prove that either they did not and then to show when they first Usurp'd it or that it was an Usurpation from the Beginning therefore your first second and third general Heads seeming to be of no great Moment in this Dispute I shall say the less to them your fourth fifth and sixth seem more to relate to the matter before us Under the first of these speaking of Henry II. you say Page 11 and 12. That all the Archbishops Bishops and Abbots of Ireland came to the King of England and received him for King and Lord of Ireland swearing Fealty to him and his Heirs for ever the Kings also and Princes of Ireland did in like manner receive Henry King of England for Lord of Ireland and became his Men and did him Homage and swore Fealty to him and his Heirs against all Men and he received Letters from them with their Seals Pendent in manner of Charters confirming the Kingdom of Ireland to him and his Heirs and testifying That they in Ireland had ordained him and his Heirs to be their King and Lord of Ireland for ever This was Anno 1173. Now either this Resignation they made to him was Absolute or Limited if the latter I conceive it must be exprest in those Charters you mention and it had very much concerned your Argument to have got them perused if any there are and to have shewed how far the Parliaments of England have broke through those Original Compacts And herein I think I have granted as much as you desire in your second Head it seems to me all one as to the present Case whether Henry II. be considered Page 13. as Conquestor Hiberniae or as Dominus Hiâ—erniae I shall draw no Arguments from either a Submission you have acknowledged You say Page 15. That all came in peaceably and had large Concessions made them of the like Laws and Liberties with the People of England here again it would have been necessary for you to have produced some of those Concessions that you might have made it appear to the Parliament of England what they were not that I do make any Demur to the freedom of the People of Ireland I take them to be so both in their Lives Liberties and Properties as much and as far as any People in England and I take them to be the more so because they are subject to an English Parliament and so have all the Priviledges of an English People which the Subjects of Scotland have not I take every Subject of the Kingdom of England to be Born Free and to carry this Charter of his Freedom about him let him remove where he will within the Dominions of England and that he cannot be divested thereof but by the Laws of this Land made by his Representatives in Parliament in the Election whereof he either hath or may have a Voice if he qualifies himself as those Laws doe direct This I willingly grant because I would not be thought to argue against the Liberty and Property of English Men wherever they are settled But still I think it had been necessary for you to have produced a Transcript of those Concessions for either they were made or they were not if they were you live in a Kingdom whose Interest it was to preserve them and they must give great light into the present Controversy if none appears how do you know what those Concessions were I insist the more on this because you say they had Concessions of the like Laws and Liberties with the People of England now whether by this you mean the same Laws and Liberties or such as were very like them I am in the dark if the latter they must be either more or less they cannot be more for I take the People of England to be as free as any People in the Universe if they were less then I grant you more then you desire for I take the People of Ireland to stand on the same footing with the People of England and yet I am afraid you are not content therefore I should gladly see a Transcript of those Concessions because I am apt to think we differ in this I say they were to be subject to all the Laws of England in general you exempt them from the Statute-Laws but I expect to find you fuller on this in your Fourth Particular As to your third Particular What Title Conquest gives by the Laws of Nature and Reason Page 18. I shall say little to it supposing it hath no relation to this Controversy for I do grant that the People of Ireland are a free People and that they are as you say Page 20. The Progeny of the English and Britains that from time to time went over into that Kingdom I add who before they went hence were subject to the Statute Laws of England and then the Question will be what were those Concessions that discharged them from rendring Obedience to the Legislative Power of this Kingdom This brings me to your Fourth Particular pag. 28. What Concessions and Grants have been from time to time made to the People of Ireland But the latter part of that Particular pag. 5. By what Degrees the English Form of Government and the English Statute Laws came to be received in Ireland which you say was wholly owing to the Consent of the People and Parliament of Ireland I deny and you are to prove and I conceive this cannot better be done than by producing some Concessions or Grants whereby they are discharged by the Legislative Power of England from the Obedience they owed and always paid to the Statute Laws of this Kingdom before they removed into Ireland And now we are arrived at the true State of the Controversy you suppose that the People of Ireland cannot pay Obedience to the Statute Laws of this Kingdom except they subject themselves to a State of Bondage and I believe they ought to do it especially when those Laws are designed to bind them and that this consists with the State of Liberty and Freedom I will therefore examin what you say on this Fourth Particular The First Precedent you produce is only an Account that Matth. Paris Historiographer to King Henry III. gives who by the way please to note wrote above Sixty Years after King Henry II. took Possession of Ireland That Henry the Second a little before he left Ireland in a Publick Assembly and Council of the Irish at Lismore did cause the Irish to receive and swear to be governed by the Laws of England pag. 28. I desire to know whether the Statute Laws were then part of the Laws of England If they were which I suppose you will not deny for you confess Parliaments to be before that time pag. 39. then please to inform me Whether the People of Ireland consented to the making those Laws If not by your own Argument here is the Slavery which you so much fear and exclaim against through your whole Book introduced on them in the
Grace The Fifth settles The Marshal's Fee in Ireland Perhaps you will say these Officers take more than their Fees therefore the Statute is no Act of Parliament Very probable they do that is a general Distemper where Offices have Fees annexed to them and yet it may be an Act of Parliament still The Sixth Chapter its Title is In what Cases the Justices of Ireland may grant Pardon of Felony and where not The Title of the Seventh Chapter is By what Seal Writs in Ireland shall be Sealed The Eighth and last is Adjournment of Assizes in Ireland Are these Parts of the Statute observed in Ireland or no I ask you this because if any one part is received the whole is received Obedience given to any part of this Law acknowledges the Jurisdiction of the Law-makers and you insist only on the First Chapter as if the rest were no part of the Law That this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae is really in it self no Act of Parliament but meerly an Ordinance of the King and his Privy-Council in England I have already given you my Definition what an Act of Parliament is and if this be no more than an Order of the King and his Privy-Council I must be of your Mind Let us therefore enquire farther into this matter you say it appears to be no otherwise as well from the Preamble of the said Ordinance as from the Observation likewise I assure you if this Proof hath not more weight in it than the other I shall think it an Act of Parliament still Let us therefore see what the Preamble is which I find to be this Edward by the Grace of God King of England Lord of Ireland Duke of Aquitain to all those who shall see or hear these Letters doth send Salutation Know you That for the Amendment of the Government of our Realm of Ireland and for the Peace and Tranquillity of our People of the same Land at Nottingham the Octaves of St. Martin in the Seventeenth Year of our Reign by the assent of our Council there being the points hereafter mentioned be made and agreed upon to the intent that they may be firmly observed in the same Realm Where please to note that the Words are not by assent of our Privy-Council but of our Council by which name the Parliament of England is often called It would be endless to give and account of the different Stiles under which Acts of Parliament past in those Days sometimes in the Name of the King only sometimes of the King and Great Men sometimes of the King and his Council sometimes of the King and his Common Council and sometimes of neither as he who will be at the trouble to inspect our Statute Books may see I will give some Instances instead of many The great Charters are only in the King's Name Henry by the Grace of God King of England c. and so Edward by the Grace of God King of England c. The Statute in the Twentieth of Henry III. made at Merton hath this Preamble It was provided in the Court of our Sovereign Lord the King holden at Merton on Wednesday the morrow after the Feast of St. Vincent the Twentieth Year of the Reign of King Henry the Son of King John before William Archbishop of Canterbury and other his Bishops and Suffragans and before the greater part of the Earls and Barons of England there being assembled for the Coronation of the said King and Helianor the Queen about which they were all called where it was treated for the Commonwealth of the Realm upon the Articles under-written Thus it was provided and granted as well of the aforesaid Archbishop Bishops Earls and Barons as of the King himself and others By which it appears that in those Days when the Great Men who were the Barons or Freeholders of England were called together they made Laws and did not so much regard the Stile as that they were made by a general Consent The Statute 51 Henry 3. Sect. 1. begins thus The King to whom all these Presents shall come greeting We have seen certain Ordinances c. Stat. 5. of the same Year begins thus The King commandeth that all manner of Bailiffs Sheriffs c. Stat. 6. of the same Year begins thus If a Baker or a Brewer be Convict because he hath not c. The Preamble of the Statutes 52 Henry 3. made at Marlbridge 18. November 1267. runs thus In the Year of Grace One thousand two hundred sixty seven the Fifty-second Year of the Reign of King Henry Son of King John in the Utas of St. Martin the said King providing for the better Estate of this Realm of England and for the more speedy Ministration of Justice as belongeth to the Office of a King the more discreet Men of the Realm being called together as well of the Higher as of the Lower Estate It was provided agreed and ordained That whereas the Realm of England of late had been disquieted with manifold Troubles and Dissentions for Reformation whereof Statutes and Laws be right necessary whereby the Peace and Tranquility of the People must be observed wherein the King intending to devise convenient Remedy hath made these Acts Ordinances and Statutes underwritten which he willeth for ever to be observed firmly and inviolably of all his Subjects as well High as Low The Preamble to the Statutes made the Third of Edward I. runs thus These be the Acts of King Edward Son to King Henry made at Westminster at his Parliament General after his Coronation on the Monday of Easter Utas the Third Year of his Reign by his Council and by the Assent of Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons and all the Commonalty of the Realm being thither Summon'd because our Lord the King had great Zeal and Desire to redress the State of the Realm in such things as required Amendment for the Common Profit of Holy Church and of the Realm and because the State of Holy Church hath been evilly kept c. the King hath Ordained and Established these Acts under-written which he intendeth to be necessary and profitable to the whole Realm The Preamble to the Statute made the Fourth of Edward the First call'd the Statute of Bigamy runs thus In the Presence of certain Reverend Fathers Bishops of England and others of the King's Council the Constitutions under-written were recited and after heard and published before the King and his Council Forasmuch as all the King's Council as well Justices as others did agree that they should be put in Writing for a perpetual Memory and that they should be stedfastly observed The Preamble to the Statutes made at Gloucester 6 Edw. 1. runs thus For the great Mischiefs Damages and Disherisons that the People of the Realm of England have heretofore suffer'd through default of the Law that fail'd in divers Cases within the same Realm Our Sovereign Lord the King for the amendment of the Land c. hath provided and
Civil and Ecclesiastical State were setled there Regiae sublimatis authoritate Solely by the King's Authority and their own good Wills as the Irish Statute 11 Eliz. Cap. 1. expresses it What the Irish Statutes express I think hath no great Weight in this Debate the Question is by what Power the People of Ireland for so I will now call them threw off that Subjection they once owed to the Legislative Power of England If they think their bare Denial is enough to warrant them free from such a Subjection the People of England may expect the like on the same Argument if because they are not present at our Elections I will answer that in the following Discourse We proceed now to pag. 39. To see â—â— what farther Degrees the Government of Ireland grew up conformable to that of England which are your own Words you say that about the twenty third year of Henry II. which was within five years after his return from Ireland he created his younger Son John King of Ireland at a Parliament held at Oxford and from this you would infer Page 40. That by this Donation of the Kingdom of Ireland to King John Ireland was most eminently set apart again as a separate and distinct Kingdom by it self from the Kingdom of England but you do not set forth that Grant and our Statute-Books are not so old this had been necessary for many reasons you say Page 40. That by this Donation King John made divers Grants and Chartes to his Subjects of Ireland does this alone shew a Regal Authority and might it not have been done by a Lord-Deputy still subject to the Crown of England Pray let me ask you was he at his return to England which you say was a little after his first going over received here by his Father as a Brother-King and did he take Precedence of his elder Brother Richard 'T is much this young King had not punished his Subjects of Ireland for being angry at his deriding their long Beards at which you say they took such Offence that they departed in much Discontent I say 't is much he had not punished their Undutifulness but rather chose to come away in a Pet and thereby to abdicate his new Kingdom for you do not shew that he left the Administration of the Government with any one else All that can be said in his Defence is that he was young about Twelve Years old pag. 39 and perhaps the obstinate Humour which the Barons of England afterwards found in him might grow up with him and become an Infirmity of Age and during King John's being in England did the Kingdom of Ireland govern its self For if his Father King Henry the Second sent over any other to succeed him all your Argument is lost But after all I find his granting Charters is not of such moment as to prove him a King for this he did to the City of Bristol whilst he was Earl of Moreton which I believe was long after the time you mention and I find by the exemplification of that Charter that his Son King Henry the Third in his Inspeximus confirms it as granted by his Father King John when he was Earl of Moreton without mentioning that he was then also King of Ireland and Princes do not use to abate any thing of their Titles especially when they are of so great Importance as this No body doth believe that King John whilst Earl of Moreton had such a Royal Authority in Bristol as to discharge it from an obediential Subjection to the Legislative Power of England The Statute Primo G. M. Cap. 9. ss 2. saith Ireland is annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of England as well by the Laws of this Kingdom as those of Ireland and I am sure there is a great deal of difference between being part of the Imperial Crown of England as Wales is and a separate Kingdom as Scotland is I find likewise that Henry the Third never wrote himself more than Lord of Ireland and 't is strange if Ireland was established a separate Kingdom in John Earl of Moreton and his Heirs that the Title had not been continued in his Son and how comes it to pass that we have ever since been at the Charge of supporting that Kingdom with our Treasure without keeping a separate Account of our Expences laid out on it which doubtless we should have done had we thought it a separate Kingdom But to proceed on searching Sir Richard Baker's Chronicle I cannot find that he takes any Notice of King Henry IId's sending over his Son John about the Twenty Third Year of his Reign as you say Page 39. which 't is much he should omit seeing it was on so memorable an Occasion as his being made King of a separate Kingdom by his Father in a Parliament at Oxford but he saith that in the Thirty First Year of his Reign he sent his Son John over to Ireland to be Governour there and afterwards in the Reign of Richard I. Son to Henry II. and Brother to this John he speaking of the great Kindnesses shewed by the said King Richard I. to his Brother John hath these Words To whom he made appear how much the Bounty of a Brother was better than the Hardnesses of a Father and afterwards he names the several Earldoms which he conferred on him viz. Cornwall Dorset Somerset Nottingham Darby and Lancaster then treating of Affairs in England during the King's Absence on his Voyage to the Holy Land saith he left William Longshamp Bishop of Ely in chief Place of Authority at which his Brother was disgusted whom he calls there Duke John and in another Place he says that the King after his Return from the Holy Land took from him all the great Possessions he had given him and afterwards the said John submitted himself to the King his Brother Now does this agree with the Honour and Dignity of a King who had a separate Kingdom or were the Grants of those several Earldoms from his Brother which you see were liable to be taken away again at the King's Pleasure to be accounted a greater Largess than the Bounty of his Father if he had made him King of a separate Kingdom and setled it in Parliament as you affirm Besides if any such thing was done by Henry II. in the Twenty Third Year of his Reign it appears if Baker be in the right that that Grant was recalled for he saith plainly that he sent him over in his One and Thirtieth Year to be Governor of Ireland How indeed saith to be Lord of Ireland but neither of them mention any thing of what was done in the Parliament at Oxford Well suppose it to be Dominus Hiberniae on which Word you seem to build so much pag. 40 41. Is this Title any thing greater than Lord Lieutenant or Lord Justice which hath for ought I can perceive been used ever since Does a Title granted in a Patent from the King
Laws which Right the People of England pretend to by an original Contract beyond any Books c. and as old as the Common Law of England whereas you seem to infer that our Statute Laws were only Charters or Grants from the King till Henry IIId's Days which I think is an Opinion very disadvantagious to the Liberties of the People of England for which I judge they will give you no thanks except you likewise allow those Charters and Grants were made with their Consent and so were only Declaratory and then no matter what Form they were made in or by what name you call them if that essential part of a Law viz. the Peoples Consent was not wanting I cannot believe there was ever any time when the Liberties of the People of England depended on the Bounty of the King And so I proceed to p. 63. where you say you will enquire how the Statute-Laws and Acts of Parliament made in England since the 9th of Henry III. came to be of force in Ireland and this you conclude p. 64. proceeded from their being allowed of and confirmed in the several Parliaments there and that without this Allowance they had not been Obligatory in Ireland for this you produce the Irish Statutes of 10 Henry VII 10 Henry IV. and 29 Henry VI. the first you say allows of several Acts made in England to be Laws binding in Ireland the two last prohibit any Statute made in England from being in force in the Kingdom of Ireland unless they were allow'd and published by the Parliament of Ireland but yet these Statutes you say p. 64 and 65 are not to be found in the Rolls nor any Parliament Roll of that time but we must depend on the Evidence of Sir Richard Bolton formerly Lord Chief Baron of the Exhequer in Ireland who you say had seen the same exemplified under the Great Seal If I grant this I think I do you a great Favour otherwise I may be apt to call in Question whether you had any Parliaments in Ireland in those days you grant before that you had none till Henry III. and I do not find by what you have written when that Constitution first began and now you say you have no Parliament Rolls of Henry IVth VIth VIIth But you say Sir Richard Bolton had seen an Exemplification which remaineth in the Treasury of Waterford sure 't is a slender Argument but because the stress of the Matter doth not lye on this I will for once grant it you on the bare Testimony of Sir Richard Bolton and would you infer from this that the Statute Laws of England are of no Force in Ireland till they are allowed by the Parliament there Pray Sir how came your Parliament to assume such a Power as to dispute the Authority of the Parliament of England over them What if all our Corporations in England and Plantations in America should do the same who have all Grants and Charters from the King would this be sufficient to free them from the Government of the Parliament if not how comes Ireland to be set free by an Act of its own No Sir English Statutes receive no Force or Sanction from Acts of Parliament made in Ireland You raise a fair Objection against your self pag. 65 66. viz. That the very mentioning these Acts of Parliament in Ireland to prohibit English Acts of Parliament from binding that Kingdom does show that even in those days the Parliaments in England did claim this Superiority but you do not so fully answer it pag. 66. by saying There is nothing so common as to have one Man claim another Man's Right and if bare Pretence will give a Title no Man is secure for it appears this is no Pretence or bare Claim but a Power the Parliament of England once had and you do not tell us when they lost it You say P. 67. This Superiority of the Parliament of England hath been doubted a great while ago and a great while strenuously oppos'd and absolutely denied by the Parliament of Ireland Pray where was this strenuously opposed and in what manner Did the Parliament of Ireland ever enter any publick Protest against this Superiority or did the Kingdom of Ireland ever deny Obedience to the Acts of Parliament made here with intention to bind them No certainly I never heard that any of them were rejected but they have still been received and then what need had the Parliament of England to enquire farther into this matter But you say P. 68. That we have not one single Instance of an English Act of Parliament expresly claiming this Right of binding us What do you infer from thence I know not one single Instance of an Act of Parliament that the King of England shall have a Negative Voice no it is his Prerogative and therefore needed not an Act of Parliament nor is there any more need of it for the other P. 68 69 70. You go on to show how the Parliament of Ireland accepted and allowed several Acts made in England I take them to be Statutes not designed to bind Ireland but it matters not much and therefore I will not be at the pains to peruse them and from hence you draw this Conclusion p. 70. Thus you see by what steps and degrees all the Statutes which were made in England from the time of Magna Charta to the Tenth of Henry the VIIth which did concern the Common Publick Weal were received consirmed allowed and authorized to be of force in Ireland all which was done by assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in the Parliament of Ireland Assembled and no otherwise A very pretty way of Arguing viz. That because the Parliament of Ireland did allow of all the Statutes made in England to be good in Ireland therefore they had not been so without such Allowance who do you think is convinced by this Argument besides your self Certainly an indifferent Man would rather have drawn this Conclusion from it viz. That the Parliament of Ireland look'd upon themselves obliged to allow of and pay Obedience to the Laws made by the Parliament of England From p. 70 to 77. you proceed to show how and at what time several English Statutes were allowed of in the Parliament of Ireland To this I can say no more than I have done before only I shall observe what you say p. 70 71. That by the Opinion of your best Lawyers there are divers both before and since the 10th of Henry the VIIth which were and are of force in Ireland though not allowed of by that Parliament and the reason you give for it is p. 71. That they are Declaratory of the antient Common Law of England and not Introductive of any new Law Do you think Sir this to be the only reason why those Laws are of Force in Ireland Suppose Laws had been made to the same purpose in the Parliament of Scotland would they therefore have been pleadable in Ireland
If not let me ask you Why should the Laws made by the Parliament of England have more force in Ireland than those made in Scotland There can be no other reason given for it but this That Ireland is subject to the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England but is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of Scotland Had you told us what Acts of Parliament these were we might have judged whether they were Declaratory or no but since you have omitted that I think the Answer I have given sufficient P. 77. You proceed to consider the Objections and Difficulties that are moved against this your Proposition that the English Laws become passable in Ireland only by the Consent of the People and Parliament thereof these you say arise from Precedents and Passages in your own Law Books that seem to prove the contrary which shews that as Cocksure as you are in this Particular it hath been disputed and doubted by your own Lawyers and in your own Parliaments too if I take the matter right The first you mention is in p. 78. you say That in the Irish Act concerning Rape passed Anno 8 Edvardi 4. 't is expressed that a doubt was conceived whether the English Statute of the Sixth of Richard the Second Chap. 6. ought to be of Force in Ireland without the Confirmation thereof in the Parliament of Ireland all the use I shall make of this is that your Parliaments then doubted this thing Your second Objection is p. 80. That though perhaps such Acts of Parliament in England which do not name Ireland shall not be construed to bind Ireland yet all such English Statutes as mention Ireland either by the general Words of his Majesty's Dominions or by particularly naming of Ireland are and shall be of force in this Kingdom These are your Words and This you say was a Doctrine first broached directly by William Hussy Lord Chief Justice of the King's-Bench in England in the First Year of Henry VIIth and of late revived by the Lord Chief Justice Cooke Pray Sir do you speak in earnest Was this Doctrine never broach'd before the Reign of Henry the VIIth What think you of the several Acts of Parliament made in the several Kings Reigns since Henry the Third down to Henry the Seventh in some whereof they mention Ireland in others they do not do you not believe those several Parliaments thought there was some difference in those Acts But when the Lord Chief Justice Hussy and Sir Edward Cook after him both Persons of great Station in the Law broach'd this Opinion what was done in the Parliament of Ireland thereon Did they ever by any publick Act declare these Oracles of the Law to be in the wrong I do not find by any thing you say that they did and do believe you would not have let such an Argument have lain asleep if you could have brought it therefore I conclude they did not but on the contrary it doth appear that all Laws of that Nature have ever since been observed and obeyed in Ireland and many of them of much later Dates and now I wonder you should come to dispute it by your private Opinion One hundred and fifty Years after the Death of Hussy when in all this time the Body of Ireland hath not undertaken it But I will examine your Arguments against this The first is That the King and his Privy-Council in England have often transmitted into Ireland to be passed into Laws there English Statutes wherein the general Words Of all His Majesty's Dominions or Subjects were comprehended from whence you conclude that they were of a contrary Opinion p. 81 82. Suppose this to be so the most you can conclude from it is that it obliquely shews the King and Privy-Councils Opinion and doth not the Parliaments passing such Acts as well shew the Opinion of the Legislative Power of England But what if the King and Privy-Council of England do as you say actum agere shall this make the Parliaments Intentions in making those Laws void No certainly no more than the Parliament of Ireland's confirming them shall prove they were not binding before for whither the Parliament of Ireland accept or refuse those Laws that are made by the Parliament of England with intention to bind Ireland they are never the more or less binding there P. 84. You proceed and tell us You see no more reason for binding Ireland by the English Laws under the general Words Of all His Majesty's Dominions or Subjects than there is for binding Scotland by the same Truly Sir I believe you else I should wonder to have seen you taking so much Pains But because I am of a different Opinion let me consider this Matter with you Ireland is by several Laws made both in this Kingdom and in that annexed and joined to the Imperial Crown of England but Scotland tho' it has been often sought for never yet obtained that favour Ireland you confess submitted it self to King Henry the Second and thereby became at first annexed to the Crown of England one of the Terms of which Submission was That it should be govern'd by the English Laws whereas Scotland was united to it in the Person of King James and since that by its voluntary Recognition of King William and Queen Mary still keeping its own Laws and leaving a possibility of its becoming a separate Kingdom again which Ireland never can be The People of Ireland I mean the English and Britains which you say p. 20. are a Thousand for One of the antient Irish were once subject to the Legislative Power of England which the People of Scotland never were but always a separate Kingdom The People in Ireland have all the Privileges of English Men and thereby under the easiest Government in Europe which the People in Scotland have not whilst they remain in that Kingdom The People in Ireland are governed by the Common Laws of England one part whereof is That thore Laws may be inlarged abridged or altered by the Parliament of England but the People in Scotland are and ever were governed by their own Laws Ireland is mentioned in several of our Statutes as part of the Kingdom of England and joined with Wales as a dependant thereon which Scotland never was thought to be viz. 27 Edward III. Sess 2. in the Preamble of that Statute are these Words Sect. 2. For the Damage which hath notoriously come as well to us and the Great Men as to the People of our Realm of England and of our Lands of Wales and Ireland Cap. 1. it goes on First that the Staple of Wools c. within our said Realm and Lands Cap. 2. Item to replenish the said Realm and Lands with Money and Plate c. Cap. 3. Item we Will and Grant that all Merchants c. through our Realm and Lands Cap. 4. Item for as much as no Staple can be profitable for us and for our Realm and Lands Cap. 7.
't is to be found in the Collection of English Statutes is plainly thus The Judges in Ireland conceiving a doubt concerning Inheritances devolved to Sisters or Coheirs viz. whether the younger Sisters ought to hold of the eldest Sister and do homage unto her for their Portions or of the chief Lord and do homage unto him therefore Girald Fitz-Maurice the then Lord Justice of Ireland dispatched four Knights to the King in England to bring a Certificate from thence of the practice used there and what was the Common Law of England in that Case whereupon Henry III. in this his Certificate or Rescript which is called Statutum Hiberniae merely informs the Justice what the Law and Custom was in England viz. That the Sisters ought to hold of the chief Lord and not of the eldest Sister And the close of it commands That the foresaid Customs that be used within our Realm of England in this case be proclaimed throughout our Dominion of Ireland and be there observed Teste meipso apud Westminst 9 Febr. An. Reg. 14. From whence you infer That this Statute was no more then a Certificate of what the Common Law of England was in that case which Ireland by the original Compact was to be governed by And do you really speak your Thoughts herein Was it ever customary for the Judges to send to the King to expound Law to them and for the King by Certificates to direct them what they should give for Law I thought their Business had been to declare the Law impartially between the King and his Subjects and that if they doubted in any Points of the Common Law their Custom had been to advise one with another or with some other Learned Councel in the Law Is it to be thought the King knew Law better than his Judges I would not have you insist on this for the Honour of the Long Robe in Ireland But Sir there is more in this then perhaps at first you think for either this is a Statute Law and our Books call it so therefore in your favour I will believe it so or else the King had in those days an Absolute Power and Authority to impose on Ireland what Laws he thought fit For in the close of that Statute 't is said Therefore we command you That you cause the foresaid Customs that be used within our Realm of England in this case to be proclaimed throughout our Dominion of Ireland and to be straitly kept and observed If all our Acts of Parliament which declare the Common Law of England shall be called Certificates pray what will become of Magna Charta Charta Foresta and most of our old Laws which were generally Declarations of what was the Common Law of this Kingdom and what were the Rights and Liberties of the Subjects before the making of them I come now to your second old Precedent the Statute called Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae made at Nottingham 17 Edw. 1. Anno 1288. This you say pag. 88. was certainly never received or of force in Ireland And you further say That this is manifest from the very first Article of that Ordinance which prohibits the Justice of Ireland or others the King's Officers there to purchase Lands in that Kingdom or within their respective Bailiwicks without the King's Licence on pain of Forfeitures But that this has ever been otherwise and that the Lords Justices and other Officers here have purchased Lands in Ireland at their own Will and Pleasure needs no proof to those who have the least knowledge of this Country Is this a fair Argument against the Validity of a Statute That it hath not had due obedience rendred to it If this be Law I am afraid many of our late good Statutes have run the same fate but I never knew till now That the Peoples Obedience was an Essential part in a Statute I thought the Consent of King Lords and Commons given to it in Parliament had been enough But we will not let this Matter fall without further examining into your Argument That Statute consists of eight Chapters let us see which of those Chapters have not been received and obeyed you only mention the first viz. That the Lords Justices of Ireland and other Officers have purchased Lands in Ireland at their own Will and Pleasure as you recite it pag. 88. But the words in the Statute are these That the Justices of Ireland nor any other Officers of ours of the same Realm so long as they are in our Service there shall purchase any Land or Tenement within the List or bound of their Bailiwicks without our special Licence Which makes a great Alteration in the Matter for they might purchase Lands or Tenements both before and after they were in their Offices But we will take the Words as you give them how does it appear that this Law was not observed You say p. 89. It does not appear by any Inquisition Office or Record that any one ever forfeited on that account It may be so perhaps it was never broke and then there was no need of an Inquisition or the King might grant Licence as that Law does direct to his Justices and other Officers to purchase Lands during their being in their Offices or they might purchase them without the List or Bounds of their Bailiwicks and then the Terms of the Law were complied with But I am apt to think you will carry this farther and say That in later Years the Justices of Ireland and other the King's Officers have not taken notice of this Law perhaps so and what would you draw from this How many old Laws have we in England that are obsolete and disregarded by Time which though they fitted the Circumstances of the Times they were made in yet are not proper for our Days Witness the Statutes against going Arm'd the Statutes about Bows and Arrows and many others which were and still remain Statutes till repealed though perhaps 't will be thought hard to put them in Execution without giving publick Notice thereof sometime before to the Subject But after all how do you know but that these Officers you last mentioned may have Licences from the King to purchase Lands though I think it not at all to the matter whether they have or no. But to proceed That Statute as I said before consists of Eight Chapters you have taken notice only of the First therefore we will come to the next Chapter of that Statute The Title is In what Case only Purveyance may be made in Ireland Is that observed in Ireland or do the Justices or other the King's Officers by colour of their Offices take Victuals or any other things of any Person against his Will contrary to that Chapter The Third Chapter is about Transporting Merchandizes out of Ireland Do the Justices or any of the King's Ministers by colour of their Offices Arrest the Ships or other Goods of the People of Ireland The Fourth settles The Fees of a Bill of
then upon be considered which was this as I find it in his Abridgment pag. 271. R. C. by his Guardian bringeth an Assize the Defendants say the Plaintiff ought not to be answered quia est Aliagena natus 5 Novemb. An. Dom. Regis Angliae c. tertio apud E. infra Regnum Scotiae ac insra ligeanciam Domini Regis Regni sui S. ac extra ligeanciam Regni sui Angl. Here the Debate being about a Post natus in Scotland Sir Edward Cook brought the Quotation you mention for the sake of the last words thereof sed personae eorum sunt subjecti Regis sicut Inhabitantes in Calesia Gasconia Guyan who had been ever accounted Denizens and makes the Note you mention viz. which is to be understood unless they be especially named on the other part of that quotation Nostra Statuta non ligant c. because he would not be thought of Opinion with the former Judges Et non obligantur per Statuta in Anglia which you mention pag. 91. And this having no relation to the Case he was then upon he thought it needless to give the Reasons for this his dissent in Opinion from them which makes you call him Magisterial c. But afterwards pag. 117. you say that in another place of the same Report he gives this colour of Reason for his former Assertion That though Ireland be a distinct Dominion from England yet the Title thereof being by Conquest the same by Judgment of Law might by express words be bound by the Parliaments of England From this you would raise an Argument p. 118. between the Opinion given by the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber pag. 91. and the now Opinion of the L. Chief Justice Cook But I shall leave you to reconcile those venerable Judges and proceed to my own Argument because I think I have already spoken to every thing you therein mention only I can't but stand amazed at your what shall I call it in this Assertion pag. 118. I challenge any Man to shew me that any one before him or any one since but from him hath vended this Doctrine when your self had told us before pag. 92. That the Lord Chief Justice Hussy and the other Judges were of the same Opinion when the Case of the Merchants of Waterford which is the same you now quote was argued the second time in the Exchequer Chamber And in pag. 80. you tell us This was a Doctrine first broached directly by Will. Hussy Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench in England in the first year of Henry VII and of late revived by the Lord Chief Justice Cook I wonder how you can make such bold Challenges which need no farther trouble then perusing your own Book to answer I hope I have now vindicated my Lord Chief Justice Cook whose Name you say pag. 116. is of great veneration with the Gentlemen of the Long Robe if so I may likewise hope they will give me thanks for doing it so many years after his death The next Case you mention is that of Pilkinton 20 Hen. 6. pag. 122. This you say is for you It is too long to transcribe but the Substance of it is this There were Letters Patents granted by the King to A. for an Office in Ireland formerly granted to P. by the same King's Letters Patents whereupon P. brings a Scire Facias against A. to shew cause why his Letters Patents should not be repealed A. pleads That Ireland had time out of mind been a Land separate and distinct from England was govern'd by its own Customs had a Parliament and made Statutes and by one of those Statutes P. had forfeited his Office Hereupon P. demur'd in Law and it was debated by five of the Judges of England who differ'd in their Opinions about it Well what will you infer from this doth any one doubt whether Ireland hath a Parliament and Customs among themselves that govern them Did the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England come any way to be called in question here if not 't is nothing to our Matter Yes you say pag. 124. Two of the Judges said That if a Tenth or a Fifteenth be granted the King by the Parliament of England that shall not bind Ireland c. Perhaps it may not 't is according as the Act is worded we see our ordinary Acts for raising Taxes are not extended to Ireland But doth this show that the Parliament of England hath not Power to make Laws which shall bind Ireland Besides suppose two Judges of five had positively said they could not was their Opinion to be taken against that of the Parliament of England shewn by their constant practice for Five hundred years I profess I cannot see how this Case reaches the Matter we are upon As to the Merchants of Waterford's Case pag. 125. it hath been spoken to before so I shall pass it by now The next is the Prior of Lanthonies in Wales 5 Hen. 6. This you say is for you pag. 125. I think 't is not but it lyes on me to give my Reasons therefore I will abreviate it The Prior of Lanthony brought an Action in the Common Pleas of Ireland against the Prior of Mollingar Judgment went against the Prior of M. who brought a Writ of Error in the King's Bench of Ireland where the Judgment was affirmed He then appeals to the Parliament of Ireland who revers'd both Judgments The Prior of L. removes all into the King's Bench in England but the King's Bench refused to intermeddle having no Power over what had passed in the Parliament of Ireland he then appealed to the Parliament of England where you say it doth not appear by the Parliament Roll that any thing was done on this Appeal save receiving the Petition Well what would you draw from this I think it proves nothing to our Matter if it doth the Conclusion must be against you For it appears by this quotation That the Prior of L. two hundred and seventy years since thought that an Appeal lay from the Parliament of Ireland to the Parliament of England and it doth likewise appear That the Parliament of England received his Petition But as to your Inference against the Power of the Parliament of England because nothing was done therein it may as well be concluded That they cannot judge Appeals brought before them by a Writ of Error out of the King's Bench of England because many times no Proceedings follow thereon which every Body knows may be let fall after the Petition is received at the Pleasure of the Parties concerned As to what you say of the Civil and Ecclesiastical State of Ireland p. 127 128 129. I think I have given a full Answer to it already so shall not repeat I will only add That 't is a wrong method to draw Arguments against the Power of the Parliament of England from Acts made by the Parliament of Ireland No doubt the Titles of those Kings and Queens you
A VINDICATION OF THE Parliament of ENGLAND In answer to a BOOK WRITTEN By WILLIAM MOLYNEUX of Dublin Esq INTITULED The Case of Irelands being bound by Acts of Parliament in England stated By JOHN CARY Merchant in Bristol Nolumus Leges Anglicanas mutari LONDON Printed by Freeman Collins and are to be sold by Sam. Crouch in Cornhill and Eliz. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall 1698. To the Right Honourable John Lord Somers Baron of EVESHAM And Lord High Chancellor of ENGLAND I Humbly make bold to Present Your Lordship with this little Tract being an Answer to a Book Entituled The Case of Ireland 's being bound by Acts of Parliament in England stated Written by William Molyneus of Dublin Esquire The Reason which induced me to intermeddle in a thing so much out of my Profession as Matters of Law are was that I had formerly amongst other things discours'd on the State of Ireland in my Essay on Trade and offer'd it as my Opinion That except that Kingdom was bound up more strictly by Laws made in England it would soon destroy our Woollen Manufactory here Wherefore I proposed to reduce it with respect to its Trade to the state of our other Plantations and Settlements Abroad which I supposed the only Means we had left to help our selves and to render Ireland more useful to this Kingdom This I humbly presented to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty and also to the Honourable the Commons of England then sitting in Parliament which I presumed to do because I thought I had Faithfully and Impartially discoursed on the Subjects I undertook at least I knew I had endeavoured to do so and supposing that Book might give some beginning to the Bill for Encouraging the Woollen Manufactures in England and restraining the Exportation of the Woollen Manufactures from Ireland I found my self obliged to consider the Arguments which might be brought against Ireland 's being bound by Statute Laws made in England What Success that Bill will have I know not but I very much fear if something of that nature be not done we shall soon loose that part of our Woollen Manufacture now left which will tend to the Ruining our Poor the Lessening the Value of the Lands of England and depriving us of a great Number of People who will be necessitated to leave this Kingdom and go over to Ireland to follow their Employments there and all this without rendring the Gentlemen of Ireland any sort of Advantage that may not be made up to them another way This I humbly conceive may be done and Ireland encouraged on another Manufacture no way Detrimental to the Interest of England and carried on by such Methods as may become profitable to both Kingdoms Till this be done I very much fear both will be uneasie I humbly beg your Lordship's Pardon for my Presumption and that you will be pleased to accept what I here offer as from a Person who truly Honours your Lordship and so much the more because you have always Asserted the Rights and Powers of Parliaments I am with all Dutiful respect Right Honourable Your Lordship 's most Humble and most Obedient Servant JOHN CARY A VINDICATION of the Parliament of England 's Power to Bind Ireland by their Statute-Laws in Answer to a Book written by William Molyneux of Dublin Esq SIR YOUR Book Entituled The Case of Ireland 's being bound by Acts of Parliament in England Stated I have seen and read over with some thought and because I cannot agree with you in your Opinion I design this as an Answer to shew you the reason why I differ from you But before I proceed farther I shall premise and grant with you That Ireland hath long had a Parliament and I am apt to think that your mistake arises from this that you Build too much on the Name not considering the Power that Parliament Legally hath For this is no more then our Foreign Plantations and great Corporations in England have in the former the Governours represent the King the great Men or Council the Lords and the Commons are represented by such as they elect and send from their several Districts In the latter these three Estates are likewise Represented by the Mayor Aldermen and Common Council of the several Cities or Corporations these make Laws for their better Order and Government yet all subservient to the great Council or Parliament of this Nation from whose Jurisdiction those Priviledges do not in the least set them free but they pay a due Obedience to their Laws especially those made with an Intention to bind them The Dispute now between you and me is Whither Ireland can be bound by our English Acts of Parliament This you deny and I affirm I will therefore proceed to enquire into your Arguments And because I intend as much Brevity as possible I can I will pass by all that in your Book which I apprehend doth not concern the Matter in Dispute Your Stile is good and your Language like a Gentleman but with this fault that under that you sometimes endeavour to cloud your Design and represent it to the Reader quite different from your own Intention Page 4 You tell us That the Subject of your present Disquisition shall be how far the Parliament of England may think it reasonable to intermeddle with the Affairs of Ireland and bind you up by Laws made in their House This you might have informed your self from our Statute-Books which begin with the Laws of Henry III. about Five hundred years since and you will find that in that King's Reign and ever since in the Reigns of his Successors the Parliament of England have thought it reasonable to Bind up Ireland by Laws made here so often as they saw there was occasion and no doubt they did the same or at least had Power so to do in the Reigns of Henry II. Richard I. and King John who all preceded King Henry III. and Reigned after Ireland came under the English Government Now were that all the Question in Dispute I could soon answer you that what the Parliaments of England did Five hundred years past and have done ever since the present Parliaments think reasonable to suppose themselves impowered to do because they make Precedents of former times their Rule and Government so that 't is not the Will but the Power of the Parliament of England in this Matter that you Dispute and this appears more plainly in your next Paragraph where you call it a pretended Right founded only on the imaginary Title of Conquest or Purchase or on Precedents and Matters of Record I do not think it very material for me to consider on which of these imaginary Titles as you call them they pretend to this Power the Question will not turn on that 't is enough if I assert and prove that the Parliaments of England did exercise this Power ever since Ireland hath been under the English Government and I think it will lye on you to
original Contract for he saith that the King caused them to receive and swear to be governed by the Laws of England But in your next Precedent you seem to qualify the Severity of that King's Orders by what Sir Edward Cook says viz. That he settled the Laws of England in Ireland by the voluntary Acceptance and Allowance of the Nobility and Clergy pag. 29. And he did likewise allow them the Freedom of holding Parliaments in Ireland as a separate and distinct Kingdom from England Please to note that Sir Edward Cook wrote about Five Hundred Years after King Henry II. went into Ireland and about Four Hundred and Fifty after Matt. Paris wrote and you would now bring his Opinion against the constant Practice of the Parliaments of England for Five Hundred Years Besides you say p. 80 and 116. That Sir Edward Cooke was of Opinion that Ireland was to be governed by the Statute Laws made in England where it was specially named therein and in the last of these Pages you exclaim against him for this his Opinion I shall not examine your Quotations whether they agree with the Originals or no my Profession being not the Law I am not furnish'd with those Books nor do I think it much to the purpose what Sir Edward Cook saith in this matter yet I must take notice that you pen the Words Holding of Parliaments in Ireland in a different Character from the following Sentence As a separate and distinct Kingdom from England which gives me reason to suppose the last was vour to find out the Original did the Decision of this Controversy depend upon Sir Edward Cook 's Opinion Sir Edward Cook in this Case should have given a Transcript of that Grant and you should have transcribed it as you do afterwards the Modus how to hold their Parliaments pag. 29. and yet then there would have arose this Question Whether the Kings of England can legally exempt their English and British Subjects for so you call the People of Ireland pag. 20. from their Obedience to the Legislative Power of this Kingdom by any Charters or Grants whatsoever I am sure I never heard of any such Precedent but on the contrary it is charged as a Crime on the late King James in an Act made Primo G. M. Cap. 2. That he assumed and exercised a Power of dispencing with and suspending of Laws and the Execution of Laws without Consent of Parliament But here I see you will raise this Objection against my manner of expressing my self and say That when Grants are made by a King to any Country that doth submit it self to his Authority all Persons who shall afterwards settle themselves therein though before subject to other Laws are now â—o try therefore the People of England when they setled Ireland were to be governed by the Laws granted to Ireland to this I answer That the Constitution of the Government to which this Submission is made ought specially to be considered and then there will arise this 2d Question Whether a Submission made to the K. of England doth not include a Submission to the Legislative Authority of England I am apt to think it does and I believe it will appear by what follows in this Discourse that the Parliaments of England have ever been of the same Opinion But be this how it will Ireland you allow submitted it self on the Terms of being governed by the Laws of England so this Objection seems rather to be formal than material as to the Subject we are upon This Modus you say pag. 30. For the most part agrees with the Modus tenendi Parl ' in England which is a loose Argument for you know that one Word in a Grant may alter the whole Sence and we both agree that the Parliament of Ireland may make Laws but the Question is whether Ireland is not bound by the Statute Laws of England as all our Plantations are Yet after all you confess pag. 30. That this very Modus though strenuously asserted by Sir Edward Cook is disputed by Mr. Selden and Mr. Pryn two learned Antiquaries will you then bring it as an Argument against the constant Practice of the Parliament of England for Five Hundred Years past But grant it had not been disputed at all I do not see what it will make for your purpose One Reason you say why Mr. Pryn doubts this Modus to be sent over by King Henry the Second is because there were no Sheriffs established in Ireland in Henry the Second's Time pag. 31. Yet the Word Vicecomes is in it all you answer is pag. 32. That perhaps the King intended to constitute Sheriffs and yet the first you find establish'd there were in the Days of King John which was about Fifty Years after and you say pag. 30. That where this Form was altered from the Modus tenendi Parl ' in England 't is only to fit it the better for the Kingdom of Ireland if so 't is strange the Word Vice-comes had not been left out seeing there was then no such Officer in Ireland But pag. 36. you are pleased to allow that there is reason to doubt the certainty of this Record unless we will depend on the Credit of the Bishop of Meath therefore you return to your former Argument viz. that there were Parliaments early in the Kingdom of Ireland which may be probable but whether the Parliament of England then lost their Power there is the thing I dispute and you do not prove You say pag. 36 37. That Henry the Second held a General Council of the Clergy at Cashall wherein he rectifyed many Abuses in the Church and established sundry Ecclesiastical Laws agreeable to those in the Church of England this in England we call a Convocation not a Parliament You say pag. 37. Pari desiderio Regis Imperio se subjiciunt omnibus igitur hoc modo consummatis in Consilio habito apud Lismore Leges Anglicae ab omnibus sunt gratantur receptae juratoriâ cautione praestitâ confirmatae saith Matth. Paris from hence you infer pag. 38. That they should enjoy the like Liberties and Immunities and be governed by the same mild Laws both Civil and Ecclesiastical as the People of England and I see no Reason to the contrary all we differ in is whether they were thereby discharged from being subject to the Statute Laws made in England this seems contrary to the Judgment of the Parliament in Henry the Third's Days to whom Matth. Paris was Historiographer else certainly they would not have made Laws to bind Ireland as I shall by and by show they did You proceed pag. 38. thus From all which it is manifest that there were no Laws imposed upon the People of Ireland by any Authority of the Parliament of England nor any Laws introduced into that Kingdom by King Henry the Second but by the Consent and Allowance of the People of Ireland and the Reason you give for it is this For both the
established these Acts under-written willing and commanding that from henceforth they be firmly observed within this Realm The Preamble of the Statute of Westminster made the 13th of Edward I. runs thus Whereas of late our Lord the King in the Quinzim of St. John Baptist the Sixth Year of his Reign calling together the Prelates Earls Barons and his Council at Gloucester and considering that divers of this Realm c. ordain'd certain Statutes right necessary and profitable for his Realm whereby the People of England and Ireland being Subjects unto his Power have obtain'd more speedy Justice c. Our Lord the King in his Parliament after the Feast of Easter holden the 13th Year of his Reign at Westminster caused many Oppressions of the People and Defaults of the Laws for the accomplishment of the said Statutes of Gloucester to be rehearsed and thereupon did provide certain Acts as shall appear here following Here I cannot but observe That the King and Parliament of England thought Ireland a part of this Realm and subject to their Legislative Power and that it was concerned in the Statutes of Gloucester before-mentioned though not named therein Now whose Judgement shall we take the King and Parliament who lived in those Days or yours Four hundred Years afterwards I shall only mention one more which is in the 21 Edward 1. we find there a Statute made De iis qui ponendi sunt in Assisis and at the end thereof I find this Sect. 6. Rex c. quia ad communem utilitat◠〈◊〉 â—opuli nostri Regni de communi Concilio ejusdem Regni Statuerimus c. Now all these are accounted Statutes or Acts of Parliament and so called in the Books which shows that it is not the Name but the Modus of passing them which is the essential part of a Statute Law Besides if you please to peruse your own Quotations p. 48 and 49. you there acknowledge the Parliament to be called Generale Concilium Commune Concilium Great Council or Parliament I now come to your last Argument against this Statute p. 89. That King Edward I. held no Parliament in the 17th Year of his Reign This seems very doubtful even to your self for it follows If this were a Parliament this Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae is the only Act thereof that is extant and may not that be Henry III. granted the Magna Charta in the Ninth Year of his Reign you allow this to be a Statute or Act of Parliament and yet we do not find any other Law past that Year and but one single Act in his Fourteenth Year One in the Ninth of Edward I. and many other Instances may be made of this nature But after all I do not see how the stress of the Matter lies on this Foundation suppose this to be no Act of Parliament as you say what then shall we want Antient Precedents which name Ireland What think you of the Statute of Merchants which I have mentioned before 13 Edw. 1. this was made before that of the Seventeenth Year which you so much contend about and Ireland is expresly named in that Statute The Sum is this you say it is not a Statute I say it is and the Books call it so I have also given my Reasons why I think it so not that I think it material to our Debate but because if Statutes should be rejected for the Reasons you reject this I fear a great part of our old Acts of Parliament and even Magna Charta it self must be expunged out of the Statute Book I come now to your third Antient Precedent the Staple Act made in the Second of Henry VI. Cap. 4. This is expired so I find only the Title in the Statute Book which is this All Merchandizes of the Staple passing out of England Wales and Ireland shall be carried to Calice as long as the Staple is at Calice The Reason you give why this Law doth not bind Ireland is grounded on the Opinion of the Judges of England whereof you give this account p. 90. That by the Year Book of the Second of Richard III. it doth appear that the Merchants of Waterford having Ship'd off some Wool and consign'd it to Sluce in Flanders the Ship by stress of Weather put into Calice and Sir Thomas Thwaits Treasurer there seized the said Wool as forfeited whereupon a Suit was commenced between the said Merchants and him which was brought before all the Judges of England into the Exchequer-Chamber where the Questions were two one of which was Whither this Staple Act binds Ireland I have Abbreviated what you Write but I think I have done it fairly to which the Judges gave this Answer p. 91. Quod terra Hibernia inter se habent Parliament ' omni modo Cur prout in Angl. per Idem Parliament ' faciunt Leges mutant Leges non obligantur per Statuta in Anglia quia non hic habent Milites Parliamenti c. But in p. 92. you confess from the Year Books of 1 Henry 7. That when the aforesaid Case came a second time under the Consideration of the Judges in the Exchequer-Chamber we find it Reported thus Hussy the Chief Justice said That the Statutes made in England shall Bind those of Ireland which was not much gainsaid by the other Judges notwithstanding that some of them were of a contrary Opinion the last Term in his Absence What a strange Argument is this The Judges say you gave their Opinion who were those Judges You name only Hussy and he was against it But you say all the Judges of England in the former Term it could not be all because Hussy was not there and afterwards he gave his Opinion quite contrary And as you confess p. 92. all the Judges submitted to it so that here is the Judges Opinion at one time against their Opinion at another and will you bring this to overthrow the Authority of the Legislative Power of England But suppose Hussy and the rest of the Judges had agreed with the first Opinion what would you draw from this Have the Judges Power to question the Parliament in the Exercise of their Legislative Authority I know they are often advised with in the making of an Act but when it is once past I presume their business is to give their Judgments according to it or to Explain it where the Sence is doubtful but not to go against the express Words of an Act much less to question the Parliaments Power to make it Your second Argument against this Statute's binding Ireland is a Note in a Book made by Brook in Abridging this Case That Ireland is a Kingdom of it self and hath Parliaments of its own p. 92. Certainly you have very light Thoughts of Parliaments if you think that Notes in Books should abridge their Power The third is a Comment of your own on the whole p. 93. wherein you draw a Comparison of Ireland with Scotland and conclude That