Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	day_n	king_n	year_n	16,086	5	5.1009	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61556	The grand question, concerning the Bishops right to vote in Parliament in cases capital stated and argued, from the Parliament-rolls, and the history of former times : with an enquiry into their peerage, and the three estates in Parliament.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1680 (1680)	Wing S5594; ESTC R19869	81,456	194

Nobles Vt Episcopi Abbates Comites potentiores quique si causam inter se habuerint ac se pacificare noluerint ad nostram jubeantur venire praesentiam neque illorum contentio aliubi judicetur But in this Court they challenged that as their privilege to be tried by their Peers who were called Pares Curiae So the Emperour Sigismund in his Protestation before the States of the Empire Cùm secundùm juris communis dispositionem nec non usum morem stylum consuetudinem sacri Romani Imperii feudalis contentio per Dominum feudi ac Pares Curiae terminanda sit c. And again nisi Parium nostrae Curiae arbitrio So likewise in France as Tilius saith Haec judiciorum ratio ut de causis feudalibus judicent Feudales Pares in Gallia est perantiqua So in Fulbertus one Count sends word to another that their Cause should not be determin'd nisi in Conventu Parium suorum And many other examples might be produced but these are sufficient to make us understand the true Original of this Right of Peerage which was from the Feodal Laws and all those who held of the same Lord and by the same Tenure were said to be Pares Peers And therefore since the Bishops in England were Barons by Tenure ever since William I. by consequence they were Peers to other Barons and had the same original Right of Trial by other Barons as their Peers holding by the same Tenure and sitting in the same Court. And thus I hope I have given what that Authour so impatiently desired viz. a rational account of the Trial by Peers and have thereby shewed that this is so far from being any disadvantage to the Bishops Cause that it adds very much to the Iustice of it And that this is so far from being a violation of Magna Charta that it is within the intention and meaning of it I thus prove In the 14. ch of Magna Charta we read Comites Barones non amercientur nisi per Pares suos but by the Common Law the Amerciament of a Bishop is the same with that of a Lay-Baron and therefore in the sense of the Law they are looked on as Peers And all the Parlamentary Barons whether Bishops or Abbots were amerced as Barons Thence 15 Edw. 2. a Writ was directed to the Justices of the Common Pleas that they should not amerce the Abbot of Crowland tanquam Baro because he did not hold per Baroniam aut partem Baroniae And it is confessed by the most learned Lawyers that the Lords Spiritual do enjoy the same legal Privileges in other respects which the Temporal Barons do as in real Actions to have a Knight returned in their Iury as to a day of Grace hunting in the King's Forests Scandalum Magnatum c. Now since the Law of England allows onely a double Parity viz. as to Lords of Parlament and Commons whether Knights Esquires Gentlemen or Yeomen without any consideration of the great inequality of circumstances among them Yeomen having as little sense of Gentility as Commons can have of the privileges of Nobles it is apparent that this Trial by Peers was not founded upon equality of circumstances and that in all reason those who do enjoy the legal Privileges of Peers are to be looked on as such by Magna Charta But the great Objection is that the Lawyers are of another opinion as to this Trial by Peers and not onely the common sort who take all upon Trust which they find in the modern Law-Books but those who have searched most into Antiquity such as Mr. Selden and Sir Edw. Coke To this therefore I answer 1. The Authour of the Peerage c. proves the Bishops are not Peers because not to be tried by Peers This consequence Mr. Selden utterly denies for he saith it is true and plain that the Bishops have been Peers For which he quotes the Bishop of Winchester's Case who was question'd in the King's Bench for leaving the Parlament at Salisbury in the beginning of Ed. III. and he pleaded to the declaration quod ipse est unus e Paribus Regni that he was one of the Peers of the Realm which he saith was allowed in Court And from other Book-cases and Parlament-Rolls he there evidently proves that the Bishops were Peers which he not onely asserts in that confused Rhapsodie which went abroad under his name but in his elaborate Work of the last Edition of his Titles of Honour in which he corrected and left out the false or doubtfull passages of his first Edition And among the rest that passage wherein this Authour triumphs A Bishop shall not be tried by Peers in Capital Crimes The same thing I confess is said in the Privileges of the Baronage which he there calls a point of Common Law as it is distinguished from Acts of Parlament i. e. the custom and practice hath been so And the onely evasion he hath for Magna Charta is this that it is now to be interpreted according to the current practice and not by the literal interpretation of the Words Which is an admirable answer if one well considers it and justifies all violations of Magna Charta if once they obtain and grow into Custom For then no matter for the express words of Magna Charta if the contrary practice hath been received and allowed in legal proceedings This is to doe by Magna Charta as the Papists doe by the Scriptures viz. make it a meer Nose of Wax and say it is to be interpreted according to the Practice of the Church 2. Some things are affirmed about this matter with as great assurance as this is which have not been the constant practice Coke is positive that Bishops are not to be tried by their Peers but so he is in the same page that a Nobleman cannot wave his Trial by his Peers and put himself upon the Trial of the Countrey Whereas it is said in the Record 4 Ed. III. that Thomas Lord Berkely ponit se super Patriam put himself upon his Countrey and was tried by a Jury of 12 Knights And 28 H. VI. the Duke of Suffolk declined the Trial of his Peers and submitted to the King's mercy By which it appears that this was a Privilege which was not to be denied them if they challenged it but at least before 15 Ed. III. they might wave it if they pleased and after that too if they were tried out of Parlament For this Trial by Peers was intended for a security against arbitrary Power in taking away mens Lives and therefore it was allowed at the King's Suit but not at the Suit of the Party But if Bishops were tried out of Parlament and did voluntarily decline the challenge of this Privilege this is no argument at all against their Right of Peerage and so I find some say it was in the Case of Fisher Bishop of

not mention'd in the Abridgment n. 11. Domino Rege tribus Regni Statibus in presenti Parlamento existentibus the King and the Three Estates of the Realm being present in Parlament Nothing can be plainer then that the King is none and that the Three Estates of the Kingdom are the Three Estates in Parlament 11 H. VI. n. 24. Lord Cromwell Treasurer exhibits a Petition in Parlament wherein he saith the estate and necessity of the King and of the Realm have been notified to the Three Estates of the Land assembled in Parlament In an Appendix annexed to the Rolls of Parlament that year the Duke of Bedford saith in his Petition to the King how that in your last Parlament yit liked your Highness by yadvis of Three Estates of his Land to will me c. 23 H. VI. n. 11. Presente Domino Rege tribus Regni Statibvs in presenti Parlamento existentibus c. 28 H. VI. n. 9. Domino Rege tribus Regni Statibus in pleno Parlamento comparentibus c. After these I shall insist upon the Precedents cited by the Authour of the Letter himself viz. the Ratification of the Peace with France by the Thrée Estates 9 H. V. and 11 H. VII which he alledges as an extraordinary thing that the Three Estates joyned in these Transactions whereas in truth it was nothing but a Ratification of the Peace in Parlament and consequently those Three Estates of the Kingdom are the Three Estates of Parlament For the Parlament was then sitting at both these Ratifications and no other Assembly of the Thrée Estates was ever known in England Walsingham saith that H. V. called aParlament which was sitting at that time for the King kept S. George's Feast at Windsor that year from thence he went to the Parlament at London which ended within a Month and the Ratification of the Peace bears date May 2. Judge then whether these were not the Three Estates in Parlament But to prove this more fully It seems by 23 H. VI. n. 24. that a Statute was made in the time of H. V. that no Peace should be made with France without the consent of the Three Estates of both Realms which was then repealed But whom they meant by the Thrée Estates here in the time of H. VI. appears by 28 H. VI. n. 9. when the Chancellour in the presence of the King gave thanks to the Three Estates and prorogued the Parlament where it is plain the Three Estates in Parlament were meant and that the King could be none of them In 38 H. VI. n. 38. the Chancellour again in the presence of the King and of the Three Estates having given thanks to all the Estates dissolved the Parlament But that which puts this matter out of doubt is that in the Parlament 1 H. VI. the Queen Dowager in her Petition mentions the Ratification made in Parlament 9 H. V. and saith it was not onely sworn by the King but by the Thrée Estates of the Kingdom of England Cest assavoir les Prelatz Nobles Grands per les Comuns de mesm le Roialm Dengleterre that is to say by the Prelats Nobles and other Grandees and by the Commons of the Realm of England as appears more fully saith that Petition by the Records and Acts of the said Parlament And the King there declares in four several Instruments that the said Articles of Peace were approved and ratified by Authority of Parlament in these words Qui quidem Pax Tractatus conclusio concordia omnesque Articuli contenti in eisdem in Parlamento dicti Patris nostri apud Westm. 2 0 die Maii A. R. 9. tento Auctoritate ejusdem Parlamenti approbati laudati auctorizati acceptati Nothing can be plainer from hence then that the Three Estates of the Kingdom were no other then the Three Estates in Parlament And the same appears by another Petition of the same Queen 2 H. VI. n. 19. For latter Times I shall instance onely in the Parlament 1 Eliz. c. 3. wherein the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons declare that they do represent in Parlament the Thrée Estates of the Realm From whence it follows 1. That the Three Estates of the Kingdom must be represented in Parlament 2. That the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons do represent those Three Estates of the Kingdom and therefore are the Three Estates in Parlament 3. That the King can be none of the Estates in Parlament because he doth not represent any of the Estates of the Kingdom And it is a wonder to me that any man who considers the Constitution of the Government of Europe and how agreeable it was in all the Kingdoms of it as to the Assemblies of the Three Estates could ever take the King to be one of the Three Estates in Parlament For the Question would seem ridiculous to persons of any other Nation if we should ask them whether the King was reckon'd among the tres Ordines Regni For by the Three Estates they all mean the Three Ranks of men the Clergy Nobility and Commonalty But the Authour of the Letter could not deny that these were the Three Estates of the Kingdom but he saith the Three Estates of Parlament are clean another thing which I may reasonably suppose is sufficiently disproved by the foregoing Discourse But he quotes several Authorities for what he saith which must now be examined and will appear to be of no weight if compared with the evidence already given on the other side The first Authority is of King Iames in his Speech at the Prorogation of the Parlament 1605. wherein he saith the Parlament consists of a Head and a Body the King is the Head the Body are the Members of the Parlament This Body is subdivided into two parts the Vpper and the Lower House The Vpper consists of the Nobility and the Bishops the Lower of Knights and Burgesses The force of the Argument lies in King Iames his making the Bishops but a Part of the Vpper House but that this doth not exclude their being a Third Fstate I prove by a Parallel Instance In 5 H. IV. the Bishop of London being Chancellour compared the Parlament to a Body as King Iames did but he made the Chùrch the Right Hand the Temporal Lords the Left Hand and the Commonaltie the other Members yet presently after he calls these the several Estates which the King had called to Parlament But that the Bishops sitting in the same House with the Temporal Lords doth not hinder their being a distinct Estate will appear when we come to answer his Reasons And for King Iames his sense as to this matter we may fully understand it by this passage in his Advice to his Son As the whole Subjects of our Countrey by the ancient and fundamental Policy of our Kingdom are divided into Three Estates c. These words are spoken of the Kingdom of Scotland but the ancient

it Since it is agreed on both sides that the Bishops do sit in the House as Temporal Barons and in that respect do make up the Majority of Votes in the House of Lords it could not but seem unreasonable that they who voted as Barons in the House should have a Negative voice in another capacity and by this means they lost their distinct Negative voice because by the King's Writs they were to sit and vote with the Temporal Lords Just as it is in the Diets of Germany Since the distribution of that Assembly of the Estates of the Empire into the several Chambers the Prelates vote according to their Ranks the Three Electors in the Electoral College the other Bishops that are Princes of the Empire in the Chamber of Princes and those who are not Princes with the Counts and Barons So that here the Votes of the Bishops are mingled with the rest without a distinct Negative voice and yet no one questions but the Bishops do represent a distinct Estate of the Empire 3. This is a disparagement to the House of Lords that another Estate must be joyned with them to make up their Negative No more then to the Princes of the Empire to have the Bishops joyned with them when the Imperial Cities vote by themselves But what disparagement is this for those to make up the Majority of the Votes of the Baronage who sit there as Barons by Tenure by a Right as ancient as Will. the Conquerour by the Authour 's own confession 4. If the Bishops make a Third Estate then a Parlament could not be held without them But a Parlament hath sate excluso Clero as that of Ed. I and that it may do so in point of Law appears by the Resolution of the Iudges in Keilway's Reports because the Bishops sit in Parlament by reason of their Baronies This is the great Objection to which I shall give a full Answer 1. It is dangerous arguing from extraordinary Cases to the excluding any one of the Estates of the Kingdom from being represented in Parlament because no one can tell where this way of arguing will stop If a Parlament may be good without one Estate why not without another And we have seen an House of Lords excluded as unnecessary upon such kind of arguments because they sit in their own Persons and represent none but themselves If we once depart from the ancient and legal Constitution of Parlaments there will be no end of Alterations Every new Modeller of Government hath something to offer that looks like Reason at least to those whose interest it is to carry it on And if no Precedents can be found then they appeal to a certain invisible thing called the Fundamental Contract of the Nation which being a thing no where to be found may signify what any one pleaseth Suppose one extraordinary case happens through the disorder of Times that the Clergy have been left out in a Parlament what doth this signify towards altering the legal Constitution and constant Course of Parlaments which from the beginning of Parlaments in this Nation have had the Estate of the Clergy represented in them as sufficiently appears by Mr. Petyt's learned Preface to his late Discourse of the ancient Right of the Commons The first after King Ethelbert's Conversion was Commune Concilium tam Cleri quàm Populi That under Ina was omnium Episcoporum Principum Procerum Comitum omnium Sapientum Seniorum Populorum totius Regni That under Edmund the Elder was Concilium magnum Episcoporum Abbatum Fidelium Procerum Populorum I might adde many more as that at Becanceld under King Withred A. D. 694. Episcopis c. Ducibus Satrapis in unum glomeratis At Clovesho under Kenulphus of Mercia at Calecyth at London at Kingston Nay not one can be found by me in the Saxon times wherein the Bishops are not expresly mention'd So that if there be such a thing to be found as the Fundamental Contract of the Nation about the Constitution of Parlaments I do not question but they have their share in it Insomuch that Sir H. Spelman makes it his description of the Wittena-Gemot that in it as Mr. Petyt observes Convenêre Regni Principes tam Episcopi quàm Magistratus liberique homines i.e. it was an Assembly of the Three Estates So that before there were any such things as Baronies they were an essential part of the English Parlament And must all this clear and undoubted evidence from the first mention of Parlaments be rejected because once upon a time a certain King called a certain Parlament wherein upon some Distast between the King and the Clergy the other Estates continued sitting without them 2. This single Instance about the Parlament under Ed. I. is much misunderstood as will appear by these considerations 1. That the Clergy excluded themselves and were not shut out by the Act of the King and the other Estates For upon the Bull of Pope Boniface VIII forbidding the Clergy giving any more Subsidies which was procured by Archbishop Winchelsee as our Historians relate a Parlament being called by Ed. I. at Saint Edmondsbury on purpose for Subsidies the Clergy refuse upon the Pope's prohibition till they had consulted the Court of Rome and go away every one to their own homes notwithstanding which the King proceeds with the other two Estates and gets Subsidies from the Laiety So that the exclusion of the Clergy came from their own voluntary Act when the King desired no such thing nor the other two Estates but were all extremely provoked at this withdrawing of the Clergy That this Parlament was called purposely for the Subsidy appears by the Writ still upon Record wherein the Archbishop is summon'd to appear ad ordinandum de quantitate modo subsidii memorati 2. Whereas it is insinuated that great matters were done and good Laws passed when the Clergy were excluded I find no such thing It is true the confirmation of Magna Charta by Ed. I. which was a great thing indeed is said in the Statute-Books to be done the same year viz. 25 Ed. I. But that it could not be done in that Parlament I thus prove That Parlament was called crast Animarum the King appoints another at London crast Hilarii where the difference still continuing he appoints a new Parlament on the day of S. Peter ad Vincula or lammas-Lammas-day wherein he was reconciled to the Archbishop and Clergy Then Fealty is sworn to his Son before his going into Flanders and the King excused himself as to the great Taxes and Subsidies on the account of his Wars While he was about Winchelsea a Remonstrance is sent to him of the Grievances of the Nation in the name of the Archbishops Bishops Earls Barons and the whole Commons of England wherein they complain of illegal Taxes and the breach of Magna Charta The King gives a dilatory answer and passes over into Flanders