the jurisdiction of the Court. Et dicit quod si quis eorum speaking of the Lords of Parliament deliquerit erga Dominum Regem in Parliamento aliquo in parliamento debet corrigi emendari non alibi in minori curia quam in Parliamento Vnde non intendit quod Dominus Rex velit in curia hic de bujusmodi transgressione contemptu factis in Parliamento responderi Note the Plea as to the offence is very general not only restrain'd to the offence of absenting from the Parliament but to any trespass or offence in Parliament Si quis deliquerit And it would be a little improper to call absence from Parliament offence committed in Parliament for it looks like the quite contrary But in a just sence any offence committed by a Member relating to the Parliament though done out of the House is termed an Offence in Parliament So Printing any thing by Order of Parliament though it be done and executed in another place yet it may be said to be done by the Parliament and in Parliament if it be by their Order and in time of Parliament We may note further that this is a prosecution only against one particular Person for a particular Offence and Contempt charg'd upon him But in our Case the prosecution is against the very Speaker of the Parliament and is in effect a prosecution against the Parliament for it is against him for what he did by command and order of Parliament and sitting the Parliament And though the Attorney-General reply'd to the Bishops Plea that the King might sue in what Court he would yet the Bishop rejoins upon him and maintains his former Plea and there it rests so that as Sir E. C. observes that the Bishops Plea did stand and was never over-rul'd agreeable to the resolutions of former times So this I. may claim as an authority on our side And though Mr. Plowden the Lawyer to the like Information put in against him and others 1 and 2 Philip and Mary pleaded that he remain'd continually from the beginning to the end of the Parliament and travers'd the absence whereby he passes by the advantage of the Plea to the jurisdiction yet this is no Authority against us for he might think fit Renunciare juri pro se introducto having so true an occasions of clearing himself from that scandalous imputation of being absent from doing his duty in Parliament which certainly is a very high breach of Trust and he might be impatient of lying under it and therefore thought it best to traverse it to clear his Reputation in that point yet I must confess I should never have advis'd it nor was there any further prosecution against him I will mention but one most excellent Record more and it is a Record out of the Parliament Rolls 27 E. 3. Num. 9. Sir Cotton's Abridgem and with that I will Conclude I take it to be very pertinent and I am sure it is very seasonable Among the Petitions of the Commons One is They pray the King that he will require the Archbishop and all other of the Clergy to Pray for the Peace and good Government of the Land. And for the King 's good will towards the Commons The King's Answer is The same prayseth the King. And I wish with all my heart it were the Common-Prayer I have but one Prayer more to make and that is That this Court will allow the Defendant's Plea. A DISCOURSE Concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IN THE Realm of England Occasioned by the Late COMMISSION IN Ecclesiastical Causes By Sir Robert Atkyns Kt. of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late One of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas LONDON Printed for Tim. Goodwin at the Maiden-Head against St. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street MDCLXXXIX A DISCOURSE Concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IN THE Realm of England Occasioned by the Late COMMISSION IN Ecclesiastical Causes THE Preamble acknowledges That the King justly and rightfully is and ought to be Supream Head of the Church of England and is so recognised by the Clergy in their Convocations And it is Enacted That the King and his Successors shall be taken c. the only Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England And shall have and enjoy annexed to the Imperial Crown all Jurisdiction c. Authorities c. to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging And that the King and his Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm shall have full Power and Authority from time to time to visit repress redress reform order correct restrain and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed repressed ordered redressed c. Any Usage Custom foreign Laws foreign Authority Prescription or any thing to the contrary notwithstanding Note This Act doth not make the King to be the Supream Head of the Church of England but acknowledges that he ever hath been so as it is recited by the Statute made in the same Parliament of 26 H. 8. c. 3. the Act for the First-Fruits See the Preamble towards the latter Part being the first Paragraph See also the Oath prescribed by the Statute of 35 H. 8. cap. 1. for the Succession Paragraph the 11th in Mr. Keeble's Edition of the Statutes at large very full to this purpose to shew that the Act of 26 H. 8. cap. 1. gave the King no new Title but only acknowledged that he ever had a Right to it and that the Bishop of Rome had but usurped it And as the Act of 26 H. 8. cap. 1. gave the King no new Title so it gave him no new nor further Authority in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things nor over Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Persons than what he had before Therefore it is to be enquir'd what jurisdiction or Authority the King had before the making of that Act and how the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was of right and duly before exercis'd and administred viz. in what Courts by what Rules Laws or Canons and by what Persons It is clear in Law that the King himself merely in his own Royal Person could never take to himself the Hearing of any Cause Ecclesiastical or Temporal and adjudg and determine the Cause himself For by the Law and Constitution of the Realm the King hath committed all his Power Judicial to divers Courts some in one Court some in another as is held in Sir Ed. Cokes 2d Institutes fol. 186. at the lower end of that folio and in the middle of fol. 187. All Matters of Judicature and Proceedings in Law are distributed to the Courts of Justice and the King doth judg by his Justices See the Reports that pass by the Name of Sir Ed. Cokes 12th Reports fol. 63. the Case of Prohibitions Which is true as to Ecclesiastical Causes as well as Temporal for every Man knows that there
have been from the first Constitution of the Kingdom certain Courts and Jurisdictions erected within this Realm for deciding and determining of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Causes Selden's History of Tithes fol. 412. All this is excellently well set forth by the Preamble of the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. concerning Appeals That as the King hath ever been the Supream Head of the Realm which Word Head is by way of Metaphor and must have relation to some Body therefore the Statute in the Preamble proceeds to tell you what the Body is to which the Head relates viz. The Body Politick of the Realm consists of all sorts and degrees of People within this Realm divided by Names of Spiritualty and Temporalty The Statute proceeds to mention the plenary Power Authority and Jurisdiction the King hath within this Realm in all Causes It shews us how that Power is distributed and by whom to be exercised Not by the King in Person nor at his Will and Pleasure in any arbitrary Way but as that Preamble further iustructs us The Body Spiritual hath Power in all Causes Divine and Spiritual to determin and to administer all such Offices and Duties as to their rooms Spiritual doth appertain the like is declared as to Temporal Causes to be in the other Part of the said Body Politick call'd the Temporalty And both their Authorities and Jurisdictions do concur in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other The Preamble of this Stat. of 24 H. 8. c. 12. of Appeals further shews how that this Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Jurisdiction had been confirmed and defended by several antient Acts of Parliament against the Usurpations of the Bishop of Rome and that long before the Reformation of Religion Then comes the Enacting Part which does Ordain That all Causes determinable by any Spiritual Jurisdiction whether they concern the King himself as the Case of the King's Divorce or any of the Subjects shall be heard examined discussed clearly finally and definitively adjudged and determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority and not elsewhere in such Courts Spiritual and Temporal of the same as the nature of the Cases shall require Then the same Statute shews us in what Courts and by what Steps and Method Suits and Proceedings concerning Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Matters ought to be handled See Paragraph 5 6 7 8 9 10. It begins with the Arch Deacon's Court which is infimi gradus and proceeds gradually from the Arch-Deacon to the Diocesan from him to the Metropolitan and at last it mentions the Convocation as the Supreamest Note That further Appeals have been given by several Acts of Parliament as by 25 H. 8 c 19. from the Arch-Bishop or Metropolitan to the King in Chancery which is by Commission of Delegates c. And it hath been Resolved That though the Acts of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. and of 25. H. 8 cap. 19. do upon certain Appeals make the Sentence definitive as to any further Appeal yet the King as Supream Head may grant a Commission of Review See the Case of Halliwell against Jervois Sir Francis Moores Reports fol. 462. and in the same Reports fol. 782. in the Case of Bird against Smith and in Sir Edw. Cokes 4th Institutes fol. 341. And as the Kings Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction are by the Fundamental Laws of the Realm distributed into several Courts which are mentioned and confirmed by the said several Acts of Parliament and may not therefore be exercised by any other but by such Courts and in such Method and Manner as by Law and the said Acts of Parliament it is provided So also those Courts cannot proceed Arbitrarily but by the known and setled Ecclesiastical Laws Constitutions and Canons that are in force By the Act of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. Entituled An Act for restoring to the Crown the Antient Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical and Spiritual c. the seventeenth Paragraph in Keeble's Book of Statutes It is Enacted That such Jurisdictions c. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power or Authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all manner of Errors c. Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities shall for ever by Authority of this Present Parliament be united to the Crown By the 18th Paragraph of that Act the Queen and her Successors have Power by vertue of this Act by Letters Patents under the Great Seal to assign c. as often as they shall think meet and for such time such Person or Persons as the Queen c. shall think meet to exercise all manner of Jurisdictions Ecclesiastical or Spiritual and to Visit Reform Redress Order Correct and Amend all such Errors c. Abuses Offences Contempts and Anormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or lawfully may be Reformed Ordered Redressed Corrected Restrained or Amended and such Person or Persons so to be named c. shall have full Power by vertue of this Act and of the said Letters Patents to exercise use and execute all the Premises according to the Tenor and Effect of the said Letters Patents See Sir Edw. Cokes 4. Inst. in his Chapter of Ecclesiastical Courts fol. 324 325. and see the 3d. Observ. fol. 326. observe the Words viz. It was Enacted out of necessity c. and ibid. Necessity did cause this Commission and it was not to be Exercis'd but upon necessity for it was never intended That it should be a continual standing Commission c. That the main Object of that Act was to deprive the Popish Clergy Almere's Case and Taylor and Massie's Case left to the proper Diocesan Upon the last recited Clause in that of 1. Eliz. was grounded the late Court call'd The High Commission Court From which Act it may be observed and collected That it needed an Act of Parliament to give such Authority to the Queen to grant such Letters Patents or Commission and that without an Act of Parliament such Commission could not have been granted For if the Queen by her meer Prerogative and Supream Power in Ecclesiastical Causes could have granted such Commission an Act of Parliament had been unnecessary And the express Words of the Act are That the Queen c. shall have power by vertue of this Act and the Law had as hath been before observ'd distributed the Kings Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction into several Courts So that without a new Law the like Power could not be put into any other hands in Derogation of those ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts Secondly Note This Act makes no new Crimes nor Offences but gives the Commissioners or Patentees Power to Visit Reform Redress c. all such Errors c. Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power can
Newly Printed for Timothy Goodwin at the Maiden-Head against S. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet AN Enquiry into the Power of Dispensing with Penal Statutes together with some Animadversions upon a Book writ by Sir Edward Herbert Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common-Pleas Entituled A short Account of the Authorities in Law upon which Judgement was given in Sir Edward Hales's case By Sir Robert Atkins Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas THE Power Jurisdiction and Priviledge OF PARLIAMENT AND THE ANTIQUITY OF THE House of Commons ASSERTED OCCASION'D By an Information in the Kings Bench by the Attorney General against the Speaker of the House of Commons As also a Discourse concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IN THE REALM of ENGLAND Occasion'd by the Late Commission in Ecclesiastical Causes By Sir ROBERT ATKINS Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas LONDON Printed for Timothy Goodwin at the Maiden-Head against S. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet 1689. IN THE KINGS BENCH TRIN. 36 CAROL II. BY INDICTMENT Middles THe Kings Attorney informs the Court That W. W. Esq being a Pernicious and Seditious Man and Contriving and Practising Falsly Maliciously and Seditiously to disturb the Peace and Quiet of the Kingdom And to stir up Sedition and to procure Ill-Will between the King and his Subjects And to bring the D. of Y. into Contempt with the King and his Subjects In order to the Compassing of all these The ninth of November 34 Car. 2 In the Parish of S. Martins in the Fields in the County of Middlesex He the said W. W. did with Force and Arms Falsly Vnlawfully Vnjustly Wickedly Maliciously Scandalcusly Seditiously and Devillishly for his own Lucre Cause and Appoint a certain False Scandalous Seditious and Infamous Libel entituled The Information of Thomas Dangerfield Gentleman to be Printed and Published In which Libel among other things are contained as followeth The Information of Thomas Dangerfield Gentleman c. the Contents of it have been read and need no Repetition In Contempt of the Law and to the ill Example of others and against the Peace and the Kings Crown and Dignity And the King's Attorney prays Process against him That he may be brought in to answer it The Defendant pleads to the Jurisdiction of this Court and says That by the Law and Custom of Parliament The Speaker of the House of Commons sitting the Parliament according to the Duty of his Office as Servant to the House ought and ever has accustomed to Speak Sign and Publish such Proceedings of that House and in such manner as he shall be ordered by the Commons so assembled And that such Speaking Signing or Publishing according to the Law and Custom of Parliament are the Act and Doing of the Commons themselves and hath ever been so accepted and taken and not as the Speakers own Acting or doing And that the Speaker for such Speaking Signing or Publishing by him made or done sitting the Parliament and by their Order ought not to answer in any other Court or Place but in Parliament He further says That at the Sessions of Parliament at Westminster the 15th of March 31 Car. 2 held by Prorogation One William Viscount Stafford and others were impeached by the Commons before the Lords according to the Law and Custom of Parliament of High Treason For a most execrable Conspiring to kill the King And to Alter and Subvert the Ancient Government and the Laws of the Realm And to Suppress the true Religion established in this Kingdom And to root up and destroy the Professors of it And that afterwards in the Sessions of Parliament held by Prorogation at Westminster 21 Octob. 32 Car. 2. The said Viscount Stafford at the Prosecution of the Commons was Tried and Convicted and Attainted in due Form of Law by the Temporal Lords then assembled in Parliament for the High Treasons of which he was so Impeached by the Commons As by the Record of Parliament does appear He further says That in the opening of that Session The King in his Speech to the Lords and Commons charged them to pursue a further Examination of that Conspiracy with a Strict and Impartial Enquiry And the King then told them That he did not think himself nor them secure till that matter was throughly done He further says That in the same Sessions of Parliament last mentioned which continued at Westminster till 10 Jan. 32 Car. 2. both Houses of Parliament in pursuance of his Majesties said Direction made a Strict and Impartial Enquiry after that Conspiracy And upon that Enquiry in the same Sessions of Parliament last mentioned the said Thomas Dangerfield in the said Information named did upon his Oath exhibit to the Lords in Parliament the said Libel entituled The Information of Thomas Dangerfield Gentleman as his true Information of that Conspiracy And delivered it to the Lords which was and is there Recorded as by the Record thereof in Parliament does appear And he also delivered it to the House of Commons in the same Parliament at the Bar of that House And the said Commons then ordered That that Information among others then before given in at the Bar of that House touching the said Plot should be entred in their Journal And that all the said Informations should be printed being first Perused and Signed by their Speaker And that the Speaker should name and appoint the Persons that should print them And that Thomas Dangerfield should have the Benefit of the Printing of his Information And the Defendant further says That he was a Member of the House of Commons during all the Sessions of Parliament last mentioned and was duly Elected and Made their Speaker and was so all that Sessions And that by virtue of and in pursuance of the said Order as Speaker of the House afterwards during that Session sc. 10 Nov. 32 Car. 2. in the Parish of S. Martins in the Fields in the said County of Middlesex He did Peruse the said Information so exhibited by the said Thomas Dangerfield to the Commons and he Signed it by putting to it his Name viz. William Williams Speaker of the House of Commons And then and there appointed Thomas Newcomb and Henry Hills being the Kings Printers to Print that Information according to the said Order of the House of Commons And thereupon the said Information afterwards and during that Session sc. 10 Nov. 32 Car. 2. was printed by those two Printers And that the said Thomas Dangerfield had the Benefit of that Printing according to the Order of the House Which Setting to of his Name and Appointment of the said Printers to Print the said Information are the same Causing and Appointing of the Printing and Publishing of the Libel in the Attorney General 's Information mentioned Absque hoc That he is Guilty of the Premises in the said Attorney General 's Information specified on
or lawfully may be Reformed Redressed Corrected c. In Sir Edw. Cokes 12 Rep. fol. 49 It was Resolved Trin. 6. Jae Per totam Curiam in the Court of Common-Pleas there being then Five Judges of that Court Coke being Chief Justice That the High Commissioners by vertue of their Commission and that Act of Parliament ought to proceed according to Ecclesiastical Law. Secondly If their Commission gave them any Power which was not allowed or warranted by that Act of Parliament it was not Legal which proves that such Power cannot be exercis'd by a Commission under the Great Seal merely without an Act of Parliament See Drakes Case in Justice Croke's Reports of the time of King Charles fol. 220. There it is also Resolv'd That the King by his Commissioners cannot alter the Ecclesiastical Law nor the Proceedings of ☞ it And if the Word Lawfully had not been in that Act of 1. Eliz. yet it must have been so intended and the Judges of the Common Law who are proper Judges Expositors and Interpreters of Acts of Parliament would have so understood it as appears by the Resolution of the Judges in the Case in the same 12. Rep. of the Lord Coke fol. 84 85. and little regard therefore was given by the Judges to Commissions under the Great Seal which the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Abbot said had been made in like Cases in the Times of King Hen. VIII and Ed. VI. In the last Case ibidem fol. 85. the Chief Justice Coke says He had seen the Commission made to Cromwell by King Hen. VIII to be Vice-gerent and other Commissions to others by his appointment and he refers to the Commission at large inserted in his Book of Precedents See in the same 12. Rep. of Sir Edw. Coke f. 88. Excellent Rules to be observ'd upon such extraordinary Commissions viz. They ought to be solemnly read for they may possibly contain many things against the Law as the Commission in that Case mentioned did The Commissioners may every one of them require Copies of the Commission The Commissioners ought to Sit in an open Place and at certain Days Note also That such Commissions ought not to be kept secret but they ought to be Enrolled in the Chancery That the Subjects may be under a known Authority See Sir Coke's 4. Instit. fol. 332. the middle of that fol. And upon irregular and illegal Commissions in Ecclesiastical Causes the Remedy is by Prohibition out of the Courts at Westminster In the same 4 Instit. fol. 340. the Author hath this Note Nota Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester was depriv'd at Lambeth by Commission from King Edward the VI. made to Ten Persons proceeding upon it ex Officio mero mixto vel promoto omni appellatione remotâ summarie de plano absque omni forma figura Judicii sola Facti Veritate inspecta The Author passes no Opinion upon it Quaere by what Law this was warranted It must be rare and extraordinary otherwise Sir Edw. Coke would not have so specially mention'd it but a Facto ad Jus non valet Argumentum Note That part of the Act of 1 Eliz. viz. the 18th Paragraph before verbatim transcribed viz. of the Queen Eliz. and her Successors granting such Letters Patents or Commissions in Ecclesiastical Causes is repealed by the Act made 16 Car. 1. cap. 11. See it in Mr. Keeble's Book of Statutes at large See the last Paragr or Clause in that Act of Repeal of 16 Car. 1. It is Enacted That no new Court shall be erected or appointed which shall have The like Power or Jurisdiction as the High Commissioners had or pretended to have but that all such Letters Patents Commissions and Grants and all Powers and Authorities thereby granted and all Acts Sentences and Decrees to be made by vertue or colour of them shall be Void Note The late Act of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. in Mr. Keeble's Book of Statutes does declare that the Ordinary Power of Arch-Bishops and Bishops was not taken away by that Repealing Act of 17 Car. 1. cap. 11. as this last Act dates it But by this Act of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. in the second Paragraph The aforesaid Repealing Act of 17 Car. 1. and all the Matters and Clauses therein contained excepting what concerns the High Commission Court or the new Erection of some such like Court by Commission are Repealed See the third Paragraph also of the Act of 13. Car. 2. That the High Commission Court shall not be Revived So that I conceive no such Commission nor Letters Patents can now be granted but the Repealing Act of 16 or 17 Car. 1. stands in force against it By what Law or Rules Cromwell in the Time of King Henry VIII and by what Instructions he acted does not appear the Commissions to make him Vicar General which was surely in Imitation of what had been used by the Pope in the time of his Usurpation or that of Vice-gerent in Ecclesiastical Matters which seems to be new and prime Impressionis are not now to be found of which Dr. Burnet in the History of the Reformation of the Church of England makes some probable conjectures fol. 181. and wherein consisted the difference between those two Authorities and Titles and the Commissions for the exercise of them is not easy to find out But the thing then principally design'd was to suppress the religious Houses belonging to the regular Clergy which were great Supports to the Popish Hierarchy not at all to impeach the Lawful Power and Jurisdiction of Episcopacy for we find at the same time as Cromwell's Commissions were in force and had been then but newly passed That Cranmer Arch-Bishop of Canterbury made his Metropolitical Visitation under which as I conceive most properly falls the Conusance of any contempt or abuse committed by any of his Suffragan Bishops if not in a Provincial Synod Archiepiscopi Jurisdictioni subsunt immediate suffraganti See Lind. Provin The exclusion of the Pope in the Time of King Hen. VIII made no diminution of the Power or Jurisdiction of the Clergy as to determining of Ecclesiastical Causes or making Canons Constitutions and other Synodical Acts as is rightly observ'd by Dr. Heylin in his Introduction to the History of Laud late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury upon this ground it is that to this day they exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in their own Names and under the distinct Seals of their Offices the Statutes that made some Alteration in the matter being all repealed See Dr. Heylin's Introduct aforesaid ibid. fol. 341. The Legislative Power in Matters Ecclesiastical continues in the Convocation for making Canons and Constitutions confirmed by the King and Parliament Discipline and the Admonition still resides in the Bishops and those under them In Case of any Irregularity in the Metropolitan Resort must doubtless be to the Head of the Church upon Earth the King as it was in the Case of Arch-Bishop Abbot who shooting at