AN ENQUIRY INTO THE Power of Dispensing WITH PENAL STATUTES Together with Some Animadversions UPON A Book writ by Sir EDW. HERBERT Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas ENTITULED A short Account of the Authorities in Law upon which JUDGMENT was given in Sir Edward Hales 's Case By Sir ROBERT ATKYNS Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late one of the Judges of the Common Pleas. Digna vox est Majestate Regnantis Legibus Alligatum se esse Principem profiteri LONDON Printed for Timothy Goodwin at the Maiden-head against St. Dunstan's-Church in Fleet-street 1689. ADVERTISEMENT January the 21st 1689. TO Morrow will be Published by Tim. Goodwin at the Maiden-head against St. Dunstan 's Church in Fleet-street The Power Jurisdiction and Priviledge of PARLIAMENT And the Antiquity of the House of Commons asserted Occasioned by an Information in the King's-Bench by the Attorney General against the Speaker of the House of Commons As also a Discourse concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Realm of England occasioned by the late Commission in Ecclesiastical Causes By Sir Robert Atkyns Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath and late one of the Judges of the Court of Common-Pleas AN ENQUIRY INTO THE Power of Dispensing WITH Penal Statutes 25 CAR. II. Cap. 2. An Act for preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants FOR preventing Dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants and quieting the Minds of his Majesties good Subjects Be it enacted c. That every person that shall bear any Office Civil or Military c. or shall have Command or Place of Trust from or under his Majesty c. within the Realm of England c. shall personally appear in the Court of Chancery or of the Kings-Bench or at the Court of Quarter-Sessions in that County where he shall reside within three Months next after his Admittance into any of the said Offices and there in open Court take the several Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and shall also receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the Usage of the Church of England in some Parish-Church upon some Lord's-day immediately after Divine Service And every the person aforesaid that doth or shall neglect or refuse to take the said Oaths and the Sacrament in the said Courts and at the respective times aforesaid shall be ipso facto adjudged uncapable and disabled in Law to all intents and purposes whatsoever to have occupy or enjoy the said Office or Employment and every such Office and Place shall be void and is hereby adjudged void And every person that shall neglect or refuse to take the said Oaths or the Sacrament as aforesaid and yet after such neglect or refusal shall execute any of the said Offices after the said times expired wherein he ought to have taken the same and being thereupon lawfully convicted upon any Information c. in any of the King's Courts at Westminster or at the Assizes every such person shall forfeit 500 l. to be recovered by him that shall sue for the same And at the same time when the persons concerned in this Act shall take the said Oaths they shall likewise subscribe the Declaration against the Belief of Transubstantiation under the same Penalties as by this Act is appointed Paschae 2 JAC. II. In the King's-Bench Arthur Godden Plaintiff in an Action of Debt of 500 l. grounded upon the Act of 25 Car. 2. for preventing Dangers from Popish Recusants Sir Edward Hales Bar t Defendant THE Plaintiff declares That the Defendant after the First day of Easter Term 1673. sc. 28 Nov. 1 Jac. 2. at Hackington in Kent was admitted to the Office of a Colonel of a Foot-Regiment That being a Military Office and a Place of Trust under the King and by Authority from the King. And the Defendant held that Office by the space of three Months next after the 28 Nov. 1 Jac. 2. And from thence till the time of this Action begun he was and still is an Inhabitant and Resident of the Parish of Hackington And the Plaintiff taking it by Protestation that the Defendant within three Months next after his Admission into the said Office of Colonel did not receive the Sacrament in Manner as the Act directs but neglected to receive it Avers that the Defendant did neglect to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance either in the Chancery or in the Kings Bench or at any Quarter-Sessions in Kent or in the Place where he was resident either the next Term after his admission to his said Office or within three Months after And that the Defendant after such neglect sc. 10 Mar. 2 Jac. 2. at Hackington in Kent did exercise the said Office and still doth contrary to the Statute of 25 Car. 2. for preventing Dangers from Popish Recusants Whereupon the Defendant at Rochester at the Assizes held 29 Mar. 2 Jac. 2. was duly Indicted for such his neglect and for executing the said Office contrary to the said Statute And thereupon duly Convict as by the Record thereof appears whereupon the Plaintiff became entituled to this 500 l. as forfeited by the Defendant The Defendant pleads that the King within the three Months in the Declaration mentioned and before the next Term or Quarter-Sessions after his admittance to the said Office and before his Suit began sc. 9 Jan. 1 Jac. 2. by his Letters Patents under the Great Seal and here produced in Court did dispence with pardon remit and discharge among others the Defendant from taking the said Oaths and from receiving the Sacrament and from subscribing the Declaration against Transubstantiation or Tests in the Act of 25 Car. 2. for preventing Dangers from Popish Recufants or in any other Act and from all Crimes Convictions Penalties Forfeitures Damages Disabilities by him incurred by his exercising the Office of Colonel Or by the Act intituled An Act for the Preserving of the King's Person and Government by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament Or by the Acts made in the first or third Years of King James the First or the Acts made 5 Eliz. or 23 or 29 or 35 Eliz. And the King by his Letters Patents granted that the Defendant should be enabled to hold that Office in any Place in England or Wales or Berwick or in the Fleet or in Jersey or Guernsey and to receive his Pay or Wages Any Clause in the said Acts or in any other Act notwithstanding non obstante that the Defendant was or should be a Recusant convict As by the said Letters Patents doth appear Whereupon the Defendant prays the Judgment of the Court whether the Plaintiff ought to maintain this Action The Plaintiff demurr'd generally to this Plea. The Defendant joyned in Demurrer Judgment is given for the Defendant THE Order I shall observe in speaking to this Case as to the Point upon the Dispensation shall be this First I shall open this Act of 25 Car. 2.
and where it is a collateral Suit not depending upon that Record An Action against the Sheriff for an Escape of one taken in Execution this is a dependant Action and is grounded upon the Record of the Judgment given against the Party that escap'd The Sheriff cannot aver any thing against that Record and examine it over again nor can he take any advantage of Error or erroneous proceeding in obtaining that Judgment Saunders Rep. 2 part 101. So in an Action of Debt grounded upon a Judgment or in an Audita quaerela to be reliev'd upon a Judgment And so in our Case this Action of Debt for the 500 l. is grounded upon the Conviction which must stand for truth as long as it remains in force not avoided by Error or Attaint A Writ of Error to reverse a Judgment is a dependant Action In error the Plaintiff may not averr any thing against the Record Mullens versus Weldy Siderfin's 1st part 94. Error was sued in the Kings-Bench to reverse a Judgment given in the Palace-Court And the Plaintiff in Error assign'd for Error that the Duke of Ormond who is principal Judge of that Court by Patent was not there It was agreed by the Court that it might not be assign'd for Error for it was contrary to the Record But per Cur. in an Action of Trespass or false Imprisonment which says that Report are collateral Actions he may falsifie and assign that if he be taken upon such Judgment So if a man be indicted and convict of an Assault and Battery and afterwards the person so assaulted brings his Action for the Battery this hath no dependance upon the Indictment or Conviction for it may be sued though there were no Indictment but is a distinct and collateral Suit. The Indictment and Verdict is no Estoppel nor can so much as be given in Evidence as is held by the whole Court in the Case of Sampson versus Yardley and Tothill 19 Car. 2. B. R. Kebles's 2 part 384. The like in an Appeal of Murder Kebele's 2 part 223. Another Penalty upon the Offender against this Statute of 25 Car. 2. is That he shall be disabled to sue in any Action Now suppose a person convict at the Assizes sues an Action may not the Defendant in that Action take the advantage of that Disability and plead the Conviction As in Case of an Outlawry pleaded in Disability there need not be set forth all the proceedings in that Suit wherein the Plaintiff was outlawed but he may plead the Record of the Outlawry and rely upon it and it shall not be examin'd whether there was any just cause to sue him to the Outlawry or not The Indictment the Defendant's Plea to it and the Verdict upon it have determin'd the matter of Fact that the Defendant is guilty of the Offence against this Act of Parliament The Act it self hath pronounc'd the Judgment which consists of many particulars one whereof is That the Defendant shall forfest 500 l. to him that will sue for it And the Action of Debt for the 500 l. brought by the Plaintiff grounded upon all these is in the nature of an Execution And all these put together are not several and distinct Suits but in effect all but one Suit and Process one depending upon the other The second Point is Whether the Dispensation pleaded by the Defendant be a good Bar to the Action of Debt And this is properly called The Matter in Law and the great Point of the Case for which I refer the Reader to my Argument at large POSTSCRIPT BEING SOME Animadversions UPON A Book writ by Sir EDW. HERBERT Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas ENTITULED A short Account of the Authorities in Law upon which Judgment was given in Sir Hales's Case SINCE the finishing of my Argument about the Power of Dispensing with Paenal Statutes a Book came to my hands touching the same subject entituled A short Account of the Authorities in Law upon which Judgment was given in Sir Edward Hales his Case written by Sir Edward Herbert Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in vindication of himself And although I am of opinion that the substance of all the Arguments contained in the said Book are fully answered in my aforesaid Discourse yet I hold it necessary to make some Animadversions upon the said Book and to point out readily to the Reader the several Pages of my Discourse wherein the Arguments of the Chief Justice are more directly and particularly treated of and answered And there being great Reverence justly due to a Person that bears so high a Character as also to a Judgment given in that Superiour Court of the King's Bench and by advice of all but two of the rest of the Judges as I now hear some short Apology had need be used for that freedom I have taken to animadvert upon it being as I am but in a private station In short therefore I have not undertaken it out of any vain conceit of my own Abilities but out of a sincere desire to inform such as in the approaching Parliament are like to have this great Case in Judgment before them and some may possibly not be at leisure as I have been to study the Case the matter being of a mighty importance Nor have I entred the Lists upon any contentious humour or taking any advantage of the late Happy Change of publick Affairs I am I thank God more inclin'd to commiserate the Distress that may befal any persons by the change of the times it having been my own case so lately although they differ from me in Judgment or Interest I am very far from insulting over any whatever hard usage I my self have met with Nemo confidat nimiûm secundis Nemo desperet meliora lapsus My Apology is this 1. I was engaged in the Argument before the coming forth of this Book and it happening into my hands before my publishing of my Discourse I could not decline the observing something upon it without being suspected to have given up the Cause 2. The Lord Chief Justice himself hath by his Book given fresh occasion fairly to discuss the point again by declaring that he expects as we all do that it will receive a disquisition in Parliament 3. And as the Chief Justice hath endeavour'd with as much as can be said to give the World satisfaction in the justice and right of the Case to maintain the Judgment given so he is well known to be of that ingenuity and good temper and candour as willing to receive a satisfaction if any further Argument to the contrary may be so happy as to convince him The Chief Justice Herbert pag. 6. gives us the Definition of a Dispensation out of Sir Coke's 11th Report fol. 88. viz. Dispensatio mali prohibiti est de jure Domino Regi concessa propter impossibilitatem praevidendi de omnibus particularibus And again Dispensatio est mali prohibiti provida relaxacio utilitate ceu
made it stronger No several Acts of Parliament have been made in divers Cases with express Clauses incerted in those Acts to make void all Non obstante's to the contrary of those Laws which one would have thought would have been strong enough and yet they all came to nothing for the Judges heretofore have resolv'd that if the King grant a Dispensation from such Laws with a Special Non obstante to any such Special Law mentioning the very Law that presently the force of that Law vanishes Therefore beside the Disabilities and Incapacities put upon them further to obviate this Mischief also and to frustrate all contrary Judgments and to prevent the Allowance of any such Grants and Dispensations with this Act by the Opinion of the Judges or future Resolution of any Court in Westminster-Hall to the contrary as if the Law-makers had foreseen this Danger too and to give a Rule to Judges in such Cases when any should happen to come before them There is this further Provision made by this Law that the granting or conferring of any such Office and Place is by express words adjudged void The words are And is hereby adjudged void It does not leave the Courts below to Judge it but this Law before-hand gives the very Judgment It directs the way of trying the Matter of Fact by Indictment c. and then declares the Judgment upon it and leaves it only to the Judges to apply that Judgment to the particular Case May the Judgment of any Inferiour Court controul the Judgment of the Supreme Courts Here is more then a threefold Cord to tie it An Oath a Sacrament a Declaration subscrib'd I look upon the two Oaths as one Cord. And these two Oaths are so much alike and to the same effect that Cardinal Bellarmine purposing to refute the Oath of Allegiance by a gross mistake bent all his forces against the Oath of Supremacy not minding the difference As King James the First in his Answer to the Cardinal hath observ'd in the Collection of his Majesty's Works fol. 263. The next Cord is the Sacrament The third subscribing a Declaration to remain on Record to all posterity And at last a Judgment in the very point by the King and Parliament the supremest Court of the Nation which must not be contradicted by any other Court nor by all the Courts of the Nation put together this Supreme Court exercises its Legislative and Judicial Power both at once and shall it all at last be lost labour Secondly Having given an Account of this particular Law upon which the present Case does arise I shall in the next place briefly speak concerning Law in general of what Force and Authority it ought to be which will make way for those Arguments that I shall raise from it For when we know the true Nature of a Law the Nature and Use of a Dispensation will be better understood The Name does oftentimes denote the Nature of a thing The truest derivation is that of Lex à Ligando from its binding quality and the obligation it puts upon us and this is most pertinent to the Matter in hand The Laws of England as all just and righteous Laws are grounded originally upon the Divine Law as their Foundation or Fountain The Supreme and Soveraign God among the Heathen is suppos'd to have the Name of Jupiter quasi Juris pater But more immediately Humane Laws have their Force and Authority from the Consent and Agreement of Men. All Publick Regimen says learned Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity of what kind soever seemeth evidently to have arisen from deliberate Advice Consultation and Composition between Men. To live says he by one Man's Will becomes the Cause of all Mens Misery this constrained Men to come to Laws A People whom Providence hath cast together into one Island or Country are in effect one great Body Politick consisting of Head and Members in imitation of the Body Natural as is excellently set forth in the Statute of Appeals made 24 H. 8. c. 12. which stiles the King the Supreme Head and the People a Body Politick these are the very words compact of all sorts and degrees of Men divided into Spiritualty and Temporalty And this Body never dies We our selves of the present Age chose our Common Law and consented to the most ancient Acts of Parliament for we lived in our Ancestors a 1000 Years ago and those Ancestors are still living in us The Law is the very Soul that animates this Body Politick as learned Hooker describes it the Parts of which Body are set to work in such Actions as Common Good requires The Laws are the very Ligaments and Sinews that bind together the Head and Members without which this Body is but a Rope of Sand or like the Feet of Nebuchadnezzar's Image Iron mixed with Clay that can never cleave one to another nor cement And so properly Laws have their name à Ligando in this respect too viz. from knitting together for as they bind by their Authority so they unite in Affection and strengthen And these Laws are made by Publick Agreement not impos'd upon Men against their Wills but chosen by the Prince and People They are that I may express it in our familiar and ordinary Terms the Articles of Agreement chosen and consented to by Prince and People to be the Rule by which all are to square their Actions Hence the Law is term'd The Act and Deed of the whole Body Politick The Rule by which the Prince Governs and the Subject Obeys From whomsoever the Designation of the Royal Person is that governs whether from Heaven or of Men be it the one or the other The Consent and Agreement of the whole Body Politick both Head and Members is the Rule of the Government David was made King by God's immediate appointment yet he himself call'd all Israel together to Hebron and there they made a Covenant with him This is that I am now speaking of the Law of the Nation made by general consent or a Scheme for the Government as a late Lord Chancelor terms it in his Survey of the Leviathan Every Just King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe the Paction made to his People by his Laws But nothing can more lively describe it then the Preamble of the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. c. 21. where the Lords and Commons addressing themselves in their Speech to the King thus deliver themselves Namely WHere this your Grace's Realm recognising no Superior under God but only your Grace hath been and is free from subjection to any man's Laws but only to such as have been devised made and obtained within this Realm for the Wealth of the same or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your Progenitors the People of this your Realm have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used amongst them and have bound themselves by long use and
prohibited by some Act of Parliament under a Penalty without incurring the Penalty The doing whereof was lawful to all till that particular Law did make it an Offence to do it The Chief Justice Vaughan who argued in his turn the last but one of all the twelve Judges in the late great Case of Thomas and Sorrel and there was hardly a Case in all the Books under that Title but what had been cited by one or other and all the Rules and Distinctions were there remembred yet that Chief Justice after all says that not one steady Rule had been given either by the Books or any of the Judges that argued before him And for that trite Distinction so generally used of Malum in se malum prohibitum the Chief Justice Vaughan professes that Rule hath more confounded mens judgments than rectified them yet he himself gives us no other Which shews that the Notion of Dispensation is not very ancient with us in our Law and is but rare and as yet unform'd not licked into a perfect shape I mean still Dispensations with some Acts of Parliament such as this of 25 Car. 2. not the granting Non obstante's as to mis-recitals or non-recitals in Grants of Lands c. It having yet no steady Rule and yet being frequently used it is the more fit for the Supreme Court to give some certain Rule in it that may regulate and guide the Judgment of Inferiour Courts and this is the proper work of the King and Parliament And because we find it a growing Mischief and getting ground upon the Law and every day brings forth new Precedents it is high time that a stop were put to it So much for the Nature of a Dispensation I shall in the next place endeavour to trace out the Original of this Invention of a Dispensation when it first began and who was the Author of it and shew that it was look'd upon as a Monster and exclaim'd against by Kings and States and all Good Men and yet the Precedent was followed and the Abuse of it spread and increas'd and hath been ever since growing I am not the first that have undertaken to make this discovery In the Argument of the Case of Comendam in Sir Davy's Reports fol. 69. b. It is said that the Non obstante was invented and first used in the Court of Rome and they bring an Author that denounc'd a Woe against that Court for introducing so ill a Precedent mischievous to all Common-wealths in Christendom for the Temporal Princes perceiving the Pope to dispence with his Canons in imitation of him have used it as a Prerogative to dispence with their Penal Laws and Statutes where before they caused their Laws to be religiously observ'd as the Laws of the Medes and Persians which might not be changed Thus says that Report Here we see from whence 't was borrow'd The late Chief Justice Vaughan in his Report of the Case of Thomas and Sorrel fol. 348. does acknowledge that the use of Dispensations was principally derived to us from the Pope Now to make some conjecture about what time it began that we may discover how old it is and which of the Popes was the Author of it The History of the Reformation fol. 101. says this Power of Dispensing with the Laws of the Church by the Popes was brought in in the latter Ages Popes Zozimus Damasus Leo and Hilarius do freely acknowledge they could not change the Decrees of the Church It is suppos'd it was first invented by Pope Innocent the Third about the beginning of the thirteenth Century and about the times of our King John and his Son King Henry the Third and it is observable that in this Pope's time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was first decreed to be an Article of the Faith and this at the Council of Lateran that Doctrine which by this very Act of ours is to be declar'd against and is now dispens'd with This is that Pope that excommunicated Otho the Emperour and our King John and forced him at last to resign his Crown and to take it back from him again to hold it of him at the Rent of 1000 Marks What good issue can we expect from such a Father After the time of this Pope Dispensations began more frequently to be practised by the Successors of Innocent the Third by Honorius and by Pope Gregory the Ninth and Innocent the Fourth but they were exclaimed against by all Kings and Princes and by all the good and learned Writers of that Age which shews that they had not been ancient and that the Kings and Princes themselves had not then followed the ill example in Dispensing with their Laws for had they done so they could not with any confidence have condemn'd the Pope for using them And we may see how odious these Dispensations were by the vile Epithites the Learned and Good Men of that Age gave them We have a full Relation of it from one of their own Order a Monk but an Historian of very good esteem that is Matth. Paris he tells us that our King Henry the Third sent Earl Bigod and other Nobles to the Council at Lyons and amongst others one William de Powic one of his Procurators and a Clergy-man who made an Elegant Oration ripping up the horrible Oppressions used by the Pope upon England and then deliver'd in an Epistle directed to Pope Innocent the Fourth by the Magnates Universitas Regni Angliae to the same effect After this had been openly read in the Council and a mighty silence followed and the Pope gave no answer to it The King's Proctors Prioribus addebant querimoniam gravem seriam videlicet de violenta Oppressione intolerabili gravamine impudenti Exactione injuria quae per hanc Invisam Adjectionem papalibus Literis frequenter insertam Non obstante c. exercetur per quam Jus pro nihilo habetur Authentica scripta Enervantur says that Historian The same Author says that the Reformation of many things was obtained from Pope Innocent Sed omnia haec alia per hoc Repagulum Non obstante infirmantur ubi vero fides ubi jura quae scriptis solebant solidari Our King Henry the Third conven'd his Parliament and spread before them the Articles of the Grievances which he had so sent to Rome and amongst others one in these words viz. Gravatur Regnum Angliae ex multiplici adventu illius infamis nuncii Non obstante per quem Juramenti religio consuetudines Antiquae scripturarum vigor concessionum autoritas Jura privilegia debilitantur evanescunt We find it frequently termed Detestabilis Adieclio Non obstante and we find the form of his Dispensation running in these words viz. Indulgentia quâcunque vel privilegio quolibet aut Constitutione in Generali Concilio edita Non obstante The Pope afterwards required a third part of the Goods of all beneficed Clerks and
of this Prerogative and Power of dispensing with a disability impos'd by Act of Parliament for I do not purposely dispute it in any other Case but as they are coincident with this The first that we meet with is that of 2 H. 7. fol. 6. and it was by all the Justices in the Exchequer-Chamber The Case thus King Edward the Fourth granted the Office of Sheriff of a County to the Earl of Northumberland for the Life of the Earl and the Justices held the Patent good there being a Non Obstante in it to the Statutes Let us look into the Statutes that forbid a Sheriff to continue in his Office longer then one Year There had been several ancient Statutes made to that purpose but they all prov'd to be of little effect for Patents were still granted to hold the Office of a Sheriff for a longer time than one Year At length came the Stat. 23. H. 6. c. 8. which recites the former Statutes forbidding any Persons continuance in the Office of Sheriff above one Year and observing the great Oppressions and Abuses to the People that did arise from it and how that yet they were granted contrary to those Statutes This Statute therefore of 23 Hen. 6. ordains that those Statutes shall be duly observ'd And further ordains That if any occupy that Office contrary to those Statutes or to the effect or intent of any of them he shall forfeit two hundred Pound yearly as long as he occupieth contrary to any of those Statutes and that every Pardon granted of that Forfeiture shall be void and that all Patents made of the Office of Sheriff for Years or any longer time shall be void any Clause or word of Non Obstante in any wise put or to be put in such Patents notwithstanding and every such Person is thereby disabled to bear that Office. Nothing could be penn'd stronger than this Statute and it is a Law made by the Supream Legislative Power of the Nation and it expresses the former granting of Non Obstante's to be a great abuse and to be contrary to Law. Yet contrary to the express words and clear intent and meaning of this Statute did all the Judges resolve in 2 H. 7. That by a Non Obstante a Patent for a longer time than a Year should be good of the Sheriffs Office. The King and both Houses were of Opinion that they could make a Non Obstante in such Case void The Judges are of a contrary Opinion that a Non Obstante shall make void the Statute Here is an Inferiour Court over-ruling and controuling the Judgment of a Superiour Court. The Judges who are but Jura dicere contradict those who have the Power Jura dare as well as Jura dicere and of Correcting the Errors of the highest Court in Westminster and controuling their Judgments The Statute was a meer idle nugatory thing if it were not to restrain the granting of a Non Obstante if it did not that it did nothing The King himself alone if he had pleas'd could without any Act of Parliament have reform'd the Abuse by refusing to pass any such Patents for a Sheriffs continuing in his Office longer than a Year But the King was sensible of the Abuses and therefore willing to be restrained from passing any more such Patents and to avoid any importunity that might be used for the obtaining any such Patents and therefore consented that a Law should pass to make such Patents void And after all shall the King if he pleases still make the like Grants Why then the Act was of no manner of use and operates nothing and the Resolve of the Judges has made the Act a meer idle vain thing But the twelve Judges in 2 H. 7. have so resolv'd and the only use they would allow to all these Acts of Parliament is no more than this that if the King grant a Patent to one of the Sheriffs Office for more than one Year and there be no Non obstante in the Patent that then for want of a Non obstante the Patent should be void by those Acts of Parliament which otherwise would have been good had not those Acts made them void But how easie would it be for one that obtains such a Patent to get the Non obstante to be inserted and who would accept such a Patent without a Non obstante and to whom would the Non obstante be denied to whom such a Patent is granted the Lord Hobart in the Case of Needler against the Bishop of Winchester fol. 230. says it is denied to none and that it is in the power of the Attorney-General The Reasons given by the Judges in 2 H. 7. for that resolution are because the King had always used such a Prerogative of dispensing with the Acts of Parliament that required the true value of the Lands and the certainty of the Lands to be mentioned in his Grants of Lands and with the Acts concerning the shipping of Wool and pardoning of Murder without express mentioning of the Murder These Cases are nothing alike but of a trifling consideration in respect of the Act we have in hand of 25 Car. 2. And in these Cases the Penalty and Forfeitures are given to the King and they concern the King's profit only to dispence with them but in our Case the Safety of the Government salus populi and the maintaining of the true Religion establish'd by Law are all concern'd and so the Case is not alike And to compare this with those Cases is parvis componere magna This Opinion and Resolution of the Judges in 2 H. 7. has been the Foundation of all the like Opinions that have since that time been given of the King's Power of Dispensing with Disabilities and Incapacities impos'd by Acts of Parliament Upon what ground the Justices held the Patent of the Sheriff's Office good to the Earl of Northumberland for Life does not appear whether because it had formerly been an Office of Inheritance and so within the Exception in the Statute of 23 H. 6. or whether by virtue of a Non obstante to the Statutes as Ratclif only argues for the rest say nothing of the Non obstante Some Resolutions have been to the contrary of that of 2 H. 7. as in the Case that I cited of the King against the Bishop of Norwich in the Lord Hobart's Reports and the Case of Sir Arthur Ingram where it was adjudged that the King could not dispence with a Disability And the Book of 2 R. 3. fol. 11 12. concerning Waterford in Ireland is of the King's Power to dispence with an Act of Parliament where the Forfeiture is given only to the King so it comes not home to our Case This Resolution of the Judges in 2 H. 7. was the Precedent and leading Case to all the subsequent Opinions and was the Foundation of them and they all must stand and fall by it Now it will be very
Recompence by a Revenue of Inheritance in part of the Excise to the King in lieu of Purveyances It is sober Advice given by Learned Grotius in his Book De Jure Belli pacis 82. Let us not says he approve of all things tho' delivered by Authors of greatest Name for they often serve the Times or their Affections and bend the Rules as occasion requires This Resolution of all the Judges in the Second of Henry the Seventh is again cited in Calvin's Case in Sir Coke's Seventh Report and there a Reason is given to justifie that Resolution which is not so much as touch'd upon in the Report itself of 2 H. 7. but it has been studied and found out since that Resolution viz. That an Act cannot barr the King of such Service of his Subject which the Law of Nature did give him And this is the main Reason insisted on in the late Judgment given in Sir Hales's Case as I am informed which is the only Case that I find which came to be argued upon the very point yet it was but lightly spoken to for that of 2 H. 7. which is the first of the kind was not upon a Case that came Judicially before the Judges but was upon a Consultation only with the Judges and without Argument Nor in any other Authorities that I have cited grounded upon that Resolution of 2 H. 7. did the Point directly come in question Judicially And Calvin's Case is the first that I find which offers this special Reason viz. That no Act of Parliament can restrain the King from commanding the Service of his Subject but it is an inseparable Prerogative in the King and as Sir E. C. speaks in his 12 Rep. Tho' an Act makes the King's Patent void and tho' the King be restrained to grant a Non Obstante by the express words of the Act and tho' the Grantee is disabled by the Act to take the Office yet the King says Sir Edward Coke may by his Royal Soveraign Power of Commanding command a man by his Patent to serve him and the Weal-Publick in the Office of Sheriff for Years or for Life And this the King may do for such Causes as he in his Wisdom shall think meet and profitable for himself and the Common-weal of which he himself is solely Judge says Sir E. C. So tho' the King and Parliament have adjudged and declared by a Law such a person or such a sort of persons to be altogether unfit for such a Service or Office. As for Example They have adjudged Papists who own a Forreign Authority and Jurisdiction and who hold Doctrines destructive and contrary to the Religion Established in this Kingdom to be very unfit and uncapable of being entrusted with the maintaining of the Government and the Religion Established by Law in this Kingdom Yet according to late Opinions and Resolutions tho' the King himself by the Advice of his Great Council have so adjudged and declared yet he may do otherwise and he may employ a Papist to defend the Protestant Religion and he is the sole Judge of the fitness of Persons for his Service This is the Discourse this is the Argument and Reason used Will this Reason be allowed of shall the King be the sole Judge of the Persons fit to serve him in all Cases and is it an inseparable Power and Prerogative in the Person of the King I shall put a Case wherein the Judges depart from this Opinion and appear to be of another mind In the Lord Anderson's Reports the 2d Part 118. It is there said If an Office in the King's-Bench or Common-Pleas be void and the placing of the Officer belongs to the King if the King grant it to a person not able to execute it the Grant is void as 't is there held by many of the Justices And there a Case is cited out of 5 E. 4. rot 66. where one Tho. Wynter was placed by the King in the Office of Clerk of the Crown in the King's-Bench The Judges before the King himself did declare him to be Inhabilem ad Officium illud pro commodo Regis populi sui Exercendum and he was laid by and one Roger West at the commendation of the Judges was put in Will any man presume to say the person is unfit when the King who is the sole Judge of the fitness of persons to serve him hath adjudg'd him fit yes the Judges in a Case that concerns the Courts where they sit it seems will controul the King 's own judgment and judge the person inhabilis and hold the Grant void in such case To compare our present Case with this The King and Parliament by a Law have adjudged the Papists unfit to be entrusted with the Government and with the preserving of the Reform'd Religion but says the Judges if the King without the Parliament judge otherwise his judgment shall prevail why not as well in the case of an Office in the Courts at Westminster which does belong to the King to dispose of as in an Office that immediately concerns the Safety of the King and Kingdom and the great concernment of Religion So here is one Command of the Kings set up in opposition to another Command of the King. A Command of the King upon private advice or it may be possible gained from him by surprize by an importunity or an undue solicitation against a serious solemn deliberate Command of the King upon advice with his great Council and with the Consent of the whole Kingdom this is the very Case before us This is against all reason and against the Examples of the greatest wisest and most absolute of Kings and Princes who commanded their Judges to have no regard to any Commands of theirs that were contrary to Law. Vinius the Civilian in his Commentary on the Imperial Institutes fol. 16. gives this Rule Rescripta Principum contra Jus vel utilitatem publicam Elicita à Judicibus improbari etiam ipsorum Imperatorum constitutionibus jubentur Princeps non creditur says he aliquid velle contra utilitatem publicam concedere 21 H. 8. c. 13. sect 10 11 27. Dispensations for Pluralities contrary to Act are declared to be void Hob. 82 149 146 155. The King is never by Law supposed ill affected but abused and deceived for Eadem praesumitur mens Regis quae est Juris Grotius de Jure belli pacis 112 113. Amongst the Persians the King was Supreme yet he took an Oath at his entrance and it was not lawful for him to change certain Laws made after a particular form If the King Establish the Decree and Sign the Writing it may not be changed according to the Law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not as we read in the Book of Daniel 6 Dan. 8. 12 15. By the Act of 2 E. 3. c. 8. it is accorded and established that it shall not be commanded by the Great Seal nor the little Seal to disturb or