by the same Argumentation Scotland it self may be bound by English Laws I confess I would gladly pay a great Respect to your Person but I would not willingly be drawn aside by your Opinion which I should be if I were thereby perswaded that the Parliament of England have no more Power to make Laws to bind Ireland than they have to bind Scotland since it does appear that they have done it from the first time of our Statutes being extant and long before it can be rationally concluded there was a Parliament there And yet I do not think they can make Laws to bind Scotland because they themselves never pretended to any such Power save in the Case aforementioned that ever I heard of England and Ireland are not two distinct Kingdoms as England and Scotland are Ireland is a Kingdom dependant on and annexed to the Imperial Crown of England and the Parliament of Ireland is likewise subordinate to the Parliament of England therefore the Laws made by the latter will bind the former This I hope I have prov'd notwithstanding what you say That the contrary will be denied by no Man As to what you say in relation to France pag. 94. Whether on this way of reasoning the People of England had not been subject to the King of France had our Kings continued the Possession of that Country and there kept the Seat of the Monarchy I answer No for those two Kingdoms had not been united as England and Ireland are but as England and Scotland However you will find That it was provided against by a Statute made 14 Edw. 3. Anno 1340. All I find of it in Keeble is this not being printed at large By a Statute it was ordained That the Realm of England and the People thereof shall not be subject to the King or Kingdom of France But you say pag. 94. That the Statute Laws of England have not received your Assent and you argue thence That the People of England will consider whether they also are not the King's Subjects and may therefore by this way of reasoning be bound by Laws which the King may assign them without their assent c. I shall have occasion to speak to this hereafter so I shall for the present wave it here And now I find you have done with your three Ancient Precedents the last of which was in the Second of Henry VI. and I have cited to you several other Statutes made before that time which do undoubtedly bind Ireland being intended by the Parliament so to do which I suppose you never saw or would not cite because you had nothing to say against them I shall next follow you to your Modern Instances which you likewise call Modern Precedents pag. 98 99. And here you assert That before the Year 1641. there was no Statute made in England introductory of a new Law that interfered with the Right which the People of Ireland have to make Laws for themselves except only those which you have before-mentioned Is this really so What think you of those I have before cited I am very unwilling to swell this Answer but I find my self obliged to follow wherever you will lead even to 41. Well then besides them What think you of these several Statutes under-mentioned viz. 32 Hen. 8. cap. 24. Whereby the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in Ireland were dissolved 1 Edw. 6. cap. 1. Whereby the Sacrament is directed to be administred in both Kinds unto the People in Ireland 1 Edw. 6. cap. 2. Entituled an Act for Election of Bishops wherein Ireland is named 1 Eliz. cap. 1. Whereby the Queen hath power given her to assign over to any Person power to exercise Ecclesiastical Authority in Ireland 8 Eliz. cap. 3. Against exporting of Sheep from Ireland I think all these Laws bound Ireland But what you mean by Introductory of a new Law or Interfering with the Right which the People of Ireland have to make Laws for themselves I shall not labour to understand these seem to be nice Quibbles All I proposed was That the Parliament of England have and always had power to bind Ireland by their Statutes which you have denied and I hope I have proved And now I am come with you to 41 where you end your Assertion and acknowledge That in that Year and since some Laws have been made in England to be of force in Ireland I take your own words p. 99. These Acts you say are of 17 Car. 1. you do not name the Chapters but they are 33 34 35 37. which being expired are not to be found in the Statute-Book any more save the Titles therefore I must apply my self to what you say of them p. 100. The Titles say you of these Acts we have in Pulton 's Collection of Statutes but with this remark That they are made of no force by the Acts of Settlemement and Explanation passed in King Charles the Second's time in the Kingdom of Ireland And having gained this Advantage against the Parliament of England you make use of it to the utmost and presently conclude That they plainly shew that the Parliament of Ireland may Repeal an Act passed in England in relation to the Affairs of Ireland Sure I cannot think so for if the Parliament of Ireland can Repeal any one Act made by the Parliament of England they may Repeal all they make which cannot be except they have a Jurisdiction above them For the Power which any one Body or Society of Men hath to Repeal Laws made by another Body or Society must proceed from a Superiority that Body or Society hath over the other whose Laws it doth Repeal So that then if what you say be true it follows That the Parliament of Ireland is Superiour to the Parliament of England and then we have brought our Hogs to a fair Market instead of the Parliament of England's making Laws to bind Ireland the Parliament of Ireland may make Laws to bind England and likewise Repeal those Laws they have already made You Gentlemen of Ireland are angry That we will not give you leave to carry away our Trade and therefore you now undertake to prove That your Parliament can Repeal the Laws our Parliament makes 'T is very pretty truly but I hope you will not put this your Power in Execution and Repeal our Act of Navigation or our Plantation Acts and particularly that Act wherein is the Clause against landing Tobacco in Ireland This I am fond of for a certain reason therefore I beg your favour for it We will part with our Woollen Bill provided you will spare us the Acts already made It will be a great loss to the Kingdom of England if you should Repeal the Acts against planting Tabacco in Ireland 't would very much prejudice our Settlements in Virginia a Trade which besides the great Revenues it brings to the Crown whereof you pay a part does likewise encourage our Navigation expends our Manufactures and employs our
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
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
discharge any Persons or the Places they govern from Obedience to the Legislative Authority of England If it doth I should think That granted by Henry IV. to Sir John Talbot would go a great way in it which you give us pag. 33. in these Words Dilecti fidelis nostri Johannis Talbot de Hallom shire Chevaler locum nostrum tenentis terrae nostrae Hiberniae which you interpret pag. 32. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and it is not to be doubted but Henry IV. thought he had not divested himself of his Regal Authority in Ireland thereby for though we do not find any Statutes made in his Reign to bind that Kingdom yet we do in the Reign of his Son Henry V. and those Kings who succeeded him if then John Earl of Moreton was never created King of Ireland nor That made a separate Kingdom in the Parliament at Oxon as you alledge but do not prove then all your Arguments drawn thence pag. 41 42 43 44. beginning with this Paragraph Let us then suppose that c. fall to the Ground As for its being annext to the Imperial Crown of England by several Acts of Parliament both here and there which you mention pag. 43. I do agree to the Reason you give for it pag. 44. as one viz. That it should not be alienated or separated from the Kings of England But I hope you will not draw any Inference from this that Ireland therefore is not subject to our Legislative Power it seems to me a greater Argument that it is and those Acts made in Ireland look like an Acknowledgement of it seeing the Members there knew the Opinion of the Parliament of England by their continued Practice of making Laws to bind it I am the longer on this Subject of Henry the Seconds making his Son John King of Ireland and That a separate Kingdom because I find you insist upon it as a thing unquestionable through your whole Book and I am willing to clear it here to prevent often Repetitions I will proceed with you to King John's going over into Ireland after he became King of England pag. 44. for which you quote Mat. Paris who saith Cum venisset ad Dublinensem civitatem occurrerunt ei ibidem plusquam 20 Regul'â— illius Regionis qui omnes timore maximo praeteriti Homagium ei fidelitatem fecerunt Fecit quoque Rex ibidem construere Leges Consuetudines Anglicanas ponens Vice cometes aliosque ministros qui populum Regni illius juxta Leges Anglicanas judicarent This you know was long after that Amicable Concession or Original Compact you mention pag. 37. to be made between Henry II. and the People of Ireland and long after the same King John was made King of Ireland by his Father and yet your Author says fecit quoque Rex ibidem c. which I English thus He appointed Officers to govern them by the English Laws wherein he caused them to be instructed So that here is a second original Compact if you will call it so viz. That they must be govern'd by the English Laws and Customs and now I think we are agreed the Matter viz. That they were to be govern'd by the English Laws Let us see then where we differ for I am very willing to part Friends with a Gentleman of your Parts your Fault is that you would willingly make more from things then was ever intended by them Page 45. You proceed to speak of a Magna Charta granted by Henry III. to Ireland dated at Bristol the 12th of November in the first year of his Reign which you say is agreeable to the Magna Charta granted to England I have not seen it nor have you set it forth so I can say nothing to its Contents I will only ask you whither it doth discharge Ireland from being subject to the Legislative Power of England which is the matter in hand and if it does whether it was confirmed by Parliament I will not differ with you whose Seals were put to it whether the King 's own or the venerable Persons you there mention if it doth not discharge from Obedience to Laws made by the Parliament of England and was not confirmed by them I examine no farther And I do not remember I ever heard of a Parliament held at Bristol nor doth this seem to be one because you say it was by advice of his Council of England whose Names are particularly recited which I therefore take to be the Privy Council in opposition to the great Council or Parliament of England and the rather because I find this was the usual Form of granting Charters in those days I shall only Note that this you say was eight years older then that which he granted to England Page 46. You set forth another Charter sent them by the said King in February following the Substance whereof you give us Page 47. Volumus quod in Signum fidelitatis vestrae tam praeclarae tam insignis libertatibus Regno nostro Angliae a Patre nostro nobis concessis de gratia nostra dono in Regno nostro Hiberniae Gaudiatis vos vestri Haeredes in Perpetuum This was made by advice of his Common Council and Sealed with their Seals as it follows in the same Page Quas distincte in Scriptum reductas de communi Concilio omnium sidelium nostrorum vobis mittimus signatas sigillis Domini nostri G. Apostolicae sedis Legati fidelis nostri Com. W. Maresc Rectoris nostri Regni nostri quia sigillum nondum habuimus easdem processu temporis de majori Concilio proprio sigillo signaturi Teste apud Glouc. 6 Febru So that here you see there is a difference between the Communi Concilio and the Majori Concilio but neither do you set forth nor can I guess what those Liberties were being before our Magna Charta of England as you confess p. 45. and does appear by our Statute-Books the latter being made the Ninth Year of his Reign and this you say in the First But I cannot allow of your Paraphrase on it p. 48. Here we have a free Grant of all the Liberties of England to the People of Ireland I differ with you in this because the Grant you mention doth not say they shall enjoy all the Liberties of English Men but all those Liberties which had been granted by his Father and himself to his Kingdom of England what those were you do not set forth and it can have no Reference to our Magna Charta besides it seems strange he should ex mero motu then grant those Priviledges to Ireland which if I mistake not cost England afterwards a great deal of trouble to bring him to acknowledge to be their right But be this as it will I do not see how it signifies much to the question in hand except it be allowed that the King by Charter can discharge the Subjects of England from Obedience to the Legislative Power Nor can I see
what use you make of the Record produced from Mr. Petit p. 49 50. except it be to shew that the Citizens and Burghers of England were a part of the Parliament of England time out of mind if this be the design I have no reason to differ from you nor shall I dissent from you in this that the Parliament of Ireland hath in times past but how long I know not and still doth raise Money on the Subject there p. 51. But yet this doth not prove that Ireland is free from the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England nor can any measures be taken from this Quotation either to prove that there was a Parliament in Ireland at that time or the Powers it had being as you confess only a Letter from the Queen in her Necessities and you do not tell us what was done thereon Your next Record is in the 12th of Henry III. p. 52 53. directed to Richard de Bourgh then Justice of Ireland to assemble the Archbishops Bishops c. Et coram eis publice legi faciatis Chartam Domini J. Regis Patris nostri cui sigillum suum appensum est quam fieri fecit Jurari à Magnatibus Hibern de legibus consuetudinis Angliae observandis in Hibernia precipiatis eis exparte nostra quod leges illas consuetudines in Charta praedicta contentas de caetero firmiter teneant observent hoc idem per singulos comitatus Hiberniae clamari faciatis teneri prohibentes firmiter exparte nostra super foris facturam nostram nequis contra hoc mandatum nostrum venire praesumat c. p. 53. Here is no mention made of their making Laws themselves but that they shall be governed by the Laws made in England nor do I find by any Record you produce that that Assembly or any other had power to refuse the Laws transmitted to them from time to time out of England So that all these Records and the Proceedings thereon confirm my Opinion that you are in the wrong and I am apt to question whether Originally the Parliaments of Ireland had Power to make Laws but only to Receive and Obey those sent from England it doth not appear they had by any thing you have yet produced and then the People of Ireland will be little beholding to you for the pains you have taken Though I perceive you draw a strange Inference p. 55. That from the days of the three Kings viz. Henry II. King John and Henry III. England and Ireland have been both governed by the like Forms of Government under one and the same supream head the King of England yet so as that both Kingdoms remained separate and distinct in their several Jurisdictions You say p. 56. That you will mention no more precedents nor enter no farther into that matter and herein I think you do well except they will make more for you then those you have quoted already though if one would take for Law the Descants you make on them they would seem to infer more then they do which as I have before hinted seems to be your fault throughout your whole Book But Charters and Grants do best explain themselves You say pag. 56. If we now inquire what were those Laws of England that became thus established in Ireland Surely we must first reckon the great Law of Parliaments which you explain after thus The free Debate and Consent of the People by themselves or their chosen Representatives I should be glad to see this totidem Verbis in the Charters which would seem plainer to me than to be governed by your Glosses however it not being my Design to inquire by what Steps the Parliament of Ireland grew up to what it now is but to defend the Jurisdiction of the Parliament of England over Ireland I shall enquire no farther into that matter and this after all you have said seems plain from the Actions of those very Times for the same King Henry III. who best knew what Priviledges he had granted in the Fourteenth Year of his Reign made a Law to bind Ireland called Statutum Hiberniae which past at Westminster the 9th of February 1229. which is about the same time he impower'd Richard de Burgh to summon together the People of Ireland pag. 52. which you would have to be a Parliament but I much doubt it Note that this was Twelve Years after the Two great Charters from Bristol and Gloucester pag. 45 and 47. And now methinks you seem to differ from what you had said before pag. 29. That Henry II. did not only settle the Laws of England in Ireland c. but did likewise allow them the Freedom of holding Parliaments in Ireland as a separate and distinct Kingdom from England for which you quoted Sir Edward Cooke and pag. 56. you said Mr. Pryn acknowledges One viz. a Parliament in Ireland in Henry II d's Time and now pag. 58. you say Till a regular Legislature was established among them and this is after the Three First Kings viz. Henry II. Richard I. and King John so that here you grant there was no Parliament settled in Ireland till Henry IIId's Days and yet you allow pag. 58. that till that time Ireland was governed by the Statute Laws of England your Words are speaking of the Statute Laws of England we must repute them to have submitted to these likewise if so then all the Grants of Henry II. Richard I. and King John did not discharge the People of Ireland from being governed by the Statute Laws of England Pray then when and how came they to be discharged I think now the Onus probandi lies plainly on your Side the Charters of Henry III. before recited do not discharge them nor doth that of King John but rather bind them faster the Words are pag. 53. Coram eis publice legi faciatis Chartam c. precipiatis eis exparte nostra quod Leges illas consuetudines in Charta praedicta contentas de caetero firmiter teneant observent So that by your own Arguments it doth appear that the People of Ireland are bound to obey the Statutes made in the Parliament of England except you can produce something later to discharge them and then what becomes of your Modus tenendi Parliament ' so much talk'd of before in Henry IId's Days and herein we are again agreed You proceed pag. 58. and say That the Statutes of England from the Norman Conquest to Henry III d's Time were very few and slender only Charters or several Grants of Liberties from the King which nevertheless had the Force of Acts of Parliament c. The shortness of an Act of Parliament does not I hope make it less a Law I wish they could have kept to those short Forms still but that which makes an Act of Parliament is the Consent of the People given at the making of it if this were wanting the Grants and Charters you mention could be no
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.
Item We Will and Grant that no Licence or Priviledge to make Passage by English-men Irish-men or Welch-men of Wools c. out of the same Realm and Lands c. Cap. 10. Sect. 2. We Will and Establish that one Weight one Measure and one Yard be through all the Land c. Here Ireland is comprehended under these words throughout all the Land which I suppose will without Objection be admitted to be the Kingdom of England if Ireland is not comprehended under those general Words then Wales is not and then one Weight and Measure was appointed for England and another permitted to be in Wales but if Wales is comprehended under them then Ireland is also And this you may know by considering what Weights and Measures are settled in Ireland and when Cap. 11. Item We have Ordained and Established That all Merchants c. that do bring Wines c. to the Staples Cities c. within our said Realm and Lands Cap. 12. Item no Merchant c. shall carry out of our Realm of England Wools Leather c. Here Ireland is again comprehended under the general Words our Realm of England or else Wales is not and the purport of the Act shows that for can it be thought that the People of Wales and Ireland had Liberty to export Wools Leather c. into Foreign Parts when this was denied to the People of England Cap. 13. Item We Will and Grant That if any Merchant Privy or Stranger be Robbed of his Goods upon the Sea and the Goods so Robbed come into any Parts within our Realm or Lands Cap. 14. Item We have Ordained That all Merchants Privy or Strangers may safely carry and bring within our said Realm and Lands Plate of Silver c. and in the next Sect. Provided always that no Money have common course within our said Realm and Lands but the Money of Gold and Silver of our Coin So in Cap. 17. the Words Realm and Lands are thrice expressed as comprehending England Wales and Ireland By all which it appears to me That in those Days there was no thoughts of Ireland's being a separate Kingdom or making Laws for themselves any other than By-Laws But they were supposed to be part of the Kingdom of England and under the Jurisdiction of the Legislative Power thereof and yet this was long after the pretended Grant of Henry II. to his Son John to be King of Ireland as a separate Kingdom which does confirm me in what I have said before that what is now call'd the Parliament of Ireland was formerly no more than a Summoning the Great Men of the Kingdom together and commanding them to obey the Laws made in England as you have it in the Writ sent over by King Henry the Third to Richard du Burgh mentioned before which is transcribed by you P. 53. Coram eis publice legi faciatis c. The Parliament of England in those days was very careful of their Power and did not easily part with their Jurisdiction they presently put in their Claim so soon as the Kings of England got any footing either by Conquest or Submission In the Statutes made at Westminster 27 September the 11th of Edward III. Anno 1337. I find Laws made to bind Scotland cap. 1 2 4. are repealed so I cannot see their Contents But cap. 3. runs thus Item It is accorded and established That no Merchant c. shall bring c. into the said Lands of England Ireland Wales and Scotland within the King's Power And cap. 5. runs thus Item it is accorded That all the Clothworkers of strange Lands c. which will come into England Ireland Wales or Scotland I do not find any Acts of this nature made either before that time or after which put me upon perusing the Histories and Chronicles of England about that time How saith That Anno Regni 5 Ed. 3. 1331. Edward Baliol who was Son to John Baliol sometime King of Scotland was by the Assistance of the said King Edward crowned King of Scots but afterward he resigned it to the said King Edward of England and remained under his Protection many years after Baker saith That to hold a good Correspondence with the King of England hereafter he doth him homage for his Realm of Scotland And no doubt had Scotland still continued so the guilded flourishes of a separate Kingdom would not have tempted the Parliament of England to have parted with their Authority of making Laws to govern it and can it be thought they should so easily let Ireland slip it doth not appear so by any Act of their own and for the Acts of others they can be no Precedents against them But to proceed There are yet other Reasons why Ireland should be more bound by the Statute-Laws of England then Scotland Ireland hath been always accounted so much a part of the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom that on the late Revolution when the Crown of England was settled on the then Prince and Princess of Orange Stat. primo Guil. Mar. cap. 2. They are declared King and Queen of Ireland as well as England and by that Recognition they had been so though the Parliament of Ireland had opposed it whereas the Case was not the same with Scotland The Rights and Priviledges of the People of Ireland were also settled by the same Statute equal to those of the People of England But the Rights and Priviledges of the People of Scotland were not Nor was this Recognition made in their Names they took their own time to do it and to settle the Rights and Priviledges of their own Kingdom as they pleased being a separate Kingdom without dependance on the Kingdom of England I wonder you hang so much in this Paragraph on Ireland's being a separate Kingdom in the Person of King John no Man of Sence who had examined that matter would make any dependance thereon and such I take you to be therefore it looks as if you had a mind to betray and give up the Cause did I not think you a Gentleman of greater sincerity you had certainly found a better Argument in your original Contract could you have made it out Page 85. You proceed to take into consideration such English Statutes as particularly name Ireland and these you divide into Ancient Precedents and Modern Instances and conclude That if the former do not make against you the latter are only Usurpations made upon you I think this fully answer'd before But I will take your own way and follow the Thred of your own Arguments though I think you spin it too long The Ancient Precedents of English Statutes designing to bind Ireland you say are first Statutum Hiberniae 14 Hen. 3. Secondly Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae 17 Edw. 1. Thirdly An Act concerning Staples 2 Hen. 6. pag. 85 86. And are these all What think you of the Statute of Merchants made at Westminster 13 Edw. 1. Anno 1258 wherein are these words Sect.
35. This Ordinance and Act the King willeth to be observed from henceforth through his Realm of England and Ireland What think you of the Statutes made at Westminster 11 Edw. 3. Anno 1337. which I recited before where cap. 3. all Foreign Clothes are prohibited to be brought into Ireland and cap. 5. Clothworkers are invited to settle in Ireland and are encouraged thereto by Franchises promised them What think you of the Statute of the Staple mentioned before made 27 Edw. 3. Anno 1353 In the Preamble of which Statute Ireland is mentioned and cap. 1. bears this Title Where the Staple for England Wales and Ireland shall be kept whether Merchandizes of the Staple shall be carried and what Customs shall be paid for them Which Chapter shews That the Parliament of England had Power of raising Money by laying Customs on Commodities in Ireland At this Sessions were made Twenty eight Acts or Chapters call them which you will and all point at Ireland But I cannot pass by this last Statute of 27 Edw. 3. without making observation on its Preamble which I here give you verbatim Edward by the Grace of God c. To our Sheriffs Mayors Bayliffs Ministers and other our faithful People to whom these present Letters shall come greeting Whereas good deliberation had with the Prelates Dukes Earls Barons and great Men of the Counties that is to say of every County one for all the County and of the Commons of our Cities and Boroughs of our Realm of England summoned to our great Council holden at Westminster the Monday next after the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle the 27th Year of our Reign of England and of France the 14th For the damage that hath notoriously come as well to us and to our great Men as to our People of our Realm of England and of our Lands of Wales and Ireland because that the Staple of Woolls Leather and Wool-fells of our said Realm and Land have been holden out of our said Realm and Lands and also for the great Profits which should come to the said Realm and Lands if the Staple were holden within the same and not elsewhere to the Honour of God and in Relief of our Realm and Lands aforesaid and to eschew the Perils that might happen of the contrary in time to come by the Counsel and common Consent of the said Prelates Dukes Earls and Barons Knights and Commons aforesaid we have ordained and established the things under written Here the King is called King of England and France without mentioning Ireland but we find the Laws made in that Sessions to be binding to his Lands of Wales and Ireland as I have before observed The King also takes notice of the Summons sent to the Prelates Dukes Earls Barons and great Men of the Counties and Commons of Cities and Boroughs of his Realm of England summoned to his great Councel holden at Westminster c. without mentioning any thing of Ireland though it was bound by the Laws made in that Sessions By all which it doth appear to me That Ireland was lookt on in those days as an Appendix to the Kingdom of England all one as Wales and yet the Laws of that Sessions were received in Ireland Why did not the Parliament of Ireland if there was then any make an early Protestation against this irregular Proceeding and condemn it as an Encroachment on their Priviledges which had been much better then for you to undertake this Task three hundred and fifty years after But to proceed What think you of the Statute made at Westminster 34 Edw. 3. Anno 1360 the Preamble is These be the things which our Lord the King the Prelates Lords and Commons have ordained in this present Parliament holden at Westminster the Sunday next before the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul to be holden and openly published through the Realm and yet the Title of cap. 17. is Merchandize may be carried into and brought out of Ireland By which it appears That the Parliament of England made Laws to regulate the Trade of Ireland in those early days and that the Bill relating to the Woollen Manufactures now depending before the present Parliament is not a Modern Instance of that Power Cap. 18. of that Sessions hath this Title They which have Lands in Ireland may carry their Goods thither and bring them again From both which I make this observation That the Preamble saith These are to be holden and published openly thorough the Realm and the 17th and 18th Chapters shew that Ireland is part of that Realm In the 4th of Henry 5. cap. 6. an Act was made but is now Ob so I find nothing but its Title in the Statute Book which is this If any Archbishop Bishop c. of Ireland Rebel to the King shall make collation of a Benifice to any Irish-man or bring any Irish-man to the Parliament to discover the â—ounsel of English-men to Rebels his Temporalities shall be seized until he hath made Fine to the King By which it doth appear That the Parliament of England took notice there was a Parliament in Ireland and made Laws to bind that Parliament All these Statutes bound Ireland and doubtless many more there are had I time to look after them but I mention these because they come within the compass of your old Precedents being before the Second of Henry 6. But before I speak to your old Precedents give me leave to mention one Statute more viz. 1 Hen. 6. cap. 3. which though I do not produce as a Precedent binding Ireland yet it will serve to show what opinion the Parliament of England had of Ireland in those days the words are these Forasmuch as divers Manslaughters Murders c. and divers other Offences now late have been done in divers Counties of the Realm of England by People born in the County of Ireland repairing to the Town of Oxford c. I will make no Paraphrase on them they are easie to be understood by any English Reader and this is a Modern Statute in respect to the time of Henry II. when you say Ireland was made a separate Kingdom and settled by him on his Son John in a Parliament at Oxon whereas this Parliament calls it a County Well then let us see what you say against these Ancient Precedents you have produced before we come to the Modern Instances as you call them These Statutes you say pag. 86. especially the two first meaning Statutum Hiberniae and Ordinatio pro Statu Hiberniae being made for Ireland as their titles import have given occasion to think that the Parliament of England have right to make Laws for Ireland without the consent of their chosen Representatives Surely every Body I think is of that Judgment that hath lookt into the matter no you dissent from it and for this gives several Reasons The first is pag. 86 87 88. which I am obliged here to transcribe The Statutum Hiberniae 14 Hen. 3. as
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
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
Poor so that all Persons from the King to the Beggar reap advantage by it I hope I say you will spare us these Acts tho' I can't believe you would did it lye in your power to take them from us therefore I will pull up my Spirits and enquire whether you have this Power you pretend to The quotation you make is from Pulton I have perused him but he goes no farther then 4 Car. 1. and I can meet with no Body who hath seen any later Edition therefore I suppose you must mean Keeble if so you have left out a great part of the Remark For there I find it to be thus An Act for reducing the Rebels in Ireland to their Obedience to his Majesty and the Crown of England EXP. See an Act for the Settlement of Ireland passed in that Kingdom Anno 14 Car. 2. 1662. by which this and the following Acts concerning Ireland are besides their Expiration of no force Methinks I find my Spirits revived it is not so bad as you represented it Keeble saith the Act is expired and then that is the reason why 't is of no force Every Body that understands Parliaments knows that none of their Acts can remain in force longer then they intended them But now I think of it I was to blame to be so much disturbed For what if Pulton had said so Hath Pulton liberty to bound the Power of the Parliaments of England by Notes he shall print in his Statute Book 'T was my extraordinary love for Parliaments not the weight of your Argument that cast me down at first Perhaps Sir you may think this way of arguing savours of Levity I confess it does but you may please likewise to consider That some People are not to be beat out of their groundless Fancies but by ridiculing them Would any prudent Man have thus wrested the Sence of this Note and then brought it as an Argument against the Authority of the Parliament of England Surely by leaving out EXP you expected to have catcht Butterflies I suspect your candidness in those other Quotations wherewith your Book abounds tho' many of them to little purpose by your insincerity in this And having thus got over this Goliah Argument of yours against the Power of our English Parliaments I am the less careful to give Answer to the Objection you raise your self pag. 101. viz. It will be said That by those Acts 't is manifest that England did presume they had such a right to pass Acts binding to Ireland or else they had never done it I confess I am of that opinion only I will not call it a Presumption I think it the just right of the Parliament of England to exercise a Legislative Power over the Kingdom of Ireland And what Answer do you give to this Objection of your own framing why truly The deplorable Condition of Ireland at that time made it impossible for them to have a Parliament of their own and it being absolutely necessary that something should be done toward the suppressing the Violences then raging among them the only means could then be practised was for the Parliament of England to interpose and do something for their Relief and Safety Was this the true Reason Pray what could you expect from the Parliament of England if Ireland was a separate Kingdom and they had not Power to make Laws to bind it The Laws they made could then be of no more Service to them then if they had been framed in the Parliament of Scotland besides the danger of such a Precedent But now I think of it you were not afraid of that danger the Parliament of England had made Laws for you five hundred years before and therefore what they did at that time was not as you say to Interpose but to put in execution a Legislative Authority they had over you As to what past in Cromwel's days p. 101 102. I shall say little to it 't is not of much moment one way or the other And now I am come with you to King Charles the Second's days and in it you say there were several Statutes made to bind Ireland pag. 102. The first you mention is An Act against importing Cattle from Ireland or other Parts beyond the Seas 18 Car. 2. cap. 2. made perpetual by two Acts in the same Reign These you say do not bind Ireland and I say so too therefore I wonder you mention them The next you quote are The Acts against planting Tobacco in England and Ireland 12 Car. 2. cap. 34. 15 Car. 2. cap. 7. 22 23 Car. 2. cap. 26. these you say do positively bind Ireland pag. 103. But you suggest That as there was no need of making them because no Tobacco was ever planted in Ireland which perhaps there might have been if those Laws had not been made so you imply they are of no force in Ireland now made for you see no more reason for sending of Force to trample down an Acre of Tobacco in Ireland by those Statutes then there would be for cutting down the Woods of Shelela were there an Act made in England against your planting or having Timber Truly Sir I am of the same opinion for if the Parliament of England had made a Law against planting and having Timber in Ireland I do not see how you could have avoided putting it in execution any more then you could this And here we are once more agreed The next you mention is the Navigation Act pag. 103. by which I suppose you mean the before-mentioned Act 22 23 Car. 2. also the two Acts against exporting of Wool 12 Car. 2. cap. 32. and 14 Car. 2. cap. 18. pag. 104. These you confess do bind Ireland and have received due obedience but what right the Parliament of England had to make these Statutes you very much question you take them to be Innovations on you as not being warranted by former Precedents for that you say before these Acts the eldest of which is not over Thirty seven years there is not one positive full Precedent to be met with in all the Statute Books of an English Act binding the Kingdom of Ireland pag. 104. Thence you argue p. 105. Shall Proceedings only of Thirty seven years standing be urged against a Nation to deprive them of their Rights and Liberties which they enjoyed for Five hundred years before and which were invaded without and against their Consent and from that day to this have been constantly complained of Let any English Heart that stands so justly in vindication of his own Rights and Liberties answer this Question and I have done Well Sir I think now we are like to bring the Matter to a short Issue provided you will stand to what you say for I confess I must agree with you in this so reasonable a Challenge viz. That if no positive full Precedent can be produced of above Thirty seven years standing whereby the Parliament of England have made Laws to bind
all was well in Ireland p. 44. you say That on the Death of King Richard I. King John in the Twelfth Year of his Reign went again into Ireland Anno 1210 and then it was that Mat. Paris saith the 20 Reguli came to him to Dublin and did him Homage p. 45. you say That Henry III. came to the Crown Anno 1216 and the same Year sent over the Charter from Bristol the 12th of November And in p. 46. you say He sent them another in the February following from Gloucester p. 52. you say That Henry III. in the Twelfth Year of his Reign sent over a Writ to Hugo de Burgh to Summon the States of Ireland In all this time we hear nothing of Wars Tumults Heats or Rebellions but quite contrary For p. 49 and 50. you set forth a Writ which you have from Mr. Petit or rather a Letter written by King Henry III's Queen Anno 38. of his Reign wherein she desires his Subjects of Ireland to assist the King with Men and Money to defend his Land of Vascony which was then Invaded by the King of Castile Thus far I quote you from your own Book and now you tell us p. 96. That the People of Ireland could not Assemble with conveniency to make Laws at Home by reason of Heats of Rebellions or Confusion of Times and that this caused them to come to England to do it as appears by the Writ you mention p. 95. which was in the Ninth Year of Edward I. who succeeded his Father Henry III. Really Sir you have given me so much trouble to run over your Book again to shew how inconsistent you are in your Discourse about this Matter that I could almost be angry with you But I am willing to take this pains not to convince you that you are in an Error I imagine that will be labour lost a Gentleman of your Parts must needs know it already but to make it plain lest any Body else should be drawn aside by what you write Well then on the Credit of this Writ I will grant you that Ireland came to England for Laws in the Ninth of Edward I. And then I hope you will not oppose this Ancient Precedent because it is of your own producing But to get clear of this you tell us p. 96. That these Laws were made by your own Representatives And to prove that this was so in the Reign of Edward III. for you say its plain 't was so in Edward I.'s time you tell us There were Knights Citizens and Burgesses elected in the Shires Cities and Buroughs of Ireland to serve in Parliament in England and so served accordingly And to prove this you tell us p. 97. That amongst the Records of the Tower of London Rot. Claus 50 Edw. 3. Parl. 2. Membr 23. We find a Writ from the King at Westminster directed to James Butler Lord Justice of Ireland and to R. Archbishop of Dublin his Chancellor requiring them to issue Writs under the Great Seal of Ireland to the several Counties Cities and Boroughs for satisfying the Expences of the Men of that Land who last came over to serve in Parliament in England And in another Roll the 50 Edw. 3. Memb. 19. on complaint to the King by John Draper who was chosen Burgess of Cork by Writ and served in the Parliament of England and yet was denied his Expences by some of the Citizens care was taken to reimburse him Pray what use will you make of these Records to prove that the Kingdom of Ireland is not subject to the Legislative Power of the Parliament of England I think you have brought the Matter home and have mistaken the side for instead of proving that it is not you have proved positively that it is and particularly that from the Ninth of Edward the First to the Fiftieth of Edward the Third the Representatives of Ireland came over to sit in the Parliament of England and how long before or how long after they did so I cannot tell The Writ you mention of Edward I. hath reference to Statutes made before that time at Lincoln and York which I judge must be in the Days of Henry II. Richard I. or King John because I do not find that any Parliament was held in either of these Places from the beginning of our Statute-Books and then where is your separate Kingdom of Ireland under King John And why have you so often asserted That there was never any Law made in England to bind Ireland till the Modern Instances you mention Pray what means all the Clamour you have made against our late Kings and the Parliaments of England for infringing your Liberties and breaking through the very design of setling Communities and putting you in a worse Condition than you were in the state of Nature You are very much beholding to the ingenious Mr. Lock for the fineness of your Argument about the State of Conquest c. in the former part of your Book which I do not at all blame you for because I think no Man can handle a Subject smoothly whereon he hath treated that doth not follow his Copy but I blame you for not applying those excellent Arguments more fitly But to return to the Matter P. 58. You confessed there was no Parliament in Ireland before King Henry III.'s time and you have not any where shewn that it was settled there during his Reign and now you acknowledge that Ireland sent Representatives to sit in the Parliament of England in the Reigns of Edward I. Edw. II. and Edward III. his Successors where Laws were made to bind it Pray then why do you exclaim against their putting this Power in Execution still To this you say p. 97. It must be allowed that the People of Ireland ought to have their Representatives in the Parliament of England And this you believe they would be willing enough to embrace but this is a Happiness you cannot hope for I have before told you that you are represented there already but you are willing some Representatives should come over from Ireland to sit there you say they did so once and you are willing they should do it again pray why did you not continue that great Happiness you now so much prize To this you Answer p. 98. This sending of Representatives out of Ireland to the Parliament in England on some occasions was found in process of time to be very troublesome and inconvenient I cannot but observe what a Hodge-podge you would make by the wrong Inferences you endeavour to draw from every thing only because you would cloud the Truth you allow you once sent Representatives to the Parliament here but you would now have this to be only upon some occasions I hope it was not on occasion of Wars and Tumults during the prosperous Reigns of Edw. I. and Edw. III. if it was you do not tell us what Wars and Tumults they were 'T is much that Edward III. who extended his Arms to
France and Scotland could not keep in quiet his County of Ireland as it is called in the Statute 1 Hen. 6. quoted before and now you tell us the Reason why it was then called so viz. because they formerly sent Representatives to serve in Parliament here If this was not the Reason why they sent them only on some occasions and you give no other then I am apt to think either that they sent none at all or that they sent them to every Parliament for I can't believe that Laws were made in England and in Ireland at the same time by two Parliaments that stood on equal footing one with the other This is not probable for what if their Laws should clash the Parliament of England would not submit to have their Laws repealed by the Parliament of Ireland that were unjust because the same Power that made them was not at the repealing of them Ireland had Representatives in the Parliament of England but England had not in the Parliament of Ireland Nor is it probable That the Parliament of Ireland would have stoopt to the Parliament of England if they had any colourable Argument of their side for you see how loath they are to do it now though they have none at all at least you who have undertaken this Contest in their favour have produced none but you have fairly quitted the Field and confest That Ireland did formerly for 100 years together send their Representatives to the Parliament of England Well then to return to this Happiness why did not Ireland continue it You tell us pag. 98. They found it very troublesome and inconvenient What makes you then to desire it again I do not see how it will be less troublesome now and I assure you it will be attended with as many inconveniencies if not to you in Ireland yet to us in England and I hope you will consider your Neighbours inconveniencies as well as your own But as inconvenient and troublesome as it is you are willing to have this Happiness restored Here the nature of the Argument is altered for now it is not Whether the Parliament of England have Power to make Laws to bind Ireland and whether what they have done in that Matter for 500 years past hath been done de jure but whether Ireland shall be restored to its former Priviledges of sending Representatives to sit in the Parliament of England I confess I have no Authority to treat with you about this Affair it is reserved for a higher Power to determine But suppose you are denied to have this Happiness restored the question then will be Whether you have any wrong done you If I was to be Judge I should give it against you For seeing you have given up your Rights so many hundred years since and submitted your selves to your English Representatives without sending any from Ireland I do not see how you can insist on it now And in this I believe you have Neighbours Fair for I doubt not there are many Corporations both in England and Wales who either did send more Members to Parliament in former days or might have done it had not the Charge or Trouble put them on seeking to be excused Particularly I observe a Clause to this purpose in the Charter granted to the City of Bristol by King Edward III. when he made it a County whereof I have before me an English Copy which runs thus And moreover we have granted for us and our Heirs to the said Burgesses and their Heirs and Successors for ever that the said Town of Bristol by any means shall not be charged to send to the Parliament of Vs or our Heirs but only two Men as heretofore hath been accustomed the which two Men as well Knights of the County of Bristol as Burgesses of the Town and Borough of Bristol for the same Town and Borough shall be bound to make answer Which shews that this was then granted as a favour to that City at their request to avoid the trouble and charge of sending two Knights as well as two Burgesses to represent them in Parliament which if they would now retrieve they cannot And this was about the same time that you say Ireland being discouraged by the Troubles and Inconveniencies that attended it forbore to send Representatives to sit in Parliament in England But whatever was the Reason that made them do this I cannot agree with what you say pag. 98. This we may presume was the reason that afterwards when times were more settled we fell again into our old Track and regular course of Parliaments in our own Country Pray what Regular Course of Parliaments do you mean you have not yet proved that you ever had any but rather confessed the contrary you say you sent Representatives to sit in the Parliament of England But what then Does it therefore follow that you might leave that off and set up Parliaments of your own at your pleasure No sure you might quit your Priviledges of being part of the Parliament of England but it doth not therefore follow that you had Power to establish a Parliament in Ireland independent on the Parliament of England no more then if the People of Cornwal being unwilling to put themselves to the trouble of attending the Parliament at Westminster should therefore without farther warrant erect one of their own nearer home and then expect it should be clothed with full Power and be Superiour to that of Westminster with relation to what concerns the County of Cornwal For to talk of your Old Track and Regular course of Parliaments after what you have said on this Matter is a Jest and deserves no answer We are now come to your fifth Particular pag. 115. The Opinions of the Learned in the Laws relating to this Matter The first you mention is the Lord Chief Justice Cook 's in his Seventh Report in Calvin's Case pag. 116. and he is against you But you blame him for his unfaithful broken Citations which I agree with you to be an ill way of deceiving a Reader into a good opinion of an Argument but must tell you that you have been too frequently guilty of the same Fault in this Book yet I cannot see how the Lord Chief Justice Cook hath been unfaithful in this his Citation for I take the whole sence of the Transcript you mention to be included therein You say That after he had declared Ireland to be a Dominion separate and divided from England for which he quotes out of the Year-Books the Case of the Merchants of Waterford and the proceedings thereon which you have mentioned pag. 91. He concludes Nostra Statuta non ligant eos c. yet with this Parenthesis which is to be understood unless they be especially named What you say against this his Opinion p. 117. That it is down-right Magisterial and point blank against the irrefragable Reason of the Book he quotes I think will appear to be very severe if the Point he was
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