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
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