Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	england_n	king_n	law_n	4,152	5	4.9568	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61601	The proceedings and tryal in the case of the most Reverend Father in God, William, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the Right Reverend Fathers in God, William, Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, Francis, Lord Bishop of Ely, John, Lord Bishop of Chichester, Thomas, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, Thomas, Lord Bishop of Peterborough, and Jonathan, Lord Bishop of Bristol, in the Court of Kings-Bench at Westminster in Trinity-term in the fourth year of the reign of King James the Second, Annoque Dom. 1688.	Sancroft, William, 1617-1693.; Lloyd, William, 1627-1717.; Turner, Francis, 1638?-1700.; Lake, John, 1624-1689.; Ken, Thomas, 1637-1711.; White, Thomas, 1628-1698.; Trelawny, Jonathan, Sir, 1650-1721.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.	1689 (1689)	Wing S564; ESTC R7827	217,926	148

aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury of Lambeth in the County of Surrey William Bishop of St. Asaph of St. Asaph in the County of Flynt Francis Bishop of Ely of the Parish of St. Andrew Holbourn in the County of Middlesex Iohn Bishop of Chichester of Chichester in the County of Sussex Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells of the City of Wells in the County of Somerset Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh of the Parish of St. Andrew Holbourn in the County of Middlesex and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol of the City of Bristol did consult and conspire among themselves to diminish the Regal Authority Royal Prerogative Power and Government of our said Lord the King in the premises and to infringe and clude the said Order and in prosecution and execution of the Conspiracy aforesaid They the said William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol on the said eighteenth day of May in the fourth year of the Reign of our said Lord the King aforesaid with Force and Arms c. at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid falsly unlawfully maliciously seditiously and scandalously did frame compose and write and caused to be framed composed and written a certain false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel in writing concerning our said Lord the King and his Royal Declaration and Order aforesaid under pretence of a Petition and the same false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel by them the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Franois Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol with their own hands respectively being subscribed on the day and year and in the place last mentioned in the presence of our said Lord the King with Force and Arms c. did publish and cause to be published in which said false feigned malicious pernicious and seditious Libel is contained The humble Petition c. prout before in the Petition to these words reasonable construction in manifest contempt of our said Lord the King and of the Laws of this Kingdom to the evil example of all others in the like case offending and against the Peace of our said Lord the King his Crown Dignity c. Whereupon the said Attorney-General of our said Lord the King on behalf of our said Lord the King prays the Advice of the Court here in the premises and due Process of Law to be made out against the aforesaid William Archbishop of Canterbury William Bishop of St. Asaph Francis Bishop of Ely Iohn Bishop of Chichester Thomas Bishop of Bath and Wells Thomas Bishop of Peterburgh and Ionathan Bishop of Bristol in this behalf to answer our said Lord the King in and concerning the premises c. T. Powys W. Williams To this Information the Defendents have pleaded Not Guilty and for their Trial have put themselves upon their Country and his Majesty's Attorney-General likewise which Country you are Your Charge is to enquire whether the Defendents or any of them are guilty of the matter contained in this Information that hath been read unto you or Not Guilty If you find them or any of them Guilty you are to say so and if you find them or any of them Not Guilty you are to say so and hear your Evidence Cryer make Proclamation Cryer O yes If any one will give Evidence on behalf of our Sovereign Lord the King against the Defendents of the matters whereof they are impeached let them come forth and they shall be heard Mr. Wright May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury this is an Information exhibited by his Majesty's Attorney-General against the most Reverend my Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Six other Honourable and Noble Bishops in the Information mentioned And the Information sets forth That the King out of his Clemency and benign intention towards his Subjects of this Kingdom did put forth his Royal Declaration bearing date the fourth day of April in the third year of his Reign entituled His Majesty's Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience and that afterwards the twenty-seventh of April in the fourth year of his Reign he published another Declaration both which have been read to you and for the further Manifestation and Notification of his Grace in the said Declaration bearing date the twenty-seventh of April last his Majesty did order That the said Declaration should be read on the twentieth and twenty-seventh of the same month in the Cities of London and Westminster and ten miles about and on the third and tenth of Iune throughout the whole Kingdom and that the Right Reverend the Bishops should send the said Declaration to be distributed throughout their respective Diocesses to be read accordingly But that the said Archbishop and Bishops the eighteenth of May in the said fourth year of his said Majesty's Reign having conspired and consulted among themselves to diminish the King's Power and Prerogative did falsly unlawfully maliciously and scandalously make compose and write a false scandalous malicious and seditious Libel under pretence of a Petition which Libel they did publish in the presence of the said King the Contents of which Libel you have likewise heard read To this they have pleaded Not Guilty You Gentlemen are Judges of the Fact if we prove this Fact you are to find them Guilty Mr. At. Gen. May it please your Lordship and you Gentlemen of the Jury your have heard this Information read by the Clerk and it has been likewise opened to you at the Barr but before we go to our Evidence perhaps it may not be amiss for us that are of Council for the King now in the beginning of this Cause to settle the Question right before you as well to tell you what my Lords the Bishops are not prosecuted for as what they are First I am to tell you and I believe you cannot your selves but observe that my Lords are not prosecuted as Bishops not much less are they Prosecuted for any point or matter of Religion but they are Prosecuted as Subjects of this Kingdom and only for a temporal Crime as those that have injured and affronted the King to his very Face for it is 〈◊〉 to be done in his own Presence In the next place they are not Prosecuted for any No●…easance or not doing or omitting to do any thing but as they are Actors for ce●…ring of his Majesty and his Government and for giving their Opinion in Matters wholly relating to Law and Government and I cannot omit here to take notice that there is not any one thing which the Law is more iealous of or does more carefully provide for the prevention and punishment of than all accusations and arra●…ents of the Government no Man is allowed to

Religion that was intended to be prohibited and so much Care was taken and so many Statutes made to prohibit it will come in and all this Care and all those Statutes go for nothing This one Declaration sets them all out of doors and then that Religion stands upon equal Terms with the established Religion My Lord We say this farther that my Lords the Bishops have the Care of the Church by their very Function and Offices and are bound to take care to keep out all those false Religions that are prohibited and designed to be kept out by the Law. My Lords the Bishops finding this Declaration founded upon a meer pretended Power that had been continually opposed and rejected in Parliament could not comply with the King's Command to read it My Lord Such a Power to dispense with or suspend the Laws of a Nation cannot with any shadow of Reason be It is not long since that such a Power was ever pretended to by any but such as have the Legislative too for it is plain that such a Power must at least be equal to the Power that made the Laws To dispense with a Law must argue a Power greater or at least as great as that which made the Law. My Lord It has been often said in our Books That where the King's Subjects are concerned in Interest the King cannot suspend or dispense with a particular Law. But my Lord how can the King's Subjects be more concern'd in Interest than when their Religion lies at stake It has been resolved upon the Statute of Symony that where the Statute has disabled the Party to take there the King could not enable him against that Act of Parliament And shall it be said that by his Dispensation he shall enable one to hold an Office who is disabled by the Test-Act My Lord We say The Course of our Law allows no such Dispensation as this Declaration pretends to And he that is but meanly read in our Law must needs understand this That the Kings of England cannot suspend our Laws for that would be to set aside the Law of the Kingdom And then we might be clearly without any Laws if the King should please to suspend them 'T is true we say the last King Charles was prevailed upon by Mis-information to make a Dispensation somewhat of the nature of this though not so full an one for that dispensed only with some few Ceremonies and things of that nature But the House of Commons this taking Air in 1662. represent this to the King by a Petition And what is it that they do represent That he by his Dispensation has undertaken to do that which nothing but an Act of Parliament can do that is the dispensing with Penal Laws which is only to be done by Act of Parliament And thereupon it was thought fit upon the King's Account to bring in an Act for it in some Cases My Lord The King did then in his Speech to the Parliament which we use as a great Argument against this Dispensing Power say this That considering the Circumstances of the Nation he could wish with all his Heart that he had such a Power to dispense with some Laws in some Particulars And thereupon there was a Bill in order to an Act of Parliament brought in giving the King a Power to dispense but my Lord with a great many Qualifications Which shews plainly that it was taken by the Parliament that he had no Power to dispense with the Laws of himself My Lord Afterwards in 1672. the King was prevailed upon again to grant another Dispensation somewhat larger L. C. I. Brother Pemberton I would not interrupt you but we have heard of this over and over again already Mr. S. Pemberton Then since your Lordship is satisfied of these things as I presume you are else I should have gone on I have done my Lord. Mr. S. Levinz But my Lord we shall go a little higher than that and shew that it has been taken all along as the ancient Law of England that such Dispensations ought to be by the King and the Parliament and not by the King alone Mr. Soll. Gen. My Lord if you will admit every one of the Council to Speech it before they give their Evidence when shall we come to an End of this Cause We shall be here till Midnight L. C. I. They have no Mind to have an End of the Cause for they have kept it three Hours longer than they need to have done Mr. S. Pemberton My Lord This Case does require a great deal of Patience L. C. I. It does so Brother and the Court has had a greas deal of Patience But we must not sit here only to hear Speeches Mr. Att. Gen. Now after all their Speeches of two Hours long let them read any thing if they have it Sir Rob. Sawyer We will begin with the Record of Richard the Second Call William Fisher. William Fisher Clerk to Mr. Ince sworn L. C. I. What do you ask him Sir Rob. Sawyer Shew him that Copy of the Record The Record was then shewn him L. C. I. Where had you those Sir Mr. Fisher. Among the Records in the Tower. L. C. I. Are they true Copies Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. L. C. I. Did you examine them by the Record Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. Sir Rob. Sawyer Then hand them in put them in Clerk reads Ex Rotulo Parliamenti de Anno Regni Regis Richardi Secundi XV. No 1. My Lord It is written in French and I shall make but a bad Reading of it Sir Sam. Astrey Where is the Man that examin'd it Do you understand French Mr. Fisher. Yes my Lord. Sir Rob. Sawyer The Record is in another Hand than this they may easily read it Mr. Soll. Gen. Who copy'd this Paper Mr. Fisher. I did examine it Mr. Soll. Gen. What did you examine it with Mr. Fisher. I look'd upon that Copy and Mr. Halstead read the Record L. C. I. Young Man read out Fisher reads Vendredy Lande maine del Almes qu'estoit le primier jour Mr. Soll. Gen. Pray tell us what it is you would have read Mr. S. Levinz I 'll tell you what it is Mr. Sollicitor 'T is the Dispensation with the Statute of Provisors And the Act of Parliament does give the King a Power to dispense till such a time Mr. Soll. Gen. Don't you think the King's Prerogative is affirmed by many Acts of Parliament Mr. S. Levinz If the King could dispense without an Act of Parliament what need was there for the making of it Mr. Soll. Gen. Mr. Serjeant We are not to argue with you about that yet L. C. I. Read it in English for the Jury to understand it Mr. Fisher. My Lord I cannot undertake to read it so readily in English. Mr. I. Powel Why don't you produce the Records that are mentioned in the Petition those in King Charles the Second's time Mr. S. Levinz We will produce our Records in Order of Time as they

are Sir Sam. Astrey There is the Clerk of the Records of the Tower Mr. Halstead will read it very well in French or English. Then Mr. Halstead was sworn to interpret the Records into English according to the best of his Skill and Knowledge but not reading very readily a true Copy of the Record in English follows out of the Rolls of Parliament in the 15th Year of King Richard the Second Numero Primo FRiday the Morrow of All Souls which was the first Day of this Parliament holden at Westminster in the fifteenth Year of the Reign of our Lord King Richard the Second after the Conquest the Reverend Father in God the Archbishop of York Primate and Chancellor of England by the King's Commandment being present in Parliament pronounced and declared very nobly and wisely the Cause of the Summons of this Parliament And said First That the King would that holy Church principally and afterwards the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and also the Cities and Burroughs should have and enjoy their Liberties and Franchises as well as they had them and enjoyed them in the Time of his Noble Progenitors Kings of England and also in his own Time. And afterwards said The Summons of this Parliament was principally for three Occasions The first Occasion was To ordain how the Peace and Quiet of the Land which have heretofore been greatly blemished and disturbed as well by Detraction and Maintenance as otherwise might be better holden and kept and the Laws better executed and the King's Commands better obeyed The second Occasion was To ordain●… and see how the Price of Wools which is beyond measure lessened and impaired might be better amended and inhaunced And also That in case the War should begin again at the End of the present Truce to wit at the Assumption of our Lady next coming to ordain and see how and whereby the said War may be maintained at the least Charge of the People And the third Occasion was touching the Statutes of Provisors To ordain and see how our Holy Father might have that which to him belongs and the King that which belongs to him and to his Crown according unto that Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar ' s and unto God the things which are God's Then the other Record of Richard the Second was read as follows out of the Rolls of Parliament the fifteenth Year of King Richard the Second No 8 Be it remembred touching the Statute of Provisors That the Commons for the great Confidence which they have in the Person of our Lord the King and in his most excellent Knowledge and in the great Tenderness which he hath for his Crown and the Rights thereof and also in the noble and high Discretions of the Lords have assented in full Parliament that our said Lord the King by Advice and Assent of the said Lords may make such Sufferance touching the said Statute as shall seem to him reasonable and profitable until the next Parliament so as the said Statute be not repealed in no Article thereof And that all those who have any Benefices by force of the said Statute before this present Parliament and also That all those to whom any Aid Tranquility or Advantage is accrued by virtue of the said Statute of the Benefices of Holy Church of which they were heretofore in Possession as well by Presentation or Collation of our Lord the King as of the Ordinaries or Religious Persons whatsoever or by any other manner or way whatsoever may freely have and enjoy them and peaceably continue their Possession thereof without being ousted thereof or any ways challenged hindred molested disquieted or grieved hereafter by any Provisors or others against the Form and Effect of the Statute aforesaid by reason of the said Sufferance in any time to come And moreover That the said Commons may disagree at the next Parliament to this Sufferance and fully resort to the said Statute if it shall seem good to them to do it With Protestation That this Assent which is a Novelty and has not been done before this time be not drawn into Example or Consequence for Time to come And they prayed our Lord the King that the Protestation might be entred of Record in the Roll of the Parliament And the King granted and commanded to do it Mr. S. Levinz Now my Lord we will go on This was in Richard the Second's Time And a Power is given by the Commons to the King with the Assent of the Lords to dispense but only to the next Parliament with a Power reserved to the Commons and to disagree to it and retract that Consent of theirs the next Parliament Sir Geo. Treby The Statute of Provisors was and is a Penal Law and concerning Ecclesiastical Matters too viz. The Collating and Presenting to Archbishopricks Bishopricks Benefices and Dignities of the Church And in this Record now read the Parliament give the King a limited Power and for a short Time to dispense with that Statute But to obviate all Pretence of such a Power 's being inherent in the Crown as a Prerogative they declare 1. That it was a Novelty that is as much as to say That the King had no such Power before 2. That it should not be drawn into Example that is to say That he should have no such Power for the future Mr. S. Levinz Now we will go on to the Records mentioned in the Petition those in the last King's Time in 1662 and 1672 and that in this King's Time in 1685. Where is the Journal of the House of Lords Mr. Walker sworn L. C. I. Is that the Book of the House of Lords Mr. Walker It is the Journal of the House of Lords L. C. I. Is it kept by you Mr. Walker Yes my Lord. L. C. I. Where is it kept Mr. Walker In the usual place here in Westminster Mr. Soll. Gen. What is that Mr. S. Levinz It is the Journal of the House of Lords But my Lord there is one thing that is mentioned in the last Record that is read which is worth your Lordship's and the Jury's Observation That it is declared a Novelty and a Protestation that it should not be drawn into Precedent for the future L. C. I. That has been observed Brother Let us hear your Record read Clerk read Die Mercurii 18 o die Februarii 1662. His Majesty was present this Day sitting in the Regal Crown and Robes the Peers being likewise in their Robes The King gave Order to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to signifie to the House of Commons his Pleasure that they presently come up and attend His Majesty with their Speaker who being present His Majesty made this Speech following My Lords and Gentlemen I Am very glad to meet you here again having thought the Time long since we parted and often wished you had been together to help me in some Occasions which have fallen out I need not repeat them unto you you have all had

follow the Nature of the Fact that I need not insist upon it if the Act be unlawful the Law supplies the Malice and evil Intentions Mr. Solicit Gen. My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury I am of Counsel in this Case for the King and I shall take leave to proceed in this Method First I shall put the Case of my Lords the Bishops and then consider the Arguments that have been used in their Defence and answer them as much as is material to be answered and then leave it to your Lordship and the Juries Consideration whether what has been said by these Gentlemen weigh any thing in this Case First my Lord I take it for granted and I think the Matter is pretty plain by this time by my Lord Presidents Evidence and their own Confession that it is not to be disputed but that this Paper was presented by these Lords to the King I think there is no great difficulty in that Matter at all but I just touch upon it because I would follow them in their own Method Then my Lord let us take this Case as it is upon the Nature of the Petition and the Evidence that they have given and then let us see whether that will justifie the thing that is done For the business of Petitioning I would distinguish and enquire Whether my Lords the Bishops out of Parliament can present any Petition to the King I do agree that in Parliament the Lords and Commons may make Addresses to the King and signifie their Desires and make known their Grievances there and there is no doubt but that is a natural and proper way of Application For in the beginning of the Parliament there are Receivers of Petitions appointed and upon Debates there are Committees appointed to draw up Petitions and Addresses but to come and deduce an Argument that because the Lords in Parliament have done thus there being such Methods of Proceedings usual in Parliaments therefore my Lords the Bishops may do it out of Parliament that is certainly a Non sequitur no such Conclusion can be drawn from those Premises My Lord I shall endeavour to lay the Fact before you as it really is and then Consider what is proper for the Court to take notice of as Legal Proof or Evidence And I take it all those Presidents that they have produced of what the Lords did and what the Commons did in Parliament is no Warrant for them to shelter themselves under against the Information here in Question Here Mr. Iust. Powel spake aside to the Lord Chief Iustice thus Mr. Iust. Powel My Lord this is strange Doctrine shall not the Subject have Liberty to Petition the King but in Parliament If that be Law the Subject is in a miserable Case Ld. Ch. Iust. Brother let him go on we will hear him out tho' I approve not of his Position Mr. Solicit General The Lords may Address to the King in Parliament and the Commons may do it but therefore that the Bishops may do it out of Parliament does not follow I heard nothing said that could have given Colour to such a thing but the Curse that has been read in 1 Elizabeth But pray my Lord let us consider that Evidence they have given they have begun with that Record in Richard the Seconds time and what is that That the King may dispe●…se with the Statute of Provisors till the meeting of the next Parliament and a Protestation of the Commons at the end of it whether that be an Act of Parliament that is Declaratory of the Common Law or Introductory of a new Law Non Constat and for ought appears it might be a Declaratory Act And if so it is a Proof of the Kings Prerogative of Dispensing It might be an Act in Affirmance of the Kings Prerogative as there are a great many such we very well know and generally most of the Laws in that kind are in Affirmance of the Kings power so that the Law turns as an Argument for the King Prerogative and they have given him that which will turn upon themselves so it stood in Richard the Seconds time but whether that be an Argument one way or other Conclusive is lest to your Lordship and the Jury Ay but say they there is no Execution of such a Power till very lately and the first Instance that they produce is that in the Year 1662. But your Lordship knows that before the R●…ign of Henry the Fourth there was great Jurisdiction assumed by the Lords in Original Causes then comes the Statute of Appeals 1 Hen. 4. which takes notice that before that time the Lords had assumed an Original Jurisdiction in all Causes and would proceed and determine them in Parliament and out of Parliament and it fell out to be so great a Grievance that it was thought necessary to make a Law against it that Appeals in Parliament should be abolished and destroyed and then comes that Law in favour of the Subject of England and that settles the bounds between the King and the Lords in a great measure before that time the Lords were grown very powerful and where there is a Power there always will be Applications and what is the effect of that Statute 1 Hen. 4. for all that we endeavour is to make things as plain can be that no further Applications no Accusations no Proceedings in any Case whatsoever be before the Lords in Parliament unless it be by Impeachment of the Commons so that there is the Salvo and the use that I make of it is this The Commons by that very Statute did abolish the Power that the Lords had arrogated to themselves and Ordered that they should not meddle with any Cause but upon the Impeachment of the House of Commons and establish the Impeachment of the Commons which is as ancient as the Parliament for that was never yet spoken against the Power of the Commons Impeaching any Person under the degree of the Prince and that is the regular legal way and so the Commons asserted their Ancient Right and whatsoever the Lords took notice of must come by Application of the Commons then Conferences were to pass between the Houses and both Houses by Address apply to the King this is the proper way and course of Parliament of which thy Lord Cook says It is known to few and practised by fewer but it is a Venareble Honourable way and this is the Course that should have been taken by my Lords here and they should have stayed till the Complaint had come from the Commons in Parliament and then it had been Regular for them to Address to the King but they were too Quick too Nimble And whereas the Statute of Hen. 4. says That no Lord whatsoever shall intermeddle with any Cause but by the Impeachment of the Commons they interpose and give their advice before their time if there be any Irregularity in Parliament or out of Parliament the Commons are to make their Complaint of it