But to come to the consideration of this Precedent Is this a just Precedent Is not Magna Charta hereby violated Are not the proceedings altogether illegal Here are Commoners tryed by Peers in Parliament It is well known that the high displeasure of the King was concerned and that he did interpose with a plenitude of Power in this particular case against the fundamental constitutions of the Government the greatest crime of this Earl was too much familiarity with the Kings Mother Indignation and Revenge and not Justice formed the Process It was proceeded to condemn him Judicio Zeli upon pretence of the Notoriety of the fact Sir Robert Cotton in his abridgment tells us Anno 4. Ed. 3. That the King charged the Peers who as Judges of the Land by the Kings assent adjudged that the said Roger as a Traytor should be drawn and hanged The Bishops were not present certainly they were none of the Judges that gave Judgment as the King pronounced without Cognisance of the Cause The King had more Honour for their Order than to call then to such Drudgery and service of the Crown The iniquity of the sentence appears by the reversal thereof in Parliament 25 Ed. 3. in which the Original Record is recited Sir Robert Cotton in his Abridgment tells us That this Earl being condemned of certain points whereof he deserved commendation and for other altogether untrue surmises there was a Bill brought into the Lords House for the reversal of the Judgment and it was reverst by Act of Parliament indeed it could not be otherways reverst for no Court can judicially reverse their own Judgment for Error in Law and Judgment in the Lords House being the dernier Resort cannot be repealed but undone it may be by themselves in their legislative Capacity Here saith the Octavo the Bishops were not present at the passing of that Bill but yet the Octavo Gentleman will not pretend that the Bishops are to be excluded in any Acts of Legislation Why therefore was he so willing to impose upon the people so falsely and unrighteously and to produce this as a Precedent against the Bishops Right of Session in matters of that Nature by himself recognized There is nothing can excuse him herein for he is certainly self-condemned of undue Art in thiâ— matter In 20 R. 2. the Case of Sir Thomas Haxey happen'd which the Octavo book page 20 produceth against us He was forsooth condemned in Parliament for that he had preferred a Bill in the House of Commons for regulating the outragious Expences of the Kings House particularly of Bishops and Ladies Haxey was for this tryed and condemned to death for it in Parliament And here appears to be no Bishops and there ought not to have been any for these reasons First that the Bishops were the parties wronged and therefore could not in any fitness give sentence But Secondly if that was not in the Case that that caus'd the process was Royall anger upon a great faction of State in which I believe the Bishops were not engaged made for deposing of Rich. the 2d that was understood by the King to be in acting and promoted by Sir Thomas Haxey by his Bill It was this made the sentence altogether abhorrent from legal justice in matter and form Here was a Tryall of a Commoner by Peers a matter made Treason that did participate nothing of the nature of Treason But the discreet Gentleman
will take notice of nothing that is faulty in this Case but that this proceeding tends to abridge freedom of speech in Parliament which he loved from his youth which we do not blame in him As he did also to talk against Bishops which he cannot depart from when he is old But in the first of Hen. 4. this Judgment of Attainder was repealed and annull'd as he himself tells us Fol. 25. And here the Lords Spiritual were Judges which must be remark't for the honour of their Order that though they were the pars laesa by that fault such as it was yet notwithstanding they concurred readily to the repealing the Judgment But by this it appears that the Bishops did agreeable to their rightful Authority sit in Judgment in Parliament in capital Causes and therefore in consequence because it is a Case of his own production he ought to allow that the Bishops might have had Session in the Repeal of the Attainder of Roger Earl of March if it had been or could have been repealed by Judgment or a judicial Act of the Lords House For will this renownedly wise-man for avoiding of this his own testimony which he hath justly produced though it proves to testify against himself say that the Bishops can be present at repealing of a Judgment of Condemnation but not present at confirming any Doth not it in this proceeding come before them in Judgment and consideration Whether the sentence shall be repealed or affirmed and is not this with a witness a question of blood The Judgment being upon an appeal or review must be final peremptory and decretory and is more a question of blood than the Cause can be reckoned and deem'd to be upon the first Instance Or doth he think fit that there should be two sorts of Judges appointed a hanging Judge and a saving Judge if he doth I am sure he will not be able to find an employment for a just Judge So that I think to all men that can consider we have sufficiently vacated that testimony that the Cases of the Earl March and Haxey's seem'd to give against us and they are fairly come over to our side And we have provided herein sufficiently for the recovering of all men into an indifferency against the Prejudices this Octavo by its great Esteem hath done to their Judgments The Third Precedent is 15 E. 3. That Parliament was declared to be called for the Redress of the breach of the Laws and of the Peace of the Kingdom and as the Octavo hath it Fol. 8. because the Prelates were of opinion that it belonged not properly to them to give Councel about keeping the peace nor punishing such evils they went away by themselves and returned no more saith he but that is out of the Record so ready this Authour in Octavo is to shut them out of the House but I pray would not the Temporal Lords if the King had consulted the Parliament in matters Ecclesiastical have in like manner departed but would such departure of the Temporal Lords exclude them from having any thing to do in the Affairs of the Church Why then are the Bishops treated in their Right so unequally And this must serve for an Answer to the Folio p. 17. where he is very large in reciting Records of process and Proclamation against the Earl of Northumberland agreed only by Lords If a Liturgy or book of Canons were to be established by Law the Bishops certainly would have the forming of them The Octavo saith that Commissions were then framed by the Counts Barons and other Grants and brought into Parliament but no Bishop was present so much as to hear the Commissions read because they were to enquire into all Crimes as well Capital as others And for affirming this for all that can appear to us he only consulted his Will and pleasure like an honest man to the cause he defends for he hath not told us from any Record what the Nature of these Commissions were But we observe that though this Parliament was called for matters of the peace yet the Bishops had their Summons and it was not a Parliament excluso Clero The Bishops it seems upon the opening of the Parliament and the causes of convening modestly it seem'd declared that they were not competent as not perhaps studied in Pleas of the Crown or perhaps had not been so observant in fact of the matters of grievance What harm in all this they that cannot propound may judge of Expedients propounded and so did they for it doth appear by the Record 6 E. 3. N. 3. that the Results of the Temporal Lords were approved in full Parliament by the King Bishops Lords and Commons which the Folio agrees But it seems modesty is a dangerous thing and not to be forward to judge and determine though the matter be not understood may be a good Cause to turn a Judge out of his Office and forfeit his Judicature Besides the principal business of this Parliament was Legislation in which the Prelates have an undisputed Right of Session and may they not advise upon what they make into a Law May not they consider of the matter that is to pass into a Law in all the steps it makes But it is admirable what the Folio Book saith viz. that by this Record it is evident that the Prelates have no judicial power over any personal Crimes which are not Parliamentary I suppose he means Crimes not debated in Parliament This doth very much fortify the foundations and grounds of his discourse What are the grounds of his discourse I shall never be able to find out except it be an over-weening Opinion of himself to meddle with these matters which seem too high for him and to which the reading of my Lords Cooks Institutes and the broken Commentaries of the Law will never render any man competent It s true the Bishops have never any power and Cognizance of any Causes except they are commissionated thereto out of Parliament But as true it is of the Temporal Lords and therefore whatsoever advantage this will do his Cause with all my heart let him take it The next Case produced as a Precedent for them is the Case of Sir William de La Zouch and Sir John Gray for a quarrel in the Kings presence they were both committed to the Tower and after brought into Parliament no Bishops there It is a Case that could not be judged there neither was it but one of them was discharged because no probable matter of offence against him and the other remanded to the Tower I suppose to be proceeded against as the Law required Is this cause I pray to his purpose have not the Prelates judgment in causes of Trespass that properly come before that House by his own Confession And yet the Octavo remarks here that no Bishops were present to judge so much as of a Battery though the Record warrants him to say only an Assault But out of his great
sincerity and to make a Precedent where he could not find one for his turn he foists a Battery into the Case hoping that then the forward Reader would supply the Rest and smell blood in the Case which must be interdicted to a Bishops Cognizance But observe what an aking-tooth he hath against the Bishops Right for he could not but have in his mind what almost immediately after he writes down in his Octavo viz. the Case of Sir John Lee 24 E. 3. and of several persons 50 E. 3. and 51 E. 3. censured in Parliament by Bishops for misdemeanors And he saith well they might which certainly together with the Case of Michael de la Pooll 10 R. 2. he troubled himself to transcribe to make a shew of Number and false musters a sleight that must not pass upon the people and a Stratagem that will never get him any advantage towards a Victory We omitted to consider the Case of Sir William de Thorpe 50 E. 3. as it lies in order in his Book because we thought it more expedite to examine those that spake to the same thing together but now we will examine it The Record of a Judgment of death against him for Buggery was brought into Parliament saith the Octavo in full Parliament saith Sir Robert Cotton and the King caused it to be read before the Grants in Parliament The Bishops saith the Octavo could not be there because this was no imployment for them and thus he proves his cause it was so because it was so And for want of proof concludes he hath a very good Cause But he knows if he would tell us the truth that a full Parliament doth include Bishops that the Bishops are truly Grants and so called that the Bishops could not vanish away at the putting of the question But we should have had a most famous Record of that story and wonderful Accident The Cause of William de Weston and John de Gomenits 1 R. 2. was for traiterously surrendring Towns and Castles in Flanders to the Kings Enemies And the question was whether they behaved themselves well in their defence and did therein like valiant and faithful Commanders Whether the Towns could be preserved against the strength of the Enemies that did attach them Indeed not a very proper question for a Bishop to determine The Examination of the Charge and defence was committed to several Lords Temporal named in the Record But it must be observed though these Lords managed the Cause found the Towns upon Examination not of necessity but willfully delivered and agreed what Judgment should be pronounced against them Yet observe their Answers were put in full Parliament When the Judgment was pronouncing there was likewise sitting a full Parliament which the Octavo doth wilfully omit And the Record further saith that they were brought before the Seigniors in Parliament Friday the 27. of November and again before the said Lords Saturday the 28. of Nov. That all this while in the Record there is no mention of the Names of any particular Lords so that we hear nothing yet in the Record but of a full Parliament Seigniors in Parliament which are the most comprehensive terms and can and do include Bishops and strongly intend them included He that saith all excepts none the Record saith that when the Judgment was to be pronounced Les Seigniors dudit Parliament cestascavoir and then names the Duke of Lancaster Earls of Cambridge March Arundel Warwick Stafford Suffolk Salisbury Northumberland Lord Nevil and Clifford and other Lords Barons and Bannerets being then in Parliament had met and advised upon the matters before These Lords agreed it seems the Judgment for the whole House and it was pronounced in full Parliament and that in the Names and Authority of the whole Parliament Pray let it be observed that when the Record speaks of Seigniors in the first part of it no Lords are named and so all intended when afterwards he mentions the Lords the Record saith avantdits or foresaid Lords and no Lords named yet so that all the Lords of Parliament are then likewise included But when he names the Lords that had advised there is no avantdits or aforesaid Though the Octavo puts the avantdits or the aforesaid to the named Lords to the purpose that it may seem that no Lords were present in this Cause before in Parliament but those named and mentioned amongst the which there were no Bishops against the Faith of the Record To the Record I appeal Rot. Parl. 1 R. 2. Mem. 5. The next is Sir Ralph Ferrers his Case 4 R. 2. He was brought into Parliament and there tryed for Treason in holding intelligence with the French The Entry is It seem'd to the Lords of the Parliament that the said Sir Ralph was innocent This testimony too is argumentative and concludes Bishops not there because not expresly mentioned as they were in Alice Perries Case 1 R. 2. I never could have a good opinion of a cause that hath nothing but argumentative proofs for this reason because there are more things possible than ever happen'd but a reasoning Witness is always accounted a willing Witness and therefore a Witness suspectae fidei but most certain a Witness with a reason His testimony is no better than his reason But I pray must the Entries of the Clerks be so nicely weighed Are they so oracularly penned that every iota of the Journal must comprehend a Mystery of State and carry in it the very constitution of the Government must that be such and no other than short or large Entries make it Must a Criticism upon the Clerks form of Entry alter and refix the Government must it change and be ambulatory at the haste or leasure the short or more large Entry of the Clerk Did ever any wise man before this Criticiser ever determine questions of the greatest moment upon such trifling considerations or suspend the most momentous concerns of a Nation the very Government it self upon such a very slender thread But to leave no scope for such Cavillations we will turn him to the Parl. Rolls of 14 E. 3. Were not the Grants the Bishops as well as the Temporal Lords Are not both Bishops and Peers called Seigniors Are not Seigniors and Grants of the same import And as certainly this argumentative testimony makes no credit to the Cause nor to the Author of the Octavo who produc'd it The next Case is of the Bishop of Norwich 7 R. 2. who is brought to Judgment in Parliament amongst other offences for betraying Graveling to the French which was Treason And this cause the Record saith was heard before the Lords Temporal And here I will agree that the Bishops were not present but I will not allow that they were excluded And if that addition of Temporal had been to the Seigniors in Sir Ralph Ferrers Case or to the Grants in Sir Wil. Thorps I would have allowed the Bishops in those Cases not present likewise But why I pray may
left this Author neither reason or Argument We have stript the Cause of all the Precedents that pretend to favour it and have left it Rara Avis indeed but not nigro simillima Cygno as the learned Author in Octavo hath it with which he reproaches the Right of the Bishops as assisted only with a single Precedent But to a Bird of no colour at all the bird in the Fable I mean furtivis nudata coloribus to be exposed to laughter with its naked Rump CHAP. IV. BUt if these Precedents had been all such as they pretend to be and the Bishops not present in Judgment in any of those Cases which the Octavo and Folio have produced and if they had been all Capital Causes that came in Judgment in that House and all determined judicially and not by the Legislative power of Parliament and no reason was to be assigned for the Prelates absence from the Nature of the Cause If they had had no inducements to withdraw from any dissatisfaction they had in the prosecution and the pretended Right of the Church-men in those days much insisted upon to be exempted from the jurisdiction of secular Courts had not been the Cause of their absence which suppositions are not so in fact And tho' the Bishops had never used the Authority and power in question as they have yet if we can prove they had once a Right those Omissions of theirs can be no prejudice to the meer-Right Though then I confess we should labour a-the gainst invincible prejudice in the Opinions of most 1. For that no man can lose a Right by not using of it but where that right can be usurpt by another and is so And that usurpation having been for immemorable time when no body can tell when it was otherwise shall in a matter prescriptible be intended to be acquired by good Right and that with great reason in favour of possession and the quieting of them for that Estates and Rights can last longer than the Grants and Evidences or Records themselves that first created them But where the nature of the Right is such as this of the Bishops in pretence is which no body can use for them For the Temporal Lords sit in Judgment in their own Right which is a plenary and compleat right and cannot be made more or less Secondly for that no Franchise from the Power and Authority upward of a Court Leet which can be neither more nor less by usuage than the Law hath establisht can be prescribed to And a Quo Warranto will fore-close and extinguish an immemorial usuage of any irregular and illegal Franchise A Right that can never be prejudged and fore-closed by non user and such is every Right that grows from the constitution of the Government though it should be discontinued for a long tract of time may be at any time rightfully and legally continued The happiness of our Case is that we can point to the time when the Right of the Prelates to sit in Judgment in Capital Causes in Parliament was established And which is more imposed upon them and they put under a Compulsory and obliged by the Tenure of their Lands to serve the Crown in that capacity And that was in the beginning of the Reign of William the Conquerour Mr. Selden in his Titles of honour with great probability hath fixed it in the 4 year of his Reign when he made the Bishopricks and Abbies subject to Knight service in chief by creation of new Tenures upon them and so first turned their possessions into Baronies and thereby made them Barons of the Kingdom by Tenure This he saith is justified by Mat. Paris and Roger of Windover out of whom Mat. Paris took this Relation Anno 1070. so are their words Rex Willielmus pessimo usus consilio Episcopatus Abbatias omnes quae Baronias that is by Anticipation for the Lands made Baronies tenebant in purâ perpetuâ eatenus ab omni servitute seculari libertatem habuerunt sub servitute statuit militari c. This he makes further probable for that in a Manuscript Copy which he used in a very antient hand these words are noted in the upper Margin over the year 1070. hoc anno servitium baroniae imponitur Ramesiae It seems saith he the volumn belonged to the Abby of Ramsey And some Monk of the House noted that in the Margin touching his own Abby which equally concerned the rest of the Abbies that were mentioned in that Relation by their Lands being put under the Tenure by Barony and they made Barons they had a Right to sit with the rest of the Barons in Councellor Courts of Judgment For saith Mr. Selden tenere de Rege in capite habere possessiones sicut Baroniam and to be a Baron and to have Right to sit with the rest of the Barons in Council or Courts of Judgment according to the Laws of that time are Synonymies So that there were no distinctions of Barons as to power and Authority or Jurisdiction but the Right of a Baron was the same whether he was a Temporal or Spiritual Baron for the Tenure of both is one and the same and therefore the Services must be the same The office that is the result of this Tenure is the same in the House of Lords and indeed no office can be less than what the Law appoints it The King cannot make a Peer a Judge or a Bishop and put any Restraint upon the exercise of the powers and the jura ordinaria that belongs by the appointment of the Law to a Peer Bishop or Judge And that it is an office by Tenure can make no difference for the Law declares the Power and Authority So that the Powers of all Barons are and must be equal and what is allowed to one Baron cannot be denyed to another William the Conqueror made the Bishops Barons by putting them to hold as by Barony did not intend only the Bishops more honour but himself also more service and better assured He cannot be intended especially to abate them their service in punitive or vindictive Justice which a Conquerour of all other performances cannot want I do not doubt and if it were not unnecessary to this question likewise to shew that before the Conquest the Bishops or Spiritual Lords had a great share with the Thanes or Temporal Lords in the Government and were then one of the three States agreeable to all the Gothish Saxon for the Saxons were Goths which we must not here insist upon and Modern Governments that have been planted in Europe which we shall speak to more hereafter But we will resort no higher than this of their becoming Barons by Tenure in time of the Conquerour for the clearing of the Prelates Right now in question And therefore we are not concerned to say any thing to the Case of E. Godwin mentioned in the Octavo in Edward the Confessor's time For Brevity sake and because we will
redigerent Quod cum factum fuisset praecepit Rex Archiepiscopis Episcopis ut sigilla sua apponerent scripto illi cum caeteri proni essent ad faciendum Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis juravit quod nunquam scripto illi sigillum suum apponeret nec leges illas confirmaret If this was not an encroaching Royall power there was never any such fault when he was grown so great that the King himself must supplicate that the great men of that time though passionataly interceding on the behalf of the King could obtain no peace for the King That an Ambassadour from the Pope and Cardinals must be sent to command him to be reconciled to the King That he did make a shew of being the Kings friend and did promise to be at peace with the King and keep his Laws at the Popes Command But of this too he soon repented and said he would sin no more Was not this man a Traytor at Common Law before the 25 of Ed. 3. doth not the reason of the Government declare and pronounce him so And doth the Octavo Author think that a Parliament would not use the declarative power by that Statute reserved to declare such offences as these Treason If the like case should happen would not he himself be the likelyest man to be formost in the impeachment But Gervasius Dorobernensis goes on and tells us that afterwards Becket did voluntary penance for the aforesaid promise made to the King and of his submission to his Laws and stood out in disobedience That the King did cast about and study quomodo vel qua arte constantiam Archiepiscopi conterere valeret vel elidere virtutem Col. 1388. But see in what respectful terms their Author in the meantime speaks of this Becket We may be sure we can have nothing from them that is true if it makes the Cause of this contumacious rebellious man bad But at last the Kings patience is turned into Anger For Gervasius goes on Col. 1388. and saith Timens autem Rex Angliae ne impune manus ejus Cantuariensis Episcopus evaderet jam edoctus multiplici Cogitatione pravorum Eruditione quibus eum pravitatis laqueis innodaret Praecepit Praesules Proceres Regni apud Northamptonian unà cum Archiepiscopo ipso convenire qui cum tertia die convenissent Archiepiscopus in multis est accusatus And no man can believe his accusation was less than Treason that will believe what is said by all Historians of Beckets Rebellious behaviour against the King and the Kings anger conceived his threatning him with death and the convening of this Parliament lest he should escape unpunisht And especially that will observe the partiality of this Gervasius against the King and in favour of Becket For he said as is before observed and cited that now the King was edoctus multiplici cogitatione that now the King with much thought and the Advice of wicked men was instructed how he might ensnare him with evil Arts and for that purpose this Parliament was convened And yet in particular this Gervasius and Fitz-Stephen his faithful friend who accompanied Becket in his troubles mentions only two faults whereof he is accused viz. of injustice in the Case of John the Marshall and of his own Contumacy in not obeying the Kings Summons Fitz-Stephen Hoveden and Gervasius tell us that to the two particulars Becket made his defence Gervasius and Hoveden tells us what defence he made which the Octavo hath faithfully transcribed to do him right I wish he had observed the whole story then he would have saved me this trouble of bringing it into the view of the World The Article wherein he is charged for not doing Justice to John Marshall is answered by laying the fault upon Marshall himself for abusing the Court bringing veterum Cantuum Codicillum to swear upon refusing to swear sub Evangelium ut moris est The other Article he answered proving by two sufficient Witnesses that it was sickness hindred him and not any contempt Very sufficient Answers to those two Articles and certainly the Parliament that was called only for to punish Becket might have well acquitted him and returned home and a weighty cause this was to convene a Parliament But these were but two of those many things for multis est accusatus saith Gervasius and of the least offence besides that they were fully answered in any mans judgment that hath read the Story of Becket of which he stood accused By what I have here transcribed it appears that he was certainly guilty of Treason That the Parliament was called to punish him The King was enraged and that justly and therefore he was most certainly accused of Treason Gervasius goes on and tells us that his rationibus meaning that he offered in excuse of himself in the business of Marshall and his own contempt Archiepiscous excusari non potuit sed Curiali judicio Assensa Episcoporum condemnatus est ita ut omnia ejus bona in misericordia Regis ponerentur And yet the prosecution went on The Bishops are consulted with by Becket how he should behave himself Thus Gervasius tells us Coll. 1398. You may best understand the Nature of the prosecution and Beckets danger by the advice of some of his Suffragan Bishops The Bishop of London thus adviseth Si pater inquit recolis unde te Dominus Rex sustulit quid tibi contulit consideratâ temporum malitiâ quam Ruinam Ecclesiae nobis omnibus paraveris si in his Regi resistere volueris non solum Archiepscopatui Cantuariae sed in decuplo si tanti fuerit cedere deberes Could all this danger grow from less than Treason Could a bare neglect to answer a Summons where he excused his default sufficiently or refusing to proceed in the Case of Marshall for that he did presumptuously trifle with the Court and prophanely offered to be Sworn upon a Song-book put the whole Church and himself in danger big enough to be redeemed with ten times the value of the Bishoprick of Canterbury The Bishop of Lincoln speaks in Gervasius these Words Patet inquam vitam istius hominis sanguinem quaeri necessario alterum horum erit aut Archiepiscopatui aut vitae cedendum The Bishop of Exeter thus Palam est quoniam dies mali sunt si possumus sub dissimulationis umbrâ hujus tempestatis impetum pertransire illaesos And after he saith satis est unum Caput in parte periclitari quam totam Anglicanam Ecclesiam inevitabili exponere discrimini The Bishop of Worcester saith Gervasius being asked what he thought ita temperavit Responsum ut negando palam secerit quid animi haberet The Bishop of Ely was sick The Bishop of Norwich the same Author saith excused himself secreto asserens Eliensem foeliciter adeò defensum quod ipse vellet simili plagâ percelli for he had heard saith our Author quid Rex conceperat contra Cantuariensem Becket not
resolved what to do desired of the Earls of Leicester and Cornwall that he might have time untill the morrow And the morrow being Sunday time was given until the Munday and then the Bishops came to Becket and advised him for avoiding danger and scandal to submit himself to the Kings Will which if he should do jam audierint in Curiâ Regis perjurii Crimen sibi imponi tanquam proditorem judicandum eò quod terreno Domino honorem terrenum non servaret cum avitas consuetudines Regni observaturum firmasset ad quas specialiter observare jurisjurandi nova se illos astrixerat Religione And now sure it will be believed that Becket was accused in this Parliament of Treason for Treason was his Crime not allowing the King with the consent of his States to make any Laws but such as he should approve aggravated with perjury for he had sworn himself to observe them After Becket had given the Bishops an obstinate and resolute Answer to adhere to his Treasonable Practices to disallow the Authority of the King and States in the Laws called the Assise of Clarendon and to oppose the observance of them Observe what Gervasius saith discesserunt Episcopi ad Curiam properantes By and by Becket comes too but the Bishops were there before him carrying the Cross himself which the King as well as the Bishops took to be a coming armed Upon which saith Gervasius vocatis Episcopis proceribus gravem grandem Rex deponit querimoniam quod Archiepiscopus sic armatus in Curiam veniens ipsum suos omnes inauditâ saeculis formâ naevo notaverit proditoris Whereupon the Bishops by the Mouth of Hilaris Cicestrensis a Bishop more eloquent than the rest thus said to Becket Quandoque ait fuisti Archiepiscopus tenebamur tibi obedire sed quia Domino Regi fidelitatem jurasti hoc est vitam membra terrenam dignitatem sibi per te salvam fore consuetudines quas ipse repetit conservandas tu niteris eas destruere cum praecipue spectant ad terrenam sui degnitatem honorem idcirco te reum perjurii dicimus perjuro Archiepiscopo de caetero obedire non habemus This I take to be a judging in Treason But this the Bishops did for their part as Bishops and Suffragans they did withdraw their obedience from their Metropolitan which was as much as in them lay to deprive him a conviction it was of the Guilt not indeed judicium sanguinis But this is not all for observe what our said Author saith further they going away the King saith to them discernite quid perjurus contumax proditor debeat sustinere Itur judicatur à quo vel qualiter judicium pronuntiandum esset informatur In which matter Stephanides as he is cited by Mr. Selden in his Titles of Honour in the Folio Edition fol. 705. tells us how it was consulted and debated between the Bishops the Spiritual Barons and the Temporal Barons for saith he de proferendo judicio distantia fuit inter Episcopos Barones utrisque alteri illud imponentibus utrisque se excusantibus Aiunt Barones vos Episcopi pronuntiare debetis sententiam ad nos non pertinet nos Laici sumus vos personae Ecclesiasticae sicut ille Consacerdotes ejus Coepiscopi ejus Ad haec aliquis Episcoporum Imo vestri potius est hoc officii non nostri non enim est hoc judicium Ecclesiasticum sed Seculare non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones Nos Barones vos Barones pares hic sumus Ordinis autem Nostri rationi frustra innitimini quia si in nobis ordinationem attenditis in ipso similiter attendere debetis eo autem ipso quod Episcopi sumus non possumus Archiepiscopum dominum nostrum judicare By which dispute by the way it doth appear that both the Bishops and Temporal Lords did take themselves to be equally constituted Judges and Peers by reason of their common Baronage in this Case of Becket a Cause of Treason the Bishops owned and avowed a Right of judging him as Barons They did not excuse themselves upon the score of the Canon alledged but from the indecency in respect of the relation that they stood in to the Criminal he being their Superiour and Metropolitan they seem'd willing to decline the making of the Sentence Whether any Judgment was pronounced by whom or what the Judgment was is not certain the Historians differing thereupon But when he went out of the Court he was call'd by the people as he past Traytor and perjured Traytor as the King before had called him And if this be not the clearest proof of Beckets being accused of Treason and the Bishops judging in a capital Cause in Parliament there can be nothing proved to satisfaction Besides that all that writ of his story are unwilling Witnesses they magnify excuse and justify the man all along extolling his virtues They call him Saint Pater Patriae so Gervasius does Coll. 1393. and Martyr Let the Reader consider what is here faithfully recited and then let him tell what Opinion he hath of the Candor of the Octavo Gentleman who could find no fault in Thomas Becket for he saith Folio 62. That Gervasius Dorobernensis saith that Becket was charged with two things Injustice to John Marshall and his own contempt in not appearing to the Kings Summons This Author had nothing of his own knowledge to charge upon him and saith that Stephanides is not to be regarded because he was Beckets friend and an obscure Author it may be not yet come into his Study The Author had reason to see no faults in Becket or to forget them all for the good service the insolencies of that man hath done towards the Scandal of the Order But we have not mispent our own time neither will the Reader regret our length in this matter for this single Case consider'd gives a Resolution to the Question and puts the Right of the Bishops to sit in capital Causes out of all doubt This Case will let in light for the true understanding of the Assise of Clarendon For it must be noted that the Great Parliament of Clarendon was held by Henry the 2. about the latter end of January in the tenth year of his Reign the Bishops and Lords were all Sworn to observe the Statutes there made called the Assise of Clarendon called the Avitae consuetudines Regni of which the Law aforementioned was one This Law therefore must be interpreted in such a sense for that the words will bear it and can be intended in no other than that which may consist with the proceedings in the Case of Arch-Bishop Becket and with the Oaths of all the Bishops and Peers and the great men taken but a short time before to observe the Statutes of Clarendon Now if the whole Order of capital Causes had been intended to be excepted by that Statute above
Law was publickly professed in England before the end of the 12th Century for Mat. Paris tells us of a Monk of Evesham Anno Dom. 1196. that suo tempore eorum quos Decretistas Legistas appellant peritissimus habebatur earum etiam facultatum auditores quamplurimos instituerat and from that time the study of the Caesarean and Pontificial Law did flourish amongst us until the beginning of E. 3. But in all that time saith Mr. Selden in his Fleta gens ipsa Anglicana ac qui in judiciis praeerant morum patriorum viz. Juris Communis Angliae per intervallum illud tenacissimi fuere A remarkable instance we have of this Nations steady aversion from admitting here either the Civil or Canon Law in the Parliament of Merton which rejected a Bill for Legitimation of Children born before marriage in Concubinate in these Terms Nolumus leges Angliae mutari meaning that they would not make Laws conformable to the Civil or Canon Law The great Policy that the Popes used to effect their Ambitious design of making themselves Monarchs of the Christian World were The assuming to themselves the entire rule and Government of Religion and endeavouring to make every where the Bishops and the whole Clergy together with the Regulars dependant upon them by pretending them to be exempt from all Civil Authority and Jurisdiction and by interdicting to them the exercise of any Civil Authority and shutting them out from all intromissions into the Civil Government and from any interest or dependance thereupon So far as he prevailed in these designs he acquired an Imperium in Imperio and if besides these he could have fixt a Spiritual handle to the Temporal Sword and have got the Government of secular affairs in ordine ad spiritualia his design had been compleated and he had arrived to a more absolute and extensive Empire than that of the Roman Caesars To these purposes the Canon Law provided that the Ecclesiasticks were neither to exercise nor be subject to any Civil Authority But this policy of the Pope had no success in England the endeavours of the Papalins herein met with constant opposition and at last they were made desperate by the Assise of Clarendon where it was declared and enacted accordingly agreeable to the Avitae Consuetudines Regni that the Bishops should be retained and continue to be a part of the Government and exercise Jurisdiction in all Causes in the Kings Court as other Barons as is before observed and that the Clergy should stand submitted to the Jurisdiction of the Kings Courts For this purpose it was also in that Parliament enacted as followeth Si controversia emerserit inter Laicos vel Laicos Clericos in Curia Domini Regis tractetur determinetur and also quod clerici rectati accusati de quacunque re summoniti à Justitia Regis venient in Curiam Domini Regis responsuri ibidem c. And so far were the Bishops and Clergy from observing that part of the Canon Law that was to detrude them from all secular Authority and Jurisdiction that they were from time to time Chancellors Treasurers Keepers of the Privy Seal and Judges and while that Ancient Office continued of Capitalis Justiciarius Angliae to whom was committed the Justice of the Kingdom who were called Custodes Regni Vice-Domini Angliae and sometimes the abstract Justitia He did preside in the Curia Regis which Office was afterwards divided for there were Justitiarii Angliae Boreales Justitiarii Angliae Australes this Office was often executed by Bishops as you may see in Sir Hen. Spelmans Glossary in the word Justitiarius Bishops and Church-men administred the greatest Offices of State and Justice this was matter of Envy to the Temporal Lords and they complain'd in Parliament 45 E. 3. as is before observed That the Government of the Kingdom had been a long time in the hand of the Clergy Mr. Selden in his Fleta tells us that in the times before and after the Assise of Clarendon Mos fuit Judices Regios ex genere hieratico veluti Episcopis Abbatibus Decanis id genus aliis constituendi And it is provided by 28 E. 1. Cap. 3. That if a Clergy-man was a Judge of Assise another should be joyned in Commission with him to deliver the Goals which was to the end that the Ecclesiastical Judge might use that liberty which was indulged to him by the Assise of Clarendon of not pronouncing the Sentence for it must be observed that by that Statute a Clergy-man might be a Judge in a Goal-delivery for that a Laick was by the provision of that Statute to be join'd to him in Commission and Pleas of the Crown are to be found purporting them to be held before two Judges whereof one a Clerk after this Law which could not possibly have been if the Clerk had not been in Commission Besides for after Ages it is well known that all the great Officers and Ministers of State and Justice have been always intrusted with the conservancy of the peace are in Commissions of the peace and Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer for judging capital Causes so that the constant practice in all times as well as the express declaration of the Assise of Clarendon doth assure us that the Canon Law that prohibits Clergy-men being Judges in capital Causes was never received here or became the common Law of England Besides what regard our Clergy had of the Canon Law what opinion they had of the Right in question and how far the Laws did intend to prohibit the exercise of it And that such right was used and exercised will appear by the Canon of Toledo Concil Toletan 11. Cap. 6. fo 553. and the Canon of Lanfrank Spelmans Concil 2 vol. fol. 11. these were made before the Assise of Clarendon That of Toledo is this His à quibus Domini Sacramenta tractanda sunt judicium sanguinis agitare non licet ideo magnopere talium excessibus prohibendum est ne qui praesumptionis motibus agitati aut quod morte plectendum est sententia propria judicandi mant aut truncationes quaslibet membrorum quibuslibet personis aut per se inferant aut inferendas precipiant This being a Foreign Council this Canon carries not with it the Authority of a Canon with us only we may observe whatever the Opinion of that Council was that it was not convenient for licet can have no ocher sence here for Clergy-men agitare judicium Sanguinis Yet this Canon prohibits only the pronouncing the Sentence by themselves or others I am sure that by a positive Law as this Canon must be so far as it participates of the nature of a Law nothing becomes unlawful but what is forbidden whatever the reason be of that Prohibition That of Lanfrank follows thus Vt nullus Episcopus vel Abbas seu quilibet ex Clero hominem occidendum vel membris truncandam judicet vel judicantibus suae authoritatis favorem
his qui in sacris ordinibus constituti judicium sanguinis agitare unde saith the Canon Prolibemus ne aut per se membrorum truncationes faciant a very fitting Employment for a Bishop aut inferendas judicent and after all this we have still our old Answer upon which we will ever insist it is but a Canon and can make no Alteration in the Rights of Government For tho' Gervasius Dorob tells us In hoc Concilio ad emendationem Anglicanae Ecclesiae assensu Domini Regis primorum omnium Regni haec subscripta promulgata sunt Capitula yet the Canons of this Council are not Laws For that our Historian does not tell us of any Parliament then held or that they were confirmed in Parliament and the good liking of Great Men out of Parliament will not confirm nay not justifie the Canons if they cannot justifie themselves in Parliament Besides that these Canons were not made into Laws we will offer two Reasons 1st For that amongst these Canons there is one that disposeth of the Right of Patronage against the Law as it hath been before and since taken and that is this Nulli liceat Ecclesiam nomine dotalitii ad aliquem transferre vel pro presentatatione alicui personae pecuniam vel aliquod emolumentum pacto interveniente recipere quod si quis fecerit in jure convictus vel confessus fuerit ipsum tam Regia quam nostra freti autoritate patricinio ejusdem Ecclesiae in perpetuum privari statuimus which was never most certainly Law Secondly If this had been a Law the other Canon before-mentioned made by Stephen Arch-bishop of Canterbury was idle nay presumptuous for offering to derogate from a Canon made a Law about 47 years before But however Canons confirmed by Law remain but Canons still and the Breach of them not punished as the Breach of Laws nor no Innovation made thereby upon a civil Right of which before and after more As to the Second Canon we observe how dutiful this Canon in the Stile of it behaves it self towards the Civil Government in that Clerks should not exercise Jurisdiction where Judgment of Blood is to be given under the soft word Statuimus that they should not Literas pro poena sanguinis infligenda scribere that is sign an Order for the Execution of a Condemned Man or be present at the Sentence is under the districtiùs inhibemus but the doing of this is not declared to be a Sin he that is contravenient to the Canon is not thereby to become irregular to be punished by his Superior or to incurr Excommunication or any Censure the Clergy are not declared by this Canon to be incompetent Judges it only declares them unworthy of the Protection of the Church the meaning of it is Judge not least ye be judged If you judge the Laicks they will judge you This is the Scandal for which the Privilegium Clericale will be lost So that upon the whole matter this Canon is but Advice and Counsel and offers reasons to the Choice and Approbation rather than a Command under the Authority of the Church in a Council But let it be what it will if the Canon had been most peremptory in its Prohibition and had lighten'd and thunder'd in its Denunciatiations it would have been of no force to alter the Government or discharge a Judge from doing his Duty but this is farther to be duely observed that this Canon could not be broken if the Law had not been otherwise than these Canons direct and therefore these Canons produced by our Adversaries are the greatest Testimonies to the Right we defend and a practice agreeable thereto Doth not the Canon suppose that a Beneficed Clerk or one in Holy Orders was sometimes in Commission for judging in Capital Causes For certainly the Canon did not prohibit them to murder or enjoyn them not to write Letters to subborn men to kill What can be the meaning of the Canon but this supposing a Beneficed Clerk to be made a Judge of Life and Death to assist in a Commission of Oyer Terminer or Goal-delivery that he should be enjoyned not to pronounce the Sentence or to sign the Order or Calendar for Execution But if he were not a Judge how possibly could he sign an Order for Execution By the other words of the Canon Nec intersit ubi judicium sanguinis tractatur he can be forbidden onely to be present and assisting as a Judge or Officer at the pronouncing of Sentence for it can be no fault sure nor ever was intended by any Canon to be made one for any Clerk to hear a Court pronounce a Judgment of Death or Mutilation or to see a Malefactor executed What therefore can be more evident than that the Bishops did withdraw not for want of Right of Session but they pretended the Canon because they did not like the Causes But further that nothing more than what we have shewed was understood to be done in that Protestation by those times they must be allowed at least to know their own Opinions doth appear for that notwithstanding the Protestation of the Bishops aforementioned the great Council of the Kingdom did not think the Authority of a Parliament when the Bishops were absent unquestionable This Opinion we do not go about to maintain but this we conclude that there could never have been such an Opinion if the Bishops had been denied Right of Session in Capital Causes in that time CHAP. IX THE Commons of England in the 21 R. 2 pray that the Bishops might make their Proxy which they did thrice in that Parliament once by Procuratory Letters to Sir Thomas Percy as is before recited and afterwards William la Scroop Earl of Wilts was made their Procurator and a third time the Earls of Worcester and Wilts were made their Procurators in the matter between the two Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk That it may the better appear that the Bishops were virtually present by their Proxy it ought to appear that they were allowed to make Proxies and that the Lords Spiritual did so as well as the Temporal Lords The first mention of Proxies that occurs in the memory of our Parliaments is in the Parliament of Carlisle under E. 1. and that is of the Bishops Proxies The words are these Quia omnes Praelati tunc plenariè non venerunt receptis quibusdam procurationibus Praelator qui venire non poterant adjornantur And in a Parliament held at Westminster under Ed. 2. dors clauso Ed. 2. m. 11. the Bishops of Durham and Carlisle remaining upon the Defence of the Marches of Scotland are severally commanded to stay there and in the Writ this Clause was added to both of them Sed Procurat vestrum sufficienter instructum ad dictum diem locum mittatis ad consentiendum his quae tunc ibidem praedictos Praelatos Proceres contigerit ordinari Though generally Proxies were admitted to both Spiritual and Temporal Lords
Judgments good without an Original upon a Verdict If the Causes that are properly now of the cognisance of that Court of Common Pleas had been allotted to that Court Originally when the distribution of Administration of Justice was made in the Constitution of the Government that Court by its proper Authority and its own Process would have done Justice to all its Suitors without first expecting a Writ out of Chancery to bring the Cause before them or leaving any right without remedy to complain in Chancery of the defects of Justice in that Court But that Law of Magna Charta cap. 11. before-mentioned which erected the Court of Common Pleas fix'd the Judges and appropriated civil Causes to their Judicature no longer now ambulatory was the first step that was made to reduce the Court of Barons called Curia Domini Regis in which the Capitalis Justiciarius did preside Yet still this Court continued a Court of Pleas of the Crown and Appeals and for those that had the Priviledge of that Court as Officers Dependents Suitors as appears by Bracton l. 3. cap. 7. Rex habet unam propriam Curiam sicut Aulam Regiam Justitiarios Capitales qui proprias causas Regias terminant aliorum omnium per querelam i. e. Appeal vel per privilegium seu libertatem This Sir Edward Coke imagines is meant of the Kings Bench but that must be a mistake for sicut Aula Regia is not competent to that Court as now the Capitales Justitiarii were not the Chief Justices we now have For the Office of the Capitalis Justitiarius did yet continue But then that which follows in Bracton the description of the Justices of the Court he before spake of puts the matter out of doubt Item saith he Justitiariorum quidam sunt capitales generales perpetui majores à latere Regis residentes which terms are agreeable to none but the Barons But this sort of Judicature was not fit for continuance and the Barons were to be reduced they were dismist of this Jurisdiction about the time that change was made in reference to them in the Parliament for as long as they continued in their numbers and power so great as they were both Courts and Parliaments were troubled with tumultuous heaps of people brought thither by the Barons to countenance their pretences of which who will may see enough in Eadmerus And this reducement was I doubt not about the end of the Reign of H. 3. when the first Writs were issued to chuse Knights of the Shire Philip Basset was the last of these Capitales Justitiarii Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary p. 415. And then the Court of Kings Bench came to have such Judges as at this day ad obitum H. 3. 1272. Summorum Angliae Justitiariorum authoritas cessarit postea Capitales Justitiarii ad placita coram Rege tenenda appellati sunt saith an ancient Anonymous Author quoted by Sir Hen. Spelman Glossary 406. That ancient Style of Capitalis Justitiarius Angliae is now allowed to the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench though his legal Style is Capitalis Justitiarius ad placita coram Rege tenenda 2 E. 1. Radulphus Hengham was made the first Chief Justice of the Kings Bench as Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary 416. But the Chief Justices of the Common Pleas were first made about the time of King John's Magna Charta when that Court was fixed as is before remembered Sir Henry Spelman out of Florilegus tells us Martin Peteshus was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 1 H. 3. Neither did E. 1. trust the Barons with the Government of his Revenue as it was before the Capitalis Justic and the power of the Barons was reduced but he made Adam de Stratton a Clerk Chief Baron but in what time of his Reign doth not appear But they continued after they were reduced from the business of the Kings Bench and from that of the Court of Common Pleas to have the Government of the Revenue and making a Court of Exchequer And they still continued the Exercise of their ancient ordinary Right and judged Common Pleas in the Exchequer until the 28 E. 1. And then in the Statute called Articuli super Cartas cap. 4. it was enacted That no Common Pleas shall be henceforth held in the Exchequer contrary to the form of the Great Charter Their exercising their power lastly in that Court may be the reason why the Judges of that Court are called Barons Sir Henry Spelman saith he hath an uninterrupted Succession of the Barons of the Exchequer from the sixth year of Edward the Second by which it appears that the present Constitution was established after the Kings Bench and Common Pleas were made such as they now are But there was one Power and Authority that was inseparable from the Baronage and that is the Tryal of Peers the ancient Curia Regis continues to this day to that purpose as it must no other provision being ever since made therein This is the ancient Court of Peers the Curia Regis when revived The Power and Authority of the ancient Capitalis Justitiarius is as often revived as that Court is erected for Tryal for Offices at Common Law can be no more nor less than the Law appointed That he is called High Steward is no Objection to us for so was the Capitalis Justitiarius called and Justitiarius and Seneschallus are used one for another in the Language of those times Sir Henry Spelmans Glossary 403. And this is the true reason I humbly conceive of that Tradition that the High Steward by the Kings constituting him such hath such mighty powers that are fit to be trusted with him no longer than while he is busie about that piece of Justice for which he is appointed and he is not to receive his Commission but just at his entry upon the business of the Court and not before The power of this Capitalis Justitiarius was the same with that of the Mair of the Palace in France from whence the Conquerour brought this Office which was the same or greater with the Authority of the Praefectus Praetorio amongst the Romans It is a thing to be wished that Gentlemen that apply themselves to the study of Antiquities that relate to our Laws and Government would design to adorn and cultivate the present Laws and to make out their reasonableness rather than to innovate upon us by bringing back what is obsolete rejected and antiquated and that they would contribute what they can to refine it from many absurd reasons that dishonour our Faculty which are the best our Books afford even for some of the Regulae juris I shall instance onely in one or two of them Why the Father cannot inherit the Lands of the Son it is told us for a reason in our Books that Terra est quid ponderosum and will not ascend in the right line whereas the true reason is this the Lord that first granted the Fee neglected the Father gave
established that those that were not Barones majores qui tenent de nobis in capite should be generally summoned It is observable that the Barones minores are so mentioned as if the name of Barons were not to belong to them Agreeable thereto is that we have mentioned in the style of our Parliaments of Milites liberè tenentes alii fideles and are all involved in this general Et universi de Baronagio Regni Angliae Several Instances of this are in Mr. Petyt aforementioned p. 111 112 113 114 115 116. besides that many Instances of the like Stile of Parliaments in those times are obvious That our Parliaments in those times were thus constituted is so clear that it cannot be dissembled But I do not deny but upon a change in the Succession to the Crown there might have been in this time extraordinary Conventions of the People to declare their Universal Assent for better assuring such Successor discountenancing the Rival Prince and preserving the Peace as in the Case of William the Second Henry the first King Stephen and King John which hath been usual in other Countreys in mighty Distresses of State such were in use amongst the Jews Josephus calls such an Assembly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grotius in his Annot. p. 200. rells us Solitos fuisse Judaeos interdum in rebus ad summam Religionis aut Imperii spectantibus advocare ad Synedrium quotquot habere poterant tribuum primores aliisve honoribus praeditos ut quod constituerunt legis potius a populo probatae quam Senatus consulti haberet auctoritatem With the assent of such an Assembly as this at least King John should only if so have made this Kingdom Tributary to the Pope though I believe what he did in it he did without and against the Assent of that Parliament in which he could only therefore offer to do it He did no more effectivè than of Right he could which is nothing That which was done was without the Consent of his Bishops and Barons as appears by a Letter of his to the Pope in those words recited by Mr. Petyt in his mentioned Book Cum Comites Barones Angliae nobis devoti essent antequam Nos nostram Terram Domino vestro subjicere curassemus Extunc in Nos specialiter ob hoc sicut publicè dicunt violenter insurgunt And by another Letter of his to the Pope recited p. 163. Wherein he complains of the Bishops Disobedience on this Occasion which I the rather take notice of that the Cause of our Government might not be betrayed by depending upon such weak Inferences as those viz. that there was a House of Commons at that time which did not consent to the vassallating of the Kingdom by King John to the Pope For that otherwise it could have been validly done And that if our present House of Commons in the same Form as it is now constituted was not in Being ever after the Conquest it is not therefore an Essential part of our Government For if our Government must take its Fate upon such Issues as these I am sure we shall not long hold it The greatest Truths are betrayed by weak Proofs and the clearest Right sometimes lost by putting it upon an uncertain or improbable Issue This is certain that whatever thing of Government is introduced by the Consent of the Prince and that Alteration assented to and embraced avowed and owned by every man of the Community by Actions and other open Declarations of a full Consent and this continued for Centuries of Years and in all that time applauded and found agreable to the Interest of the Prince and People and the Old Government abolish'd and impracticable the very matter of its ceasing and it become a thing impossible as well as not desireable to restore it I say whatever Constitution is thus introduced and established is as unmoveable as unalterable or no Government is as if it had been ever so For there can be no Government in this World that is eternal how this Change came we shall speak to by and by But for the sake of Truth I must confess that I have no reason to believe that the Counties in all this time had their Representatives in Parliament by the formality of a Choice But this is a great mistake that the People cannot be represented but by such as are from time to time chosen by them when as every Government is the Representative of the People in what they are to be governed by it and by their Consent to it in the first erecting thereof they do trust their Governors with the Rule and Order of their Lives and Estates for the Common-weal For Government as well as Law is Republicae communis sponsio to use Bracton's Words I cannot easily tell which is more eligible for the assuring us of good Men in the Common Council of the Kingdom whether the Choice and Designation of a Person thereto by his Character and a General Rule or by the contingent Suffrages of the People But they are I am sure as much our Representatives who are appointed thereto by the Constitutions of the Government embraced and consented to by the People as those are whom the People nominate for that purpose I know no reason therefore why any should think that nothing is stable in our Government but what hath been ever so and in the same Form or that any man should be so affrighted with the Objection as if it made our Government shake which some slight Antiquaries for little Learning in Antiquity will serve for that purpose That our Parliament was not at all times such it is at this day It sufficeth to me that it was always materially the same When the Conqueror did innovate his Tenures in Capite and made all men of great Estates Barons and by their Tenures and Estates Members of Parliament we had then such Laws quas vulgus elegerit and then we had materially our three Estates though not so well sized and sorted as since I thought fit to say this for the preventing the World's being troubled with such Impertinent Labors and to divert those that thus employ themselves to undertakings more useful to the Publick and advantageous to themselves We had then I say many great Freeholders in every County that by their Tenures were Members of Parliament whereas now we have but two and though the People did not chuse them yet the men of that Order seem chosen once for all interpretatively by the People in their consent to the Government and they might be reasonably presumed to be faithful to the Commonweal from their own great Concernments therein In this Constitution scarce any man that was fit to be chosen but was without the Peoples choice a Member of Parliament as now they have more who are fit to be chosen than they can chuse So that the Barones minores were then instead of Knights of the Shire and the Barones majores Bishops and