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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
not pass the Limits of our own Arguments otherwise we had much to say against the Authority of that Sory as it is by the Octavo mentioned But to this day neither in Record or History have we heard of any the least pretence of any special abatement made of any service due by the Tenures by Barony to any Bishops or other Spiritual Baron by the Conquerour at the time of the creating those Tenures neither did the Bishops when they would fain have been excused from judging in Blood ever pretend to it or make any such excuse that their Tenures did not oblige them thereto They have ever been esteemed to have power of Judgment in Capital Causes in Parliament and in a long tract of time it hath been several ways used and acknowledged Their Right is so far from being fore-judged that it never till of late was brought in question They have pretended sometimes that they ought not to use that Right in observation of the Canon Law and have made their protestation according whether of necessity or choice shall be considered They were upon the score of the Canon Law indulged in the Satute of Clarendon from being present and assisting in giving the Judgment of Death and mutilation of Limb yet their Right was not by that Statute destroyed or hurt it put them only at liberty to use it or not but put no obligation or legal restraint upon them not to use it That Law was in favour of their Liberty not a Restraint upon their Right The words of that Law that concern this question we shall here set down Archiepiscopi Episcopi universae personae Regni qui de Rege tenent in capite habeant possessiones suas de Rege sicut Baroniam inde respondeant Justiciariis ministris Regis sequantur faciant omnes consuetudines regias sicut caeteri Barones debent interesse judiciis Curiae quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem Whether these words are words of Liberty or Restraint of prohibition or indulgence and favour as also how far this favour Liberty or Indulgence did extend will appear clearly by the occasion of the Law and the History of those times for whose sake it was made and upon what inducements and how far they did use their Liberty afterwards It is notorious that the design and endeavour of some Bishops of that age and before from the days of Gregory the seventh was to establish an Ecclesiastical Monarchy in the Pope to make themselves the Grandees of another Kingdom they endeavoured to exempt themselves from all Civil subjection as also from being any part of the Civil Government over which their Church Empire was to rule and domineer They looked upon their Baronies to be marks of Slavery and inconsistent with their designed Church-empire by which they were kept in subjection to the Government and made a part of it which was designed by the Conquerour but most sharply complained of as may be seen in Mat. Paris Rex Willielmus pessimo usus consilio Episcopatus sub servitute statuit militari rotulas hujus Ecclesiasticae servitutis ponens in Thesauris multos viros Ecclesiasticos huic constitutioni pessimae reluctantes à Regno fugavit If the Bishops then had been ambitious and desirous that they might be as the rest of the Barons were Judges in the Kings Court then it is true that the word quousque must be a word of Exclusion and that their pretence of judging was fore-closed to all matters under the quousque For if I ask a thing which is not my right that which is not granted is denyed and by such denyall in case of a Law declared the more unlawful But this cannot possibly be for they were already Barons and Judges as other Barons This they reckon'd a servitude and was matter of grievance and complaint But the Assise of Clarendon did proceed from the King for the asserting his Soveraign Power to resist the design of the Papal Monarchy and to oblige the Bishops to continue part of the Government and to tye them to the duty of their Tenures Gervasius tells us Col. 1386. that the Bishops did not know what the Consuetudines Ecclesiasticae in the Assise of Clarendon were but they imagined them to be evil because the King did so much insist upon them Nesciebant saith he speaking of the Bishops hujusque quae essent illae consuetudines sed pravas esse suspicabantur eo quod tantâ instantiâ peterentur But the King commanded as followeth sapientiâ provectiores ite disquirite Avi mei consuetudines ut in scriptum redactae deducantur in medium publice recenseantur quas cum seorsum veteres actus pravitates so he calls the Statutes of Clarendon in scripta reduxissent haec tandem scripta modo Chirographi protulerunt which the Arch-Bishop was required to seal as the custom then was in passing of Laws It is likewise evident in the very Assise of Clarendon that the Bishops were then Barons and ought to do the office of a Baron and were by being Barons Judges and ought interesse sicut caeteri Barones Judiciis Curiae Domini Regis But how far they should by that Statute be bound hereafter this Law was to determine In consequence the Quousque is but a Clause of Liberty at most and the matter under it left to choice A priviledge indeed the Bishops might hereby obtain to judge or not to judge in Causes of blood which they used in all after-times as they pleased as they did more or less regard the Canons as either they did or were thought to intend No right was hereby fore-closed of judging but establisht for the words are debent interesse Quousque is a Clause of exception and leaves them in that matter at large and savours not at all of a prohibition But though the Bishops might have such a Liberty by the Letter of the Assise of Clarendon to judge or not to judge at all in capital Causes which doth not at all impair their Right but that notwithstanding they may use their rightful authority when they please Yet the Bishops did not intend themselves further priviledged by this Law than that they should not be obliged to be present at the pronouncing of the sentence which appears by the Canons that have been made about this matter in England which we shall mention hereafter which would have been most peremptory in their prohibitions and very severe in their denouncing Curses in a matter of this nature as far as they had the Laws on their side As also by the Practice of the Bishops in those times which appears by Peter Blesensis whose words are Principes sacerdotum seniores populi by which he means the Bishops who from the dignity and worthiness of their Order are called Seniores a note of dignity in all Countries in all Ages which I observe because some are so ignorant as not to know it and think the
Laity is meant by seniores populi but if the Lay Barons had been guilty of that which he there complains of as well as the Bishops he would instead of this complaint declaim'd against the folly and madness of the Age for want of justice Licet non dictent judicia sanguinis eadem tamen tractant disputando disceptando de illis seque ideo immunes à culpà reputant quod mortis aut truncationis membrorum judicium decernentes à pronuntiatione duntaxat executione poenalis sententiae se absentent And it is most observable that the Bishops did never excuse themselves from Session in Criminal Causes by virtue of the Assise of Clarendon but from the inhibition of the Canon and the use of the Liberty will best declare the Nature of it CHAP. V. IT 's most remarkable for the understanding aright the true meaning of this Law that the Bishops were admitted Judges in Parliament without exception of the Temporal Lords in the Case of Thomas Becket accused of Treason though the King and Temporal Barons had reason to believe that the Bishops would not do right to the Crown against that unruly and rebellious Prelate and when the Bishops themselves would have been glad of that pretence to have withdrawn themselves And this was about eight Months after the making the Statutes of Clarendon And in a short time after the swearing the observance of them by all the Grants of the Kingdom But the Law was then so well understood however the Letter of the Statute makes matter of dispute now that it was by no body in the least pretended that it was to be understood to such a sence as it is now drawn to viz. to exclude the Bishops the Spiritual Barons from judging in capital Causes in Parliament In those times they had only such an understanding as we have here before offer'd We shall therefore now proceed to give you an account how in the course of time the Right of the Prelates hath been used and recognized We will begin with the Case of Becket Arch-Bishop of Canterbury at a Parliament held in October in the 11 H. 2. Anno Domini 1165 at the Castle of Northampton To this Parliament Arch-Bishop Becket was cited as a Criminal and had not his Summons as Arch-Bishop so that that Parliament seem'd to be conven'd for doing him Justice the offence must therefore be very great so Stephanides tells us as he is cited by Mr. Selden 707. Though he was wont of custome to have the first Summons by the Kings Writ Nec tunc enim saith he nec diu ante ei scribere voluerat qui eum salutare nolebat Nec aliam per literas sibi directas solennem ac primam ut antiquis moris erat habuerat Archiepiscopus ad Concilium citationem Becket was there accused of Treason laesae majestatis coronae saith Fitz-Stephen a Monk of Canterbury that attended Thomas Becket the Arch-Bishop in his troubles Bishop Godwin in his Book de Praesulibus tells us that Arch-Bishop Becket Omnia sibi cernens infesta Naviculâ apud Rumenegam conscensâ in Galliam profugere conatus ventis adversantibus in littus repertus ac deprehensus ad Regem Conventus Northamptoniae agentem adductus est Ibi repentundarum peculiatûs perjurii proditionis falsi nescio quot aliorum Criminum cum à caeteris proceribus tum Episcopis ipsis suffraganeis reus factus This Court is called a Parliament by Mr. Selden and magnum Concilium by Roger of Hoveden and by others as Mr. Selden saith But that it was a Parliament and not the Curia Regis which we shall speak about hereafter doth appear by this certain diagnostick viz. that the Bishops were Summoned hereto by personal Writ of Summons to them directed immediately at that time which appears by what is before cited out of Fitz-Stephen and what is after taken out of Gervasius But to the Curia Regis they were Summoned by the Sheriff by a general Writ to him for that purpose directed which is a distinctive Note and Character of a Parliament as will hereafter appear But Fitz-Stephen saith as Mr. Selden quotes him Titles of honour Fol. 705. that secunda die consulentibus Episcopis Baronibus Angliae omnibus Nay he is so exact in his observation that he tells us who was not there of the Bishops viz. Roffensis Episcopus quidam alias nondum venenat Hoveden tells us how Becket had before behaved himself towards the King that notwithstanding great endeavours used on the Kings part to reconcile Becket to himself He would not be reconciled to the King Post multum tempus saith Hoveden Ernulphus Lexoviensis Episcopus venit in Angliam sollicite laboravit die ac nocte ut pax fieret inter Regem Archiepiscopum sed ad plenum fieri non potuit Deinde per consilium Lexoviensis Episcopi Rex separavit Rogerum Archiepiscopum Eboracensem Robertum de Welun Episcopum Herefordiensem Robertum Lincolniensem Episcopum alios quosdam Ecclesiae Praelatos à Consortio Consilio Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi ut per illos praefatum Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum in suos Conatus facilius alliceret Deinde venit in Angliam quidam vir Religiosus dictus Philippus de Eleemosyna missus à latere Alexandri Summi Pontificis Cardinalium omnium ad pacem faciendam inter Regem Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem Per quem summus Pontifex omnes Cardinales mandaverunt Cantuariensi Episcopo ut ipse pacem cum domino suo Rege Angliae faceret Leges suas sine aliquâ exceptione custodiendas promitteret his igitur aliis magnorum virorum Consiliis acquiescens Thomas Cantuariensis venit ad Regem apud Woodstock ibi promisit Regi concessit se bonâ fide sine malo ingenio leges suas servanturum Et paulo post congregato Clero populo Regni apud Clarendon poenituit Archiepiscopum quod ipse Concessionem illam fecerat Regi volens resilire à pacto dixit se in illa Concessione graviter peccasse quod in hoc amplius non peccaret Rex plurimum in irâ adversus eum commotus minatus est ei suis Exitum Mortem Venerunt ergo ad Archiepiscopum Salisburiensis Norwicensis Episcopi Robertus Leicestriae Reginaldus Cornubiae Comites lachrymantes provoluti ad pedes Archiepiscopi petebant ut saltem propter honorem Regis veniret ad eum coram populo diceret se Leges suas recepisse Precibus igitur tantorum virorum Archiepiscopus vectus venit ad Regem â—oram Clero populo dixit se Leges illas quas Rex avitas vocabat suscepisse concessit ut Episcopi Leges illas susciperent ut illas custodire promitterent Tunc praecepit Rex universis Comitibus Baronibus Regni ut irent foras recordarentur Legum Henrici Regis Avi sui eas in scripto
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
Jus Paritatis pray mark it what then did they in effect depart from nothing They provided only that they might do nothing indecent or rather against their good liking and at the same time consulted likewise the safety of their Estate and Order and preservation of all their Rights But had they no care of the Authority of the Parliament in their absence yes for they very well knew that it was a probable opinion that nothing acted in their absence and during a recess of their whole Order could be rate and valid and therefore they provide propter hujusmodi absentiam non intendimus nec volumus nec eorum aliquis intendit vel vult quod processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parliamento super materiis auditis quantum ad nos eorum quemlibet attinet futuris temporibus quomodolibet impugnentur infirmentur seu etiam revocentur Let the Impartial Reader Judge whether this be not a famous recognition of the Bishops Right of sitting what a solemn leave they had to be absent what provisions made that the proceedings in that Parliament should not be avoided and made null by their absence which implies a great probability that that time allowed to the opinion of their being necessary in all proceedings in Parliament Was there ever such a protestation entred on the behalf of the Absentees of Temporal Barons This leave given them to be absent is an allowance of Right to sit The proceedings they liked not and the Canon was pretended Admitting this protestation to be an Act of Parliament It is an Act of Parliament to give the Bishops leave to be absent pro hac vice and to make Laws good that should pass in their absence I appeal to the world whether there can be a more Solemn and Authentick Recognition of their Right than this protestation imports CHAP. VIII IT does appear by the whole tenor of this their protestation that the Canons of the Church which they pretend had not passed into Laws if they had what need of such a warm protestation only for the sake of decency and the honesty of their order to be rid of a troublesome business what means the saving of their right if by Law it had been discharged what means their further protestation that the validity of the proceedings in those Causes in which they withdrew should not be impeach't by their absence if their Right did not remain entire notwithstanding the Canon besides that they do not alledge the Law but the Canons of the Church for their excuse They well knew the nature of Canons the force and obligation of them and also that they were not under any obligation to the Canon Law that it was only a Law in the Popes Temporal principality and had no Controul upon the Laws of this Kingdom For the clearing this question it will not be unnecessary here to speak to the nature of Canons what they effect and how oblige Canons therefore are no more Laws than the authority of the Church is Empire no not in matters that are proper for their Canons But most certainly they can neither make nor annul a Civil Right nor do they pretend to alter or change Governments they exceed their proper bounds when they intermeddle in any matters of this nature But when they do extend themselves beyond their bounds and order and appoint in any matter of a Civil Government they intend only to counsel and direct the man how he shall behave himself in the use of his Right which every man may observe if he please Their Subjects are Populus voluntarius the Ecclesiastical Courts are Courts of audience in matters that belong to their cognisance and the Church's word is He that will hear let him hear The Canons of foreign Councils tho' General tho' we send thither our Delegates and Proxies authorized by publick Instruments and by consent of Parliament as has been sometimes done have not the consideration of Canons except received here and allowed by the same Authority that makes the Canons of our Church Canons here must have the Royal assent at least to make them Canons but with the Kings assent they are void if they alter or meddle with any Civil Right or Constitution If any man is proceeded against in the Ecclesiastical Courts for being contrary in any thing to such a Canon our Courts will grant him a prohibition if Excommunicate thereupon award Writs to assoil him to the Bishop and seise his Temporalties if he do not conform Nothing can alter Civil Rights or Civil Constitutions but Law and such never were any Canons or so reputed except the Decrees of Councils confirmed by the Imperial Rescripts of the Roman Emperors who by their Rescripts made Laws by the Authority of the Lex regia by which the people devolved their Right of Legislation to the Emperors but when such Canons were confirmed by the Emperor they remained but Canons still the Canons were to be exacted by the measures of the Church and by the Church-men the matters of such Canons did not employ the Forum no alteration was made in any Civil Right but the Church had Authority to require observance of them under the Censures of the Church About the 11th Century the Pope meditating the increase of his new Ecclesiastical Empire the Roman Empire being now extinct did design to give Laws to the World and to that purpose in imitation of the Imperial Roman Law Gratian was appointed to compile a body of Laws accomodated to that design out of the General Councils the sayings of the Fathers and some decrees of former Popes which made that part of the Canon Law which they call the Decreta to answer to the Digest which was made up of the Senatus consulta Responsa prudentum and the Edicta Praetorum to which another Book was added of Decretals and Clementines made up of the Popes Decretal Epistles which answered to the Codes and Novels which was made up of the Edicts Epistles and Decrees of the Emperors For by the Constitution of the Senate of Rome called Lex Regia by which they gave the power of making Laws to Augustus it was established that quicquid per Epistolam statuit cognoscens decrevit aut per edictum propalavit lex esto And now there was such a thing as a body of Canon Law The Pope had Power indeed to make these Decreta and Decretalia Laws in the Domains of the Church and the patrimony of St. Peter in which he was a Temporal Prince but it was further endeavoured by him to make them the Laws of the Christian World and thereby to advance his pretended Oecumencial Empire and he did so far prevail and advance in his design that it was thought that Rome had again recovered the Empire of the World and it was said with too much truth of her upon the growth of the Papal power Quicquid non possidet armis Religione tenet But tho' the Pontificial as well as the Justinian
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
it to the Son and his Descendents and to the Family he should derive from himself and when this was alienated in Fee the descent of it was directed agreeably to the manner and direction of the first Collation If the Father gave the Son the Estate there was a Tenure created of the Father as there was in all Feofments of the Feoffer before the Statute of Quia emptores terrarum and it is a Rule in Law that a man cannot be haeres dominus Stamford's Exposition of the Prerogative chap. 5. fol. 23. B. If before the Statute of Quia emptores the eldest Son had enfeoffed the middlemost to hold of him and had taken his Homage the middlemost dieth without Issue the youngest should have had the Land and not the eldest Howbeit if there were no youngest Son or any other Heir than the Feoffor might claim the Land again by Escheat and not otherwise Another is this for a reason in our Law why the Children of several venters shall not inherit each others Lands it is told us it is so because they are but of the half blood to one another and therefore the Brother of the first venter shall not succeed to the State of the Brother by a second venter which dies without Issue But the Land must descend to the Uncle But this Uncle can be but of the half blood to the Nephew and the very reason that is given for the Law makes the Law unreasonable But the true reason why the Brothers of different venters cannot inherit each other is a disallowance that our Ancestors the Saxons had of second Marriages they as most of the Germane Nations esteeming them as concubinat and at best but as permitted Fornication So Tacitus tells us in his Book de moribus Germanorum that they did not allow of Second Marriages Ne non maritum sed matrimonium ament non nuptam sed nuptias and agreable to this Opinion are descents governed in several Countries in Germany at this day This tho' it is apt to excite all Gentlemen of the Robe never to acquiesce in any reason of the Law that is not sence which if they do they will forfeit their Reason and Judgment I should not have been so impertinent as to have mentioned in this Discourse but that this dealing in Causes without the exercise of clear reason about them hath brought it to pass that much of our Law will not sort to Natural Reason and Justice and this gave one great occasion to the Rise and Growth of the Court of Chancery Since it came in my way to shew the Original of the other Courts and the Reader may wonder that there is nothing in Antiquity that gives Authority to so celebrated and so busie a Court as this is at this day I will here offer an account of the Rise and Growth of it which will prepare the way for taking of it down which is no less a Reproach than it is a Grievance to the Nation There is nothing so great a Reproach to a Nation than to have Laws that are confessedly not good and equal to continue them and yet to allow of an Authority to reproach them with Iniquity that our Courts of Law should be under Rules and Obligations to pronounce Judgments which a single Gentleman shall authoritatively controul and condemn as unrighteous that Law and Equity should be Opposites That a Judgment must be made up and formd in a Case and what is equal just and fit therein must not be considered though it can be and will in another Court have a judicial Consideration Our Judges at Law take themselves bound not to hear or regard the Allegations of the Defendants against the Plaintiffs pretence which ought in good reason to bar them therein or at least qualifie the Judgments when the same matter shall be heard in Chancery and prevail either wholly to set aside or to qualifie the same Judgments This is not only to be complain'd of as derogatory to the Reputation of the Wisdom of the Nation but is insufferably oppressive to the Subject by the multiplicity of Suits tedious and vexatious Delays Nay by this ill Contrivance the Expences sometimes equal sometimes exceed the Value of the Right which is litigated and which is worse the Event of the Suit is very uncertain and fortuitous But this is not all our Law it seems is not a Rule that extends it self to all Causes and we have Rights confessedly such and which can be judicially remedied to which the Common Law extends no Relief For a thousand Causes in a year are for that reason heard in the Court of Chancery Two such Reproaches no Nation but ours hath ever yet incurr'd or suffer'd For Law and Equity is no where else opposed and every Right hath his Remedy by the Law of the Country but ours The first great occasion to the rise of the Chancery was Feoffments made upon Trust to uses in the time of our Warring about the Title of the Crown to avoid Forfeitures The Judges in tenderness to the Condition and necessity of those times did judge that an Use was no Right though most certainly it is For it is jus ad rem that nothing might be forfeited when it depended upon chance whether a man should be a good Subject or a Traitor And the same consideration easily admitted of any Authority that would interpose to relieve against those who would abuse or deny such Trusts and no body brought into question that authority by which a piece of justice so necessary to the Nation was administred Another great reason of the business of the Court of Chancery is that which we before-mentioned that we have not improv'd the Statute of Westm 2 C. 24. And a third is the ill conducting of our Laws our Ancient Judges were infected with the Monkery of that time men of no Learning and of a vain Subtilty The Theology of those times was insipid and most trifling and the Administration of Justice agreably turned into a vain art of disputing the apices juris and a subtilty was used too fine for business and to govern the affairs of Men that governed themselves by none of those Superfineries They argued without Discourse or discoursed from positive Rules or Presidents which were almost the same with them as Rules of Law and not from the true Merits of the Cause and its own particular reasons of Right And the Common Law which is Lex non scripta i. e. that which a wise Judicature should declare upon the consideration of the present Case was by the Proceedings of our Courts turn'd into a Lex scripta positive and inflexible and the Rule of Justice could not accomodate it self to every Case according to the Exigency of Right and Justice But if it were consider'd that there can be no Prescription against Justice that no Presidents where a Right hath not been relieved can be pretended why it should not be assisted hereafter And if a matter
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-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
afterwards sensible of the Injustice and Irregularity of their Proceedings in judging and condemning Commoners and for the avoiding of the like for time to come an Act of Parliament was made which followeth viz. El est assensu accord per nostre Seigniour le Roy touts les gents en plein Parlement per tant que les dits Peres come Judges du Parlement pristerint en le presence nostre Seigniour le Roy a faire a render les dits judgments passant du Roy sur ascun de ceux que n'estoient pas leur Peres ce que encheson de murdre de Seignior Lige destruction de celuy que fu sipres de Sank Royal fits du Roy que per les dits Peres que ore sont ou les Peres que serront en temps aveniz ne soient mes tenus ne charge a rendre judgments sur auter que sur lour peres ne ace fair mes eiont les peres de la terre poer eins de ceo pur tout Jours ore venu soient discharges quietes qui les avant dits judgments ore rendus ne soient ensample nen sequence en temps avenir per quoi les dits peres puissent estre charges desore judges autres que lour peres contre la ley de la terre si autiel case deveigne que Dieu defend Rot. Parl. 4 E. 3. 11. 6. This the Author of the grand Question concerning the Judicature of the House of Peers would have but an Order of the House and no Act of Parliament because it served his purpose to have it so but for no other reason which he offers in that Book but that it was an Act of Parliament will appear by a Record which my worthy Friend Mr. Petyt a most Industrious and Sagacious Enquirer into the Records of Elder Times hath furnished to me which is a Writ directed to the Barons of the Exchequer wherein the afore-recited Record is mentioned and called an Act of Parliament viz. Rex Thes Baronibus suis de scaccariis salutem mittimus nobis sub pede sigilli nostri quaedam Judicia in Parliamento nostro apud Westm nuper tent ' per Comites Barones alios Pares Regni super Rogero de Mortuo Mari quosdam alios reddita necnon quondam Concordiam per nos Pares praedict ' necnon Communitatem Regni nostri in eodem Parl. to fact ' super premissis mandamas quod Judicia Concordiam praedict ' in Scaccario nostro praedict ' coram vobis legi publicari ibid. seriatim in Rotulari de caetero ibid. observari Fac ' Teste meipso apud Windsor 15. die Februarii Anno Regni nostri quinti adhuc Brevia directa Baronibus de termino Sancti Hilar. anno 5 E. 3. R. 33. penes Rememor Domini Regis in Scaccario To compleat our Argument the Concordia appears now an Act of Parliament to the purpose that the Lords should not give Judgment upon others than their Peers yet we find the Bishops afterwards judged in Parliament and that in times near the making of this Act when we may be allowed to presume they knew this Law and besides the practice hath been conformable to the Law since as our Adversary confesseth and particularly to mention no more the Bishop of Norwich in the 7 R. 2. And Thomas Arundel Arch-bishop of Canterbury 21 R. 2. both for Treason were tryed in Parliament by Peers which Cases are before mentioned to another purpose There was likewise an Act of Parliament made 13 E. 3. n. 7. that the Nobles of the Land should not be put to answer but in open Parliament by their Peers but two years after that Act was repealed otherwise we should not have since heard of Tryals of Bishops by common Juries in Capital Causes And when the Lay-peers can again procure and provide for themselves such a Law they will not I hope envy the Bishops if they find them therein included CHAP. XIX BUt after all that hath been said it will be yet necessary to advertise the Reader for informing and settling a true Judgment of the Right of the Cause that in Questions of this Nature we can only arrive to a moral Certainty which is made by incomparably the greatest probability That we cannot be answered but by producing something at least equally probable to all the several parts of our Discourse that are to the question if by any Objection they should render any one part of our Discourse doubtful they would do nothing except they can do so to all the rest which can be done only by offering something more probable For when many probabilities are concurring to prove the same thing they do not singly stand upon their own Credit but they are all assisted by their Conjunction and give Aids mutually to support every one single probability This is but necessary to be said for that I see this Question will be kept up and defended with Obstinacy Passion Interest and unreasonable Contention And farther that it is very undecent that a question of this Greatness concerning a matter grave and important should be endlesly vexed with trifling Objections of the Nequam ingeniosi To prevent therefore the Caprice Captions Cavillations trifling Criticisms forcing of a Grammatical Sence of Words against their true and easie meaning most agreable to the subject matter to the occasion of speaking of them and their probable intendment and to the understanding of the Times when they were spoken And that we may be no longer or more troubled with their Opposings to that which is fairly probable an imagination of something barely possible and which otherwise doth appear notoriously false That Objections neither from the loose Stile especially of partial Historians nor from Records of Matters dark and obscure which leave us in doubt of their true meaning and therefore can be no ground for Argument nor from the various sence of words which they make to stand for this or that as it serves their turn At which rate nothing will be certain because few words have one single determinate Sence may any longer continue the Subterfuge of a desperate Cause and matter of endless Dispute I appeal to the World whether such like Objections deserve an Answer for to some of these Topicks whatever shall be produced by our Adversaries will be reduced And whether they are not rude and imperious to the Dignity of the Right in question to draw it to a Tryal by such mean and incompetent ways and unjust measures as they are otherwise in the Management of this Question to the persons of those that are concerned in it It is with passion to be resented that so noble a Question should be tryed by such means and incompetent ways of Probation and by such unnatural measures which can be endured by none but such who have no measures of Right but an agreableness to their own Projects and who are upon the search