mention had been good to Ireland though not recognized in the Parliament there And as for the Church of Ireland its subjection to the Parliament of England doth not at all show that Holy Church is not free for the Freedom there mentioned doth not imply an exemption from the Parliaments Power no more then the Grants and Charters made to the Church of England discharge her from the like Subjection and yet she is declared free by Magna Charta and I hope you do not believe that the Kings of England gave greater Immunities to the Church of Ireland then they did to the Church of England The next Case you mention is pag. 129. 14 Edw. 2. The Parliament at Westminster you say moved the King That the Irish Natives of Ireland might enjoy the Laws of England concerning Life and Member in as large and ample manner as the English of Ireland enjoyed the same Whence you conclude p. 130. That the Parliament of England did not take upon them to have any Jurisdiction in Ireland for then they would have made a Law for Ireland to this effect A strange Inference Is it not known that they did make Laws to bind Ireland long before Edward the Second's time You your self confess p. 96. That Ireland sent Representatives to sit in Parliament here in the Reign of Edward the First Besides the Quibble you make on the word moved which is only a mannerly Expression used by your Author between the King and his Parliament suppose he had said they represented it to the King had this altered the matter But you say They made no Law to this effect themselves pray what need was there of a new Law when you have so often told us before That by the original Compact settled in Ireland on their first Submission to the Kings of England they were to be governed by the Laws of England whereof this was part In your former Case of Coparcencers p. 87. you say The Justice of Ireland dispatch'd four Knights to the King in England to bring a Certificate what was the Common Law of England in that Case here the Parliament of England signifie to the King what was the Rights of the Irish Natives of Ireland all the difference is the former might not be stated before and therefore required an Act but this you say was and therefore required none But still methinks there is something more under this Head The Parliament say you moved the King that the Irish Natives of Ireland might enjoy c. which shews they had a Jurisdiction there else they would never have concerned themselves where they thought they had nothing to do It likewise shews that the original Compact above-mentioned was made with their advice and consent otherwise why should they concern themselves to see it put in Execution I come now to your next Case pag. 130. viz. A Writ of Error 's lying from the King's Bench of England on a Judgment given in the King's Bench in Ireland from whence you say it is insisted on that there is a subordination of the Parliament of Ireland to the Parliament of England pag. 131. This you acknowledge to have been the Constant practice But you say first This is grounded on an Act of Parliament made in Ireland which it seems is also unluckily lost How then do you know there was such an Act and if you do not know it how come you to offer your bare Surmises as Arguments against the Power of the Parliament of England But secondly you say on those Removals by Writs of Error the Judges in England always judge according to the Laws and Customs of Ireland You mention several Cases wherein the Errors assigned were words used in Ireland but not in England What is all this to the purpose if things are called by one name in Yorkshire and another in Cornwal shall they not pass in Yorkshire by the names used there and in Cornwal by the names whereby they are commonly called there The Conclusion you draw from hence pag. 133. seems to me very strange viz. Hence 't is manifest that the Jurisdictions of the King's Bench in England over a Judgment in the King's Bench of Ireland does not proceed from any subordination of one Kingdom to the other Pray from whence is this made manifest to any Body else besides your self Does it appear that because Writs of Error have been brought from the King's Bench in England on Judgments given in the King's Bench in Ireland that therefore Writs of Error do not lye from the one Bench to the other and if they do does not this show a Subordination of the one Court to the other and consequently of the one Kingdom to the other But you say This Subordination of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland doth not proceed from a Subordination of the Kingdom but from some other reason which you will endeavour to make out I am sure your third Reason pag. 133 134. viz. the Case of Coparceners cannot be it I have spoken to it before all I shall now add is That you must not bring Arguments against the Power of the Parliament of England drawn from reasonable Imaginations as you call them I cannot imagine what Reasons you can offer from the Stories you tell there either against the Authority of the King's Bench or more especially against that of the Parliament of England All that follows p. 134 135. is only perhaps and it may be which I am not bound to answer but with the same stile perhaps and it may not be What you alledge of certainty is That Writs of Error have lain from the King's Bench of England to the King's Bench of Ireland time out of mind which seems to me proof enough for it and if you have no better Argument against the Jurisdiction of that Court then this I am afraid you will lose your Labour with any English Reader But you proceed to your fourth Reason pag. 136. and tell us That when a Writ of Error is returned into the King's Bench of England suit is made to the King only the Matter lyes altogether before him and the Party complaining applys to no part of the Political Government of England for redress but to the King of Ireland only who is King in England Also p. 137. you say For the People of Ireland are the Subjects of the King to whom they Appeal And after that you proceed thus I question not but in former times when these Courts were first erected c. that if the King had travelled into Ireland and the Court had followed him thither erroneous Judgments might have been removed from England before him into his Court in Ireland What strange Suppositions are here have you ever seen any Precedent of this Nature If yea why did you not produce it if no why did you suppose it But admit you had produc'd such a Precedent what would it have signified more than to have prov'd that the Judges of England going over
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
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