to his Crown or Imperial Jurisdiction The Original of this Correction is in Sir Cotton's Library See the History of the Reformation Sir John Fortescu sometime Chief Justice and afterwards Lord Chancellor in his Book De Laudibus Legum Angliae The Civil Law says he runs thus Quod Principi placuit legis vigorem habet sed longe aliter potest Rex politice imperans quia nec Leges sine subditorum assensu mutari poterit Potestas regia Lege Politica cohibetur Sir Edward Coke in his 12 Rep. fol. 63 64 and 65. says It was greatly marvell'd that the Archbishop Bancroft durst inform K. James that such absolute Power and Authority as is there mentioned belong'd to the King by the Word of God and there Sir E. C. cites the Sayings of these ancient Authors in our Law But he says that the King was greatly offended with him A Learned Civilian gives some restraint even to the Lex Regia in this point Vinius in his Comment upon the Instit. fol. 381 Populus Romanus jura Majestatis omnia abdicative in principem transtulit hinc Principes Romani Legibus soluti fuerant But he utterly opposes that Opinion of the School-men Principem Legibus solutum esse quoad vim coactivam sed etiam quoad vim directivam Rot. Parl. 11. R. 2. The King and Parliament declare That the Realm of England never was nor was it intended by the King and Lords that ever it should be governed by the Civil Law. In the deciding of the Great and Royal Controversie in the time of K. E. 1. concerning Right of Succession in the Crown of Scotland it was debated by the Commissioners according to what Law that Case should be determined whether by the Law of England or of Scotland by the Civil Law as being the Jus gentium before the King of England as being the Superior Lord they all at last concluded That the Civil Law by no means should be admitted Ne inde Majestatis Anglicanae Juri fieret detrimentum Seld. dissertatio ad Fletam 539. Mr. Selden mentioning John of Salisbury who said that in his time there were those that did prefer the Civil Law before all other Laws especially that de absoluta principis potestate quae in lege habetur Regia he says it was meant of none but de assentatoribus illius saeculi exgenere Hieratico non de gente Anglicana aut de aliis qui Judiciis tunc praefuere It would have been far from any of the English Nation especially from any of the Judges to have maintained any such Opinion But let it be understood sano sensu and in a proper and literal sence too and it is very true and agreeable to our Law quod Regi placuit legis vigorem habet without the King 's Placet and his Royal Consent nothing is Law amongst us The Laws already in force have had the Consent of his Predecessors and no new Law can pass without the Royal Assent nay they are his Royal Words Le Roy le veut that first gives life to any new Law. And the Judges Oath in the time of H. 3. was that they should judge Secundum Legem consuetudinem regni which words as Mr. Selden there says seem designedly to Exclude the Jus Caesareum then lately brought in whereof as he says some were fond in those times and he tells us of what Order they were but they were not Common Lawyers nor Judges but the Hierarchy But should Judges give countenance to any such Law in the Latitude of it they should be put in mind of what was done by King Edward the Confessor which we are taught by Sir Roger Twisden in his Preface to the Laws of William the First annexed to Mr. Lambert's Treatise De priscis Anglor ' Legibus fol. 155. Omnes says he qui Leges iniquas adinvenerant injusta Judicia judicaverant multaque concilia contra Anglos dederant exlegavit such Enemies to the Laws of England should be put out of the Protection of the Laws of England Rode caper Vitem c. It is said amongst the Laws of King Henry the First c. 28. and it is in the very Body of that Law Lambert ibid. 186. Gravius Lacerantur pauperes à pravis Judicibus quam à cruentis hostibus The Lords of Parliament when any attempt is made to introduce the Caesarean Law as once in the time of our K. H. 3. there was an endeavour to bring in part of the Pontifician Law and it was by the Bishops I make no doubt but they will answer Una voce as their Ancestors then did Nolumus Leges Angliae mutare quae hucusque usitatae sunt approbatae The Statute of Merton c. 9. 2 Instit. fol. 96. The Act of 25 Car. 2. one of the principal Ends and Aims of it is to keep out that Foreign Power that would pretend to a Soveraignty or Supremacy over our Soveraign but the Dispensing with this Law which is maintained to be a Right incident to the Soveraign Prince seems to be the likeliest way of setting up again that Pretence and Claim of a Foreign Bishop which was so long usurp'd and against which Pretence so many Acts of Parliament have been made and which our ancient Kings did of old utterly renounce and disclaim and we know the same Foreign Bishop hath made another Pretence to England besides that Ecclesiastical Power by colour of a Resignation made by King John. But King Hen. 3. Son and next Successor to King John in the General Council at Lyons Anno 1245. by his Embassador and Advocate made a Special Protestation against that pretended Resignation made to Pandolphus the Pope's Legate Innocent the Third as a meer Nullity In quod nunquam consensit Regni Universitas and afterwards upon the Pope's issuing out of Process against K. E. 3. and the whole Kingdom for the Homage and the Arrears of the 1000 Marks Rent due to him The Parliament declared That King John nor no other could put himself or his Realm into such a subjection without their consent And that it was against the Oath King John had taken at his Coronation This Record expounds the word Sovereignty in the true sence of it namely that our Sovereign is no way subject to the Bishop of Rome or to any Foreign Power But it doth no way import that the King can dispose of his People ut placuit Regi or alter the Government without the Peoples consent nor dispence with his Coronation-Oath but proves the quite contrary A Short Argument UPON THE PLEADINGS Of the aforementioned CASE of Sir EDW. HALES THE first Point argued by the Plaintiff's Councel was That it appears by the Declaration and it is now confess'd by the Defendant's joyning Demurrer that the Defendant hath been Indicted for this Offence in exercising the Office of a Colonel without having taken the Tests And upon the Indictment he either did plead this Dispensation or might have
imports the King's Declaration and Resolution by advice of his great Council to employ none in Offices and Places of Trust but such as are most capable and fit and will most faithfully answer the great Ends for which they are so intrusted that is the preservation of the Protestant Religion which is the true English Interest And this agrees with the Rules of the Common Law That if an Office be granted to one that is Inidoneus the Grant is void though granted by the King himself Of this I have treated more largely in my Argument fol. 37. The Lord Chief Justice Herbert pag. 16. asks the Question Whether so many solemn Resolutions of all the Judges of England in the Exchequer-Chamber are not to be rely'd upon for Law And I answer That if they were ten times as many more yet they are not to be rely'd on against many express positive Acts of Parliament directly to the contrary For what words could the Parliament use more emphatical and express and more to the purpose than by saying That a Non-obstante or a Dispensation or a Grant of such a thing prohibited by that Law shall be absolutely void and ipso facto adjudged void and the person made uncapable to take And is not a Judgment in Parliament and by Act of Parliament of the highest Authority But says the Chief Justice fol. 16. the constant practice hath been to dispense with the Statute of Sheriffs I answer It hath also been a very frequent practice too for the King to make such persons Sheriffs as were none of the number nominated or chosen as aforesaid by the Chancellor Treasurer Judges and other great Officers and it passes for currant that he may so do though it be a vulgar Errour For it hath been resolv'd by all the twelve Judges to be an Errour in the King. See Sir Coke's 2 Instit. or Magna Charta fol. 559. and yet it is practis'd to this very day The Chief Justice pag. 18. seems to excuse Popish Recusants for not qualifying themselves for Offices by taking the Oaths and the Test c. for that no man says he hath it in his power to change his opinion in Religion as he pleaseth and therefore it is not their fault It is an Errour of the mind c. Answ. Here is no occasion taken to find fault with them for their Opinion let them keep their Religion still if they like it so well who hinders them This Act of 25 Car. 2. imposes no Penalty upon them for their Opinion But is there any necessity of their being in Offices Must they needs be Guardians of the Protestant Religion The Penalty upon them by this Act is not for their Opinion but for their presuming to undertake Offices and Trusts for which they are by King and Parliament adjudg'd and declar'd unfit Page 20 21. The Chief Justice Vaughan is brought in arguing for the Kings Power of Dispensing with Nominal Nusances as he is pleas'd to call and distinguish Nusances The word Nominal as there understood imports that though a Parliament declares any thing to be a Nusance as sometimes they do in Acts of Parliament to render them indispensable which yet in its proper nature would not otherwise be so conceiv'd to be that such a Nominal Nusance as he holds may however be dispens'd with by the King though regularly by Law the King may not dispense with any Nusance Answ. Shall any single or particular person though a Chief Justice presume to call that a meer Nominal Nusance which a Parliament by a solemn Act and Law have adjudg'd and declar'd to be a real Nusance Are we not all concluded by what a Law says This Arrogance is the Mischief now complain'd of The Chief Justice Herbert pag. 22. at the lower end says That from the abuse of a thing an Argument cannot be drawn against the thing it self I agree this is regularly true yet we have an Instance to the contrary in the Scripture in that point of the Brazen Serpent But in our Case the abuse doth arise from the very nature of the thing it self from the constitution of it For the King practises no more in dispensing than what these Resolutions of the Judges allow him to do by this pretended Prerogative The Errour is in the Foundation They have made his Power to be unlimitted either as to number of persons or as to the time how long the Dispensation shall continue Sir Edward Coke says and so the other Books That the King is the sole Judge of these Nec Metas Rerum nec Tempora Ponunt The Chief Justice Herbert fol. 24. cites two clear Concessions as he is pleas'd to call them of all the Commons of England in Parliament which he esteems much greater Authorities than the several Resolutions of all the twelve Judges But how far these are from Concessions will easily appear to an indifferent Reader They are no more than prudent and patient avoiding of Disputes with the several Kings And there are multitudes of the like in the old Parliament-Rolls It is but an humble clearing of themselves from any purpose in general to abridge the King of any of his Prerogatives which have always been touchy and tender things but it is no clear nor direct allowance of that dispensing there mention'd to be any such Prerogative in him However I am glad to see an House of Commons to be in so great request with the Judges It will be so at some times more than at others Yet I do not remember that in any Argument I have hitherto met with a Voteâ— or Order or Opinion of the House of Commons hath been cited for an Authority in Law before now Will the House of Peers allow of this Authority for Law It will be said That this is but the acknowledgment of Parties concern'd in Interest which is allowed for a good Testimony and strongest against themselves Answ. I do not like to have the King and his People to have divided Interests Prerogative and the Peoples Liberties should not be look'd upon as Opposites The Prerogative is given by Law to the King the better to enable him to protect and preserve the Subjects Rights Therefore it truly concerns the People to maintain Prerogative I could cite several Parliament-Records wherein the poor House of Commons have been forced to submit themselves and humbly beg pardon of the King for doing no more than their Duty meerly to avert his displeasure See the Case of Sir Thomas Haxey whom the King adjudg'd a Traytor for exhibiting a Bill to the Commons for the avoiding of the outrageous Expences of the King's House 20 R. 2. num 14 15 16 17 and 23. and the Commons were driven to discover his Name to the King and the whole House in a mournful manner craving pardon for their entertaining of that Bill No doubt as good an Authority against the Commons for so sawcily medling in a matter so sacred and so far above them Yet afterwards
AN ENQUIRY INTO THE Power of Dispensing WITH PENAL STATUTES Together with Some Animadversions UPON A Book writ by Sir EDW. HERBERT Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas ENTITULED A short Account of the Authorities in Law upon which JUDGMENT was given in Sir Edward Hales 's Case By Sir ROBERT ATKYNS Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late one of the Judges of the Common Pleas. Digna vox est Majestate Regnantis Legibus Alligatum se esse Principem profiteri LONDON Printed for Timothy Goodwin at the Maiden-head against St. Dunstan's-Church in Fleet-street 1689. ADVERTISEMENT January the 21st 1689. TO Morrow will be Published by Tim. Goodwin at the Maiden-head against St. Dunstan 's Church in Fleet-street The Power Jurisdiction and Priviledge of PARLIAMENT And the Antiquity of the House of Commons asserted Occasioned by an Information in the King's-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 occasioned by the late Commission in Ecclesiastical Causes By Sir Robert Atkyns Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas AN ENQUIRY INTO THE Power of Dispensing WITH Penal Statutes 25 CAR. II. Cap. 2. An Act for preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants FOR preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants and quieting the Minds of his Majesties good Subjects Be it enacted c. That every person that shall bear any Office Civil or Military c. or shall have Command or Place of Trust from or under his Majesty c. within the Realm of England c. shall personally appear in the Court of Chancery or of the Kings-Bench or at the Court of Quarter-Sessions in that County where he shall reside within three Months next after his Admittance into any of the said Offices and there in open Court take the several Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and shall also receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the Usage of the Church of England in some Parish-Church upon some Lord's-day immediately after Divine Service And every the person aforesaid that doth or shall neglect or refuse to take the said Oaths and the Sacrament in the said Courts and at the respective times aforesaid shall be ipso facto adjudged uncapable and disabled in Law to all intents and purposes whatsoever to have occupy or enjoy the said Office or Employment and every such Office and Place shall be void and is hereby adjudged void And every person that shall neglect or refuse to take the said Oaths or the Sacrament as aforesaid and yet after such neglect or refusal shall execute any of the said Offices after the said times expired wherein he ought to have taken the same and being thereupon lawfully convicted upon any Information c. in any of the King's Courts at Westminster or at the Assizes every such person shall forfeit 500 l. to be recovered by him that shall sue for the same And at the same time when the persons concerned in this Act shall take the said Oaths they shall likewise subscribe the Declaration against the Belief of Transubstantiation under the same Penalties as by this Act is appointed Paschae 2 JAC. II. In the King's-Bench Arthur Godden Plaintiff in an Action of Debt of 500 l. grounded upon the Act of 25 Car. 2. for preventing Dangers from Popish Recusants Sir Edward Hales Bar t Defendant THE Plaintiff declares That the Defendant after the First day of Easter Term 1673. sc. 28 Nov. 1 Jac. 2. at Hackington in Kent was admitted to the Office of a Colonel of a Foot-Regiment That being a Military Office and a Place of Trust under the King and by Authority from the King. And the Defendant held that Office by the space of three Months next after the 28 Nov. 1 Jac. 2. And from thence till the time of this Action begun he was and still is an Inhabitant and Resident of the Parish of Hackington And the Plaintiff taking it by Protestation that the Defendant within three Months next after his Admission into the said Office of Colonel did not receive the Sacrament in Manner as the Act directs but neglected to receive it Avers that the Defendant did neglect to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance either in the Chancery or in the Kings Bench or at any Quarter-Sessions in Kent or in the Place where he was resident either the next Term after his admission to his said Office or within three Months after And that the Defendant after such neglect sc. 10 Mar. 2 Jac. 2. at Hackington in Kent did exercise the said Office and still doth contrary to the Statute of 25 Car. 2. for preventing Dangers from Popish Recusants Whereupon the Defendant at Rochester at the Assizes held 29 Mar. 2 Jac. 2. was duly Indicted for such his neglect and for executing the said Office contrary to the said Statute And thereupon duly Convict as by the Record thereof appears whereupon the Plaintiff became entituled to this 500 l. as forfeited by the Defendant The Defendant pleads that the King within the three Months in the Declaration mentioned and before the next Term or Quarter-Sessions after his admittance to the said Office and before his Suit began sc. 9 Jan. 1 Jac. 2. by his Letters Patents under the Great Seal and here produced in Court did dispence with pardon remit and discharge among others the Defendant from taking the said Oaths and from receiving the Sacrament and from subscribing the Declaration against Transubstantiation or Tests in the Act of 25 Car. 2. for preventing Dangers from Popish Recufants or in any other Act and from all Crimes Convictions Penalties Forfeitures Damages Disabilities by him incurred by his exercising the Office of Colonel Or by the Act intituled An Act for the Preserving of the King's Person and Government by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament Or by the Acts made in the first or third Years of King James the First or the Acts made 5 Eliz. or 23 or 29 or 35 Eliz. And the King by his Letters Patents granted that the Defendant should be enabled to hold that Office in any Place in England or Wales or Berwick or in the Fleet or in Jersey or Guernsey and to receive his Pay or Wages Any Clause in the said Acts or in any other Act notwithstanding non obstante that the Defendant was or should be a Recusant convict As by the said Letters Patents doth appear Whereupon the Defendant prays the Judgment of the Court whether the Plaintiff ought to maintain this Action The Plaintiff demurr'd generally to this Plea. The Defendant joyned in Demurrer Judgment is given for the Defendant THE Order I shall observe in speaking to this Case as to the Point upon the Dispensation shall be this First I shall open this Act of 25 Car. 2.
now mentioned It is but an Opinion against a Solemn Resolution of all the twelve Judges I find that some who had transgress'd that Act of 23 H. 6. and had continued above one Year in that Office of Sheriff soon after the making of that Act did not think themselves secure against the Penalty of that Act by any Non obstante from the King but procur'd an Act of Parliament to indempnifie them for what they had done for by another Act made the 28th of the same King Henry the Sixth it is ordain'd that the Sheriffs for the Year then last past should be quit and discharged against the King and his People of the Penalties of the 200 l. which they incurr'd by the Statute of 23 H. 6. by Exercising the Office of Sheriff longer than a Year from the day next after the day of all All-Souls on which day by the Statute a new Election was to have been made I have one great Authority more and that is of an Act of Parliament too which in my judgment clearly proves against this Resolution of the twelve Judges in the time of 2 H. 7. that the King had no such Prerogative to dispence with the Sheriff's continuing in his Office longer then a Year But that the only dispensing Power was in the King and Parliament as I have affirm'd and in the King when any Special Act of Parliament shall for a time limitted enable him so to dispence And it is an Act in the time of a wise and powerful King who would not lose his Prerogative where he had right to it It is the Statute of 9 H. 5. c. 5. in the Statutes at large this Statute recites the Statute of 14 E. 3. whereby it was ordain'd that no Sheriff should continue in his Office above a Year And it recites further that whereas at the making of that Statute there were divers valiant and sufficient persons I suppose it is ill translated valiant and it should have been men of value in every County of England to exercise the said Office well towards the King and his People But by reason of divers Pestilences within the Realm and Wars without the Realm there was not now such sufficiency of such persons It is therefore ordained that the King by Authority of this Parliament of 9 H. 5. may make the Sheriffs through the Realm at his will until the end of four Years notwithstanding the said Statute made 14 E. 3. or any other Statute or Ordinance made to the contrary Here the King is entrusted with the Power and that but for a short time in the very Case of continuing Sheriffs in their Offices longer than a Year and that in a case of great and absolute necessity and this by a Special Act of Parliament which plainly shews he could not do it by any Prerogative he had of dispensing for then he would never have taken it under an Act of Parliament What ground therefore the Judges had in the second Year of Henry the Seventh to adjudge it to be a Prerogative in that King I cannot see and that Resolution is the leading Case to all the Opinions that have been delivered in the Point since that time and the Opinions still justifie themselves by that one first Resolve and cite that for their great Authority That Opinion seems to be delivered upon a sudden Question put to the Judges by the King's Council not argued nor deliberated on nor upon any Case that came Judicially before them and the Judges there take notice only of two ancient Statutes viz. 28 E. 3. c. 7. 42 E. 3. c. 9. both which barely forbid the Sheriffs to continue longer than a Year in their Office but no Penalty is imposed and the Earl of Northumberland's Case had a Non Obstante in it only to these two Statutes as appears by the Abridgement of that Case by Patent's Case 109. So that they did but ad pauca respicere de facili pronunciare But they do not take the least notice of the Statute of 23 H. 6. c. 8. which makes the disability nor do the Judges in that Case give that reason for their Judgment as Sir E. C. hath since found out to justifie it viz. His Prerogative inseparable c. Something may be observed from the time when that strange Resolution pass'd Judicis Officium est ut res ita tempora rerum querere It was in 2 Henry the Seventh in the beginning of the Reign of that King who stood high upon his Title and Power if we may believe a late Historian Mr. Buck. in his History of the Life and Reign of Richard the Third who in his Second Book fol. 54. discourses likewise of King Henry the Seventh and his Title to the Crown says of him That he seemed to wave all other Titles and stuck to that of his Sword and Conquest and at his Coronation he caused Proclamation to be made with these Titles Henricus Rex Anglioe Jure divino Jure humano June belli c. Which yet the Barons could not agree to tho' the King peremptorily avowed he might justly assume it having as a Conquerour entred the Land fought for the Crown and won it The Barons answered says the Historian as peremptorily That he was beholding to them both for his Landing and Victory But the more they opposed it the more he insisted upon it Now that King that made his Title by Conquest might carve out to himself what Prerogatives he pleased And who durst dispute it with him And this probably might have some influence upon that Resolution of the Judges being so early after his Claim viz. 2 H. 7. But I find Sir E Coke a Chief Justice of great Learning and of as great Integrity taking up the same Opinion It is in the Reports that go by the Name of Sir Coke's 12 Rep. fol. 18. No Act says he can bind the King from any Prerogative which is sole and inseparable to his Person but that he may dispense with it by a Non Obstante as a Soveraign Power to Command any of his Subjects to serve him for the Publick-weal and he instances in that of a Sheriff and quotes the Resolution of the Judges of 2 H. 7. and urges that of Judges of Assize that they may go Judges of Assize in the Counties where they were born or did inhabit if the King dispense with it by a special Non Obstante But he gives another instance which I presume none in these days will subscribe to and if he mistook himself in this instance he may be supposed to mistake and err in all the rest Purveyance says he for the King and his Houshold is incident solely and inseparably to the Person of the King And for this Cause the Act of Parliament of Henry the Third de tallagio non concedendo which barrs the King wholly of Purveyance is says he void If this be Law what a Case are the Subjects in that have given a
1 Hen. 4. num 91. that Judgment against Sir Thomas Haxey was revers'd As for the distinction pag. 30. of a Disability actually incuri'd before the medling in an Office and where the Disability is prevented by the coming of a Dispensation I answer That its being so prevented is but Peticio Principii and a begging of the Question And to this Distinction I have I think fully spoken in the foregoing Argument fol. 40. The late Parliament in making this Act of 25 Car. 2. had no doubt a prospect that probably the Crown would discend upon a Popish Successor and they levelled this Act against the Dangers that might then befal our Religion and Liberties and they thought it a good Security But it is all vanished and come to nothing by occasion of this Judgment in the Case of Sir Edward Hales And that must be justified by a Fiat Justitia As to the Objection that the Chief Justice fancies might have been made against him or advice given him that he should rather have parted with his place than to have given a Judgment so prejudicial to the Religion he professes pag. 33. This I say that for my part I should never have advis'd him to have parted with his Place much less to have given a Judgment against his own Opinion But let his Opinion be what it was yet seeing the clear intention of the Makers of the Law contrary to that his Opinion and knowing the desperate effects and consequences that would follow upon dispensing with that Act for we were upon the brink of destruction by it and taking notice as this Chief Justice and the rest of the Judges needs must that the King had first endeavour'd to have gain'd a Dispensing Power in thismatter from both Houses which was the fair and legal course and that yet that very Parliament which out of too great a compliance with those times had over-look'd so many Grievances and conniv'd at the King 's taking and collecting of the Customs though in truth the Collectors and all that had any hand in the receiving of them incurr'd a Praemunire by it not to mention the ill Artifice used in gaining the Excise yet that Parliament of the King 's boggled at the Dispensing with the Act of 25 Car 2. knowing the mighty Importance of it And though they could not but take notice that so many Judges at once had been remov'd because they could not swallow this Bitter Pill and others brought into their places as might be justly suspected to serve a Turn and the King 's Learned Councel could not at first find out this Prerogative to do his work with till so many ways had been attempted and all proved ineffectual sure in such circumstances it had been Prudence nay the Duty of the Judges to have referr'd the determination of it to a Parliament and the rather because it was to expound a Law newly made and the consequences so dreadful and the intent of the Law-makers so evident And this hath been frequently practis'd by Judges in Cases of far less difficulty and concernment This I have also enlarged upon in my Argument page 26. Object But it might have been a long time before any Parliament had been called Answ. We ought to have Parliaments once a year and oftner if need be and eadem praesumitur esse mens Regis quae Legis and we then stood in great need of a Parliament even for the sake of this very Case And these hasty Judgments are one ill Cause why Parliaments meet no oftner the Work of Parliaments is taking out of their hands by the Judges And it is the Interest of some great Officers that Parliaments should not be called or else be hastily prorogu'd or adjourn'd As to the point of the feigned Action which the Lord Chief Justice seems to justifie I conceive he mistakes the force of the Objection Feigned Actions may be useful but this Action against Sir Edward Hales is suspected not only to have been feigned and brought by Covin between him and his Servant and Friend but it was feignedly and faintly prosecuted and not heartily and stoutly defended Like the practice of common Fencers who play for a Prize they seem to be in good earnest and look very fierce but agree before-hand not to hurt one another Qui cum ita pugnabat tanquam se vincere Nollet Aegre est devictus proditione suâ This solemn Resolution was given upon a few short Arguments at the Bar and without any at the Bench and upon other Reasons as I have heard which were then made use of are now given by the Chief Justice but the Times will not now bear them After all I intend not by this to do the Office of an Accuser nor to charge it as a Crime But as I think my self bound in Duty on the behalf of the whole Nation of my self though a small part and member of it and of my Friends I humbly propose That the Judgment given in Sir Edward Hales his Case may after a due Examination if there be found cause be legally Revers'd by the House of Lords and that Reversal approv'd of and confirm'd by a special Act of Parliament FINIS Declaration Plea. Order The Act of 25 Car. 2. Of the Law in general Of a Dispensation Of this particular Act of 25 Car. 2. Dangers from Papists to the Protestants The Test. Judgment given by Parliament The Pishop of Winchester's Collections Of Law in general Laws made by consent of the People * Grotius de Jure Bell. pacis f. 151. †King James the Firstin his Speech to the Lords and Commons at White-hall 1609. f. 531. 25 H. 8. c. 21. ‖ Leges nulla alia causa nos tenent quam quod judicio populi receptae sunt Ulpian de Lege 32. Tum Demum Leges humanae habent vim suam cum fuerint non modo institutae sed etiam firmatae approbatione Communitatis Sir Wal. Ral. in his Hist. of the World 245. * Fol. 531. Mr. Hooker Fol. 17. Non eget Mauri jaculis nec Arcu The original of Dispensation Instances of Dispensation The Definition of a Dispensation The Original of Dispensation * Marsilius Patavinus in the 14 Cent. of Padua in his Defensor pacis It s Antiquity ‖ Dr. Barrow of the Pope's Supremacy 316. See there the unreasonableness of Dispensations †Anno 1215. Pag. 646 647. Mat. Paris p. 677. * Sir Cotton's Abridgment of the Records of the Tower amongst the Petitions of the Commons 51 E. 3. Numb 62. Dispensations from Rome are said to be the chief Grief Prinn's Second Tome Fol. 504. Ibidem 760. Innocent 4th * Dr. Barrotti in the Pope's Supremacy 31. L. 3. c. 3. sect 10. Fol. 39. * Sir Ed. Coke 2 Inst. 27. No Law or Custom of England can be annul'd but by Act of Parliament Selden's Dissertatio ad Fletam 539. Fol. 775. The King and Parlialiament have the Power of Dispensing The Statute of Dispensation The Preamble No Prescription The time of Limitation in a Writ of Right is limited to the time of R. I. Where the true Power of Dispensing resides 15 R. 2. nu 8. 2 H. 4. nu 26. R. 2. nu 22 17 R. 2. 34. 2 H. 4. nu 63. * Hob. 157. at the lower end It is the Office of Judges to advance Laws made for Religion according to their end tho' the words be short and imperfect †Sir Ro. Cott. Abridg. 1 R. 2. nu 95. 2. Inst. 408. * 39 E. 3. 21. 40 E. 3. 34. Objection * 12 H. 7. 19. Plowden 319 322. * Sir Moor's Reports 239. Warram's Case A Prerogative that tends to the great prejudice of the Subject is not allowable Croke Jac. 385. The same Case * 14 E. 3. c. 7. That by their trusting to tarry in their Office by procurement they are encouraged to do many Oppressions to the People 28 E. 3. c. 7. 42 E. 3. c. 9. 1 R. 2. c. 11 †Sir Cotton's Abr. 18 E. 3. nu 54. Objection Answer * 1 H. 4. c. 6. †11 E. 3. c. 1. 13 H. 7. 8. by Daver 's Letter B. Answer * See 13 H. 7. 8. by Daver's Letter B. Election of Sheriffs by the County Fol. 174 175. 28 E. 1. c. 8. chap. 13. See the Reports of E. 2. in t ' Memoranda Scac ' fo 28. * Sir Rob. Cot. Abr. 18 E. 3. nu 54. See the Stat. of 6 H. 8. c. 18. in the Statutes at large concerning the Under-Sheriff of Bristol 9 H. 5 c. 5. * Palmer's Rep. 451. Dr. Burnet's Hist. of the Rights of Princes 239. K. James in his Promonition to all Christian Monarchs 298. Objection Answer Objection Answer 8 R. 20. Answer Argument Answer Or Tributary L. 1. C. 5. †K. James 1. in his Speech to both Houses 1609 in his Works fol. 533 says the King with his Parliament are absolute in making or forming of any sort of Laws Sir Rawleigh's Hist. of the World fol. 245. ‖ Archbishop Laud too did the like Seld. Dissert 539. Seld. Dissertat ad fletam fol. 537. Pryn's Second Tome fol. 290 292 299. 301 302. 46 E. 3. Rot. Parl. nu 7. 8. Object Estoppel Answ. Object 2. Here is no Estoppel Answ. A Stranger may take the advantage of this Estopp 7 E. 4. 1. Br. Estoppel 163. Knoil Heymor's third Kebk 528. by Chief Justice Hale That a Stranger cannot falsifie a Verdict Rol. Abr. first part 362. Dr. and Stud. 68. à ad fin b. Object 2. Answ. A dependant Action An Action dependant or collateral * Jaques versus Caesar. And Dr. Drury's Ca. 8 R. 142. And Mackaelly's Ca. 9 R. 68. 1 H. 4. c. 6. Pag. 10.